{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_4602/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_4602","id":"gutenberg_4602","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4602","summary":null,"tags":["Anarchism","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature","Christianity -- Essence, genius, nature","Evil, Non-resistance to","Government, Resistance to -- Religious aspects -- Christianity","Nonviolence -- Religious aspects -- Christianity"],"text":"Produced by Jack Eden \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[For those interested, there is a note at the end of\nthis document that details the adaptations made to this\nwork]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU\"\nCHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTIC RELIGION\nBUT AS A NEW THEORY OF LIFE\n\nTRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN OF COUNT LEO TOLSTOI\nBY CONSTANCE GARNETT\nNew York, 1894\n\n\n\nTRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.\n\nThe book I have had the privilege of translating is, undoubtedly,\none of the most remarkable studies of the social and psychological\ncondition of the modern world which has appeared in Europe for\nmany years, and its influence is sure to be lasting and far\nreaching. Tolstoi's genius is beyond dispute. The verdict of the\ncivilized world has pronounced him as perhaps the greatest\nnovelist of our generation. But the philosophical and religious\nworks of his later years have met with a somewhat indifferent\nreception. They have been much talked about, simply because they\nwere his work, but, as Tolstoi himself complains, they have never\nbeen seriously discussed. I hardly think that he will have to\nrepeat the complaint in regard to the present volume. One may\ndisagree with his views, but no one can seriously deny the\noriginality, boldness, and depth of the social conception which he\ndevelops with such powerful logic. The novelist has shown in this\nbook the religious fervor and spiritual insight of the prophet;\nyet one is pleased to recognize that the artist is not wholly lost\nin the thinker. The subtle intuitive perception of the\npsychological basis of the social position, the analysis of the\nframe of mind of oppressors and oppressed, and of the intoxication\nof Authority and Servility, as well as the purely descriptive\npassages in the last chapter--these could only have come from the\nauthor of \"War and Peace.\"\n\nThe book will surely give all classes of readers much to think of,\nand must call forth much criticism. It must be refuted by those\nwho disapprove of its teaching, if they do not want it to have\ngreat influence.\n\nOne cannot of course anticipate that English people, slow as they\nare to be influenced by ideas, and instinctively distrustful of\nall that is logical, will take a leap in the dark and attempt to\nput Tolstoi's theory of life into practice. But one may at least\nbe sure that his destructive criticism of the present social and\npolitical R\u00c9GIME will become a powerful force in the work of\ndisintegration and social reconstruction which is going on around\nus. Many earnest thinkers who, like Tolstoi, are struggling to\nfind their way out of the contradictions of our social order will\nhail him as their spiritual guide. The individuality of the\nauthor is felt in every line of his work, and even the most\nprejudiced cannot resist the fascination of his genuineness,\nsincerity, and profound earnestness. Whatever comes from a heart\nsuch as his, swelling with anger and pity at the sufferings of\nhumanity, cannot fail to reach the hearts of others. No reader\ncan put down the book without feeling himself better and more\ntruth-loving for having read it.\n\nMany readers may be disappointed with the opening chapters of the\nbook. Tolstoi disdains all attempt to captivate the reader. He\nbegins by laying what he considers to be the logical foundation of\nhis doctrines, stringing together quotations from little-known\ntheological writers, and he keeps his own incisive logic for the\nlater part of the book.\n\nOne word as to the translation. Tolstoi's style in his religious\nand philosophical works differs considerably from that of his\nnovels. He no longer cares about the form of his work, and his\nstyle is often slipshod, involved, and diffuse. It has been my\naim to give a faithful reproduction of the original.\n\nCONSTANCE GARNETT.\nJanuary, 1894\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nIn the year 1884 I wrote a book under the title \"What I Believe,\"\nin which I did in fact make a sincere statement of my beliefs.\n\nIn affirming my belief in Christ's teaching, I could not help\nexplaining why I do not believe, and consider as mistaken, the\nChurch's doctrine, which is usually called Christianity.\n\nAmong the many points in which this doctrine falls short of the\ndoctrine of Christ I pointed out as the principal one the absence\nof any commandment of non-resistance to evil by force. The\nperversion of Christ's teaching by the teaching of the Church is\nmore clearly apparent in this than in any other point of\ndifference.\n\nI know--as we all do--very little of the practice and the spoken and\nwritten doctrine of former times on the subject of non-resistance to\nevil. I knew what had been said on the subject by the fathers of the\nChurch--Origen, Tertullian, and others--I knew too of the existence of\nsome so-called sects of Mennonites, Herrnhuters, and Quakers, who do not\nallow a Christian the use of weapons, and do not enter military service;\nbut I knew little of what had been done by these so-called sects toward\nexpounding the question.\n\nMy book was, as I had anticipated, suppressed by the Russian\ncensorship; but partly owing to my literary reputation, partly\nbecause the book had excited people's curiosity, it circulated in\nmanuscript and in lithographed copies in Russia and through\ntranslations abroad, and it evolved, on one side, from those who\nshared my convictions, a series of essays with a great deal of\ninformation on the subject, on the other side a series of\ncriticisms on the principles laid down in my book.\n\nA great deal was made clear to me by both hostile and sympathetic\ncriticism, and also by the historical events of late years; and I\nwas led to fresh results and conclusions, which I wish now to\nexpound.\n\nFirst I will speak of the information I received on the history of\nthe question of non-resistance to evil; then of the views of this\nquestion maintained by spiritual critics, that is, by professed\nbelievers in the Christian religion, and also by temporal ones,\nthat is, those who do not profess the Christian religion; and\nlastly I will speak of the conclusions to which I have been\nbrought by all this in the light of the historical events of late\nyears.\n\nL. TOLSTOI.\nYASNA\u00cfA POLIANA,\nMay 14/26, 1893.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n I. THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE\n HAS BEEN PROFESSED BY A MINORITY OF MEN FROM\n THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n II. CRITICISMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO\n EVIL BY FORCE ON THE PART OF BELIEVERS AND OF UNBELIEVERS\n\n III. CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS\n\n IV. CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE\n\n V. CONTRADICTION BETWEEN OUR LIFE AND OUR CHRISTIAN\n CONSCIENCE\n\n VI. ATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR\n\n VII. SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPULSORY SERVICE\n\n VIII. DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE MUST\n INEVITABLY BE ACCEPTED BY MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY\n\n IX. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF\n LIFE WILL EMANCIPATE MEN FROM THE MISERIES OF OUR PAGAN\n LIFE\n\n X. EVIL CANNOT BE SUPRESSED BY THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF THE\n GOVERNMENT--THE MORAL PROGRESS OF HUMANITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT\n NOT ONLY BY INDIVIDUAL RECOGNITION OF THE TRUTH BUT ALSO\n THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC OPINION\n\n XI. THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE HAS ALREADY\n ARISEN IN OUR SOCIETY, AND WILL INFALLIBLY PUT\n AN END TO THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF OUR LIFE\n BASED ON FORCE--WHEN THAT WILL BE\n\n XII. CONCLUSION--REPENT YE, FOR THE KINGDOM OF\n HEAVEN IS AT HAND\n\n\n\n\n \"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you\n free. \"--John viii. 32.\n\n \"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to\n kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to\n destroy both soul and body in hell.\"--MATT. x. 28.\n\n \"Ye have been bought with a price; be not ye the servants\n of men.\"--I COR. vii. 23.\n\n\n\n\n\n\"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU.\"\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE HAS BEEN PROFESSED\nBY A MINORITY OF MEN FROM THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\nOf the Book \"What I Believe\"--The Correspondence Evoked by it--Letters\nfrom Quakers--Garrison's Declaration--Adin Ballou, his Works, his\nCatechism--Helchitsky's \"Net of Faith\"--The Attitude of the World to\nWorks Elucidating Christ's Teaching--Dymond's Book \"On War\"--Musser's\n\"Non-resistance Asserted\"--Attitude of the Government in 1818 to Men who\nRefused to Serve in the Army--Hostile Attitude of Governments Generally\nand of Liberals to Those who Refuse to Assist in Acts of State Violence,\nand their Conscious Efforts to Silence and Suppress these Manifestations\nof Christian Non-resistance.\n\n\nAmong the first responses called forth by my book were some letters from\nAmerican Quakers. In these letters, expressing their sympathy with my\nviews on the unlawfulness for a Christian of war and the use of force of\nany kind, the Quakers gave me details of their own so-called sect, which\nfor more than two hundred years has actually professed the teaching of\nChrist on non-resistance to evil by force, and does not make use of\nweapons in self-defense. The Quakers sent me books, from which I learnt\nhow they had, years ago, established beyond doubt the duty for a\nChristian of fulfilling the command of non-resistance to evil by force,\nand had exposed the error of the Church's teaching in allowing war and\ncapital punishment.\n\nIn a whole series of arguments and texts showing that war--that\nis, the wounding and killing of men--is inconsistent with a\nreligion founded on peace and good will toward men, the Quakers\nmaintain and prove that nothing has contributed so much to the\nobscuring of Christian truth in the eyes of the heathen, and has\nhindered so much the diffusion of Christianity through the world,\nas the disregard of this command by men calling themselves\nChristians, and the permission of war and violence to Christians.\n\n\"Christ's teaching, which came to be known to men, not by means of\nviolence and the sword,\" they say, \"but by means of non-resistance\nto evil, gentleness, meekness, and peaceableness, can only be\ndiffused through the world by the example of peace, harmony, and\nlove among its followers.\"\n\n\"A Christian, according to the teaching of God himself, can act\nonly peaceably toward all men, and therefore there can be no\nauthority able to force the Christian to act in opposition to the\nteaching of God and to the principal virtue of the Christian in\nhis relation with his neighbors.\"\n\n\"The law of state necessity,\" they say, \"can force only those to\nchange the law of God who, for the sake of earthly gains, try to\nreconcile the irreconcilable; but for a Christian who sincerely\nbelieves that following Christ's teaching will give him salvation,\nsuch considerations of state can have no force.\"\n\nFurther acquaintance with the labors of the Quakers and their\nworks--with Fox, Penn, and especially the work of Dymond\n(published in 1827)--showed me not only that the impossibility of\nreconciling Christianity with force and war had been recognized\nlong, long ago, but that this irreconcilability had been long ago\nproved so clearly and so indubitably that one could only wonder\nhow this impossible reconciliation of Christian teaching with the\nuse of force, which has been, and is still, preached in the\nchurches, could have been maintained in spite of it.\n\nIn addition to what I learned from the Quakers I received about\nthe same time, also from America, some information on the subject\nfrom a source perfectly distinct and previously unknown to me.\n\nThe son of William Lloyd Garrison, the famous champion of the\nemancipation of the negroes, wrote to me that he had read my book, in\nwhich he found ideas similar to those expressed by his father in the\nyear 1838, and that, thinking it would be interesting to me to know\nthis, he sent me a declaration or proclamation of \"non-resistance\" drawn\nup by his father nearly fifty years ago.\n\nThis declaration came about under the following circumstances:\nWilliam Lloyd Garrison took part in a discussion on the means of\nsuppressing war in the Society for the Establishment of Peace\namong Men, which existed in 1838 in America. He came to the\nconclusion that the establishment of universal peace can only be\nfounded on the open profession of the doctrine of non-resistance\nto evil by violence (Matt. v. 39), in its full significance, as\nunderstood by the Quakers, with whom Garrison happened to be on\nfriendly relations. Having come to this conclusion, Garrison\nthereupon composed and laid before the society a declaration,\nwhich was signed at the time--in 1838--by many members.\n\n \"DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS ADOPTED BY PEACE CONVENTION.\n \"Boston, 1838.\n\n \"We the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the\n cause which we love, to the country in which we live, to\n publish a declaration expressive of the purposes we aim to\n accomplish and the measures we shall adopt to carry forward the\n work of peaceful universal reformation.\n\n \"We do not acknowledge allegiance to any human government. We\n recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one Judge and Ruler of\n mankind. Our country is the world, our countrymen are all\n mankind. We love the land of our nativity only as we love all\n other lands. The interests and rights of American citizens are\n not dearer to us than those of the whole human race. Hence we\n can allow no appeal to patriotism to revenge any national\n insult or injury...\n\n \"We conceive that a nation has no right to defend itself\n against foreign enemies or to punish its invaders, and no\n individual possesses that right in his own case, and the unit\n cannot be of greater importance than the aggregate. If\n soldiers thronging from abroad with intent to commit rapine and\n destroy life may not be resisted by the people or the\n magistracy, then ought no resistance to be offered to domestic\n troublers of the public peace or of private security.\n\n \"The dogma that all the governments of the world are\n approvingly ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the\n United States, in Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with his\n will, is no less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial\n Author of our existence unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be\n affirmed that the powers that be in any nation are actuated by\n the spirit or guided by the example of Christ in the treatment\n of enemies; therefore they cannot be agreeable to the will of\n God, and therefore their overthrow by a spiritual regeneration\n of their subjects is inevitable.\n\n \"We regard as unchristian and unlawful not only all wars,\n whether offensive or defensive, but all preparations for war;\n every naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification, we regard\n as unchristian and unlawful; the existence of any kind of\n standing army, all military chieftains, all monuments\n commemorative of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies won in\n battle, all celebrations in honor of military exploits, all\n appropriations for defense by arms; we regard as unchristian\n and unlawful every edict of government requiring of its\n subjects military service.\n\n \"Hence we deem it unlawful to bear arms, and we cannot hold any\n office which imposes on its incumbent the obligation to compel\n men to do right on pain of imprisonment or death. We therefore\n voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative and\n judicial body, and repudiate all human politics, worldly\n honors, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy a seat\n in the legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect others\n to act as our substitutes in any such capacity. It follows\n that we cannot sue any man at law to force him to return\n anything he may have wrongly taken from us; if he has seized\n our coat, we shall surrender him our cloak also rather than\n subject him to punishment.\n\n \"We believe that the penal code of the old covenant--an eye for\n an eye, and a tooth for a tooth--has been abrogated by Jesus\n Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead\n of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his\n disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from\n enemies, cast them into prison, exile or execute them, is\n obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.\n\n \"The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that\n physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration, and\n that the sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by\n love; that evil can be exterminated only by good; that it is\n not safe to rely upon the strength of an arm to preserve us\n from harm; that there is great security in being gentle,\n long-suffering, and abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek\n who shall inherit the earth; for those who take up the sword\n shall perish by the sword.\n\n \"Hence as a measure of sound policy--of safety to property,\n life, and liberty--of public quietude and private enjoyment--as\n well as on the ground of allegiance to Him who is King of kings\n and Lord of lords, we cordially adopt the non-resistance\n principle, being confident that it provides for all possible\n consequences, is armed with omnipotent power, and must\n ultimately triumph over every assailing force.\n\n \"We advocate no Jacobinical doctrines. The spirit of\n Jacobinism is the spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder.\n It neither fears God nor regards man. We would be filled with\n the spirit of Christ. If we abide evil by our fundamental\n principle of not opposing evil by evil we cannot participate in\n sedition, treason, or violence. We shall submit to every\n ordinance and every requirement of government, except such as\n are contrary to the commands of the Gospel, and in no case\n resist the operation of law, except by meekly submitting to the\n penalty of disobedience.\n\n \"But while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance\n and passive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and\n spiritual sense, to assail iniquity in high places and in low\n places, to apply our principles to all existing evil,\n political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions, and to\n hasten the time when the kingdoms of this world will have\n become the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. It appears to us\n a self-evident truth that whatever the Gospel is designed to\n destroy at any period of the world, being contrary to it, ought\n now to be abandoned. If, then, the time is predicted when\n swords shall be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning\n hooks, and men shall not learn the art of war any more, it\n follows that all who manufacture, sell, or wield these deadly\n weapons do thus array themselves against the peaceful dominion\n of the Son of God on earth.\n\n \"Having thus stated our principles, we proceed to specify the\n measures we propose to adopt in carrying our object into\n effect.\n\n \"We expect to prevail through the Foolishness of Preaching. We\n shall endeavor to promulgate our views among all persons, to\n whatever nation, sect, or grade of society they may belong.\n Hence we shall organize public lectures, circulate tracts and\n publications, form societies, and petition every governing\n body. It will be our leading object to devise ways and means\n for effecting a radical change in the views, feelings, and\n practices of society respecting the sinfulness of war and the\n treatment of enemies.\n\n \"In entering upon the great work before us, we are not\n unmindful that in its prosecution we may be called to test\n our sincerity even as in a fiery ordeal. It may subject us to\n insult, outrage, suffering, yea, even death itself. We\n anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation,\n and calumny. Tumults may arise against us. The proud and\n pharisaical, the ambitious and tyrannical, principalities and\n powers, may combine to crush us. So they treated the Messiah\n whose example we are humbly striving to imitate. We shall not\n be afraid of their terror. Our confidence is in the Lord\n Almighty and not in man. Having withdrawn from human\n protection, what can sustain us but that faith which overcomes\n the world? We shall not think it strange concerning the fiery\n trial which is to try us, but rejoice inasmuch as we are\n partakers of Christ's sufferings.\n\n \"Wherefore we commit the keeping of our souls to God. For every\n one that forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father,\n or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for Christ's sake,\n shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting\n life.\n\n \"Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the\n sentiments contained in this declaration, however formidable\n may be the opposition arrayed against them, we hereby affix our\n signatures to it; commending it to the reason and conscience of\n mankind, and resolving, in the strength of the Lord God, to\n calmly and meekly abide the issue.\"\n\nImmediately after this declaration a Society for Non-resistance was\nfounded by Garrison, and a journal called the NON-RESISTANT, in\nwhich the doctrine of non-resistance was advocated in its full\nsignificance and in all its consequences, as it had been expounded\nin the declaration. Further information as to the ultimate\ndestiny of the society and the journal I gained from the excellent\nbiography of W. L. Garrison, the work of his son.\n\nThe society and the journal did not exist for long. The\ngreater number of Garrison's fellow-workers in the movement for\nthe liberation of the slaves, fearing that the too radical\nprogramme of the journal, the NON-RESISTANT, might keep people\naway from the practical work of negro-emancipation, gave up the\nprofession of the principle of non-resistance as it had been\nexpressed in the declaration, and both society and journal ceased\nto exist.\n\nThis declaration of Garrison's gave so powerful and eloquent an\nexpression of a confession of faith of such importance to men,\nthat one would have thought it must have produced a strong\nimpression on people, and have become known throughout the world\nand the subject of discussion on every side. But nothing of the\nkind occurred. Not only was it unknown in Europe, even the\nAmericans, who have such a high opinion of Garrison, hardly knew\nof the declaration.\n\nAnother champion of non-resistance has been overlooked in the same\nway--the American Adin Ballou, who lately died, after spending fifty\nyears in preaching this doctrine. Lord God, to calmly and meekly abide\nthe doctrine. How great the ignorance is of everything relating to the\nquestion of non-resistance may be seen from the fact that Garrison the\nson, who has written an excellent biography of his father in four great\nvolumes, in answer to my inquiry whether there are existing now\nsocieties for non-resistance, and adherents of the doctrine, told me\nthat as far as he knew that society had broken up, and that there were\nno adherents of that doctrine, while at the very time when he was\nwriting to me there was living, at Hopedale in Massachusetts, Adin\nBallou, who had taken part in the labors of Garrison the father, and had\ndevoted fifty years of his life to advocating, both orally and in print,\nthe doctrine of non-resistance. Later on I received a letter from Wilson,\na pupil and colleague of Ballou's, and entered into correspondence with\nBallou himself. I wrote to Ballou, and he answered me and sent me his\nworks. Here is the summary of some extracts from them:\n\n \"Jesus Christ is my Lord and teacher,\" says Ballou in one of\n his essays exposing the inconsistency of Christians who allowed\n a right of self-defense and of warfare. \"I have promised\n leaving all else, to follow good and through evil, to death\n itself. But I am a citizen of the democratic republic of the\n United States; and in allegiance to it I have sworn to defend\n the Constitution of my country, if need be, with my life.\n Christ requires of me to do unto others as I would they should\n do unto me. The Constitution of the United States requires of\n me to do unto two millions of slaves [at that time there were\n slaves; now one might venture to substitute the word\n 'laborers'] the very opposite of what I would they should do\n unto me--that is to help to keep them in their present\n condition of slavery. And, in spite of this, I continue to\n elect or be elected, I propose to vote, I am even ready to be\n appointed to any office under government. That will not hinder\n me from being a Christian. I shall still profess Christianity,\n and shall find no difficulty in carrying out my covenant\n with Christ and with the government.\n\n \"Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from\n them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodshed for\n bloodshed, and life for life.\n\n \"My government demands from me quite the opposite, and bases a\n system of self-defense on gallows, musket, and sword, to be\n used against its foreign and domestic foes. And the land is\n filled accordingly with gibbets, prisons, arsenals, ships of\n war, and soldiers.\n\n \"In the maintenance and use of these expensive appliances for\n murder, we can very suitably exercise to the full the virtues\n of forgiveness to those who injure us, love toward our enemies,\n blessings to those who curse us, and doing good to those who\n hate us.\n\n \"For this we have a succession of Christian priests to pray for\n us and beseech the blessing of Heaven on the holy work of\n slaughter.\n\n \"I see all this (i. e., the contradiction between profession and\n practice), and I continue to profess religion and take part in\n government, and pride myself on being at the same time a devout\n Christian and a devoted servant of the government. I do not\n want to agree with these senseless notions of non-resistance.\n I cannot renounce my authority and leave only immoral men in\n control of the government. The Constitution says the\n government has the right to declare war, and I assent to this\n and support it, and swear that I will support it. And I do not\n for that cease to be a Christian. War, too, is a Christian\n duty. Is it not a Christian duty to kill hundreds of thousands\n of one's fellow-men, to outrage women, to raze and burn towns,\n and to practice every possible cruelty? It is time to dismiss\n all these false sentimentalities. It is the truest means of\n forgiving injuries and loving enemies. If we only do it in the\n spirit of love, nothing can be more Christian than such\n murder.\"\n\nIn another pamphlet, entitled \"How many Men are Necessary to\nChange a Crime into a Virtue?\" he says: \"One man may not kill. If\nhe kills a fellow-creature, he is a murderer. If two, ten, a\nhundred men do so, they, too, are murderers. But a government or\na nation may kill as many men as it chooses, and that will not be\nmurder, but a great and noble action. Only gather the people\ntogether on a large scale, and a battle of ten thousand men\nbecomes an innocent action. But precisely how many people must\nthere be to make it so?--that is the question. One man cannot\nplunder and pillage, but a whole nation can. But precisely how\nmany are needed to make it permissible? Why is it that one man,\nten, a hundred, may not break the law of God, but a great number\nmay?\"\n\nAnd here is a version of Ballou's catechism composed for his\nflock:\n\n CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE.\n\n Q. Whence is the word \"non-resistance\" derived?\n\n A. From the command, \"Resist not evil.\" (M. v. 39.)\n\n Q. What does this word express?\n\n A. It expresses a lofty Christian virtue enjoined on us by\n Christ.\n\n Q. Ought the word \"non-resistance\" to be taken in its widest\n sense--that is to say, as intending that we should not offer\n any resistance of any kind to evil?\n\n A. No; it ought to be taken in the exact sense of our Saviour's\n teaching--that is, not repaying evil for evil. We ought to\n oppose evil by every righteous means in our power, but not by\n evil.\n\n Q. What is there to show that Christ enjoined non-resistance in\n that sense?\n\n A. It is shown by the words he uttered at the same time. He\n said: \"Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye,\n and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil.\n But if one smites thee on the right cheek, turn him the other\n also; and if one will go to law with thee to take thy coat from\n thee, give him thy cloak also.\"\n\n Q. Of whom was he speaking in the words, \"Ye have heard it was\n said of old\"?\n\n A. Of the patriarchs and the prophets, contained in the Old\n Testament, which the Hebrews ordinarily call the Law and the\n Prophets.\n\n Q. What utterances did Christ refer to in the words, \"It was\n said of old\"?\n\n A. The utterances of Noah, Moses, and the other prophets, in\n which they admit the right of doing bodily harm to those who\n inflict harm, so as to punish and prevent evil deeds.\n\n Q. Quote such utterances.\n\n A. \"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be\n shed.\"--GEN. ix. 6.\n\n \"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to\n death... And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life\n for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for\n foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.\"\n --Ex. xxi. 12 and 23-25.\n\n \"He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if\n a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so\n shall it be done unto him: breach for breach, eye for eye,\n tooth for tooth.\"--LEV. xxiv. 17, 19, 20.\n\n \"Then the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and behold,\n if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely\n against his brother, then shall ye do unto him as he had\n thought to have done unto his brother... And thine eye shall not\n pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,\n hand for hand, foot for foot.\"--DEUT. xix. 18, 21.\n\n Noah, Moses, and the Prophets taught that he who kills, maims,\n or injures his neighbors does evil. To resist such evil, and\n to prevent it, the evil doer must be punished with death, or\n maiming, or some physical injury. Wrong must be opposed by\n wrong, murder by murder, injury by injury, evil by evil. Thus\n taught Noah, Moses, and the Prophets. But Christ rejects all\n this. \"I say unto you,\" is written in the Gospel, \"resist not\n evil,\" do not oppose injury with injury, but rather bear\n repeated injury from the evil doer. What was permitted is\n forbidden. When we understand what kind of resistance they\n taught, we know exactly what resistance Christ forbade.\n\n Q. Then the ancients allowed the resistance of injury by\n injury?\n\n A. Yes. But Jesus forbids it. The Christian has in no case the\n right to put to death his neighbor who has done him evil, or to\n do him injury in return.\n\n Q. May he kill or maim him in self-defense?\n\n A. No.\n\n Q. May he go with a complaint to the judge that he who has\n wronged him may be punished?\n\n A. No. What he does through others, he is in reality doing\n himself.\n\n Q. Can he fight in conflict with foreign enemies or disturbers\n of the peace?\n\n A. Certainly not. He cannot take any part in war or in\n preparations for war. He cannot make use of a deadly weapon.\n He cannot oppose injury to injury, whether he is alone or with\n others, either in person or through other people.\n\n Q. Can he voluntarily vote or furnish soldiers for the\n government?\n\n A. He can do nothing of that kind if he wishes to be faithful\n to Christ's law.\n\n Q. Can he voluntarily give money to aid a government resting on\n military force, capital punishment, and violence in general?\n\n A. No, unless the money is destined for some special object,\n right in itself, and good both in aim and means.\n\n Q. Can he pay taxes to such a government?\n\n A. No; he ought not voluntarily to pay taxes, but he ought not\n to resist the collecting of taxes. A tax is levied by the\n government, and is exacted independently of the will of the\n subject. It is impossible to resist it without having recourse\n to violence of some kind. Since the Christian cannot employ\n violence, he is obliged to offer his property at once to the\n loss by violence inflicted on it by the authorities.\n\n Q. Can a Christian give a vote at elections, or take part in\n government or law business?\n\n A. No; participation in election, government, or law business\n is participation in government by force.\n\n Q. Wherein lies the chief significance of the doctrine of\n non-resistance?\n\n A. In the fact that it alone allows of the possibility of\n eradicating evil from one's own heart, and also from one's\n neighbor's. This doctrine forbids doing that whereby evil has\n endured for ages and multiplied in the world. He who attacks\n another and injures him, kindles in the other a feeling of\n hatred, the root of every evil. To injure another because he\n has injured us, even with the aim of overcoming evil, is\n doubling the harm for him and for oneself; it is begetting, or\n at least setting free and inciting, that evil spirit which we\n should wish to drive out. Satan can never be driven out by\n Satan. Error can never be corrected by error, and evil cannot\n be vanquished by evil.\n\n True non-resistance is the only real resistance to evil. It is\n crushing the serpent's head. It destroys and in the end\n extirpates the evil feeling.\n\n Q. But if that is the true meaning of the rule of non-resistance,\n can it always put into practice?\n\n A. It can be put into practice like every virtue enjoined by\n the law of God. A virtue cannot be practiced in all\n circumstances without self-sacrifice, privation, suffering, and\n in extreme cases loss of life itself. But he who esteems life\n more than fulfilling the will of God is already dead to the\n only true life. Trying to save his life he loses it. Besides,\n generally speaking, where non-resistance costs the sacrifice of\n a single life or of some material welfare, resistance costs a\n thousand such sacrifices.\n\n Non-resistance is Salvation; Resistance is Ruin.\n\n It is incomparably less dangerous to act justly than unjustly,\n to submit to injuries than to resist them with violence, less\n dangerous even in one's relations to the present life. If all\n men refused to resist evil by evil our world would be happy.\n\n Q. But so long as only a few act thus, what will happen to\n them?\n\n A. If only one man acted thus, and all the rest agreed\n to crucify him, would it not be nobler for him to die in the\n glory of non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than to\n live to wear the crown of Caesar stained with the blood of the\n slain? However, one man, or a thousand men, firmly resolved\n not to oppose evil by evil are far more free from danger by\n violence than those who resort to violence, whether among\n civilized or savage neighbors. The robber, the murderer, and\n the cheat will leave them in peace, sooner than those who\n oppose them with arms, and those who take up the sword shall\n perish by the sword, but those who seek after peace, and behave\n kindly and harmlessly, forgiving and forgetting injuries, for\n the most part enjoy peace, or, if they die, they die blessed.\n In this way, if all kept the ordinance of non-resistance, there\n would obviously be no evil nor crime. If the majority acted\n thus they would establish the rule of love and good will even\n over evil doers, never opposing evil with evil, and never\n resorting to force. If there were a moderately large minority\n of such men, they would exercise such a salutary moral\n influence on society that every cruel punishment would be\n abolished, and violence and feud would be replaced by peace and\n love. Even if there were only a small minority of them, they\n would rarely experience anything worse than the world's\n contempt, and meantime the world, though unconscious of it, and\n not grateful for it, would be continually becoming wiser and\n better for their unseen action on it. And if in the worst case\n some members of the minority were persecuted to death, in dying\n for the truth they would have left behind them their doctrine,\n sanctified by the blood of their martyrdom. Peace, then, to\n all who seek peace, and may overruling love be the imperishable\n heritage of every soul who obeys willingly Christ's word,\n \"Resist not evil.\"\n\n ADIN BALLOU.\n\nFor fifty years Ballou wrote and published books dealing\nprincipally with the question of non-resistance to evil by force.\nIn these works, which are distinguished by the clearness of their\nthought and eloquence of exposition, the question is looked at\nfrom every possible side, and the binding nature of this command\non every Christian who acknowledges the Bible as the revelation of\nGod is firmly established. All the ordinary objections to the\ndoctrine of non-resistance from the Old and New Testaments are\nbrought forward, such as the expulsion of the moneychangers from\nthe Temple, and so on, and arguments follow in disproof of them\nall. The practical reasonableness of this rule of conduct is\nshown independently of Scripture, and all the objections\nordinarily made against its practicability are stated and refuted.\nThus one chapter in a book of his treats of non-resistance in\nexceptional cases, and he owns in this connection that if there\nwere cases in which the rule of non-resistance were impossible of\napplication, it would prove that the law was not universally\nauthoritative. Quoting these cases, he shows that it is precisely\nin them that the application of the rule is both necessary and\nreasonable. There is no aspect of the question, either on his\nside or on his opponents', which he has not followed up in his\nwritings. I mention all this to show the unmistakable interest\nwhich such works ought to have for men who make a profession of\nChristianity, and because one would have thought Ballou's work\nwould have been well known, and the ideas expressed by him would\nlave been either accepted or refuted; but such has not been the\ncase.\n\nThe work of Garrison, the father, in his foundation of the Society\nof Non-resistants and his Declaration, even more than my\ncorrespondence with the Quakers, convinced me of the fact that the\ndeparture of the ruling form of Christianity from the law of\nChrist on non-resistance by force is an error that has long been\nobserved and pointed out, and that men have labored, and are still\nlaboring, to correct. Ballou's work confirmed me still more in\nthis view. But the fate of Garrison, still more that of Ballou,\nin being completely unrecognized in spite of fifty years of\nobstinate and persistent work in the same direction, confirmed me\nin the idea that there exists a kind of tacit but steadfast\nconspiracy of silence about all such efforts.\n\nBallou died in August, 1890, and there was as obituary notice of him in\nan American journal of Christian views (RELIGIO-PHILOSOPHICAL JOURNAL,\nAugust 23). In this laudatory notice it is recorded that Ballou was the\nspiritual director of a parish, that he delivered from eight to nine\nthousand sermons, married one thousand couples, and wrote about five\nhundred articles; but there is not a single word said of the object to\nwhich he devoted his life; even the word \"non-resistance\" is not\nmentioned. Precisely as it was with all the preaching of the Quakers for\ntwo hundred years and, too, with the efforts of Garrison the father, the\nfoundation of his society and journal, and his Declaration, so it is\nwith the life-work of Ballou. It seems just as though it did not exist\nand never had existed.\n\nWe have an astounding example of the obscurity of works which aim\nat expounding the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force, and\nat confuting those who do not recognize this commandment, in the\nbook of the Tsech Helchitsky, which has only lately been noticed\nand has not hitherto been printed.\n\nSoon after the appearance of my book in German, I received a\nletter from Prague, from a professor of the university there,\ninforming me of the existence of a work, never yet printed, by\nHelchitsky, a Tsech of the fifteenth century, entitled \"The Net of\nFaith.\" In this work, the professor told me, Helchitsky expressed\nprecisely the same view as to true and false Christianity as I had\nexpressed in my book \"What I Believe.\" The professor wrote to me\nthat Helchitsky's work was to be published for the first time in\nthe Tsech language in the JOURNAL OF THE PETERSBURG ACADEMY OF\nSILENCE. Since I could not obtain the book itself, I tried to\nmake myself acquainted with what was known of Helchitsky, and I\ngained the following information from a German book sent me by the\nPrague professor and from Pypin's history of Tsech literature.\nThis was Pypin's account:\n\n \"'The Net of Faith' is Christ's teaching, which ought to draw\n man up out of the dark depths of the sea of worldliness and his\n own iniquity. True faith consists in believing God's Word; but\n now a time has come when men mistake the true faith for heresy,\n and therefore it is for the reason to point out what the true\n faith consists in, if anyone does not know this. It is hidden\n in darkness from men, and they do not recognize the true law of\n Christ.\n\n \"To make this law plain, Helchitsky points to the primitive\n organization of Christian society--the organization which, he\n says, is now regarded in the Roman Church as an abominable\n heresy. This Primitive Church was his special ideal of social\n organization, founded on equality, liberty, and fraternity.\n Christianity, in Helchitsky's view, still preserves these\n elements, and it is only necessary for society to return to its\n pure doctrine to render unnecessary every other form of social\n order in which kings and popes are essential; the law of love\n would alone be sufficient in every case.\n\n \"Historically, Helchitsky attributes the degeneration of\n Christianity to the times of Constantine the Great, whom he\n Pope Sylvester admitted into the Christian Church with all his\n heathen morals and life. Constantine, in his turn, endowed the\n Pope with worldly riches and power. From that time forward\n these two ruling powers were constantly aiding one another to\n strive for nothing but outward glory. Divines and\n ecclesiastical dignitaries began to concern themselves only\n about subduing the whole world to their authority, incited men\n against one another to murder and plunder, and in creed and\n life reduced Christianity to a nullity. Helchitsky denies\n completely the right to make war and to inflict the punishment\n of death; every soldier, even the 'knight,' is only a violent\n evil doer--a murderer.\"\n\nThe same account is given by the German book, with the addition of\na few biographical details and some extracts from Helchitsky's\nwritings.\n\nHaving learnt the drift of Helchitsky's teaching in this way, I\nawaited all the more impatiently the appearance of \"The Net of\nFaith\" in the journal of the Academy. But one year passed, then\ntwo and three, and still the book did not appear. It was only in 1888\nthat I learned that the printing of the book, which had been\nbegun, was stopped. I obtained the proofs of what had been\nprinted and read them through. It is a marvelous book from every\npoint of view.\n\nIts general tenor is given with perfect accuracy by Pypin.\nHelchitsky's fundamental idea is that Christianity, by allying\nitself with temporal power in the days of Constantine, and by\ncontinuing to develop in such conditions, has become completely\ndistorted, and has ceased to be Christian altogether. Helchitsky\ngave the title \"The Net of Faith\" to his book, taking as his motto\nthe verse of the Gospel about the calling of the disciples to be\nfishers of men; and, developing this metaphor, he says:\n\n \"Christ, by means of his disciples, would have caught all the\n world in his net of faith, but the greater fishes broke the net\n and escaped out of it, and all the rest have slipped through\n the holes made by the greater fishes, so that the net has\n remained quite empty. The greater fishes who broke the net are\n the rulers, emperors, popes, kings, who have not renounced\n power, and instead of true Christianity have put on what is\n simply a mask of it.\"\n\nHelchitsky teaches precisely what has been and is taught in these\ndays by the non-resistant Mennonites and Quakers, and in former\ntunes by the Bogomilites, Paulicians, and many others. He teaches\nthat Christianity, expecting from its adherents gentleness,\nmeekness, peaceableness, forgiveness of injuries, turning the\nother cheek when one is struck, and love for enemies, is\ninconsistent with the use of force, which is an indispensable\ncondition of authority.\n\nThe Christian, according to Helchitsky's reasoning, not only\ncannot be a ruler or a soldier; he cannot take any part in\ngovernment nor in trade, or even be a landowner; he can only be an\nartisan or a husbandman.\n\nThis book is one of the few works attacking official Christianity\nwhich has escaped being burned. All such so-called heretical\nworks were burned at the stake, together with their authors, so\nthat there are few ancient works exposing the errors of official\nChristianity. The book has a special interest for this reason\nalone. But apart from its interest from every point of view, it\nis one of the most remarkable products of thought for its depth of\naim, for the astounding strength and beauty of the national\nlanguage in which it is written, and for its antiquity. And yet\nfor more than four centuries it has remained unprinted, and is\nstill unknown, except to a few learned specialists.\n\nOne would have thought that all such works, whether of the\nQuakers, of Garrison, of Ballou, or of Helchitsky, asserting and\nproving as they do, on the principles of the Gospel, that our\nmodern world takes a false view of Christ's teaching, would have\nawakened interest, excitement, talk, and discussion among\nspiritual teachers and their flocks alike.\n\nWorks of this kind, dealing with the very essence of Christian\ndoctrine, ought, one would have thought, to have been examined and\naccepted as true, or refuted and rejected. But nothing of the\nkind has occurred, and the same fate has been repeated with all\nthose works. Men of the most diverse views, believers, and, what\nis surprising, unbelieving liberals also, as though by agreement,\nall preserve the same persistent silence about them, and all that\nhas been done by people to explain the true meaning of Christ's\ndoctrine remains either ignored or forgotten.\n\nBut it is still more astonishing that two other books, of\nwhich I heard on the appearance of my book, should be so little\nknown, I mean Dymond's book \"On War,\" published for the first time\nin London in 1824, and Daniel Musser's book on \"Non-resistance,\"\nwritten in 1864. It is particularly astonishing that these books\nshould be unknown, because, apart from their intrinsic merits,\nboth books treat not so much of the theory as of the practical\napplication of the theory to life, of the attitude of Christianity\nto military service, which is especially important and interesting\nnow in these clays of universal conscription.\n\nPeople will ask, perhaps: How ought a subject to behave who\nbelieves that war is inconsistent with his religion while the\ngovernment demands from him that he should enter military service?\n\nThis question is, I think, a most vital one, and the answer to it\nis specially important in these days of universal conscription.\nAll--or at least the great majority of the people--are Christians,\nand all men are called upon for military service. How ought a\nman, as a Christian, to meet this demand? This is the gist of\nDymond's answer:\n\n \"His duty is humbly but steadfastly to refuse to serve.\"\n\nThere are some people, who, without any definite reasoning about\nit, conclude straightway that the responsibility of government\nmeasures rests entirely on those who resolve on them, or that the\ngovernments and sovereigns decide the question of what is good or\nbad for their subjects, and the duty of the subjects is merely to\nobey. I think that arguments of this kind only obscure men's\nconscience. I cannot take part in the councils of government, and\ntherefore I am not responsible for its misdeeds.. Indeed, but we\nare responsible for our own misdeeds. And the misdeeds of our\nrulers become our own, if we, knowing that they are misdeeds,\nassist in carrying, them out. Those who suppose that they are\nbound to obey the government, and that the responsibility for the\nmisdeeds they commit is transferred from them to their rulers,\ndeceive themselves. They say: \"We give our acts up to the will\nof others, and our acts cannot be good or bad; there is no merit\nin what is good nor responsibility for what is evil in our\nactions, since they are not done of our own will.\"\n\nIt is remarkable that the very same thing is said in the\ninstructions to soldiers which they make them learn--that is, that\nthe officer is alone responsible for the consequences of his\ncommand. But this is not right. A man cannot get rid of the\nresponsibility, for his own actions. And that is clear from the\nfollowing example. If your officer commands you to kill your\nneighbor's child, to kill your father or your mother, would you\nobey? If you would not obey, the whole argument falls to the\nground, for if you can disobey the governors in one case, where do\nyou draw the line up to which you can obey them? There is no line\nother than that laid down by Christianity, and that line is both\nreasonable and practicable.\n\nAnd therefore we consider it the duty of every man who thinks war\ninconsistent with Christianity, meekly but firmly to refuse to\nserve in the army. And let those whose lot it is to act thus,\nremember that the fulfillment of a great duty rests with them.\nThe destiny of humanity in the world depends, so far as it depends\non men at all, on their fidelity to their religion. Let them\nconfess their conviction, and stand up for it, and not in words\nalone, but in sufferings too, if need be. If you believe that\nChrist forbade murder, pay no heed to the arguments nor to the\ncommands of those who call on you to bear a hand in it. By such a\nsteadfast refusal to make use of force, you call down on\nyourselves the blessing promised to those \"who hear these sayings\nand do them,\" and the time will come when the world will recognize\nyou as having aided in the reformation of mankind.\n\nMusser's book is called \"Non-resistance Asserted,\" or \"Kingdom of\nChrist and Kingdoms of this World Separated.\" This book is\ndevoted to the same question, and was written when the American\nGovernment was exacting military service from its citizens at the\ntime of the Civil War. And it has, too, a value for all time,\ndealing with the question how, in such circumstances, people\nshould and can refuse to enter military service. Here is the tenor\nof the author's introductory remarks:\n\n \"It is well known that there are many persons in the United\n States who refuse to fight on grounds of conscience. They are\n called the 'defenseless,' or 'non-resistant' Christians. These\n Christians refuse to defend their country, to bear arms, or at\n the call of government to make war on its enemies. Till lately\n this religious scruple seemed a valid excuse to the government,\n and those who urged it were let off service. But at the\n beginning of our Civil War public opinion was agitated on this\n subject. It was natural that persons who considered it their\n duty to bear all the hardships and dangers of war in defense of\n their country should feel resentment against those persons who\n had for long shared with them the advantages of the protection\n of government, and who now in time of need and danger would not\n share in bearing the labors and dangers of its defense. It was\n even natural that they should declare the attitude of such men\n monstrous, irrational, and suspicious.\"\n\nA host of orators and writers, our author tells us, arose to oppose this\nattitude, and tried to prove the sinfulness of non-resistance, both from\nScripture and on common-sense grounds. And this was perfectly natural,\nand in many cases the authors were right--right, that is, in regard to\npersons who did not renounce the benefits they received from the\ngovernment and tried to avoid the hardships of military service, but not\nright in regard to the principle of non-resistance itself. Above all,\nour author proves the binding nature of the rule of non-resistance for a\nChristian, pointing out that this command is perfectly clear, and is\nenjoined upon every Christian by Christ without possibility of\nmisinterpretation. \"Bethink yourselves whether it is righteous to obey\nman more than God,\" said Peter and John. And this is precisely what\nought to be the attitude to every man who wishes to be Christian to the\nclaim on him for military service, when Christ has said, \"Resist not\nevil by force.\" As for the question of the principle itself, the author\nregards that as decided. As to the second question, whether people have\nthe right to refuse to serve in the army who have not refused the\nbenefits conferred by a government resting on force, the author\nconsiders it in detail, and arrives at the conclusion that a Christian\nfollowing the law of Christ, since he does not go to war, ought not\neither to take advantage of any institutions of government, courts of\nlaw, or elections, and that in his private concerns he must not have\nrecourse to the authorities, the police, or the law. Further on in the\nbook he treats of the relation of the Old Testament to the New, the\nvalue of government for those who are Christians, and makes some\nobservations on the doctrine of non-resistance and the attacks made on\nit. The author concludes his book by saying: \"Christians do not need\ngovernment, and therefore they cannot either obey it in what is contrary\nto Christ's teaching nor, still less, take part in it.\" Christ took his\ndisciples out of the world, he says. They do not expect worldly\nblessings and worldly happiness, but they expect eternal life. The\nSpirit in whom they live makes them contented and happy in every\nposition. If the world tolerates them, they are always happy. If the\nworld will not leave them in peace, they will go elsewhere, since they\nare pilgrims on the earth and they have no fixed place of habitation.\nThey believe that \"the dead may bury their dead.\" One thing only is\nneedful for them, \"to follow their Master.\"\n\nEven putting aside the question as to the principle laid down in these\ntwo books as to the Christian's duty in his attitude to war, one cannot\nhelp perceiving the practical importance and the urgent need of deciding\nthe question.\n\nThere are people, hundreds of thousands of Quakers, Mennonites,\nall our Douhobortsi, Molokani, and others who do not belong to any\ndefinite sect, who consider that the use of force--and,\nconsequently, military service--is inconsistent with Christianity.\nConsequently there are every year among us in Russia some men\ncalled upon for military service who refuse to serve on the ground\nof their religious convictions. Does the government let them off\nthen? No. Does it compel them to go, and in case of disobedience\npunish them? No. This was how the government treated them in\n1818. Here is an extract from the diary of Nicholas Myravyov of\nKars, which was not passed by the censor, and is not known in\nRussia:\n\n \"Tiflis, October 2, 1818.\n\n \"In the morning the commandant told me that five peasants\n belonging to a landowner in the Tamboff government had lately\n been sent to Georgia. These men had been sent for soldiers,\n but they would not serve; they had been several times flogged\n and made to run the gauntlet, but they would submit readily to\n the cruelest tortures, and even to death, rather than serve.\n 'Let us go,' they said, 'and leave us alone; we will not hurt\n anyone; all men are equal, and the Tzar is a man like us; why\n should we pay him tribute; why should I expose my life to\n danger to kill in battle some man who has done me no harm? You\n can cut us to pieces and we will not be soldiers. He who has\n compassion on us will give us charity, but as for the\n government rations, we have not had them and we do not want to\n have them.' These were the words of those peasants, who declare\n that there are numbers like them Russia. They brought them\n four times before the Committee of Ministers, and at last\n decided to lay the matter before the Tzar who gave orders that\n they should be taken to Georgia for correction, and commanded\n the commander-in-chief to send him a report every month of\n their gradual success in bringing these peasants to a better\n mind.\"\n\nHow the correction ended is not known, as the whole episode indeed\nwas unknown, having been kept in profound secrecy.\n\nThis was how the government behaved seventy-five years ago--this\nis how it has behaved in a great cumber of cases, studiously\nconcealed from the people. And this is how the government behaves\nnow, except in the case of the German Mennonites, living in the\nprovince of Kherson, whose plea against military service is\nconsidered well grounded. They are made to work off their term of\nservice in labor in the forests.\n\nBut in the recent cases of refusal on the part of Mennonites to\nserve in the army on religious grounds, the government authorities\nhave acted in the following manner:\n\nTo begin with, they have recourse to every means of coercion used\nin our times to \"correct\" the culprit and bring him to \"a better\nmind,\" and these measures are carried out with the greatest\nsecrecy. I know that in the case of one man who declined to serve\nin 1884 in Moscow, the official correspondence on the subject had\ntwo months after his refusal accumulated into a big folio, and was\nkept absolutely secret among the Ministry.\n\nThey usually begin by sending the culprit to the priests, and the\nlatter, to their shame be it said, always exhort him to obedience.\nBut since the exhortation in Christ's name to forswear Christ is\nfor the most part unsuccessful, after he has received the\nadmonitions of the spiritual authorities, they send him to the\ngendarmes, and the latter, finding, as a rule, no political cause\nfor offense in him, dispatch him back again, and then he is sent\nto the learned men, to the doctors, and to the madhouse. During\nall these vicissitudes he is deprived of liberty and has to endure\nevery kind of humiliation and suffering as a convicted criminal.\n(All this has been repeated in four cases.) The doctors let him\nout of the madhouse, and then every kind of secret shift is\nemployed to prevent him from going free--whereby others would be\nencouraged to refuse to serve as he has done--and at the same time\nto avoid leaving him among the soldiers, for fear they too should\nlearn from him that military service is not at all their duty by\nthe law of God, as they are assured, but quite contrary to it.\n\nThe most convenient thing for the government would be to kill the\nnon-resistant by flogging him to death or some other means, as was\ndone in former days. But to put a man openly to death because he\nbelieves in the creed we all confess is impossible. To let a man\nalone who has refused obedience is also impossible. And so the\ngovernment tries either to compel the man by ill-treatment to\nrenounce Christ, or in some way or other to get rid of him\nunobserved, without openly putting him to death, and to hide\nsomehow both the action and the man himself from other people.\nAnd so all kinds of shifts and wiles and cruelties are set on foot\nagainst him. They either send him to the frontier or provoke him\nto insubordination, and then try him for breach of discipline and\nshut him up in the prison of the disciplinary battalion, where\nthey can ill treat him freely unseen by anyone, or they declare\nhim mad, and lock him up in a lunatic asylum. They sent one man\nin this way to Tashkend--that is, they pretended to transfer to\nthe Tashkend army; another to Omsk; a third him they convicted of\ninsubordination and shut up in prison; a fourth they sent to a\nlunatic asylum.\n\nEverywhere the same story is repeated. Not only the government,\nbut the great majority of liberal, advanced people, as they are\ncalled, studiously turn away from everything that has been said,\nwritten, or done, or is being done by men to prove the\nincompatibility of force in its most awful, gross, and glaring\nform--in the form, that is, of an army of soldiers prepared to\nmurder anyone, whoever it may be--with the teachings of\nChristianity, or even of the humanity which society professes as\nits creed.\n\nSo that the information I have gained of the attitude of the\nhigher ruling classes, not only in Russia but in Europe and\nAmerica, toward the elucidation of this question has convinced me\nthat there exists in these ruling classes a consciously hostile\nattitude to true Christianity, which is shown pre-eminently in\ntheir reticence in regard to all manifestations of it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nCRITICISMS OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE ON\nTHE PART OF BELIEVERS AND OF UNBELIEVERS.\n\nFate of the Book \"What I Believe\"--Evasive Character of Religious\nCriticisms of Principles of my Book--1st Reply: Use of Force\nnot Opposed to Christianity--2d Reply: Use of Force Necessary\nto Restrain Evil Doers--3d Reply: Duty of Using Force in\nDefense of One's Neighbor--4th Reply: The Breach of the Command\nof Non-resistance to be Regarded Simply as a Weakness--5th\nReply: Reply Evaded by Making Believe that the Question has\nlong been Decided--To Devise such Subterfuges and to take\nRefuge Behind the Authority of the Church, of Antiquity, and of\nReligion is all that Ecclesiastical Critics can do to get out\nof the Contradiction between Use of Force and Christianity in\nTheory and in Practice--General Attitude of the Ecclesiastical\nWorld and of the Authorities to Profession of True\nChristianity--General Character of Russian Freethinking\nCritics--Foreign Freethinking Critics--Mistaken Arguments of\nthese Critics the Result of Misunderstanding the True Meaning\nof Christ's Teaching.\n\n\nThe impression I gained of a desire to conceal, to hush up, what I\nhad tried to express in my book, led me to judge the book itself\nafresh.\n\nOn its appearance it had, as I had anticipated, been forbidden,\nand ought therefore by law to have been burnt. But, at the same\ntime, it was discussed among officials, and circulated in a great\nnumber of manuscript and lithograph copies, and in translations\nprinted abroad.\n\nAnd very quickly after the book, criticisms, both religious and\nsecular in character, made their appearance, and these the\ngovernment tolerated, and even encouraged. So that the refutation\nof a book which no one was supposed to know anything about was\neven chosen as the subject for theological dissertations in the\nacademies.\n\nThe criticisms of my book, Russian and foreign alike, fall under\ntwo general divisions--the religious criticisms of men who regard\nthemselves as believers, and secular criticisms, that is, those of\nfreethinkers.\n\nI will begin with the first class. In my book I made it an\naccusation against the teachers of the Church that their teaching\nis opposed to Christ's commands clearly and definitely expressed\nin the Sermon on the Mount, and opposed in especial to his command\nin regard to resistance to evil, and that in this way they deprive\nChrist's teaching of all value. The Church authorities accept the\nteaching of the Sermon on the Mount on non-resistance to evil by\nforce as divine revelation; and therefore one would have thought\nthat if they felt called upon to write about my book at all, they\nwould have found it inevitable before everything else to reply to\nthe principal point of my charge against them, and to say plainly,\ndo they or do they not admit the teaching of the Sermon on the\nMount and the commandment of non-resistance to evil as binding on\na Christian. And they were bound to answer this question, not\nafter the usual fashion (i. e., \"that although on the one side one\ncannot absolutely deny, yet on the other side one cannot main\nfully assent, all the more seeing that,\" etc., etc.). No; they\nshould have answered the question as plainly as it was put\nin my book--Did Christ really demand from his disciples\nthat they should carry out what he taught them in the Sermon on\nthe Mount? And can a Christian, then, or can he not, always\nremaining a Christian, go to law or make any use of the law, or\nseek his own protection in the law? And can the Christian, or can\nhe not, remaining a Christian, take part in the administration of\ngovernment, using compulsion against his neighbors? And--the most\nimportant question hanging over the heads of all of us in these\ndays of universal military service--can the Christian, or can he\nnot, remaining a Christian, against Christ's direct prohibition,\npromise obedience in future actions directly opposed to his\nteaching? And can he, by taking his share of service in the army,\nprepare himself to murder men, and even actually murder them?\n\nThese questions were put plainly and directly, and seemed to\nrequire a plain and direct answer; but in all the criticisms of my\nbook there was no such plain and direct answer. No; my book\nreceived precisely the same treatment as all the attacks upon the\nteachers of the Church for their defection from the Law of Christ\nof which history from the days of Constantine is full.\n\nA very great deal was said in connection with my book of my having\nincorrectly interpreted this and other passages of the Gospel, of\nmy being in error in not recognizing the Trinity, the redemption,\nand the immortality of the soul. A very great deal was said, but\nnot a word about the one thing which for every Christian is the\nmost essential question in life--how to reconcile the duty of\nforgiveness, meekness, patience, and love for all, neighbors and\nenemies alike, which is so clearly expressed in the words of our\nteacher, and in the heart of each of us--how to reconcile this\nduty with the obligation of using force in war upon men of our own\nor a foreign people.\n\nAll that are worth calling answers to this question can be brought\nunder the following five heads. I have tried to bring together in\nthis connection all I could, not only from the criticisms on my\nbook, but from what has been written in past times on this theme.\n\nThe first and crudest form of reply consists in the bold assertion\nthat the use of force is not opposed by the teaching of Christ;\nthat it is permitted, and even enjoined, on the Christian by the\nOld and New Testaments.\n\nAssertions of this kind proceed, for the most part, from men who\nhave attained the highest ranks in the governing or ecclesiastical\nhierarchy, and who are consequently perfectly assured that no one\nwill dare to contradict their assertion, and that if anyone does\ncontradict it they will hear nothing of the contradiction. These\nmen have, for the most part, through the intoxication of power, so\nlost the right idea of what that Christianity is in the name of\nwhich they hold their position that what is Christian in\nChristianity presents itself to them as heresy, while everything\nin the Old and New Testaments which can be distorted into an\nantichristian and heathen meaning they regard as the foundation of\nChristianity. In support of their assertion that Christianity is\nnot opposed to the use of force, these men usually, with the\ngreatest audacity, bring together all the most obscure passages\nfrom the Old and New Testaments, interpreting them in the most\nunchristian way--the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira, of Simon\nthe Sorcerer, etc. They quote all those sayings of Christ's which\ncan possibly be interpreted as justification of cruelty: the\nexpulsion from the Temple; \"It shall be more tolerable for the\nland of Sodom than for this city,\" etc., etc. According to these\npeople's notions, a Christian government is not in the least bound\nto be guided by the spirit of peace, forgiveness of injuries, and\nlove for enemies.\n\nTo refute such an assertion is useless, because the very\npeople who make this assertion refute themselves, or, rather,\nrenounce Christ, inventing a Christianity and a Christ of their\nown in the place of him in whose name the Church itself exists, as\nwell as their office in it. If all men were to learn that the\nChurch professes to believe in a Christ of punishment and warfare,\nnot of forgiveness, no one would believe in the Church and it\ncould not prove to anyone what it is trying to prove.\n\nThe second, somewhat less gross, form of argument consists in\ndeclaring that, though Christ did indeed preach that we should\nturn the left cheek, and give the cloak also, and this is the\nhighest moral duty, yet that there are wicked men in the world,\nand if these wicked men mere not restrained by force, the whole\nworld and all good men would come to ruin through them. This\nargument I found for the first time in John Chrysostom, and I show\nhow he is mistaken in my book \"What I believe.\"\n\nThis argument is ill grounded, because if we allow ourselves to\nregard any men as intrinsically wicked men, then in the first\nplace we annul, by so doing, the whole idea of the Christian\nteaching, according to which we are all equals and brothers, as\nsons of one father in heaven. Secondly, it is ill founded,\nbecause even if to use force against wicked men had been permitted\nby God, since it is impossible to find a perfect and unfailing\ndistinction by which one could positively know the wicked from the\ngood, so it would come to all individual men and societies of men\nmutually regarding each other as wicked men, as is the case now.\nThirdly, even if it were possible to distinguish the wicked from\nthe good unfailingly, even then it would be impossible to kill or\ninjure or shut up in prison these wicked men, because there would\nbe no one in a Christian society to carry out such punishment,\nsince every Christian, as a Christian, has been commanded to use\nno force against the wicked.\n\nThe third kind of answer, still more subtle than the preceding,\nconsists in asserting that though the command of non-resistance to\nevil by force is binding on the Christian when the evil is\ndirected against himself personally, it ceases to be binding when\nthe evil is directed against his neighbors, and that then the\nChristian is not only not bound to fulfill the commandment, but is\neven bound to act in opposition to it in defense of his neighbors,\nand to use force against transgressors by force. This assertion\nis an absolute assumption, and one cannot find in all Christ's\nteaching any confirmation of such an argument. Such an argument\nis not only a limitation, but a direct contradiction and negation\nof the commandment. If every man has the right to have recourse\nto force in face of a danger threatening an other, the question of\nthe use of force is reduced to a question of the definition of\ndanger for another. If my private judgment is to decide the\nquestion of what is danger for another, there is no occasion for\nthe use of force which could not be justified on the ground of\ndanger threatening some other man. They killed and burnt witches,\nthey killed aristocrats and girondists, they killed their enemies\nbecause those who were in authority regarded them as dangerous for\nthe people.\n\nIf this important limitation, which fundamentally undermines the\nwhole value of the commandment, had entered into Christ's meaning,\nthere must have been mention of it somewhere. This restriction is\nmade nowhere in our Saviour's life or preaching. On the contrary,\nwarning is given precisely against this treacherous and scandalous\nrestriction which nullifies the commandment. The error and\nimpossibility of such a limitation is shown in the Gospel with\nspecial clearness in the account of the judgment of Caiaphas, who\nmakes precisely this distinction. He acknowledged that it was\nwrong to punish the innocent Jesus, but he saw in him a source of\ndanger not for himself, but for the whole people, and therefore he\nsaid: It is better for one man to die, that the whole people\nperish not. And the erroneousness of such a limitation is still\nmore clearly expressed in the words spoken to Peter when he tried\nto resist by force evil directed against Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 52).\nPeter was not defending himself, but his beloved and heavenly\nMaster. And Christ at once reproved him for this, saying, that he\nwho takes up the sword shall perish by the sword.\n\nBesides, apologies for violence used against one's neighbor in defense\nof another neighbor from greater violence are always untrustworthy,\nbecause when force is used against one who has not yet carried out his\nevil intent, I can never know which would be greater--the evil of my act\nof violence or of the act I want to prevent. We kill the criminal that\nsociety may be rid of him, and we never know whether the criminal of\nto-day would not have been a changed man tomorrow, and whether our\npunishment of him is not useless cruelty. We shut up the dangerous--as\nwe think--member of society, but the next day this man might cease to be\ndangerous and his imprisonment might be for nothing. I see that a man I\nknow to be a ruffian is pursuing a young girl. I have a gun in my\nhand--I kill the ruffian and save the girl. But the death or the\nwounding of the ruffian has positively taken place, while what would\nhave happened if this had not been I cannot know. And what an immense\nmass of evil must result, and indeed does result, from allowing men to\nassume the right of anticipating what may happen. Ninety-nine per cent\nof the evil of the world is founded on this reasoning--from the\nInquisition to dynamite bombs, and the executions or punishments of tens\nof thousands of political criminals.\n\nA fourth, still more refined, reply to the question, What ought to\nbe the Christian's attitude to Christ's command of non-resistance\nto evil by force? consists in declaring that they do not deny the\ncommand of non-resisting evil, but recognize it; but they only do\nnot ascribe to this command the special exclusive value attached\nto it by sectarians. To regard this command as the indispensable\ncondition of Christian life, as Garrison, Ballou, Dymond, the\nQuakers, the Mennonites and the Shakers do now, and as the\nMoravian brothers, the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Bogomilites,\nand the Paulicians did in the past, is a one-sided heresy. This\ncommand has neither more nor less value than all the other\ncommands, and the man who through weakness transgresses any\ncommand whatever, the command of non-resistance included, does not\ncease to be a Christian if he hold the true faith. This is a very\nskillful device, and many people who wish to be deceived are\neasily deceived by it. The device consists in reducing a direct\nconscious denial of a command to a casual breach of it. But one\nneed only compare the attitude of the teachers of the Church to\nthis and to other commands which they really do recognize, to be\nconvinced that their attitude to this is completely different from\ntheir attitude to other duties.\n\nThe command against fornication they do really recognize, and\nconsequently they do not admit that in any case fornication can\ncease to be wrong. The Church preachers never point out cases in\nwhich the command against fornication can be broken, and always\nteach that we must avoid seductions which lead to temptation to\nfornication. But not so with the command of non-resistance. All\nchurch preachers recognize cases in which that command can be\nbroken, and teach the people accordingly. And they not only do\nnot teach teat we should avoid temptations to break it, chief of\nwhich is the military oath, but they themselves administer it.\nThe preachers of the Church never in any other case advocate the\nbreaking of any other commandment. But in connection with the\ncommandment of non-resistance they openly teach that we must not\nunderstand it too literally, but that there are conditions and\ncircumstances in which we must do the direct opposite, that is, go\nto law, fight, punish. So that occasions for fulfilling the\ncommandment of non-resistance to evil by force are taught for the\nmost part as occasions for not fulfilling it. The fulfillment of\nthis command, they say, is very difficult and pertains only to\nperfection. And how can it not be difficult, when the breach of\nit is not only not forbidden, but law courts, prisons, cannons,\nguns, armies, and wars are under the immediate sanction of the\nChurch? It cannot be true, then, that this command is recognized\nby the preachers of the Church as on a level with other commands.\n\nThe preachers of the Church clearly, do not recognize it; only not\ndaring to acknowledge this, they try to conceal their not\nrecognizing it.\n\nSo much for the fourth reply.\n\nThe fifth kind of answer, which is the subtlest, the most often\nused, and the most effective, consists in avoiding answering, in\nmaking believe that this question is one which has long ago been\ndecided perfectly clearly and satisfactorily, and that it is not\nworth while to talk about it. This method of reply is employed by\nall the more or less cultivated religious writers, that is to say,\nthose who feel the laws of Christ binding for themselves. Knowing\nthat the contradiction existing between the teaching of Christ\nwhich we profess with our lips and the whole order of our lives\ncannot be removed by words, and that touching upon it can only\nmake it more obvious, they, with more or less ingenuity, evade it,\npretending that the question of reconciling Christianity with the\nuse of force has been decided already, or does not exist at all.\n\n [Footnote: I only know one work which differs somewhat from\n this general definition, and that is not a criticism in the\n precise meaning of the word, but an article treating of the\n same subject and having my book in view. I mean the pamphlet\n of Mr. Troizky (published at Kazan), \"A Sermon for the\n People.\" The author obviously accepts Christ's teaching in\n its true meaning. He says that the prohibition of resistance\n to evil by force means exactly what it does mean; and the same\n with the prohibition of swearing. He does not, as others do,\n deny the meaning of Christ's teaching, but unfortunately he\n does not draw from this admission the inevitable deductions\n which present themselves spontaneously in our life when we\n understand Christ's teaching in that way. If we must not\n oppose evil by force, nor swear, everyone naturally asks,\n \"How, then, about military service? and the oath of\n obedience?\" To this question the author gives no reply; but\n it must be answered. And if he cannot answer, then he would\n do better no to speak on the subject at all, as such silence\n leads to error.]\n\nThe majority of religious critics of my book use this fifth method\nof replying to it. I could quote dozens of such critics, in all of\nwhom, without exception, we find the same thing repeated:\neverything is discussed except what constitutes the principal\nsubject of the book. As a characteristic example of such\ncriticisms, I will quote the article of a well-known and ingenious\nEnglish writer and preacher--Farrar--who, like many learned\ntheologians, is a great master of the art of circuitously evading\na question. The article was published in an American journal, the\nFORUM, in October, 1888.\n\nAfter conscientiously explaining in brief the contents of my book,\nFarrar says:\n\n \"Tolstoy came to the conclusion that a coarse deceit had been\n palmed upon the world when these words 'Resist not evil,' were\n held by civil society to be compatible with war, courts of\n justice, capital punishment, divorce, oaths, national\n prejudice, and, indeed, with most of the institutions of civil\n and social life. He now believes that the kingdom of God would\n come if all men kept these five commandments of Christ, viz.:\n 1. Live in peace with all men. 2. Be pure. 3. Take no oaths.\n 4. Resist not evil. 5. Renounce national distinctions.\n\n \"Tolstoy,\" he says, \"rejects the inspiration of the Old\n Testament; hence he rejects the chief doctrines of the Church--that\n of the Atonement by blood, the Trinity, the descent of the\n Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and his transmission through the\n priesthood.\" And he recognizes only the words and commands of\n Christ. \"But is this interpretation of Christ a true one?\" he\n says. \"Are all men bound to act as Tolstoy teaches--i. e., to\n carry out these five commandments of Christ?\"\n\nYou expect, then, that in answer to this essential question, which\nis the only one that could induce a man to write an article about\nthe book, he will say either that this interpretation of Christ's\nteaching is true and we ought to follow it, or he will say that\nsuch an interpretation is untrue, will show why, and will give\nsome other correct interpretation of those words which I interpret\nincorrectly. But nothing of this kind is done. Farrar only\nexpresses his \"belief\" that,\n\n \"although actuated by the noblest sincerity, Count Tolstoy has\n been misled by partial and one-sided interpretations of the\n meaning of the Gospel and the mind and will of Christ.\" What\n this error consists in is not made clear; it is only said:\n \"To enter into the proof of this is impossible in this article,\n for I have already exceeded the space at my command.\"\n\nAnd he concludes in a tranquil spirit:\n\n \"Meanwhile, the reader who feels troubled lest it should be his\n duty also to forsake all the conditions of his life and to take\n up the position and work of a common laborer, may rest for the\n present on the principle, SECURUS JUDICAT ORBIS TERRARUM. With\n few and rare exceptions,\" he continues, \"the whole of\n Christendom, from the days of the Apostles down to our own, has\n come to the firm conclusion that it was the object of Christ to\n lay down great eternal principles, but not to disturb the bases\n and revolutionize the institutions of all human society, which\n themselves rest on divine sanctions as well as on inevitable\n conditions. Were it my object to prove how untenable is the\n doctrine of communism, based by Count Tolstoy upon the divine\n paradoxes [sic], which can be interpreted only on historical\n principles in accordance with the whole method of the teaching\n of Jesus, it would require an ampler canvas than I have here at\n my disposal.\"\n\nWhat a pity he has not an \"ampler canvas at his disposal\"! And what a\nstrange thing it is that for all these last fifteen centuries no one has\nhad a \"canvas ample enough\" to prove that Christ, whom we profess to\nbelieve in, says something utterly unlike what he does say! Still, they\ncould prove it if they wanted to. But it is not worth while to prove\nwhat everyone knows; it is enough to say \"SECURUS JUDICAT ORBIS\nTERRARUM.\"\n\nAnd of this kind, without exception, are all the criticisms of educated\nbelievers, who must, as such, understand the danger of their position.\nThe sole escape from it for them lies in their hope that they may be\nable, by using the authority of the Church, of antiquity, and of their\nsacred office, to overawe the reader and draw him away from the idea of\nreading the Gospel for himself and thinking out the question in his own\nmind for himself. And in this they are successful; for, indeed, how\ncould the notion occur to any one that all that has been repeated from\ncentury to century with such earnestness and solemnity by all those\narchdeacons, bishops, archbishops, holy synods, and popes, is all of it\na base lie and a calumny foisted upon Christ by them for the sake of\nkeeping safe the money they must have to live luxuriously on the necks\nof other men? And it is a lie and a calumny so transparent that the only\nway of keeping it up consists in overawing people by their earnestness,\ntheir conscientiousness. It is just what has taken place of late years\nat recruiting sessions; at a table before the zertzal--the symbol of the\nTzars authority--in the seat of honor under the life-size portrait of\nthe Tzar, sit dignified old officials, wearing decorations, conversing\nfreely and easily, writing notes, summoning men before them, and giving\norders. Here, wearing a cross on his breast, near them, is\nprosperous-looking old Priest in a silken cassock, with long gray hair\nflowing on to his cope; before a lectern who wears the golden cross and\nhas a Gospel bound in gold.\n\nThey summon Iran Petroff. A young man comes in, wretchedly,\nshabbily dressed, and in terror, the muscles of his face working,\nhis eyes bright and restless; and in a broken voice, hardly above\na whisper, he says: \"I--by Christ's law--as a Christian--I\ncannot.\" \"What is he muttering?\" asks the president, frowning\nimpatiently and raising his eyes from his book to listen. \"Speak\nlouder,\" the colonel with shining epaulets shouts to him. \"I--I as\na Christian--\" And at last it appears that the young man refuses\nto serve in the army because he is a Christian. \"Don't talk\nnonsense. Stand to be measured. Doctor, may I trouble you to\nmeasure him. He is all right?\" \"Yes.\" \"Reverend father,\nadminister the oath to him.\"\n\nNo one is the least disturbed by what the poor scared young man is\nmuttering. They do not even pay attention to it. \"They all mutter\nsomething, but we've no time to listen to it, we have to enroll so\nmany.\"\n\nThe recruit tries to say something still. \"It's opposed to the\nlaw of Christ.\" \"Go along, go along; we know without your help\nwhat is opposed to the law and what's not; and you soothe his\nmind, reverend father, soothe him. Next: Vassily Nikitin.\" And\nthey lead the trembling youth away. And it does not strike anyone\n--the guards, or Vassily Nikitin, whom they are bringing in, or\nany of the spectators of this scene--that these inarticulate words\nof the young man, at once suppressed by the authorities, contain\nthe truth, and that the loud, solemnly uttered sentences of the\ncalm, self-confident official and the priest are a lie and a\ndeception.\n\nSuch is the impression produced not only by Farrar's article, but\nby all those solemn sermons, articles, and books which make their\nappearance from all sides directly there is anywhere a glimpse of\ntruth exposing a predominant falsehood. At once begins the series\nof long, clever, ingenious, and solemn speeches and writings,\nwhich deal with questions nearly related to the subject, but\nskillfully avoid touching the subject itself.\n\nThat is the essence of the fifth and most effective means of\ngetting out of the contradictions in which Church Christianity has\nplaced itself, by professing its faith in Christ's teaching in\nwords, while it denies it in its life, and teaches\npeople to do the same.\n\nThose who justify themselves by the first method, directly,\ncrudely asserting that Christ sanctioned violence, wars, and\nmurder, repudiate Christ's doctrine directly; those who find their\ndefense in the second, the third, or the fourth method are\nconfused and can easily be convicted of error; but this last\nclass, who do not argue, who do not condescend to argue about it,\nbut take shelter behind their own grandeur, and make a show of all\nthis having been decided by them or at least by someone long ago,\nand no longer offering a possibility of doubt to anyone--they seem\nsafe from attack, and will be beyond attack till men come to\nrealize that they are under the narcotic influence exerted on them\nby governments and churches, and are no longer affected by it.\n\nSuch was the attitude of the spiritual critics--i. e., those\nprofessing faith in Christ--to my book. And their attitude could\nnot have been different. They are bound to take up this attitude\nby the contradictory position in which they find themselves\nbetween belief in the divinity of their Master and disbelief in\nhis clearest utterances, and they want to escape from this\ncontradiction. So that one cannot expect from them free\ndiscussion of the very essence of the question--that is, of the\nchange in men's life which must result from applying Christ's\nteaching to the existing order of the world. Such free discussion\nI only expected from worldly, freethinking critics who are not\nbound to Christ's teaching in any way, and can therefore take an\nindependent view of it. I had anticipated that freethinking\nwriters would look at Christ, not merely, like the Churchmen, as\nthe founder of a religion of personal salvation, but, to express\nit in their language, as a reformer who laid down new principles\nof life and destroyed the old, and whose reforms are not yet\ncomplete, but are still in progress even now.\n\nSuch a view of Christ and his teaching follows from my book. But to my\nastonishment, out of the great number of critics of my book there was\nnot one, either Russian or foreign, who treated the subject from the\nside from which it was approached in the book--that is, who criticised\nChrist's doctrines as philosophical, moral, and social principles, to\nuse their scientific expressions. This was not done in a single\ncriticism. The freethinking Russian critics taking my book as though its\nwhole contents could be reduced to non-resistance to evil, and\nunderstanding the doctrine of non-resistance to evil itself (no doubt\nfor greater convenience in refuting it) as though it would prohibit\nevery kind of conflict with evil, fell vehemently upon this doctrine,\nand for some years past have been very successfully proving that\nChrist's teaching is mistaken in so far as it forbids resistance to\nevil. Their refutations of this hypothetical doctrine of Christ were all\nthe more successful since they knew beforehand that their arguments\ncould not be contested or corrected, for the censorship, not having\npassed the book, did not pass articles in its defense.\n\nIt is a remarkable thing that among us, where one cannot say a\nword about the Holy Scriptures without the prohibition of the\ncensorship, for some years past there have been in all the\njournals constant attacks and criticisms on the command of Christ\nsimply and directly stated in Matt. v. 39. The Russian advanced\ncritics, obviously unaware of all that has been done to elucidate\nthe question of non-resistance, and sometimes even imagining\napparently that the rule of non-resistance to evil had been\ninvented by me personally, fell foul of the very idea of it. They\nopposed it and attacked it, and advancing with great heat\narguments which had long ago been analyzed and refuted from every\npoint of view, they demonstrated that a man ought invariably to\ndefend (with violence) all the injured and oppressed, and that\nthus the doctrine of non-resistance to evil is an immoral\ndoctrine.\n\nTo all Russian critics the whole import of Christ's command seemed\nreducible to the fact that it would hinder them from the active\nopposition to evil to which they are accustomed. So that the\nprinciple of non-resistance to evil by force has been attacked by\ntwo opposing camps: the conservatives, because this principle\nwould hinder their activity in resistance to evil as applied to\nthe revolutionists, in persecution and punishment of them; the\nrevolutionists, too, because this principle would hinder their\nresistance to evil as applied to the conservatives and the\noverthrowing of them. The conservatives were indignant at the\ndoctrine of non-resistance to evil by force hindering the\nenergetic destruction of the revolutionary elements, which may\nruin the national prosperity; the revolutionists were indignant at\nthe doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force hindering the\noverthrow of the conservatives, who are ruining the national\nprosperity. It is worthy of remark in this connection that the\nrevolutionists have attacked the principle of non-resistance to\nevil by force, in spite of the fact that it is the greatest terror\nand danger for every despotism. For ever since the beginning of\nthe world, the use of violence of every kind, from the Inquisition\nto the Schl\u00fcsselburg fortress, has rested and still rests on the\nopposite principle of the necessity of resisting evil by force.\n\nBesides this, the Russian critics have pointed out the fact that\nthe application of the command of non-resistance to practical life\nwould turn mankind aside out of the path of civilization along\nwhich it is moving. The path of civilization on which mankind in\nEurope is moving is in their opinion the one along which all\nmankind ought always to move.\n\nSo much for the general character of the Russian critics.\n\nForeign critics started from the same premises, but their\ndiscussions of my book were somewhat different from those of\nRussian critics, not only in being less bitter, and in showing\nmore culture, but even in the subject-matter.\n\nIn discussing my book and the Gospel teaching generally, as it is\nexpressed in the Sermon on the Mount, the foreign critics\nmaintained that such doctrine is not peculiarly Christian\n(Christian doctrine is either Catholicism or Protestantism\naccording to their views)--the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount\nis only a string of very pretty impracticable dreams DU CHARMANT\nDOCTEUR, as Reran says, fit for the simple and half-savage\ninhabitants of Galilee who lived eighteen hundred years ago, and\nfor the half-savage Russian peasants--Sutaev and Bondarev--and the\nRussian mystic Tolstoy, but not at all consistent with a high\ndegree of European culture.\n\nThe foreign freethinking critics have tried in a delicate manner,\nwithout being offensive to me, to give the impression that my\nconviction that mankind could be guided by such a na\u00efve doctrine\nas that of the Sermon on the Mount proceeds from two causes: that\nsuch a conviction is partly due to my want of knowledge, my\nignorance of history, my ignorance of all the vain attempts to\napply the principles of the Sermon on the Mount to life, which\nhave been made in history and have led to nothing; and partly it\nis due to my failing to appreciate the full value of the lofty\ncivilization to which mankind has attained at present, with its\nKrupp cannons, smokeless powder, colonization of Africa, Irish\nCoercion Bill, parliamentary government, journalism, strikes, and\nthe Eiffel Tower.\n\nSo wrote de Vog\u00fc\u00e9 and Leroy Beaulieu and Matthew Arnold; so wrote\nthe American author Savage, and Ingersoll, the popular\nfreethinking American preacher, and many others.\n\n\"Christ's teaching is no use, because it is inconsistent with our\nindustrial age,\" says Ingersoll na\u00efvely, expressing in this\nutterance, with perfect directness and simplicity, the exact\nnotion of Christ's teaching held by persons of refinement and\nculture of our times. The teaching is no use for our industrial\nage, precisely as though the existence of this industrial age were\na sacred fact which ought not to and could not be changed. It is\njust as though drunkards when advised how they could be brought to\nhabits of sobriety should answer that the advice is incompatible\nwith their habit of taking alcohol.\n\nThe arguments of all the freethinking critics, Russian and foreign\nalike, different as they may be in tone and manner of\npresentation, all amount essentially to the same strange\nmisapprehension--namely, that Christ's teaching, one of the\nconsequences of which is non-resistance to evil, is of no use to\nus because it requires a change of our life.\n\nChrist's teaching is useless because, if it were carried into practice,\nlife could not go on as at present; we must add: if we have begun by\nliving sinfully, as we do live and are accustomed to live. Not only is\nthe question of non-resistance to evil not discussed; the very mention\nof the fact that the duty of non-resistance enters into Christ's\nteaching is regarded as satisfactory proof of the impracticability of\nthe whole teaching.\n\nMeanwhile one would have thought it was necessary to point out at\nleast some kind of solution of the following question, since it is\nat the root of almost everything that interests us.\n\nThe question amounts to this: In what way are we to decide men's\ndisputes, when some men consider evil what others consider good,\nand VICE VERSA? And to reply that that is evil which I think\nevil, in spite of the fact that my opponent thinks it good, is not\na solution of the difficulty. There can only be two solutions:\neither to find a real unquestionable criterion of what is evil or\nnot to resist evil by force.\n\nThe first course has been tried ever since the beginning of\nhistorical times, and, as we all know, it has not hitherto led to\nany successful results.\n\nThe second solution--not forcibly to resist what we consider evil\nuntil we have found a universal criterion--that is the solution\ngiven by Christ.\n\nWe may consider the answer given by Christ unsatisfactory; we may\nreplace it by another and better, by finding a criterion by which\nevil could be defined for all men unanimously and simultaneously;\nwe may simply, like savage nations, not recognize the existence of\nthe question. But we cannot treat the question as the learned\ncritics of Christianity do. They pretend either that no such\nquestion exists at all or that the question is solved by granting\nto certain persons or assemblies of persons the right to define\nevil and to resist it by force. But we know all the while that\ngranting such a right to certain persons does not decide the\nquestion (still less so when we are ourselves the certain\npersons), since there are always people who do not recognize this\nright in the authorized persons or assemblies.\n\nBut this assumption, that what seems evil to us is really evil,\nshows a complete misunderstanding of the question, and lies at the\nroot of the argument of freethinking critics about the Christian\nreligion. In this way, then, the discussions of my book on the\npart of Churchmen and freethinking critics alike showed me that\nthe majority of men simply do not understand either Christ's\nteaching or the questions which Christ's teaching solves.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nCHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS.\n\nMeaning of Christian Doctrine, Understood by a Minority, has Become\nCompletely Incomprehensible for the Majority of Men--Reason of this to\nbe Found in Misinterpretation of Christianity and Mistaken Conviction of\nBelievers and Unbelievers Alike that they Understand it--The Meaning of\nChristianity Obscured for Believers by the Church--The First Appearance\nof Christ's Teaching--Its Essence and Difference from Heathen\nReligions--Christianity not Fully Comprehended at the Beginning, Became\nMore and More Clear to those who Accepted it from its Correspondence\nwith Truth--Simultaneously with this Arose the Claim to Possession of\nthe Authentic Meaning of the Doctrine Based on the Miraculous Nature of\nits Transmission--Assembly of Disciples as Described in the Acts--The\nAuthoritative Claim to the Sole Possession of the True Meaning of\nChrist's Teaching Supported by Miraculous Evidence has Led by Logical\nDevelopment to the Creeds of the Churches--A Church Could Not be Founded\nby Christ--Definitions of a Church According to the Catechisms--The\nChurches have Always been Several in Number and Hostile to One\nAnother--What is Heresy--The Work of G. Arnold on Heresies--Heresies the\nManifestations of Progress in the Churches--Churches Cause Dissension\namong Men, and are Always Hostile to Christianity--Account of the Work\nDone by the Russian Church--Matt. xxiii. 23--The Sermon on the Mount or\nthe Creed--The Orthodox Church Conceals from the People the True Meaning\nof Christianity--The Same Thing is Done by the Other Churches--All the\nExternal Conditions of Modern Life are such as to Destroy the Doctrine\nof the Church, and therefore the Churches use Every Effort to Support\ntheir Doctrines.\n\n\nThus the information I received, after my book came out, went to\nshow that the Christian doctrine, in its direct and simple sense,\nwas understood, and had always been understood, by a minority of\nmen, while the critics, ecclesiastical and freethinking alike,\ndenied the possibility of taking Christ's teaching in its direct\nsense. All this convinced me that while on one hand the true\nunderstanding of this doctrine had never been lost to a minority,\nbut had been established more and more clearly, on the other hand\nthe meaning of it had been more and more obscured for the\nmajority. So that at last such a depth of obscurity has been\nreached that men do not take in their direct sense even the\nsimplest precepts, expressed in the simplest words, in the Gospel.\n\nChrist's teaching is not generally understood in its true, simple,\nand direct sense even in these days, when the light of the Gospel\nhas penetrated even to the darkest recesses of human\nconsciousness; when, in the words of Christ, that which was spoken\nin the ear is proclaimed from the housetops; and when the Gospel\nis influencing every side of human life--domestic, economic,\ncivic, legislative, and international. This lack of true\nunderstanding of Christ's words at such a time would be\ninexplicable, if there were not causes to account for it.\n\nOne of these causes is the fact that believers and unbelievers\nalike are firmly persuaded that they have understood Christ's\nteaching a long time, and that they understand it so fully,\nindubitably, and conclusively that it can have no other\nsignificance than the one they attribute to it. And the reason of\nthis conviction is that the false interpretation and consequent\nmisapprehension of the Gospel is an error of such long standing.\nEven the strongest current of water cannot add a drop to a cup\nwhich is already full.\n\nThe most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man\nif he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing\ncannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly\npersuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid\nbefore him.\n\nThe Christian doctrine is presented to the men of our world to-day\nas a doctrine which everyone has known so long and accepted so\nunhesitatingly in all its minutest details that it cannot be\nunderstood in any other way than it is understood now.\n\nChristianity is understood now by all who profess the doctrines of\nthe Church as a supernatural miraculous revelation of everything\nwhich is repeated in the Creed. By unbelievers it is regarded as\nan illustration of man's craving for a belief in the supernatural,\nwhich mankind has now outgrown, as an historical phenomenon which\nhas received full expression in Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and\nProtestantism, and has no longer any living significance for us.\nThe significance of the Gospel is hidden from believers by the\nChurch, from unbelievers by Science.\n\nI will speak first of the former. Eighteen hundred years ago\nthere appeared in the midst of the heathen Roman world a strange\nnew doctrine, unlike any of the old religions, and attributed to a\nman, Christ.\n\nThis new doctrine was in both form and content absolutely new to\nthe Jewish world in which it originated, and still more to the\nRoman world in which it was preached and diffused.\n\nIn the midst of the elaborate religious observances of Judaism, in\nwhich, in the words of Isaiah, law was laid upon law, and in the midst\nof the Roman legal system worked out to the highest point of perfection,\na new doctrine appeared, which denied not only every deity, and all fear\nand worship of them, but even all human institutions and all necessity\nfor them. In place of all the rules of the old religions, this doctrine\nsets up only a type of inward perfection, truth, and love in the person\nof Christ, and--as a result of this inward perfection being attained by\nmen--also the outward perfection foretold by the Prophets--the kingdom\nof God, when all men will cease to learn to make war, when all shall be\ntaught of God and united in love, and the lion will lie down with the\nlamb. Instead of the threats of punishment which all the old laws of\nreligions and governments alike laid down for non-fulfillment of their\nrules, instead of promises of rewards for fulfillment of them, this\ndoctrine called men to it only because it was the truth. John vii. 17:\n\"If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it\nbe of God.\" John viii. 46: \"If I say the truth, why do ye not believe\nme? But ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth. Ye shall\nknow the truth, and the truth shall make you free. God is a spirit, and\nthey that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Keep my\nsayings, and ye shall know of my sayings whether they be true.\" No\nproofs of this doctrine were offered except its truth, the\ncorrespondence of the doctrine with the truth. The whole teaching\nconsisted in the recognition of truth and following it, in a greater and\ngreater attainment of truth, and a closer and closer following of it in\nthe acts of life. There are no acts in this doctrine which could justify\na man and make him saved. There is only the image of truth to guide-him,\nfor inward perfection in the person of Christ, and for outward\nperfection in the establishment of the kingdom of God. The fulfillment\nof this teaching consists only in walking in the chosen way, in getting\nnearer to inward perfection in the imitation of Christ, and outward\nperfection in the establishment of the kingdom of God. The greater or\nless blessedness of a man depends, according to this doctrine, not on\nthe degree of perfection to which he has attained, but on the greater or\nless swiftness with which he is pursuing it.\n\nThe progress toward perfection of the publican Zaccheus, of the woman\nthat was a sinner, of the robber on the cross, is a greater state of\nblessedness, according to this doctrine, than the stationary\nrighteousness of the Pharisee. The lost sheep is dearer than ninety-nine\nthat were not lost. The prodigal son, the piece of money that was lost\nand found again, are dearer, more precious to God than those which have\nnot been lost.\n\nEvery condition, according to this doctrine, is only a particular\nstep in the attainment of inward and outward perfection, and\ntherefore has no significance of itself. Blessedness consists in\nprogress toward perfection; to stand still in any condition\nwhatever means the cessation of this blessedness.\n\n\"Let not thy left hand know what they right hand doeth.\" \"No man\nhaving put his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the\nKingdom of God.\" \"Rejoice not that the spirits are subject to\nyou, but seek rather that your names be written in heaven.\" \"Be\nye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.\" \"Seek ye\nfirst the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness.\"\n\nThe fulfillment of this precept is only to be found in\nuninterrupted progress toward the attainment of ever higher truth,\ntoward establishing more and more firmly an ever greater love\nwithin oneself, and establishing more and more widely the kingdom\nof God outside oneself.\n\nIt is obvious that, appearing as it did in the midst of the Jewish\nand heathen world, such teaching could not be accepted by the\nmajority of men, who were living a life absolutely different from\nwhat was required by it. It is obvious, too, that even for those\nby whom it was accepted, it was so absolutely opposed to all their\nold views that it could not be comprehensible in its full\nsignificance.\n\nIt has been only by a succession of misunderstandings, errors,\npartial explanations, and the corrections and additions of\ngenerations that the meaning of the Christian doctrine has grown\ncontinually more and more clear to men. The Christian view of\nlife has exerted an influence on the Jewish and heathen, and the\nheathen and Jewish view of life has, too, exerted an influence on\nthe Christian. And Christianity, as the living force, has gained\nmore and more upon the extinct Judaism and heathenism, and has\ngrown continually clearer and clearer, as it freed itself from the\nadmixture of falsehood which had overlaid it. Men went further\nand further in the attainment of the meaning of Christianity, and\nrealized it more and more in life.\n\nThe longer mankind lived, the clearer and clearer became the\nmeaning of Christianity, as must always be the case with every\ntheory of life.\n\nSucceeding generations corrected the errors of their predecessors,\nand grew ever nearer and nearer to a comprehension of the true\nmeaning. It was thus from the very earliest times of\nChristianity. And so, too, from the earliest times of\nChristianity there were men who began to assert on their own\nauthority that the meaning they attribute to the doctrine is the\nonly true one, and as proof bring forward supernatural occurrences\nin support of the correctness of their interpretation.\n\nThis was the principal cause at first of the misunderstanding of\nthe doctrine, and afterward of the complete distortion of it.\n\nIt was supposed that Christ's teaching was transmitted to men not\nlike every other truth, but in a special miraculous way. Thus the\ntruth of the teaching was not proved by its correspondence with\nthe needs of the mind and the whole nature of man, but by the\nmiraculous manner of its transmission, which was advanced as an\nirrefutable proof of the truth of the interpretation put on it.\nThis hypothesis originated from misunderstanding of the teaching,\nand its result was to make it impossible to understand it rightly.\n\nAnd this happened first in the earliest times, when the doctrine\nwas still not so fully understood and often interpreted wrongly,\nas we see by the Gospels and the Acts. The less the doctrine was\nunderstood, the more obscure it appeared and the more necessary\nwere external proofs of its truth. The proposition that we ought\nnot to do unto others as we would not they should do unto us, did\nnot need to be proved by miracles and needed no exercise of faith,\nbecause this proposition is in itself convincing and in harmony\nwith man's mind and nature; but the proposition that Christ was\nGod had to be proved by miracles completely beyond our\ncomprehension.\n\nThe more the understanding of Christ's teaching was obscured, the\nmore the miraculous was introduced into it; and the more the\nmiraculous was introduced into it, the more the doctrine was\nstrained from its meaning and the more obscure it became; and the\nmore it was strained from its meaning and the more obscure it\nbecame, the more strongly its infallibility had to be asserted,\nand the less comprehensible the doctrine became.\n\nOne can see by the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles how from\nthe earliest times the non-comprehension of the doctrine called\nforth the need for proofs through the miraculous and\nincomprehensible.\n\nThe first example in the book of Acts is the assembly which\ngathered together in Jerusalem to decide the question which had\narisen, whether to baptize or not the uncircumcised and those who\nhad eaten of food sacrificed to idols.\n\nThe very fact of this question being raised showed that\nthose who discussed it did not understand the teaching of Christ,\nwho rejected all outward observances--ablutions, purifications,\nfasts, and sabbaths. It was plainly said, \"Not that which goeth\ninto a man's mouth, but that which cometh out of a man's mouth,\ndefileth him,\" and therefore the question of baptizing the\nuncircumcised could only have arisen among men who, though they\nloved their Master and dimly felt the grandeur of his teaching,\nstill did not understand the teaching itself very clearly. And\nthis was the fact.\n\nJust in proportion to the failure of the members of the assembly\nto understand the doctrine was their need of external confirmation\nof their incomplete interpretation of it. And then to settle this\nquestion, the very asking of which proved their misunderstanding\nof the doctrine, there was uttered in this assembly, as is\ndescribed in the Acts, that strange phrase, which was for the\nfirst time found necessary to give external confirmation to\ncertain assertions, and which has been productive of so much evil.\n\nThat is, it was asserted that the correctness of what they had\ndecided was guaranteed by the miraculous participation of the Holy\nGhost, that is, of God, in their decision. But the assertion that\nthe Holy Ghost, that is, God, spoke through the Apostles, in its\nturn wanted proof. And thus it was necessary, to confirm this,\nthat the Holy Ghost should descend at Pentecost in tongues of fire\nupon those who made this assertion. (In the account of it, the\ndescent of the Holy Ghost precedes the assembly, but the book of\nActs was written much later than both events.) But the descent of\nthe Holy Ghost too had to be proved for those who had not seen the\ntongues of fire (though it is not easy to understand why a tongue\nof fire burning above a man's head should prove that what that man\nis going to say will be infallibly the truth). And so arose the\nnecessity for still more miracles and changes, raisings of the\ndead to life, and strikings of the living dead, and all those\nmarvels which have been a stumbling-block to men, of which the\nActs is full, and which, far from ever convincing one of the truth\nof the Christian doctrine, can only repel men from it. The result\nof such a means of confirming the truth was that the more these\nconfirmations of truth by tales of miracles were heaped up one\nafter another, the more the doctrine was distorted from its\noriginal meaning, aid the more incomprehensible it became.\n\nThus it was from the earliest times, and so it went on, constantly\nincreasing, till it reached in our day the logical climax of the dogmas\nof transubstantiation and the infallibility of the Pope, or of the\nbishops, or of Scripture, and of requiring a blind faith rendered\nincomprehensible and utterly meaningless, not in God, but in Christ, not\nin a doctrine, but in a person, as in Catholicism, or in persons, as in\nGreek Orthodoxy, or in a book, as in Protestantism. The more widely\nChristianity was diffused, and the greater the number of people\nunprepared for it who were brought under its sway, the less it was\nunderstood, the more absolutely was its infallibility insisted on, and\nthe less possible it became to understand the true meaning of the\ndoctrine. In the times of Constantine the whole interpretation of the\ndoctrine had been already reduced to a R\u00c9SUM\u00c9--supported by the temporal\nauthority--of the disputes that had taken place in the Council--to a\ncreed which reckoned off--I believe in so and so, and so and so, and so\nand so to the end--to one holy, Apostolic Church, which means the\ninfallibility of those persons who call themselves the Church. So that\nit all amounts to a man no longer believing in God nor Christ, as they\nare revealed to him, but believing in what the Church orders him to\nbelieve in.\n\nBut the Church is holy; the Church was founded by Christ. God\ncould not leave men to interpret his teaching at random--therefore\nhe founded the Church. All those statements are so utterly untrue\nand unfounded that one is ashamed to refute them. Nowhere nor in\nanything, except in the assertion of the Church, can we find that\nGod or Christ founded anything like what Churchmen understand by\nthe Church. In the Gospels there is a warning against the Church,\nas it is an external authority, a warning most clear and obvious\nin the passage where it is said that Christ's followers should\n\"call no man master.\" But nowhere is anything said of the\nfoundation of what Churchmen call the Church.\n\nThe word church is used twice in the Gospels--once in the sense of\nan assembly of men to decide a dispute, the other time in\nconnection with the obscure utterance about a stone--Peter, and\nthe gates of hell. From these two passages in which the word\nchurch is used, in the signification merely of an assembly, has\nbeen deduced all that we now understand by the Church.\n\nBut Christ could not have founded the Church, that is, what we now\nunderstand by that word. For nothing like the idea of the Church\nas we know it now, with its sacraments, miracles, and above all\nits claim to infallibility, is to be found either in Christ's\nwords or in the ideas of the men of that time.\n\nThe fact that men called what was formed afterward by the same\nword as Christ used for something totally different, does not give\nthem the right to assert that Christ founded the one, true Church.\n\nBesides, if Christ had really founded such an institution as the\nChurch for the foundation of all his teaching and the whole faith,\nhe would certainly have described this institution clearly and\ndefinitely, and would have given the only true Church, besides\ntales of miracles, which are used to support every kind of\nsuperstition, some tokens so unmistakable that no doubt of its\ngenuineness could ever have arisen. But nothing of the sort was\ndone by him. And there have been and still are different\ninstitutions, each calling itself the true Church.\n\nThe Catholic catechism says: \"L'\u00c9glise est la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des fid\u00e9les\n\u00e9tablie par notre Seigneur J\u00e9sus Christ, r\u00e9pandue sur toute la\nterre et soumise \u00e0 l'authorit\u00e9 des pasteurs l\u00e9gitimes,\nprincipalement notre Saint P\u00e8re le Pape,\" [see Footnote]\nunderstanding by the words \"pasteurs l\u00e9gitimes\" an association of\nmen having the Pope at its head, and consisting of certain\nindividuals bound together by a certain organization.\n\n [Footnote: \"The Church is the society of the faithful,\n established by our Lord Jesus Christ, spread over the\n whole earth, and subject to the authority of its lawful\n pastors, and chief of them our Holy Father the Pope.\"]\n\nThe Greek Orthodox catechism says: \"The Church is a society\nfounded upon earth by Jesus Christ, which is united into one\nwhole, by one divine doctrine and by sacraments, under the rule\nand guidance of a priesthood appointed by God,\" meaning by the\n\"priesthood appointed by God\" the Greek Orthodox priesthood,\nconsisting of certain individuals who happen to be in such or such\npositions.\n\nThe Lutheran catechism says: \"The Church is holy Christianity, or\nthe collection of all believers under Christ, their head, to whom\nthe Holy Ghost through the Gospels and sacraments promises,\ncommunicates, and administers heavenly salvation,\" meaning that\nthe Catholic Church is lost in error, and that the true means of\nsalvation is in Lutheranism.\n\nFor Catholics the Church of God coincides with the Roman\npriesthood and the Pope. For the Greek Orthodox believer the\nChurch of God coincides with the establishment and priesthood of\nRussia. [See Footnote]\n\n [Footnote: Homyakov's definition of the Church, which\n was received with some favor among Russians, does not\n improve matters, if we are to agree with Homyakov in\n considering the Greek Orthodox Church as the one true\n Church. Homyakov asserts that a church is a collection\n of men (all without distinction of clergy and laymen)\n united together by love, and that only to men united by\n love is the truth revealed (let us love each other, that\n in the unity of thought, etc.), and that such a church\n is the church which, in the first place, recognizes the\n Nicene Creed, and in the second place does not, after\n the division of the churches, recognize the popes and\n new dogmas. But with such a definition of the church,\n there is still more difficulty in reconciling, as\n Homyakov tries to do, the church united by love with\n the church that recognizes the Nicene Creed and the\n doctrine of Photius. So that Homyakov's assertion that\n this church, united by love, and consequently holy,\n is the same church as the Greek Orthodox priesthood\n profess faith in, is even more arbitrary than the\n assertions of the Catholics or the Orthodox. If we\n admit the idea of a church in the sense Homyakov\n gives to it--that is, a body of men bound together\n by love and truth--then all that any man can predicate\n in regard to this body, if such an one exists, is\n its love and truth, but there can be no outer signs\n by which one could reckon oneself or another as a\n member of this holy body, nor by which one could put\n anyone outside it; so that no institution having\n an external existence can correspond to this idea.]\n\nFor Lutherans the Church of God coincides with a body of men who\nrecognize the authority of the Bible and Luther's catechism.\n\nOrdinarily, when speaking of the rise of Christianity, men\nbelonging to one of the existing churches use the word church in\nthe singular, as though there were and had been only one church.\nBut this is absolutely incorrect. The Church, as an institution\nwhich asserted that it possessed infallible truth, did not make\nits appearance singly; there were at least two churches directly\nthis claim was made.\n\nWhile believers were agreed among themselves and the body was one,\nit had no need to declare itself as a church. It was only when\nbelievers were split up into opposing parties, renouncing one\nanother, that it seemed necessary to each party to confirm their\nown truth by ascribing to themselves infallibility. The\nconception of one church only arose when there were two sides\ndivided and disputing, who each called the other side heresy, and\nrecognized their own side only as the infallible church.\n\nIf we knew that there was a church which decided in the year 51 to\nreceive the uncircumcised, it is only so because there was another\nchurch--of the Judaists--who decided to keep the uncircumcised\nout.\n\nIf there is a Catholic Church now which asserts its own infallibility,\nthat is only because there are churches--Greco-Russian, Old Orthodox,\nand Lutheran--each asserting its own infallibility and denying that of\nall other churches. So that the one Church is only a fantastic\nimagination which has not the least trace of reality about it.\n\nAs a real historical fact there has existed, and still exist,\nseveral bodies of men, each asserting that it is the one Church,\nfounded by Christ, and that all the others who call themselves\nchurches are only sects and heresies.\n\nThe catechisms of the churches of the most world-wide influence--the\nCatholic, the Old Orthodox, and the Lutheran--openly assert this.\n\nIn the Catholic catechism it is said: \"Quels sont ceux qui sont\nhors de l'\u00e9glise? Les infid\u00e8les, les h\u00e9r\u00e9tiques, les\nschismatiques.\" [Footnote: \"Who are those who are outside the\nChurch? Infidels, heretics, and schismatics.\"] The so-called\nGreek Orthodox are regarded as schismatics, the Lutherans as\nheretics; so that according to the Catholic catechism the only\npeople in the Church are Catholics.\n\nIn the so-called Orthodox catechism it is said: By the one\nChristian Church is understood the Orthodox, which remains fully\nin accord with the Universal Church. As for the Roman Church and\nother sects (the Lutherans and the rest they do not even dignify\nby the name of church), they cannot be included in the one true\nChurch, since they have themselves separated from it.\n\nAccording to this definition the Catholics and Lutherans are\noutside the Church, and there are only Orthodox in the Church.\n\nThe Lutheran catechism says: \"Die wahre kirche wird darein\nerkannt, dass in ihr das Wort Gottes lauter und rein ohne\nMenschenzus\u00e4tze gelehrt and die Sacramente treu nach Christi\nEinsetzung gewahret werden.\" [Footnote: \"The true Church will be\nknown by the Word of God being studied clear and unmixed with\nman's additions and the sacraments being maintained faithful to\nChrist's teaching.\"]\n\nAccording to this definition all those who have added anything to\nthe teaching of Christ and the apostles, as the Catholic and Greek\nchurches have done, are outside the Church. And in the Church\nthere are only Protestants.\n\nThe Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost has been transmitted\nwithout a break in their priesthood. The Orthodox assert that the\nsame Holy Ghost has been transmitted without a break in their\npriesthood. The Arians asserted that the Holy Ghost was\ntransmitted in their priesthood (they asserted this with just as\nmuch right as the churches in authority now). The Protestants of\nevery kind--Lutherans, Reformed Church, Presbyterians, Methodists,\nSwedenborgians, Mormons--assert that the Holy Ghost is only\npresent in their communities. If the Catholics assert that the\nHoly Ghost, at the time of the division of the Church into Arian\nand Greek, left the Church that fell away and remained in the one\ntrue Church, with precisely the same right the Protestants of\nevery denomination can assert that at the time of the separation\nof their Church from the Catholic the Holy Ghost left the Catholic\nand passed into the Church they professed. And this is just what\nthey do.\n\nEvery church traces its creed through an uninterrupted\ntransmission from Christ and the Apostles. And truly every\nChristian creed that has been derived from Christ must have come\ndown to the present generation through a certain transmission.\nBut that does not prove that it alone of all that has been\ntransmuted, excluding all the rest, can be the sole truth,\nadmitting of no doubt.\n\nEvery branch in a tree comes from the root in unbroken connection;\nbut the fact that each branch comes from the one root, does not\nprove at all that each branch was the only one. It is precisely\nthe same with the Church. Every church presents exactly the same\nproofs of the succession, and even the same miracles, in support\nof its authenticity, as every other. So that there is but one\nstrict and exact definition of what is a church (not of something\nfantastic which we would wish it to be, but of what it is and has\nbeen in reality)--a church is a body of men who claim for\nthemselves that they are in complete and sole possession of the\ntruth. And these bodies, having in course of time, aided by the\nsupport of the temporal authorities, developed into powerful\ninstitutions, have been the principal obstacles to the diffusion\nof a true comprehension of the teaching of Christ.\n\nIt could not be otherwise. The chief peculiarity which\ndistinguished Christ's teaching from previous religions consisted\nin the fact that those who accepted it strove ever more and more\nto comprehend and realize its teaching. But the Church doctrine\nasserted its own complete and final comprehension and realization\nof it.\n\nStrange though it may seem to us who have been brought up in the\nerroneous view of the Church as a Christian institution, and in\ncontempt for heresy, yet the fact is that only in what was called\nheresy was there any true movement, that is, true Christianity,\nand that it only ceased to be so when those heresies stopped short\nin their movement and also petrified into the fixed forms of a\nchurch.\n\nAnd, indeed what is a heresy? Read all the theological works one\nafter another. In all of them heresy is the subject which first\npresents itself for definition; since every theological work deals\nwith the true doctrine of Christ as distinguished from the\nerroneous doctrines which surround it, that is, heresies. Yet you\nwill not find anywhere anything like a definition of heresy.\n\nThe treatment of this subject by the learned historian of\nChristianity, E. de Pressens\u00e9, in his \"Histoire du Dogme\" (Paris,\n1869), under the heading \"Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia,\" may serve\nas an illustration of the complete absence of anything like a\ndefinition of what is understood by the word heresy. Here is what\nhe says in his introduction (p. 3):\n\n \"Je sais que l'on nous conteste le droit de qualifier ainsi\n [that is, to call heresies] les tendances qui furent si\n vivement combattues par les premiers P\u00e8res. La d\u00e9signation\n m\u00eame d'h\u00e9r\u00e9sie semble une atteinte port\u00e9e \u00e0 la libert\u00e9 de\n conscience et de pens\u00e9e. Nous ne pouvons partager ce scrupule,\n car il n'irait \u00e0 rien moins qu'\u00e0 enlever au Christianisme tout\n caract\u00e8re distinctif.\" [see Footnote]\n\n [Footnote: \"I know that our right to qualify thus the\n tendencies which were so actively opposed by the early\n Fathers is contested. The very use of the word heresy\n seems an attack upon liberty of conscience and thought.\n We cannot share this scruple; for it would amount to\n nothing less than depriving Christianity of all\n distinctive character.\"]\n\nAnd though he tells us that after Constantine's time the Church\ndid actually abuse its power by designating those who dissented\nfrom it as heretics and persecuting them, yet he says, when\nspeaking of early times:\n\n \"L'\u00e9glise est une libre association; il y a tout profit a se\n s\u00e9parer d'elle. La pol\u00e9mique contre l'erreur n'a d'autres\n ressources que la pens\u00e9e et le sentiment. Un type doctrinal\n uniforme n'a pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9labor\u00e9; les divergences\n secondaires se produisent en Orient et en Occident avec une\n enti\u00e8re libert\u00e9; la th\u00e9ologie n'est point li\u00e9e a d'invariables\n formules. Si au sein de cette diversit\u00e9 apparait un fonds\n commun de croyances, n'est-on pas en droit d'y voir non pas un\n syst\u00e8me formul\u00e9 et compos\u00e9 par les repr\u00e9sentants d'une\n autorit\u00e9 d'\u00e9cole, mais la foi elle-m\u00eame dons son instinct le\n plus s\u00fbr et sa manifestation la plus spontan\u00e9e? Si cette m\u00eame\n unanimit\u00e9 qui se r\u00e9v\u00e8le dans les croyances essentielles, se\n retrouve pour repousser telles ou telles tendances ne serons\n nous pas en droit de conclure que ces tendances \u00e9taient en\n d\u00e9sacord flagrant avec les principes fondamentaux du\n christianisme? Cette pr\u00e9somption ne se transformerait-elle\n pas en certitude si nous reconnaissons dans la doctrine\n universellement repouss\u00e9e par l'\u00c9glise les traits\n caract\u00e9ristiques de l'une des religions du pass\u00e9? Pour dire\n que le gnosticisme ou l'\u00e9bionitisme sont les formes l\u00e9gitimes\n de la pens\u00e9e chr\u00e9tienne il faut dire hardiment qu'il n'y a pas\n de pens\u00e9e chr\u00e9tienne, ni de caract\u00e8re sp\u00e9cifique qui la fasse\n reconna\u00eetre. Sous pr\u00e9texte de l'\u00e9largir, on la dissout.\n Personne au temps de Platon n'e\u00fbt os\u00e9 couvrir de son nom une\n doctrine qui n'eut pas fait place \u00e0 la th\u00e9orie des id\u00e9es; et\n l'on e\u00fbt excit\u00e9 les justes moqueries de la Gr\u00e8ce, en voulant\n faire d'Epicure ou de Z\u00e9non un disciple de l'Acad\u00e9mie.\n Reconnaissons donc que s'il existe une religion ou une\n doctrine qui s'appelle christianisme, elle peut avoir ses\n h\u00e9r\u00e9sies.\" [see Footnote]\n\n [Footnote: \"The Church is a free association; there is much to\n be gained by separation from it. Conflict with error has no\n weapons other than thought and feeling. One uniform type of\n doctrine has not yet been elaborated; divergencies in\n secondary matters arise freely in East and West; theology is\n not wedded to invariable formulas. If in the midst of this\n diversity a mass of beliefs common to all is apparent, is one\n not justified in seeing in it, not a formulated system, framed\n by the representatives of pedantic authority, but faith itself\n in its surest instinct and its most spontaneous manifestation?\n If the same unanimity which is revealed in essential points of\n belief is found also in rejecting certain tendencies, are we\n not justified in concluding that these tendencies were in\n flagrant opposition to the fundamental principles of\n Christianity? And will not this presumption be transformed\n into certainty if we recognize in the doctrine universally\n rejected by the Church the characteristic features of one of\n the religions of the past? To say that gnosticism or\n ebionitism are legitimate forms of Christian thought, one must\n boldly deny the existence of Christian thought at all, or any\n specific character by which it could be recognized. While\n ostensibly widening its realm, one undermines it. No one in\n the time of Plato would have ventured to give his name to a\n doctrine in which the theory of ideas had no place, and one\n would deservedly have excited the ridicule of Greece by trying\n to pass off Epicurus or Zeno as a disciple of the Academy.\n Let us recognize, then, that if a religion or a doctrine\n exists which is called Christianity, it may have its\n heresies.\"]\n\nThe author's whole argument amounts to this: that every opinion\nwhich differs from the code of dogmas we believe in at a given\ntime, is heresy. But of course at any given time and place men\nalways believe in something or other; and this belief in\nsomething, indefinite at any place, at some time, cannot be a\ncriterion of truth.\n\nIt all amounts to this: since ubi Christus ibi Ecclesia, then\nChristus is where we are.\n\nEvery so-called heresy, regarding, as it does, its own creed as\nthe truth, can just as easily find in Church history a series of\nillustrations of its own creed, can use all Pressens\u00e9's arguments\non its own behalf, and can call its own creed the one truly\nChristian creed. And that is just what all heresies do and have\nalways done.\n\nThe only definition of heresy (the word [GREEK WORD], means a\npart) is this: the name given by a body of men to any opinion\nwhich rejects a part of the Creed professed by that body. The\nmore frequent meaning, more often ascribed to the word heresy, is\n--that of an opinion which rejects the Church doctrine founded and\nsupported by the temporal authorities.\n\n [TRANSCRIBIST'S NOTE: The GREEK WORD above used Greek letters,\n spelled: alpha(followed by an apostrophe)-iota(with accent)-\n rho-epsilon-sigma-iota-zeta]\n\nThere is a remarkable and voluminous work, very little known,\n\"Unpartheyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie,\" 1729, by Gottfried\nArnold, which deals with precisely this subject, and points out\nall the unlawfulness, the arbitrariness, the senselessness, and\nthe cruelty of using the word heretic in the sense of reprobate.\nThis book is an attempt to write the history of Christianity in\nthe form of a history of heresy.\n\nIn the introduction the author propounds a series of questions:\n(1) Of those who make heretics; (2) Of those whom they made\nheretics; (3) Of heretical subjects themselves; (4) Of the method\nof making heretics; and (5) Of the object and result of making\nheretics.\n\nOn each of these points he propounds ten more questions, the\nanswers to which he gives later on from the works of well-known\ntheologians. But he leaves the reader to draw for himself the\nprincipal conclusion from the expositions in the whole book. As\nexamples of these questions, in which the answers are to some\nextent included also, I will quote the following. Under the 4th\nhead, of the manner in which heretics are made, he says, in one of\nthe questions (in the 7th):\n\n \"Does not all history show that the greatest makers of\n heretics and masters of that craft were just these wise men,\n from whom the Father hid his secrets, that is, the hypocrites,\n the Pharisees, and lawyers, men utterly godless and perverted\n (Question 20-21)? And in the corrupt times of Christianity\n were not these very men cast out, denounced by the hypocrites\n and envious, who were endowed by God with great gifts and who\n would in the days of pure Christianity have been held in high\n honor? And, on the other hand, would not the men who, in the\n decline of Christianity raised themselves above all, and\n regarded themselves as the teachers of the purest Christianity,\n would not these very men, in the times of the apostles and\n disciples of Christ, have been regarded as the most shameless\n heretics and anti-Christians?\"\n\nHe expounds, among other things in these questions, the theory\nthat any verbal expression of faith, such as was demanded by the\nChurch, and the departure from which was reckoned as heresy, could\nnever fully cover the exact religious ideas of a believer, and\nthat therefore the demand for an expression of faith in certain\nwords was ever productive of heresy, and he says, in Question 21:\n\n \"And if heavenly things and thoughts present themselves to a\n man's mind as so great and so profound that he does not find\n corresponding words to express them, ought one to call him a\n heretic, because he cannot express his idea with perfect\n exactness?\"\n\nAnd in Question 33:\n\n \"And is not the fact that there was no heresy in the earliest\n days due to the fact that the Christians did not judge one\n another by verbal expressions, but by deed and by heart, since\n they had perfect liberty to express their ideas without the\n dread of being called heretics; was it not the easiest and most\n ordinary ecclesiastical proceeding, if the clergy wanted to get\n rid of or to ruin anyone, for them to cast suspicion on the\n person's belief, and to throw a cloak of heresy upon him, and\n by this means to procure his condemnation and removal?\n\n \"True though it may be that there were sins and errors among\n the so-called heretics, it is no less true and evident,\" he\n says farther on, \"from the innumerable examples quoted here\n (i. e., in the history of the Church and of heresy), that there\n was not a single sincere and conscientious man of any\n importance whom the Churchmen would not from envy or other\n causes have ruined.\"\n\nThus, almost two hundred years ago, the real meaning of heresy was\nunderstood. And notwithstanding that, the same conception of it\nhas gone on existing up to now. And it cannot fail to exist so\nlong as the conception of a church exists. Heresy is the obverse\nside of the Church. Wherever there is a church, there must be the\nconception of heresy. A church is a body of men who assert that\nthey are in possession of infallible truth. Heresy is the opinion\nof the men who do not admit the infallibility of the Church's\ntruth.\n\nHeresy makes its appearance in the Church. It is the effort to\nbreak through the petrified authority of the Church. All effort\nafter a living comprehension of the doctrine has been made by\nheretics. Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Luther, Huss,\nSavonarola, Helchitsky, and the rest were heretics. It could not\nbe otherwise.\n\nThe follower of Christ, whose service means an ever-growing\nunderstanding of his teaching, and an ever-closer fulfillment of\nit, in progress toward perfection, cannot, just because he is a\nfollower, of Christ, claim for himself or any other that he\nunderstands Christ's teaching fully and fulfills it. Still less\ncan he claim this for any body of men.\n\nTo whatever degree of understanding and perfection the follower of\nChrist may have attained, he always feels the insufficiency of his\nunderstanding and fulfillment of it, and is always striving toward\na fuller understanding and fulfillment. And therefore, to assert\nof one's self or of any body of men, that one is or they are in\npossession of perfect understanding and fulfillment of Christ's\nword, is to renounce the very spirit of Christ's teaching.\n\nStrange as it may seem, the churches as churches have always been,\nand cannot but be, institutions not only alien in spirit to\nChrist's teaching, but even directly antagonistic to it. With\ngood reason Voltaire calls the Church l'inf\u00e2me; with good reason\nhave all or almost all so-called sects of Christians recognized\nthe Church as the scarlet woman foretold in the Apocalypse; with\ngood reason is the history of the Church the history of the\ngreatest cruelties and horrors.\n\nThe churches as churches are not, as many people suppose,\ninstitutions which have Christian principles for their basis, even\nthough they may have strayed a little away from the straight path.\nThe churches as churches, as bodies which assert their own\ninfallibility, are institutions opposed to Christianity. There is\nnot only nothing in common between the churches as such and\nChristianity, except the name, but they represent two principles\nfundamentally opposed and antagonistic to one another. One\nrepresents pride, violence, self-assertion, stagnation, and death;\nthe other, meekness, penitence, humility, progress, and life.\n\nWe cannot serve these two masters; we have to choose between\nthem.\n\nThe servants of the churches of all denominations, especially of\nlater times, try to show themselves champions of progress in\nChristianity. They make concessions, wish to correct the abuses\nthat have slipped into the Church, and maintain that one cannot,\non account of these abuses, deny the principle itself of a\nChristian church, which alone can bind all men together in unity\nand be a mediator between men and God. But this is all a mistake.\nNot only have churches never bound men together in unity; they\nhave always been one of the principal causes of division between\nmen, of their hatred of one another, of wars, battles,\ninquisitions, massacres of St. Bartholomew, and so on. And the\nchurches have never served as mediators between men and God. Such\nmediation is not wanted, and was directly forbidden by Christ, who\nhas revealed his teaching directly and immediately to each man.\nBut the churches set up dead forms in the place of God, and far\nfrom revealing God, they obscure him from men's sight. The\nchurches, which originated from misunderstanding of Christ's\nteaching and have maintained this misunderstanding by their\nimmovability, cannot but persecute and refuse to recognize all\ntrue understanding of Christ's words. They try to conceal this,\nbut in vain; for every step forward along the path pointed out for\nus by Christ is a step toward their destruction.\n\nTo hear and to read the sermons and articles in which Church writers of\nlater times of all denominations speak of Christian truths and virtues;\nto hear or read these skillful arguments that have been elaborated\nduring centuries, and exhortations and professions, which sometimes seem\nlike sincere professions, one is ready to doubt whether the churches can\nbe antagonistic to Christianity. \"It cannot be,\" one says, \"that these\npeople who can point to such men as Chrysostom, F\u00e9nelon, Butler, and\nothers professing the Christian faith, were antagonistic to\nChristianity.\" One is tempted to say, \"The churches may have strayed\naway from Christianity, they may be in error, but they cannot be hostile\nto it.\" But we must look to the fruit to judge the tree, as Christ\ntaught us. And if we see that their fruits were evil, that the results\nof their activity were antagonistic to Christianity, we cannot but admit\nthat however good the men were--the work of the Church in which these\nmen took part was not Christian. The goodness and worth of these men who\nserved the churches was the goodness and worth of the men, and not of\nthe institution they served. All the good men, such as Francis of\nAssisi, and Francis of Sales, our Tihon Zadonsky, Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, and\nothers, were good men in spite of their serving an institution hostile\nto Christianity, and they would have been still better if they had not\nbeen under the influence of the error which they were serving.\n\nBut why should we speak of the past and judge from the past, which\nmay have been misrepresented and misunderstood by us? The\nchurches, with their principles and their practice, are not a\nthing of the past. The churches are before us to-day, and we can\njudge of them to some purpose by their practical activity, their\ninfluence on men.\n\nWhat is the practical work of the churches to-day? What is their\ninfluence upon men? What is done by the churches among us, among\nthe Catholics and the Protestants of all denominations--what is\ntheir practical work? and what are the results of their practical\nwork?\n\nThe practice of our Russian so-called Orthodox Church is plain to\nall. It is an enormous fact which there is no possibility of\nhiding and about which there can be no disputing.\n\nWhat constitutes the practical work of this Russian Church, this\nimmense, intensely active institution, which consists of a\nregiment of half a million men and costs the people tens of\nmillions of rubles?\n\nThe practical business of the Church consists in instilling by\nevery conceivable means into the mass of one hundred millions of\nthe Russian people those extinct relics of beliefs for which there\nis nowadays no kind of justification, \"in which scarcely anyone\nnow believes, and often not even those whose duty it is to diffuse\nthese false beliefs.\" To instill into the people the formulas of\nByzantine theology, of the Trinity, of the Mother of God, of\nSacraments, of Grace, and so on, extinct conceptions, foreign to\nus, and having no kind of meaning for men of our times,\nforms only one part of the work of the Russian Church. Another\npart of its practice consists in the maintenance of idol-worship\nin the most literal meaning of the word; in the veneration of holy\nrelics, and of ikons, the offering of sacrifices to them, and the\nexpectation of their answers to prayer. I am not going to speak\nof what is preached and what is written by clergy of scientific or\nliberal tendencies in the theological journals. I am going to\nspeak of what is actually done by the clergy through the wide\nexpanse of the Russian land among a people of one hundred\nmillions. What do they, diligently, assiduously, everywhere\nalike, without intermission, teach the people? What do they\ndemand from the people in virtue of their (so-called) Christian\nfaith?\n\nI will begin from the beginning with the birth of a child. At the\nbirth of a child they teach them that they must recite a prayer\nover the child and mother to purify them, as though without this\nprayer the mother of a newborn child were unclean. To do this the\npriest holds the child in his arms before the images of the saints\n(called by the people plainly gods) and reads words of exorcizing\npower, and this purifies the mother. Then it is suggested to the\nparents, and even exacted of them, under fear of punishment for\nnon-fulfillment, that the child must be baptized; that is, be\ndipped by the priest three times into the water, while certain\nwords, understood by no one, are read aloud, and certain actions,\nstill less understood, are performed; various parts of the body\nare rubbed with oil, and the hair is cut, while the sponsors blow\nand spit at an imaginary devil. All this is necessary to purify\nthe child and to make him a Christian. Then it is instilled into\nthe parents that they ought to administer the sacrament to the\nchild, that is, give him, in the guise of bread and wine, a\nportion of Christ's body to eat, as a result of which the child\nreceives the grace of God within it, and so on. Then it is\nsuggested that the child as it grows up must be taught to pray.\nTo pray means to place himself directly before the wooden boards\non which are painted the faces of Christ, the Mother of God, and\nthe saints, to bow his head and his whole body, and to touch his\nforehead, his shoulders and his stomach with his right hand,\nholding his fingers in a certain position, and to utter some words\nof Slavonic, the most usual of which as taught to all children\nare: Mother of God, virgin, rejoice thee, etc., etc.\n\nThen it is instilled into the child as it is brought up that at\nthe sight of any church or ikon he must repeat the same action--i. e.,\ncross himself. Then it is instilled into him that on holidays\n(holidays are the days on which Christ was born, though no one\nknows when that was, on which he was circumcised, on which the\nMother of God died, on which the cross was carried in procession,\non which ikons have been set up, on which a lunatic saw a vision,\nand so on)--on holidays he must dress himself in his best clothes\nand go to church, and must buy candles and place them there before\nthe images of the saints. Then he must give offerings and prayers\nfor the dead, and little loaves to be cut up into three-cornered\npieces, and must pray many times for the health and prosperity of\nthe Tzar and the bishops, and for himself and his own affairs, and\nthen kiss the cross and the hand of the priest.\nBesides these observances, it is instilled into him that at\nleast once a year he must confess. To confess means to go to the\nchurch and to tell the priest his sins, on the theory that this\ninforming a stranger of his sins completely purifies him from\nthem. And after that he must eat with a little spoon a morsel of\nbread with wine, which will purify him still more. Next it is\ninstilled into him that if a man and woman want their physical\nunion to be sanctified they must go to church, put on metal\ncrowns, drink certain potions, walk three times round a table to\nthe sound of singing, and that then the physical union of a man\nand woman becomes sacred and altogether different from all other\nsuch unions.\n\nFurther it is instilled into him in his life that he must observe\nthe following rules: not to eat butter or milk on certain days,\nand on certain other days to sing Te Deums and requiems for the\ndead, on holidays to entertain the priest and give him money, and\nseveral times in the year to bring the ikons from the church, and\nto carry them slung on his shoulders through the fields and\nhouses. It is instilled into him that on his death-bed a man must\nnot fail to eat bread and wine with a spoon, and that it will be\nstill better if he has time to be rubbed with sacred oil. This\nwill guarantee his welfare in the future life. After his death it\nis instilled into his relatives that it is a good thing for the\nsalvation of the dead man to place a printed paper of prayers in\nhis hands; it is a good thing further to read aloud a certain book\nover the dead body, and to pronounce the dead man's name in church\nat a certain time. All this is regarded as faith obligatory on\neveryone.\n\nBut if anyone wants to take particular care of his soul, then\naccording to this faith he is instructed that the greatest\nsecurity of the salvation of the soul in the world is attained by\noffering money to the churches and monasteries, and engaging the\nholy men by this means to pray for him. Entering monasteries too\nand kissing relics and miraculous ikons, are further means of\nsalvation for the soul.\n\nAccording to this faith ikons and relics communicate a special\nsanctity, power, and grace, and even proximity to these objects,\ntouching them, kissing them, putting candles before them, crawling\nunder them while they are being carried along, are all efficacious\nfor salvation, as well as Te Deums repeated before these holy\nthings.\n\nSo this, and nothing else, is the faith called Orthodox, that is\nthe actual faith which, under the guise of Christianity, has been\nwith all the forces of the Church, and is now with especial zeal,\ninstilled into the people.\n\nAnd let no one say that the Orthodox teachers place the essential\npart of their teaching in something else, and that all these are\nonly ancient forms, which it is not thought necessary to do away\nwith. That is false. This, and nothing but this, is the faith\ntaught through the whole of Russia by the whole of the Russian\nclergy, and of late years with especial zeal. There is nothing\nelse taught. Something different may be talked of and written of\nin the capitals; but among the hundred millions of the people this\nis what is done, this is what is taught, and nothing more.\nChurchmen may talk of something else, but this is what they teach\nby every means in their power.\n\nAll this, and the worship of relics and of ikons, has been\nintroduced into works of theology and into the catechisms. Thus\nthey teach it to the people in theory and in practice, using every\nresource of authority, solemnity, pomp, and violence to impress\nthem. They compel the people, by overawing them, to believe in\nthis, and jealously guard this faith from any attempt to free the\npeople from these barbarous superstitions.\n\nAs I said when I published my book, Christ's teaching and his very\nwords about non-resistance to evil were for many years a subject\nfor ridicule and low jesting in my eyes, and Churchmen, far from\nopposing it, even encouraged this scoffing at sacred things. But\ntry the experiment of saying a disrespectful word about a hideous\nidol which is carried sacrilegiously about Moscow by drunken men\nunder the name of the ikon of the Iversky virgin, and you will\nraise a groan of indignation from these same Churchmen. All that\nthey preach is an external observance of the rites of idolatry.\nAnd let it not be said that the one does not hinder the other,\nthat \"These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other\nundone.\" \"All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that\nobserve and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and\ndo not\" (Matt. xxiii. 23, 3).\n\nThis was spoken of the Pharisees, who fulfilled all the external\nobservances prescribed by the law, and therefore the words\n\"whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do,\" refer to\nworks of mercy and goodness, and the words \"do not ye after their\nworks, for they say and do not,\" refer to their observance of\nceremonies and their neglect of good works, and have exactly the\nopposite meaning to that which the Churchmen try to give to the\npassage, interpreting it as an injunction to observe ceremonies.\nExternal observances and the service of truth and goodness are for\nthe most part difficult to combine; the one excludes the other.\nSo it was with the Pharisees, so it is now with Church Christians.\n\nIf a man can be saved by the redemption, by sacraments, and by\nprayer, then he does not need good works.\n\nThe Sermon on the Mount, or the Creed. One cannot believe in both. And\nChurchmen have chosen the latter. The Creed is taught and is read as a\nprayer in the churches, but the Sermon on the Mount is excluded even\nfrom the Gospel passages read in the churches, so that the congregation\nnever hears it in church, except on those days when the whole of the\nGospel is read. Indeed, it could not be otherwise. People who believe in\na wicked and senseless God--who has cursed the human race and devoted\nhis own Son to sacrifice, and a part of mankind to eternal\ntorment--cannot believe in the God of love. The man who believes in a\nGod, in a Christ coming again in glory to judge and to punish the quick\nand the dead, cannot believe in the Christ who bade us turn the left\ncheek, judge not, forgive these that wrong us, and love our enemies. The\nman who believes in the inspiration of the Old Testament and the sacred\ncharacter of David, who commanded on his deathbed the murder of an old\nman who had cursed him, and whom he could not kill himself because he\nwas bound by an oath to him, and the similar atrocities of which the Old\nTestament is full, cannot believe in the holy love of Christ. The man\nwho believes in the Church's doctrine of the compatibility of warfare\nand capital punishment with Christianity cannot believe in the\nbrotherhood of all men.\n\nAnd what is most important of all--the man who believes in\nsalvation through faith in the redemption or the sacraments,\ncannot devote all his powers to realizing Christ's moral teaching\nin his life.\n\nThe man who has been instructed by the Church in the profane\ndoctrine that a man cannot be saved by his own powers, but that\nthere is another means of salvation, will infallibly rely upon\nthis means and not on his own powers, which, they assure him, it\nis sinful to trust in.\n\nThe teaching of every Church, with its redemption and sacraments,\nexcludes the teaching of Christ; most of all the teaching of the\nOrthodox Church with its idolatrous observances.\n\n\"But the people have always believed of their own accord as they\nbelieve now,\" will be said in answer to this. \"The whole history\nof the Russian people proves it. One cannot deprive the people of\ntheir traditions.\" This statement, too, is misleading. The\npeople did certainly at one time believe in something like what\nthe Church believes in now, though it was far from being the same\nthing. In spite of their superstitious regard for ikons,\nhousespirits, relics, and festivals with wreaths of birch leaves,\nthere has still always been in the people a profound moral and\nliving understanding of Christianity, which there has never been\nin the Church as a whole, and which is only met with in its best\nrepresentatives. But the people, notwithstanding all the\nprejudices instilled into them by the government and the Church,\nhave in their best representatives long outgrown that crude stage\nof understanding, a fact which is proved by the springing up\neverywhere of the rationalist sects with which Russia is swarming\nto-day, and on which Churchmen are now carrying on an ineffectual\nwarfare. The people are advancing to a consciousness of the\nmoral, living side of Christianity. And then the Church\ncomes forward, not borrowing from the people, but zealously\ninstilling into them the petrified formalities of an extinct\npaganism, and striving to thrust them back again into the\ndarkness from which they are emerging with such effort.\n\n\"We teach the people nothing new, nothing but what they believe,\nonly in a more perfect form,\" say the Churchmen. This is just\nwhat the man did who tied up the full-grown chicken and thrust it\nback into the shell it had come out of.\n\nI have often been irritated, though it would be comic if the\nconsequences were not so awful, by observing how men shut one\nanother in a delusion and cannot get out of this magic circle.\n\nThe first question, the first doubt of a Russian who is beginning\nto think, is a question about the ikons, and still more the\nmiraculous relics: Is it true that they are genuine, and that\nmiracles are worked through them? Hundreds of thousands of men\nput this question to themselves, and their principal difficulty in\nanswering it is the fact that bishops, metropolitans, and all men\nin positions of authority kiss the relics and wonder-working\nikons. Ask the bishops and men in positions of authority why they\ndo so, and they will say they do it for the sake of the people,\nwhile the people kiss them because the bishops and men in\nauthority do so.\n\nIn spite of all the external varnish of modernity, learning, and\nspirituality which the members of the Church begin nowadays to\nassume in their works, their articles, their theological journals,\nand their sermons, the practical work of the Russian Church\nconsists of nothing more than keeping the people in their present\ncondition of coarse and savage idolatry, and worse still,\nstrengthening and diffusing superstition and religious ignorance,\nand suppressing that living understanding of Christianity which\nexists in the people side by side with idolatry.\n\nI remember once being present in the monks' bookshop of the Optchy\nHermitage while an old peasant was choosing books for his\ngrandson, who could read. A monk pressed on him accounts of\nrelics, holidays, miraculous ikons, a psalter, etc. I asked the\nold man, \"Has he the Gospel?\" \"No.\" \"Give him the Gospel in\nRussian,\" I said to the monk. \"That will not do for him,\"\nanswered the monk. There you have an epitome of the work of our\nChurch.\n\nBut this is only in barbarous Russia, the European and American\nreader will observe. And such an observation is just, but only so\nfar as it refers to the government, which aids the Church in its\ntask of stultification and corruption in Russia.\n\nIt is true that there is nowhere in Europe a government so\ndespotic and so closely allied with the ruling Church. And\ntherefore the share of the temporal power in the corruption of the\npeople is greatest in Russia. But it is untrue that the Russian\nChurch in its influence on the people is in any respect different\nfrom any other church.\n\nThe churches are everywhere the same, and if the Catholic, the\nAnglican, or the Lutheran Church has not at hand a government as\ncompliant as the Russian, it is not due to any indisposition to\nprofit by such a government.\n\nThe Church as a church, whatever it may be--Catholic, Anglican,\nLutheran, Presbyterian--every church, in so far as it is a church,\ncannot but strive for the same object as the Russian Church.\nThat object is to conceal the real meaning of Christ's teaching\nand to replace it by their own, which lays no obligation on them,\nexcludes the possibility of understanding the true teaching of\nChrist, and what is the chief consideration, justifies the\nexistence of priests supported at the people's expense.\n\nWhat else has Catholicism done, what else is it doing in its\nprohibition of reading the Gospel, and in its demand for\nunreasoning submission to Church authorities and to an infallible\nPope? Is the religion of Catholicism any other than that of the\nRussian Church? There is the same external ritual, the same\nrelics, miracles, and wonder-working images of Notre Dame, and the\nsame processions; the same loftily vague discussions of\nChristianity in books and sermons, and when it comes to practice,\nthe same supporting of the present idolatry. And is not the same\nthing done in Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and every denomination of\nProtestantism which has been formed into a church? There is the\nsame duty laid on their congregations to believe in the dogmas\nexpressed in the fourth century, which have lost all meaning for\nmen of our times, and the same duty of idolatrous worship, if not\nof relics and ikons, then of the Sabbath Day and the letter of the\nBible. There is always the same activity directed to concealing\nthe real duties of Christianity, and to putting in their place an\nexternal respectability and cant, as it is so well described by\nthe English, who are peculiarly oppressed by it. In Protestantism\nthis tendency is specially remarkable because it has not the\nexcuse of antiquity. And does not exactly the same thing show\nitself even in contemporary revivalism--the revived Calvinism and\nEvangelicalism, to which the Salvation Army owes its origin?\n\nUniform is the attitude of all the churches to the teaching of\nChrist, whose name they assume for their own advantage.\n\nThe inconsistency of all church forms of religion with the\nteaching of Christ is, of course, the reason why special efforts\nare necessary to conceal this inconsistency from people. Truly,\nwe need only imagine ourselves in the position of any grown-up\nman, not necessarily educated, even the simplest man of the\npresent day, who has picked up the ideas that are everywhere in\nthe air nowadays of geology, physics, chemistry, cosmography, or\nhistory, when he, for the first time, consciously compares them\nwith the articles of belief instilled into him in childhood, and\nmaintained by the churches--that God created the world in six\ndays, and light before the sun; that Noah shut up all the animals\nin his ark, and so on; that Jesus is also God the Son, who created\nall before time was; that this God came down upon earth to atone\nfor Adam's sin; that he rose again, ascended into heaven, and\nsitteth on the right hand of the Father, and will come in the\nclouds to judge the world, and so on. All these propositions,\nelaborated by men of the fourth century, had a certain meaning for\nmen of that time, but for men of to-day they have no meaning\nwhatever. Men of the present day can repeat these words with\ntheir lips, but believe them they cannot. For such sentences as\nthat God lives in heaven, that the heavens opened and a voice from\nsomewhere said something, that Christ rose again, and ascended\nsomewhere in heaven, and again will come from somewhere on the\nclouds, and so on, have no meaning for us.\n\nA man who regarded the heavens as a solid, finite vault could\nbelieve or disbelieve that God created the heavens, that the\nheavens opened, that Christ ascended into heaven, but for us all\nthese phrases have no sense whatever. Men of the present can only\nbelieve, as indeed they do, that they ought to believe in this;\nbut believe it they cannot, because it has no meaning for them.\n\nEven if all these phrases ought to be interpreted in a figurative\nsense and are allegories, we know that in the first place all\nChurchmen are not agreed about it, but, on the contrary, the\nmajority stick to understanding the Holy Scripture in its literal\nsense; and secondly, that these allegorical interpretations are\nvery varied and are not supported by any evidence.\n\nBut even if a man wants to force himself to believe in the\ndoctrines of the Church just as they are taught to him, the\nuniversal diffusion of education and of the Gospel and of\ncommunication between people of different forms of religion\npresents a still more insurmountable obstacle to his doing so.\n\nA man of the present day need only buy a Gospel for three copecks and\nread through the plain words, admitting of no misinterpretation, that\nChrist said to the Samaritan woman \"that the Father seeketh not\nworshipers at Jerusalem, nor in this mountain nor in that, but\nworshipers in spirit and in truth,\" or the saying that \"the Christian\nmust not pray like the heathen, nor for show, but secretly, that is, in\nhis closet,\" or that Christ's follower must call no man master or\nfather--he need only read these words to be thoroughly convinced that\nthe Church pastors, who call themselves teachers in opposition to\nChrist's precept, and dispute among themselves, constitute no kind of\nauthority, and that what the Churchmen teach us is not Christianity.\nLess even than that is necessary. Even if a man nowadays did continue to\nbelieve in miracles and did not read the Gospel, mere association with\npeople of different forms of religion and faith, which happens so easily\nin these days, compels him to doubt of the truth of his own faith. It\nwas all very well when a man did not see men of any other form of\nreligion than his own; he believed that his form of religion was the one\ntrue one. But a thinking man has only to come into contact--as\nconstantly happens in these days--with people, equally good and bad, of\ndifferent denominations, who condemn each other's beliefs, to doubt of\nthe truth of the belief he professes himself. In these days only a man\nwho is absolutely ignorant or absolutely indifferent to the vital\nquestions with which religion deals, can remain in the faith of the\nChurch.\n\nWhat deceptions and what strenuous efforts the churches must\nemploy to continue, in spite of all these tendencies subversive of\nthe faith, to build churches, to perform masses, to preach, to\nteach, to convert, and, most of all, to receive for it all immense\nemoluments, as do all these priests, pastors, incumbents,\nsuperintendents, abbots, archdeacons, bishops, and archbishops.\nThey need special supernatural efforts. And the churches do, with\never-increasing intensity and zeal, make such efforts. With us in\nRussia, besides other means, they employ, simple brute force, as\nthere the temporal power is willing to obey the Church. Men who\nrefuse an external assent to the faith, and say so openly, are\neither directly punished or deprived of their rights; men who\nstrictly keep the external forms of religion are rewarded and\ngiven privileges.\n\nThat is how the Orthodox clergy proceed; but indeed all churches\nwithout exception avail themselves of every means for the purpose\n--one of the most important of which is what is now called\nhypnotism.\n\nEvery art, from architecture to poetry, is brought into\nrequisition to work its effect on men's souls and to reduce them\nto a state of stupefaction, and this effect is constantly\nproduced. This use of hypnotizing influence on men to bring them\nto a state of stupefaction is especially apparent in the\nproceedings of the Salvation Army, who employ new practices to\nwhich we are unaccustomed: trumpets, drums, songs, flags,\ncostumes, marching, dancing, tears, and dramatic performances.\n\nBut this only displeases us because these are new practices. Were\nnot the old practices in churches essentially the same, with their\nspecial lighting, gold, splendor, candles, choirs, organ, bells,\nvestments, intoning, etc.?\n\nBut however powerful this hypnotic influence may be, it is not the\nchief nor the most pernicious activity of the\nChurch. The chief and most pernicious work of the Church is that\nwhich is directed to the deception of children--these very\nchildren of whom Christ said: \"Woe to him that offendeth one of\nthese little ones.\" From the very first awakening of the\nconsciousness of the child they begin to deceive him, to instill\ninto him with the utmost solemnity what they do not themselves\nbelieve in, and they continue to instill it into him till the\ndeception has by habit grown into the child's nature. They\nstudiously deceive the child on the most important subject in\nlife, and when the deception has so grown into his life that it\nwould be difficult to uproot it, then they reveal to him the whole\nworld of science and reality, which cannot by any means be\nreconciled with the beliefs that have been instilled into him,\nleaving it to him to find his way as best he can out of these\ncontradictions.\n\nIf one set oneself the task of trying to confuse a man so that he\ncould not think clearly nor free himself from the perplexity of\ntwo opposing theories of life which had been instilled into him\nfrom childhood, one could not invent any means more effectual than\nthe treatment of every young man educated in our so-called\nChristian society.\n\nIt is terrible to think what the churches do to men. But\nif one imagines oneself in the position of the men who constitute\nthe Church, we see they could not act differently. The churches\nare placed in a dilemma: the Sermon on the Mount or the Nicene\nCreed--the one excludes the other. If a man sincerely believes in\nthe Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed must inevitably lose all\nmeaning and significance for him, and the Church and its\nrepresentatives together with it. If a man believes in the Nicene\nCreed, that is, in the Church, that is, in those who call\nthemselves its representatives, the Sermon on the Mount becomes\nsuperfluous for him. And therefore the churches cannot but make\nevery possible effort to obscure the meaning of the Sermon on the\nMount, and to attract men to themselves. It is only due to the\nintense zeal of the churches in this direction that the influence\nof the churches has lasted hitherto.\n\nLet the Church stop its work of hypnotizing the masses, and\ndeceiving children even for the briefest interval of time, and men\nwould begin to understand Christ's teaching. But this\nunderstanding will be the end of the churches and all their\ninfluence. And therefore the churches will not for an instant\nrelax their zeal in the business of hypnotizing grown-up people\nand deceiving children. This, then, is the work of the churches:\nto instill a false interpretation of Christ's teaching into men,\nand to prevent a true interpretation of it for the majority of\nso-called believers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nCHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE.\n\nAttitude of Men of Science to Religions in General--What Religion is,\nand What is its Significance for the Life of Humanity--Three Conceptions\nof Life--Christian Religion the Expression of the Divine Conception of\nLife--Misinterpretation of Christianity by Men of Science, who Study it\nin its External Manifestations Due to their Criticising it from\nStandpoint of Social Conception of Life--Opinion, Resulting from this\nMisinterpretation, that Christ's Moral Teaching is Exaggerated and\nCannot be put into Practice--Expression of Divine Conception of Life in\nthe Gospel--False Ideas of Men of Science on Christianity Proceed from\ntheir Conviction that they have an Infallible Method of Criticism--From\nwhich come Two Misconceptions in Regard to Christian Doctrine--First\nMisconception, that the Teaching Cannot be put into Practice, Due to the\nChristian Religion Directing Life in a Way Different from that of the\nSocial Theory of Life--Christianity holds up Ideal, does not lay down\nRules--To the Animal Force of Man Christ Adds the Consciousness of a\nDivine Force--Christianity Seems to Destroy Possibility of Life only\nwhen the Ideal held up is Mistaken for Rule--Ideal Must Not be\nLowered--Life, According to Christ's Teaching, is Movement--The Ideal\nand the Precepts--Second Misconception Shown in Replacing Love and\nService of God by Love and Service of Humanity--Men of Science Imagine\ntheir Doctrine of Service of Humanity and Christianity are\nIdentical--Doctrine of Service of Humanity Based on Social Conception of\nLife--Love for Humanity, Logically Deduced from Love of Self, has No\nMeaning because Humanity is a Fiction--Christian Love Deduced from Love\nof God, Finds its Object in the whole World, not in Humanity\nAlone--Christianity Teaches Man to Live in Accordance with his Divine\nNature--It Shows that the Essence of the Soul of Man is Love, and that\nhis Happiness Ensues from Love of God, whom he Recognizes as Love within\nhimself.\n\n\nNow I will speak of the other view of Christianity which hinders\nthe true understanding of it--the scientific view.\n\nChurchmen substitute for Christianity the version they have framed\nof it for themselves, and this view of Christianity they regard as\nthe one infallibly true one.\n\nMen of science regard as Christianity only the tenets held by the\ndifferent churches in the past and present; and finding that these\ntenets have lost all the significance of Christianity, they accept\nit as a religion which has outlived its age.\n\nTo see clearly how impossible it is to understand the Christian\nteaching from such a point of view, one must form for oneself an\nidea of the place actually held by religions in general, by the\nChristian religion in particular, in the life of mankind, and of\nthe significance attributed to them by science.\n\nJust as the individual man cannot live without having some theory\nof the meaning of his life, and is always, though often\nunconsciously, framing his conduct in accordance with the meaning\nhe attributes to his life, so too associations of men living in\nsimilar conditions--nations--cannot but have theories of the\nmeaning of their associated life and conduct ensuing from those\ntheories. And as the individual man, when he attains a fresh\nstage of growth, inevitably changes his philosophy of life, and\nthe grown-up man sees a different meaning in it from the child, so\ntoo associations of men--nations--are bound to change their\nphilosophy of life and the conduct ensuing from their philosophy,\nto correspond with their development.\n\nThe difference, as regards this, between the individual man and\nhumanity as a whole, lies in the fact that the individual, in\nforming the view of life proper to the new period of life on which\nhe is entering and the conduct resulting from it, benefits by the\nexperience of men who have lived before him, who have already\npassed through the stage of growth upon which he is entering. But\nhumanity cannot have this aid, because it is always moving along a\nhitherto untrodden track, and has no one to ask how to understand\nlife, and to act in the conditions on which it is entering and\nthrough which no one has ever passed before.\n\nNevertheless, just as a man with wife and children cannot continue\nto look at life as he looked at it when he was a child, so too in\nthe face of the various changes that are taking place, the greater\ndensity of population, the establishment of communication between\ndifferent peoples, the improvements of the methods of the struggle\nwith nature, and the accumulation of knowledge, humanity cannot\ncontinue to look at life as of old, and it must frame a new\ntheory of life, from which conduct may follow adapted to the new\nconditions on which it has entered and is entering.\n\nTo meet this need humanity has the special power of producing men\nwho give a new meaning to the whole of human life--a theory of\nlife from which follow new forms of activity quite different from\nall preceding them. The formation of this philosophy of life\nappropriate to humanity in the new conditions on which it is\nentering, and of the practice resulting from it, is what is called\nreligion.\n\nAnd therefore, in the first place, religion is not, as science\nimagines, a manifestation which at one time corresponded with the\ndevelopment of humanity, but is afterward outgrown by it. It is a\nmanifestation always inherent in the life of humanity, and is as\nindispensable, as inherent in humanity at the present time as at\nany other. Secondly, religion is always the theory of the\npractice of the future and not of the past, and therefore it is\nclear that investigation of past manifestations cannot in any case\ngrasp the essence of religion.\n\nThe essence of every religious teaching lies not in the desire for\na symbolic expression of the forces of nature, nor in the dread of\nthese forces, nor in the craving for the marvelous, nor in the\nexternal forms in which it is manifested, as men of science\nimagine; the essence of religion lies in the faculty of men of\nforeseeing and pointing out the path of life along which humanity\nmust move in the discovery of a new theory of life, as a result of\nwhich the whole future conduct of humanity is changed and\ndifferent from all that has been before.\n\nThis faculty of foreseeing the path along which humanity must\nmove, is common in a greater or less degree to all men. But in\nall times there have been men in whom this faculty was especially\nstrong, and these men have given clear and definite expression to\nwhat all men felt vaguely, and formed a new philosophy of life\nfrom which new lines of action followed for hundreds and thousands\nof years.\n\nOf such philosophies of life we know three; two have already been\npassed through by humanity, and the third is that we are passing\nthrough now in Christianity. These philosophies of life are three\nin number, and only three, not because we have arbitrarily brought\nthe various theories of life together under these three heads, but\nbecause all men's actions are always based on one of these three\nviews of life--because we cannot view life otherwise than in these\nthree ways.\n\nThese three views of life are as follows: First, embracing the\nindividual, or the animal view of life; second, embracing the\nsociety, or the pagan view of life; third, embracing the whole\nworld, or the divine view of life.\n\nIn the first theory of life a man's life is limited to his one\nindividuality; the aim of life is the satisfaction of the will of\nthis individuality. In the second theory of life a man's life is\nlimited not to his own individuality, but to certain societies and\nclasses of individuals: to the tribe, the family, the clan, the\nnation; the aim of life is limited to the satisfaction of the will\nof those associations of individuals. In the third theory of life\na man's life is limited not to societies and classes of\nindividuals, but extends to the principle and source of life--to\nGod.\n\nThese three conceptions of life form the foundation of all the\nreligious that exist or have existed.\n\nThe savage recognizes life only in himself and his personal\ndesires. His interest in life is concentrated on himself alone.\nThe highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his\ndesires. The motive power of his life is personal enjoyment. His\nreligion consists in propitiating his deity and in worshiping his\ngods, whom he imagines as persons living only for their personal\naims.\n\nThe civilized pagan recognizes life not in himself alone, but in\nsocieties of men--in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom\n--and sacrifices his personal good for these societies. The\nmotive power of his life is glory. His religion consists in the\nexaltation of the glory of those who are allied to him--the\nfounders of his family, his ancestors, his rulers--and in\nworshiping gods who are exclusively protectors of his clan, his\nfamily, his nation, his government [see Footnote].\n\n [Footnote: The fact that so many varied forms of\n existence, as the life of the family, of the tribe,\n of the clan, of the state, and even the life of\n humanity theoretically conceived by the Positivists,\n are founded on this social or pagan theory of life,\n does not destroy the unity of this theory of life.\n All these varied forms of life are founded on the\n same conception, that the life of the individual is\n not a sufficient aim of life--that the meaning of\n life can be found only in societies of individuals.]\n\nThe man who holds the divine theory of life recognizes life not in\nhis own individuality, and not in societies of individualities (in\nthe family, the clan, the nation, the tribe, or the government),\nbut in the eternal undying source of life--in God; and to fulfill\nthe will of God he is ready to sacrifice his individual and family\nand social welfare. The motor power of his life is love. And his\nreligion is the worship in deed and in truth of the principle of\nthe whole--God.\n\nThe whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the\ngradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life to\nthe social conception of life, and from the social conception of\nlife to the divine conception of life. The whole history of the\nancient peoples, lasting through thousands of years and ending\nwith the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from\nthe animal, personal view of life to the social view of life. The\nwhole of history from the time of the Roman Empire and the\nappearance of Christianity is the history of the transition,\nthrough which we are still passing now, from the social view of\nlife to the divine view of life.\n\nThis view of life is the last, and founded upon it is the\nChristian teaching, which is a guide for the whole of our life and\nlies at the root of all our activity, practical and theoretic.\nYet men of what is falsely called science, pseudo-scientific men,\nlooking at it only in its externals, regard it as something\noutgrown and having no value for us.\n\nReducing it to its dogmatic side only--to the doctrines of the\nTrinity, the redemption, the miracles, the Church, the sacraments,\nand so on--men of science regard it as only one of an immense\nnumber of religions which have arisen among mankind, and now, they\nsay, having played out its part in history, it is outliving its\nown age and fading away before the light of science and of true\nenlightenment.\n\nWe come here upon what, in a large proportion of cases, forms the\nsource of the grossest errors of mankind. Men on a lower level of\nunderstanding, when brought into contact with phenomena of a\nhigher order, instead of making efforts to understand them, to\nraise themselves up to the point of view from which they must look\nat the subject, judge it from their lower standpoint, and the less\nthey understand what they are talking about, the more confidently\nand unhesitatingly they pass judgment on it.\n\nTo the majority of learned then, looking at the living, moral teaching\nof Christ from the lower standpoint of the conception of life, this\ndoctrine appears as nothing but very indefinite and incongruous\ncombination of Indian asceticism, Stoic and Neoplatonic philosophy, and\ninsubstantial anti-social visions, which have no serious significance\nfor our times. Its whole meaning is concentrated for them in its\nexternal manifestations--in Catholicism, Protestantism, in certain\ndogmas, or in the conflict with the temporal power. Estimating the value\nof Christianity by these phenomena is like a deaf man's judging of the\ncharacter and quality of music by seeing the movements of the musicians.\n\nThe result of this is that all these scientific men, from Kant,\nStrauss, Spencer, and Renan down, do not understand the meaning of\nChrist's sayings, do not understand the significance, the object,\nor the reason of their utterance, do not understand even the\nquestion to which they form the answer. Yet, without even taking\nthe pains to enter into their meaning, they refuse, if unfavorably\ndisposed, to recognize any reasonableness in his doctrines; or if\nthey want to treat them indulgently, they condescend, from the\nheight of their superiority, to correct them, on the supposition\nthat Christ meant to express precisely their own ideas, but did\nnot succeed in doing so. They behave to his teaching much as\nself-assertive people talk to those whom they consider beneath\nthem, often supplying their companions' words: \"Yes, you mean to\nsay this and that.\" This correction is always with the aim of\nreducing the teaching of the higher, divine conception of life to\nthe level of the lower, state conception of life.\n\nThey usually say that the moral teaching of Christianity is very\nfine, but overexaggerated; that to make it quite right we must\nreject all in it that is superfluous and unnecessary to our manner\nof life. \"And the doctrine that asks too much, and requires what\ncannot be performed, is worse than that which requires of men what\nis possible and consistent with their powers,\" these learned\ninterpreters of Christianity maintain, repeating what was long ago\nasserted, and could not but be asserted, by those who crucified\nthe Teacher because they did not understand him--the Jews.\n\nIt seems that in the judgment of the learned men of our\ntime the Hebrew law--a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for\nan eye--is a law of just retaliation, known to mankind five\nthousand years before the law of holiness which Christ\ntaught in its place.\n\nIt seems that all that has been done by those men who understood\nChrist's teaching literally and lived in accordance with such an\nunderstanding of it, all that has been said and done by all true\nChristians, by all the Christian saints, all that is now reforming\nthe world in the shape of socialism and communism--is simply\nexaggeration, not worth talking about.\n\nAfter eighteen hundred years of education in Christianity the\ncivilized world, as represented by its most advanced thinkers,\nholds the conviction that the Christian religion is a religion of\ndogmas; that its teaching in relation to life is unreasonable, and\nis an exaggeration, subversive of the real lawful obligations of\nmorality consistent with the nature of man; and that very doctrine\nof retribution which Christ rejected, and in place of which he put\nhis teaching, is more practically useful for us.\n\nTo learned men the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force is\nexaggerated and even irrational. Christianity is much better\nwithout it, they think, not observing closely what Christianity,\nas represented by them, amounts to.\n\nThey do not see that to say that the doctrine of non-resistance to\nevil is an exaggeration in Christ's teaching is just like saying\nthat the statement of the equality of the radii of a circle is an\nexaggeration in the definition of a circle. And those who speak\nthus are acting precisely like a man who, having no idea of what a\ncircle is, should declare that this requirement, that every point\nof the circumference should be an equal distance from the center,\nis exaggerated. To advocate the rejection of Christ's command of\nnon-resistance to evil, or its adaptation to the needs of life,\nimplies a misunderstanding of the teaching of Christ.\n\nAnd those who do so certainly do not understand it. They do not\nunderstand that this teaching is the institution of a new theory\nof life, corresponding to the new conditions on which men have\nentered now for eighteen hundred years, and also the definition of\nthe new conduct of life which results from it. They do not\nbelieve that Christ meant to say what he said; or he seems to them\nto have said what he said in the Sermon on the Mount and in other\nplaces accidentally, or through his lack of intelligence or of\ncultivation.\n\n [Footnote: Here, for example, is a characteristic\n view of that kind from the American journal the ARENA\n (October, 1890): \"New Basis of Church Life.\" Treating\n of the significance of the Sermon on the Mount and\n non-resistance to evil in particular, the author,\n being under no necessity, like the Churchmen, to\n hide its significance, says:\n\n \"Christ in fact preached complete communism and\n anarchy; but one must learn to regard Christ always\n in his historical and psychological significance.\n Like every advocate of the love of humanity, Christ\n went to the furthest extreme in his teaching. Every\n step forward toward the moral perfection of humanity\n is always guided by men who see nothing but their\n vocation. Christ, in no disparaging sense be it\n said, had the typical temperament of such a reformer.\n And therefore we must remember that his precepts\n cannot be understood literally as a complete\n philosophy of life. We ought to analyze his words\n with respect for them, but in the spirit of criticism,\n accepting what is true,\" etc.\n\n Christ would have been happy to say what he ought, but\n he was not able to express himself as exactly and\n clearly as we can in the spirit of criticism, and\n therefore let us correct him. All that he said about\n meekness, sacrifice, lowliness, not caring for the\n morrow, was said by accident, through lack of knowing\n how to express himself scientifically.]\n\nMatt. vi. 25-34: \"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for\nyour life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for\nyour body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat,\nand the body than rainment? Behold the fouls of the air; for they\nsow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your\nheavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?\nWhich of you by taking thought can add one cubit onto his stature?\nAnd why take ye thought for rainment? Consider the lilies of the\nfield how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet\nI say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed\nlike one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the\nfield, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall\nhe not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take\nno thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink?\nor, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things\ndo the Gentiles seek), for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye\nhave need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of\nGod, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added\nunto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow; for the\nmorrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient\nunto the day is the evil thereof.\" Luke xii. 33-34: \"Sell that ye\nhave, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a\ntreasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief\napproacheth, neither moth corrupteth. For where your treasure is,\nthere will your heart be also.\" Sell all thou hast and follow me;\nand he who will not leave father, or mother, or children, or\nbrothers, or fields, or house, he cannot be my disciple. Deny\nthyself, take up thy cross each day and follow me. My meat is to\ndo the will of him that sent me, and to perform his works. Not my\nwill, but thine be done; not what I will, but as thou wilt. Life\nis to do not one's will, but the will of God.\n\nAll these principles appear to men who regard them from the\nstandpoint of a lower conception of life as the expression of an\nimpulsive enthusiasm, having no direct application to life. These\nprinciples, however, follow from the Christian theory of life,\njust as logically as the principles of paying a part of one's\nprivate gains to the commonwealth and of sacrificing one's life in\ndefense of one's country follow from the state theory of life.\n\nAs the man of the stale conception of life said to the savage: Reflect,\nbethink yourself! The life of your individuality cannot be true life,\nbecause that life is pitiful and passing. But the life of a society and\nsuccession of individuals, family, clan, tribe, or state, goes on\nliving, and therefore a man must sacrifice his own individuality for the\nlife of the family or the state. In exactly the same way the Christian\ndoctrine says to the man of the social, state conception of life, Repent\nye--[GREEK WORD]-i. e., bethink yourself, or you will be ruined.\nUnderstand that this casual, personal life which now comes into being\nand to-morrow is no more can have no permanence, that no external means,\nno construction of it can give it consecutiveness and permanence. Take\nthought and understand that the life you are living is not real\nlife--the life of the family, of society, of the state will not save you\nfrom annihilation. The true, the rational life is only possible for man\naccording to the measure in which he can participate, not in the family\nor the state, but in the source of life--the Father; according to the\nmeasure in which he can merge his life in the life of the Father. Such\nis undoubtedly the Christian conception of life, visible in every\nutterance of the Gospel.\n\n [TRANSCRIBIST'S NOTE: The GREEK WORD above used Greek letters,\n spelled: mu-epsilon-tau-alpha-nu-omicron-zeta-epsilon-tau-\n epsilon]\n\nOne may not share this view of life, one may reject it, one may show its\ninaccuracy and its erroneousness, but we cannot judge of the Christian\nteaching without mastering this view of life. Still less can one\ncriticise a subject on a higher plane from a lower point of view. From\nthe basement one cannot judge of the effect of the spire. But this is\njust what the learned critics of the day try to do. For they share the\nerroneous idea of the orthodox believers that they are in possession of\ncertain infallible means for investigating a subject. They fancy if they\napply their so-called scientific methods of criticism, there can be no\ndoubt of their conclusion being correct.\n\nThis testing the subject by the fancied infallible method of\nscience is the principal obstacle to understanding the Christian\nreligion for unbelievers, for so-called educated people. From\nthis follow all the mistakes made by scientific men about the\nChristian religion, and especially two strange misconceptions\nwhich, more than everything else, hinder them from a correct\nunderstanding of it. One of these misconceptions is that the\nChristian moral teaching cannot be carried out, and that therefore\nit has either no force at all--that is, it should not be accepted\nas the rule of conduct--or it must be transformed, adapted to the\nlimits within which its fulfillment is possible in our society.\nAnother misconception is that the Christian doctrine of love of\nGod, and therefore of his service, is an obscure, mystic\nprinciple, which gives no definite object for love, and should\ntherefore be replaced by the more exact and comprehensible\nprinciples of love for men and the service of humanity.\n\nThe first misconception in regard to the impossibility of\nfollowing the principle is the result of men of the state\nconception of life unconsciously taking that conception as the\nstandard by which the Christian religion directs men, and taking\nthe Christian principle of perfection as the rule by which that\nlife is to be ordered; they think and say that to follow Christ's\nteaching is impossible, because the complete fulfillment of all\nthat is required by this teaching would put an end to life. \"If a\nman were to carry out all that Christ teaches, he would destroy\nhis own life; and if all men carried it out, then the human race\nwould come to an end,\" they say.\n\n\"If we take no thought for the morrow, what we shall eat and what\nwe shall drink, and wherewithal we shall be clothed, do not defend\nour life, nor resist evil by force, lay down our life for others,\nand observe perfect chastity, the human race cannot exist,\" they\nsay.\n\nAnd they are perfectly right if they take the principle of\nperfection given by Christ's teaching as a rule which everyone is\nbound to fulfill, just as in the state principles of life everyone\nis bound to carry out the rule of paying taxes, supporting the\nlaw, and so on.\n\nThe misconception is based precisely on the fact that the teaching\nof Christ guides men differently from the way in which the\nprecepts founded on the lower conception of life guide men. The\nprecepts of the state conception of life only guide men by\nrequiring of them an exact fulfillment of rules or laws. Christ's\nteaching guides men by pointing them to the infinite perfection of\ntheir heavenly Father, to which every man independently and\nvoluntarily struggles, whatever the degree of his imperfection in\nthe present.\n\nThe misunderstanding of men who judge of the Christian principle\nfrom the point of view of the state principle, consists in the\nfact that on the supposition that the perfection which Christ\npoints to, can be fully attained, they ask themselves (just as\nthey ask the same question on the supposition that state laws will\nbe carried out) what will be the result of all this being carried\nout? This supposition cannot be made, because the perfection held\nup to Christians is infinite and can never be attained; and Christ\nlays down his principle, having in view the fact that absolute\nperfection can never be attained, but that striving toward\nabsolute, infinite perfection will continually increase the\nblessedness of men, and that this blessedness may be increased to\ninfinity thereby.\n\nChrist is teaching not angels, but men, living and moving in the animal\nlife. And so to this animal force of movement Christ, as it were,\napplies the new force-the recognition of Divine perfection-and thereby\ndirects the movement by the resultant of these two forces..\n\nTo suppose that human life is going in the direction to which\nChrist pointed it, is just like supposing that a little boat\nafloat on a rabid river, and directing its course almost exactly\nagainst the current, will progress in that direction.\n\nChrist recognizes the existence of both sides of the\nparallelogram, of both eternal indestructible forces of which the\nlife of man is compounded: the force of his animal nature and the\nforce of the consciousness of Kinship to God. Saying nothing of\nthe animal force which asserts itself, remains always the same,\nand is therefore independent of human will, Christ speaks only of\nthe Divine force, calling upon a man to know it more closely, to\nset it more free from all that retards it, and to carry it to a\nhigher degree of intensity.\n\nIn the process of liberating, of strengthening this force, the\ntrue life of man, according to Christ's teaching, consists. The\ntrue life, according to preceding religions, consists in carrying\nout rules, the law; according to Christ's teaching it consists in\nan ever closer approximation to the divine perfection held up\nbefore every man, and recognized within himself by every man, in\nan ever closer and closer approach to the perfect fusion of his\nwill in the will of God, that fusion toward which man strives, and\nthe attainment of which would be the destruction of the life me\nknow.\n\nThe divine perfection is the asymptote of human life to which it\nis always striving, and always approaching, though it can only be\nreached in infinity.\n\nThe Christian religion seems to exclude the possibility of life only\nwhen men mistake the pointing to an ideal as the laying down of a\nrule. It is only then that the principles presented in Christ's\nteaching appear to be destructive of life. These principles, on\nthe contrary, are the only ones that make true life possible.\nWithout these principles true life could not be possible.\n\n\"One ought not to expect so much,\" is what people usually say in\ndiscussing the requirements of the Christian religion. \"One\ncannot expect to take absolutely no thought for the morrow, as is\nsaid in the Gospel, but only not to take too much thought for it;\none cannot give away all to the poor, but one must give away a\ncertain definite part; one need not aim at virginity, but one must\navoid debauchery; one need not forsake wife and children, but one\nmust not give too great a place to them in one's heart,\" and so\non.\n\nBut to speak like this is just like telling a man who is\nstruggling on a swift river and is directing his course against\nthe current, that it is impossible to cross the river rowing\nagainst the current, and that to cross it he must float in the\ndirection of the point he wants to reach.\n\nIn reality, in order to reach the place to which he wants to go,\nhe must row with all his strength toward a point\nmuch higher up.\n\nTo let go the requirements of the ideal means not only to diminish\nthe possibility of perfection, but to make an end of the ideal\nitself. The ideal that has power over men is not an ideal\ninvented by someone, but the ideal that every man carries within\nhis soul. Only this ideal of complete infinite perfection has\npower over men, and stimulates them to action. A moderate\nperfection loses its power of influencing men's hearts.\n\nChrist's teaching only has power when it demands absolute\nperfection--that is, the fusion of the divine nature which exists\nin every man's soul with the will of God--the union of the Son\nwith the Father. Life according to Christ's teaching consists of\nnothing but this setting free of the Son of God, existing in every\nman, from the animal, and in bringing him closer to the Father.\n\nThe animal existence of a man does not constitute human life\nalone. Life, according to the will of God only, is also not\nhuman life. Human life is a combination of the animal life and\nthe divine life. And the more this combination approaches to the\ndivine life, the more life there is in it.\n\nLife, according to the Christian religion, is a progress toward\nthe divine perfection. No one condition, according to this\ndoctrine, can be higher or lower than another. Every condition,\naccording to this doctrine, is only a particular stage, of no\nconsequence in itself, on the way toward unattainable perfection,\nand therefore in itself it does not imply a greater or lesser\ndegree of life. Increase of life, according to this, consists in\nnothing but the quickening of the progress toward perfection. And\ntherefore the progress toward perfection of the publican Zaccheus,\nof the woman that was a sinner, and of the robber on the cross,\nimplies a higher degree of life than the stagnant righteousness of\nthe Pharisee. And therefore for this religion there cannot be\nrules which it is obligatory to obey. The man who is at a lower\nlevel but is moving onward toward perfection is living a more\nmoral, a better life, is more fully carrying out Christ's\nteaching, than the man on a much higher level of morality who is\nnot moving onward toward perfection.\n\nIt is in this sense that the lost sheep is dearer to the Father\nthan those that were not lost. The prodigal son, the piece of\nmoney lost and found again, were more precious than those that\nwere not lost.\n\nThe fulfillment of Christ's teaching consists in moving away from\nself toward God. It is obvious that there cannot be definite laws\nand rules for this fulfillment of the teaching. Every degree of\nperfection and every degree of imperfection are equal in it; no\nobedience to laws constitutes a fulfillment of this doctrine, and\ntherefore for it there can be no binding rules and laws.\n\nFrom this fundamental distinction between the religion of Christ\nand all preceding religions based on the state conception of life,\nfollows a corresponding difference in the special precepts of the\nstate theory and the Christian precepts. The precepts of the\nstate theory of life insist for the most part on certain practical\nprescribed acts, by which men are justified and secure of being\nright. The Christian precepts (the commandment of love is not a\nprecept in the strict sense of the word, but the expression of the\nvery essence of the religion) are the five commandments of the\nSermon on the Mount--all negative in character. They show only\nwhat at a certain stage of development of humanity men may not do.\n\nThese commandments are, as it were, signposts on the endless road\nto perfection, toward which humanity is moving, showing the point\nof perfection which is possible at a certain period in the\ndevelopment of humanity.\n\nChrist has given expression in the Sermon on the Mount to the\neternal ideal toward which men are spontaneously struggling, and\nalso the degree of attainment of it to which men may reach in our\ntimes.\n\nThe ideal is not to desire to do ill to anyone, not to provoke ill\nwill, to love all men. The precept, showing the level below which\nwe cannot fall in the attainment of this ideal, is the prohibition\nof evil speaking. And that is the first command.\n\nThe ideal is perfect chastity, even in thought. The precept,\nshowing the level below which we cannot fall in the attainment of\nthis ideal, is that of purity of married life, avoidance of\ndebauchery. That is the second command.\n\nThe ideal is to take no thought for the future, to live in the\npresent moment. The precept, showing the level below which we\ncannot fall, is the prohibition of swearing, of promising anything\nin the future. And that is the third command.\n\nThe ideal is never for any purpose to use force. The precept,\nshowing the level below which we cannot fall is that of returning\ngood for evil, being patient under wrong, giving the cloak also.\nThat is the fourth command.\n\nThe ideal is to love the enemies who hate us. The precept,\nshowing the level below which we cannot fall, is not to do evil to\nour enemies, to speak well of them, and to make no difference\nbetween them and our neighbors.\n\nAll these precepts are indications of what, on our journey to\nperfection, we are already fully able to avoid, and what we must\nlabor to attain now, and what we ought by degrees to translate\ninto instinctive and unconscious habits. But these precepts, far\nfrom constituting the whole of Christ's teaching and exhausting\nit, are simply stages on the way to perfection. These precepts\nmust and will be followed by higher and higher precepts on the way\nto the perfection held up by the religion.\n\nAnd therefore it is essentially a part of the Christian religion\nto make demands higher than those expressed in its precepts; and\nby no means to diminish the demands either of the ideal itself, or\nof the precepts, as people imagine who judge it from the\nstandpoint of the social conception of life.\n\nSo much for one misunderstanding of the scientific men, in\nrelation to the import and aim of Christ's teaching. Another\nmisunderstanding arising from the same source consists in\nsubstituting love for men, the service of humanity, for the\nChristian principles of love for God and his service.\n\nThe Christian doctrine to love God and serve him, and only as a\nresult of that love to love and serve one's neighbor, seems to\nscientific men obscure, mystic, and arbitrary. And they would\nabsolutely exclude the obligation of love and service of God,\nholding that the doctrine of love for men, for humanity alone, is\nfar more clear, tangible, and reasonable.\n\nScientific men teach in theory that the only good and rational\nlife is that which is devoted to the service of the whole of\nhumanity. That is for them the import of the Christian doctrine,\nand to that they reduce Christ's teaching. They seek confirmation\nof their own doctrine in the Gospel, on the supposition that the\ntwo doctrines are really the same.\n\nThis idea is an absolutely mistaken one. The Christian doctrine\nhas nothing in common with the doctrine of the Positivists,\nCommunists, and all the apostles of the universal brotherhood of\nmankind, based on the general advantage of such a brotherhood.\nThey differ from one another especially in Christianity's having a\nfirm and clear basis in the human soul, while love for humanity is\nonly a theoretical deduction from analogy.\n\nThe doctrine of love for humanity alone is based on the social\nconception of life.\n\nThe essence of the social conception of life consists in the\ntransference of the aim of the individual life to the life of\nsocieties of individuals: family, clan, tribe, or state. This\ntransference is accomplished easily and naturally in its earliest\nforms, in the transference of the aim of life from the individual\nto the family and the clan. The transference to the tribe or the\nnation is more difficult and requires special training. And the\ntransference of the sentiment to the state is the furthest limit\nwhich the process can reach.\n\nTo love one's self is natural to everyone, and no one needs any\nencouragement to do so. To love one's clan who support and\nprotect one, to love one's wife, the joy and help of one's\nexistence, one's children, the hope and consolation of one's life,\nand one's parents, who have given one life and education, is\nnatural. And such love, though far from being so strong as love\nof self, is met with pretty often.\n\nTo love--for one's own sake, through personal pride--one's tribe,\none's nation, though not so natural, is nevertheless common. Love\nof one's own people who are of the same blood, the same tongue,\nand the same religion as one's self is possible, though far from\nbeing so strong as love of self, or even love of family or clan.\nBut love for a state, such as Turkey, Germany, England, Austria,\nor Russia is a thing almost impossible. And though it is\nzealously inculcated, it is only an imagined sentiment; it has no\nexistence in reality. And at that limit man's power of\ntransferring his interest ceases, and he cannot feel any direct\nsentiment for that fictitious entity. The Positivists, however,\nand all the apostles of fraternity on scientific principles,\nwithout taking into consideration the weakening of sentiment in\nproportion to the extension of its object, draw further deductions\nin theory in the same direction. \"Since,\" they say, \"it was for\nthe advantage of the individual to extend his personal interest to\nthe family, the tribe, and subsequently to the nation and the\nstate, it would be still more advantageous to extend his interest\nin societies of men to the whole of mankind, and so all to live\nfor humanity just as men live for the family or the state.\"\n\nTheoretically it follows, indeed, having extended the love and\ninterest for the personality to the family, the tribe, and thence\nto the nation and the state, it would be perfectly logical for men\nto save themselves the strife and calamities which result from the\ndivision of mankind into nations and states by extending their\nlove to the whole of humanity. This would be most logical, and\ntheoretically nothing would appear more natural to its advocates,\nwho do not observe that love is a sentiment which may or may not\nbe felt, but which it is useless to advocate; and moreover, that\nlove must have an object, and that humanity is not an object. It\nis nothing but a fiction.\n\nThe family, the tribe, even the state were not invented by men,\nbut formed themselves spontaneously, like ant-hills or swarms of\nbees, and have a real existence. The man who, for the sake of his\nown animal personality, loves his family, knows whom he loves:\nAnna, Dolly, John, Peter, and so on. The man who loves his tribe\nand takes pride in it, knows that he loves all the Guelphs or all\nthe Ghibellines; the man who loves the state knows that he loves\nFrance bounded by the Rhine, and the Pyrenees, and its principal\ncity Paris, and its history and so on. But the man who loves\nhumanity--what does he love? There is such a thing as a state, as\na nation; there is the abstract conception of man; but humanity as\na concrete idea does not, and cannot exist.\n\nHumanity! Where is the definition of humanity? Where does it end\nand where does it begin? Does humanity end with the savage, the\nidiot, the dipsomaniac, or the madman? If we draw a line\nexcluding from humanity its lowest representatives, where are we\nto draw the line? Shall we exclude the negroes like the\nAmericans, or the Hindoos like some Englishmen, or the Jews like\nsome others? If we include all men without exception, why should\nwe not include also the higher animals, many of whom are superior\nto the lowest specimens of the human race.\n\nWe know nothing of humanity as an eternal object, and we know\nnothing of its limits. Humanity is a fiction, and it is\nimpossible to love it. It would, doubtless, be very advantageous\nif men could love humanity just as they love their family. It\nwould be very advantageous, as Communists advocate, to replace the\ncompetitive, individualistic organization of men's activity by a\nsocial universal organization, so that each would be for all and\nall for each.\n\nOnly there are no motives to lead men to do this. The\nPositivists, the Communists, and all the apostles of fraternity on\nscientific principles advocate the extension to the whole of\nhumanity of the love men feel for themselves, their families, and\nthe state. They forget that the love which they are discussing is\na personal love, which might expand in a rarefied form to embrace\na man's native country, but which disappears before it can embrace\nan artificial state such as Austria, England, or Turkey, and which\nwe cannot even conceive of in relation to all humanity, an\nabsolutely mystic conception.\n\n\"A man loves himself (his animal personality), he loves his\nfamily, he even loves his native country. Why should he not love\nhumanity? That would be such an excellent thing. And by the way,\nit is precisely what is taught by Christianity.\" So think the\nadvocates of Positivist, Communistic, or Socialistic fraternity.\n\nIt would indeed be an excellent thing. But it can never be, for\nthe love that is based on a personal or social conception of life\ncan never rise beyond love for the state.\n\nThe fallacy of the argument lies in the fact that the social\nconception of life, on which love for family and nation is\nfounded, rests itself on love of self, and that love grows weaker\nand weaker as it is extended from self to family, tribe,\nnationality, and slate; and in the state we reach the furthest\nlimit beyond which it cannot go.\n\nThe necessity of extending the sphere of love is beyond dispute.\nBut in reality the possibility of this love is destroyed by the\nnecessity of extending its object indefinitely. And thus the\ninsufficiency of personal human love is made manifest.\n\nAnd here the advocates of Positivist, Communistic, Socialistic\nfraternity propose to draw upon Christian love to make up the\ndefault of this bankrupt human love; but Christian love only in\nits results, not in its foundations. They propose love for\nhumanity alone, apart from love for God.\n\nBut such a love cannot exist. There is no motive to produce it.\nChristian love is the result only of the Christian conception of\nlife, in which the aim of life is to love and serve God.\n\nThe social conception of life has led men, by a natural transition\nfrom love of self and then of family, tribe, nation, and state, to\na consciousness of the necessity of love for humanity, a\nconception which has no definite limits and extends to all living\nthings. And this necessity for love of what awakens no kind of\nsentiment in a man is a contradiction which cannot be solved by\nthe social theory of life.\n\nThe Christian doctrine in its full significance can alone solve\nit, by giving a new meaning to life. Christianity recognizes love\nof self, of family, of nation, and of humanity, and not only of\nhumanity, but of everything living, everything existing; it\nrecognizes the necessity of an infinite extension of the sphere of\nlove. But the object of this love is not found outside self in\nsocieties of individuals, nor in the external world, but within\nself, in the divine self whose essence is that very love, which\nthe animal self is brought to feel the need of through its\nconsciousness of its own perishable nature.\n\nThe difference between the Christian doctrine and those which\npreceded it is that the social doctrine said: \"Live in opposition\nto your nature [understanding by this only the animal nature],\nmake it subject to the external law of family, society, and\nstate.\" Christianity says: \"Live according to your nature\n[understanding by this the divine nature]; do not make it subject\nto anything--neither you (an animal self) nor that of others--and\nyou will attain the very aim to which you are striving when you\nsubject your external self.\"\n\nThe Christian doctrine brings a man to the elementary\nconsciousness of self, only not of the animal self, but of the\ndivine self, the divine spark, the self as the Son of God, as much\nGod as the Father himself, though confined in an animal husk. The\nconsciousness of being the Son of God, whose chief characteristic\nis love, satisfies the need for the extension of the sphere of\nlove to which the man of the social conception of life had been\nbrought. For the latter, the welfare of the personality demanded\nan ever-widening extension of the sphere of love; love was a\nnecessity and was confined to certain objects--self, family,\nsociety. With the Christian conception of life, love is not a\nnecessity and is confined to no object; it is the essential\nfaculty of the human soul. Man loves not because it is his\ninterest to love this or that, but because love is the essence of\nhis soul, because he cannot but love.\n\nThe Christian doctrine shows man that the essence of his soul is\nlove--that his happiness depends not on loving this or that\nobject, but on loving the principle of the whole--God, whom he\nrecognizes within himself as love, and therefore he loves all\nthings and all men.\n\nIn this is the fundamental difference between the Christian\ndoctrine and the doctrine of the Positivists, and all the\ntheorizers about universal brotherhood on non-Christian\nprinciples.\n\nSuch are the two principal misunderstandings relating to the\nChristian religion, from which the greater number of false\nreasonings about it proceed. The first consists in the belief\nthat Christ's teaching instructs men, like all previous religions,\nby rules, which they are bound to follow, and that these rules\ncannot be fulfilled. The second is the idea that the whole\npurport of Christianity is to teach men to live advantageously\ntogether, as one family, and that to attain this we need only\nfollow the rule of love to humanity, dismissing all thought of\nlove of God altogether.\n\nThe mistaken notion of scientific men that the essence of\nChristianity consists in the supernatural, and that its moral\nteaching is impracticable, constitutes another reason\nof the failure of men of the present day to understand\nChristianity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nCONTRADICTION BETWEEN OUR LIFE AND OUR CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE.\n\nMen Think they can Accept Christianity without Altering their\nLife--Pagan Conception of Life does not Correspond with Present Stage of\nDevelopment of Humanity, and Christian Conception Alone Can Accord with\nit--Christian Conception of Life not yet Understood by Men, but the\nProgress of Life itself will Lead them Inevitably to Adopt it--The\nRequirements of a New Theory of Life Always Seem Incomprehensible,\nMystic, and Supernatural--So Seem the Requirements of the Christian\nTheory of Life to the Majority of Men--The Absorption of the Christian\nConception of Life will Inevitably be Brought About as the Result of\nMaterial and Spiritual Causes--The Fact of Men Knowing the Requirements\nof the Higher View of Life, and yet Continuing to Preserve Inferior\nOrganizations of Life, Leads to Contradictions and Sufferings which\nEmbitter Existence and Must Result in its Transformation--The\nContradictions of our Life--The Economic Contradiction and the Suffering\nInduced by it for Rich and Poor Alike--The Political Contradiction and\nthe Sufferings Induced by Obedience to the Laws of the State--The\nInternational Contradiction and the Recognition of it by Contemporaries:\nKomarovsky, Ferri, Booth, Passy, Lawson, Wilson, Bartlett, Defourney,\nMoneta--The Striking Character of the Military Contradiction.\n\n\nThere are many reasons why Christ's teaching is not understood.\nOne reason is that people suppose they have understood it when\nthey have decided, as the Churchmen do, that it was revealed by\nsupernatural means, or when they have studied, as the scientific\nmen do, the external forms in which it has been manifested.\nAnother reason is the mistaken notion that it is impracticable,\nand ought to be replaced by the doctrine of love for humanity.\nBut the principal reason, which is the source of all the other\nmistaken ideas about it, is the notion that Christianity is a\ndoctrine which can be accepted or rejected without any change of\nlife.\n\nMen who are used to the existing order of things, who like it and\ndread its being changed, try to take the doctrine as a collection\nof revelations and rules which one can accept without their\nmodifying one's life. While Christ's teaching is not only a\ndoctrine which gives rules which a man must follow, it unfolds a\nnew meaning in life, and defines a whole world of human activity\nquite different from all that has preceded it and appropriate to\nthe period on which man is entering.\n\nThe life of humanity changes and advances, like the life of the\nindividual, by stages, and every stage has a theory of life\nappropriate to it, which is inevitably absorbed by men. Those who\ndo not absorb it consciously, absorb it unconsciously. It is the\nsame with the changes in the beliefs of peoples and of all\nhumanity as it is with the changes of belief of individuals. If\nthe father of a family continues to be guided in his conduct by\nhis childish conceptions of life, life becomes so difficult for\nhim that he involuntarily seeks another philosophy and readily\nabsorbs that which is appropriate to his age.\n\nThat is just what is happening now to humanity at this time of\ntransition through which we are passing, from the pagan conception\nof life to the Christian. The socialized man of the present day\nis brought by experience of life itself to the necessity of\nabandoning the pagan conception of life, which is inappropriate to\nthe present stage of humanity, and of submitting to the obligation\nof the Christian doctrines, the truths of which, however corrupt\nand misinterpreted, are still known to him, and alone offer him a\nsolution of the contradictions surrounding him.\n\nIf the requirements of the Christian doctrine seem strange and\neven alarming to the man of the social theory of life, no less\nstrange, incomprehensible, and alarming to the savage of ancient\ntimes seemed the requirements of the social doctrine when it was\nnot fully understood and could not be foreseen in its results.\n\n\"It is unreasonable,\" said the savage, \"to sacrifice my peace of\nmind or my life in defense of something incomprehensible,\nimpalpable, and conventional--family, tribe, or nation; and above\nall it is unsafe to put oneself at the disposal of the power of\nothers.\"\n\nBut the time came when the savage, on one hand, felt, though\nvaguely, the value of the social conception of life, and of its\nchief motor power, social censure, or social approbation--glory,\nand when, on the other hand, the difficulties of his personal life\nbecame so great that he could not continue to believe in the value\nof his old theory of life. Then he accepted the social, state\ntheory of life and submitted to it.\n\nThat is just what the man of the social theory of life is passing\nthrough now.\n\n\"It is unreasonable,\" says the socialized man, \"to sacrifice my\nwelfare and that of my family and my country in order to fulfill\nsome higher law, which requires me to renounce my most natural and\nvirtuous feelings of love of self, of family, of kindred, and of\ncountry; and above all, it is unsafe to part with the security of\nlife afforded by the organization of government.\"\n\nBut the time is coming when, on one hand, the vague consciousness\nin his soul of the higher law, of love to God and his neighbor,\nand, on the other hand, the suffering, resulting from the\ncontradictions of life, will force the man to reject the social\ntheory and to assimilate the new one prepared ready for him, which\nsolves all the contradictions and removes all his sufferings--the\nChristian theory of life. And this time has now come.\n\nWe, who thousands of years ago passed through the transition, from\nthe personal, animal view of life to the socialized view, imagine\nthat that transition was an inevitable and natural one; but this\ntransition through which we have been passing for the last eighteen\nhundred years seems arbitrary, unnatural, and alarming. But we\nonly fancy this because that first transition has been so fully\ncompleted that the practice attained by it has become unconscious\nand instinctive in us, while the present transition is not yet\nover and we have to complete it consciously.\n\nIt took ages, thousands of years, for the social conception of\nlife to permeate men's consciousness. It went through various\nforms and has now passed into the region of the instinctive\nthrough inheritance, education, and habit. And therefore it seems\nnatural to us. But five thousand years ago it seemed as unnatural\nand alarming to men as the Christian doctrine in its true sense\nseems to-day.\n\nWe think to-day that the requirements of the Christian doctrine--of\nuniversal brotherhood, suppression of national distinctions, abolition\nof private property, and the strange injunction of non-resistance to\nevil by force--demand what is impossible. But it was just the same\nthousands of years ago, with every social or even family duty, such as\nthe duty of parents to support their children, of the young to maintain\nthe old, of fidelity in marriage. Still more strange, and even\nunreasonable, seemed the state duties of submitting to the appointed\nauthority, and paying taxes, and fighting in defense of the country, and\nso on. All such requirements seem simple, comprehensible, and natural to\nus to-day, and we see nothing mysterious or alarming in them. But three\nor five thousand years ago they seemed to require what was impossible.\n\nThe social conception of life served as the basis of religion\nbecause at the time when it was first presented to men it seemed\nto them absolutely incomprehensible, mystic, and supernatural.\nNow that we have outlived that phase of the life of humanity, we\nunderstand the rational grounds for uniting men in families,\ncommunities, and states. But in antiquity the duties involved by\nsuch association were presented under cover of the supernatural\nand were confirmed by it.\n\nThe patriarchal religions exalted the family, the tribe, the\nnation. State religions deified emperors and states. Even now\nmost ignorant people--like our peasants, who call the Tzar an\nearthly god--obey state laws, not through any rational recognition\nof their necessity, nor because they have any conception of the\nmeaning of state, but through a religious sentiment.\n\nIn precisely the same way the Christian doctrine is presented to\nmen of the social or heathen theory of life to-day, in the guise\nof a supernatural religion, though there is in reality nothing\nmysterious, mystic, or supernatural about it. It is simply the\ntheory of life which is appropriate to the present degree of\nmaterial development, the present stage of growth of humanity, and\nwhich must therefore inevitably be accepted.\n\nThe time will come--it is already coming--when the Christian principles\nof equality and fraternity, community of property, non-resistance of\nevil by force, will appear just as natural and simple as the principles\nof family or social life seem to us now.\n\nHumanity can no more go backward in its development than the\nindividual man. Men have outlived the social, family, and state\nconceptions of life. Now they must go forward and assimilate the\nnext and higher conception of life, which is what is now taking\nplace. This change is brought about in two ways: consciously\nthrough spiritual causes, and unconsciously through material\ncauses.\n\nJust as the individual man very rarely changes his way of life at\nthe dictates of his reason alone, but generally continues to live\nas before, in spite of the new interests and aims revealed to him\nby his reason, and only alters his way of living when it has\nbecome absolutely opposed to his conscience, and consequently\nintolerable to him; so, too, humanity, long after it has learnt\nthrough its religions the new interests and aims of life, toward\nwhich it must strive, continues in the majority of its\nrepresentatives to live as before, and is only brought to accept\nthe new conception by finding it impossible to go on living its\nold life as before.\n\nThough the need of a change of life is preached by the religious\nleaders and recognized and realized by the most intelligent men,\nthe majority, in spite of their reverential attitude to their\nleaders, that is, their faith in their teaching, continue to be\nguided by the old theory of life in their present complex\nexistence. As though the father of a family, knowing how he ought\nto behave at his age, should yet continue through habit and\nthoughtlessness to live in the same childish way as he did in\nboyhood.\n\nThat is just what is happening in the transition of humanity from\none stage to another, through which we are passing now. Humanity\nhas outgrown its social stage and has entered upon a new period.\nIt recognizes the doctrine which ought to be made the basis of\nlife in this new period. But through inertia it continues to keep\nup the old forms of life. From this inconsistency between the new\nconception of life and practical life follows a whole succession\nof contradictions and sufferings which embitter our life and\nnecessitate its alteration.\n\nOne need only compare the practice of life with the theory of it,\nto be dismayed at the glaring antagonism between our conditions of\nlife and our conscience.\n\nOur whole life is in flat contradiction with all we know, and with\nall we regard as necessary and right. This contradiction runs\nthrough everything, in economic life, in political life, and in\ninternational life. As though we had forgotten what we knew and\nput away for a time the principles we believe in (we cannot help\nstill believing in them because they are the only foundation we\nhave to base our life on) we do the very opposite of all that our\nconscience and our common sense require of us.\n\nWe are guided in economical, political, and international\nquestions by the principles which were appropriate to men of three\nor five thousand years ago, though they are directly opposed to\nour conscience and the conditions of life in which we are placed\nto-day.\n\nIt was very well for the man of ancient times to live in a society\nbased on the division of mankind into masters and slaves, because\nhe believed that such a distinction was decreed by God and must\nalways exist. But is such a belief possible in these days?\n\nThe man of antiquity could believe he had the right to enjoy the\ngood things of this world at the expense of other men, and to keep\nthem in misery for generations, since he believed that men came\nfrom different origins, were base or noble in blood, children of\nHam or of Japhet. The greatest sages of the world, the teachers\nof humanity, Plato and Aristotle, justified the existence of\nslaves and demonstrated the lawfulness of slavery; and even three\ncenturies ago, the men who described an imaginary society of the\nfuture, Utopia, could not conceive of it without slaves.\n\nMen of ancient and medieval times believed, firmly believed, that\nmen are not equal, that the only true men are Persians, or Greeks,\nor Romans, or Franks. But we cannot believe that now. And people\nwho sacrifice themselves for the principles of aristocracy and of\npatriotism to-duty, don't believe and can't believe what they\nassert.\n\nWe all know and cannot help knowing--even though we may never have\nheard the idea clearly expressed, may never have read of it, and\nmay never have put it into words, still through unconsciously\nimbibing the Christian sentiments that are in the air--with our\nwhole heart we know and cannot escape knowing the fundamental\ntruth of the Christian doctrine, that we are all sons of one\nFather, wherever we may live and whatever language we may speak;\nwe are all brothers and are subject to the same law of love\nimplanted by our common Father in our hearts.\n\nWhatever the opinions and degree of education of a man of to-day,\nwhatever his shade of liberalism, whatever his school of\nphilosophy, or of science, or of economics, however ignorant or\nsuperstitious he may be, every man of the present day knows that\nall men have an equal right to life and the good things of life,\nand that one set of people are no better nor worse than another,\nthat all are equal. Everyone knows this, beyond doubt; everyone\nfeels it in his whole being. Yet at the same time everyone sees\nall round him the division of men into two castes--the one,\nlaboring, oppressed, poor, and suffering, the other idle,\noppressing, luxurious, and profligate. And everyone not only sees\nthis, but voluntarily or involuntarily, in one way or another, he\ntakes part in maintaining this distinction which his conscience\ncondemns. And he cannot help suffering from the consciousness of\nthis contradiction and his share in it.\n\nWhether he be master or slave, the man of to-day cannot help\nconstantly feeling the painful opposition between his conscience\nand actual life, and the miseries resulting from it.\n\nThe toiling masses, the immense majority of mankind who are\nsuffering under the incessant, meaningless, and hopeless toil and\nprivation in which their whole life is swallowed up, still find\ntheir keenest suffering in the glaring contrast between what is\nand what ought to be, according to all the beliefs held by\nthemselves, and those who have brought them to that condition and\nkeep them in it.\n\nThey know that they are in slavery and condemned to privation and\ndarkness to minister to the lusts of the minority who keep them\ndown. They know it, and they say so plainly. And this knowledge\nincreases their sufferings and constitutes its bitterest sting.\n\nThe slave of antiquity knew that he was a slave by nature, but our\nlaborer, while he feels he is a slave, knows that he ought not to\nbe, and so he tastes the agony of Tantalus, forever desiring and\nnever gaining what might and ought to be his.\n\nThe sufferings of the working classes, springing from the\ncontradiction between what is and what ought to be, are increased\ntenfold by the envy and hatred engendered by their consciousness\nof it.\n\nThe laborer of the present day would not cease to suffer even if\nhis toil were much lighter than that of the slave of ancient\ntimes, even if he gained an eight-hour working day and a wage of\nthree dollars a day. For he is working at the manufacture of\nthings which he will not enjoy, working not by his own will for\nhis own benefit, but through necessity, to satisfy the desires of\nluxurious and idle people in general, and for the profit of a\nsingle rich man, the owner of a factory or workshop in particular.\nAnd he knows that all this is going on in a world in which it is a\nrecognized scientific principle that labor alone creates wealth,\nand that to profit by the labor of others is immoral, dishonest,\nand punishable by law; in a world, moreover, which professes to\nbelieve Christ's doctrine that we are all brothers, and that true\nmerit and dignity is to be found in serving one's neighbor, not in\nexploiting him. All this he knows, and he cannot but suffer\nkeenly from the sharp contrast between what is and what ought to\nbe.\n\n\"According to all principles, according to all I know, and what\neveryone professes,\" the workman says to himself. \"I ought to be\nfree, equal to everyone else, and loved; and I am--a slave,\nhumiliated and hated.\" And he too is filled with hatred and tries\nto find means to escape from his position, to shake off the enemy\nwho is over-riding him, and to oppress him in turn. People say,\n\"Workmen have no business to try to become capitalists, the poor\nto try to put themselves in the place of the rich.\" That is a\nmistake. The workingmen and the poor would be wrong if they tried\nto do so in a world in which slaves and masters were regarded as\ndifferent species created by God; but they are living in a world\nwhich professes the faith of the Gospel, that all are alike sons\nof God, and so brothers and equal. And however men may try to\nconceal it, one of the first conditions of Christian life is love,\nnot in words but in deeds.\n\nThe man of the so-called educated classes lives in still more\nglaring inconsistency and suffering. Every educated man, if he\nbelieves in anything, believes in the brotherhood of all men, or\nat least he has a sentiment of humanity, or else of justice, or\nelse he believes in science. And all the while he knows that his\nwhole life is framed on principles in direct opposition to it all,\nto all the principles of Christianity, humanity, justice, and\nscience.\n\nHe knows that all the habits in which he has been brought up, and\nwhich he could not give up without suffering, can only be\nsatisfied through the exhausting, often fatal, toil of oppressed\nlaborers, that is, through the most obvious and brutal violation\nof the principles of Christianity, humanity, and justice, and even\nof science (that is, economic science). He advocates the\nprinciples of fraternity, humanity, justice, and science, and yet\nhe lives so that he is dependent on the oppression of the working\nclasses, which he denounces, and his whole life is based on the\nadvantages gained by their oppression. Moreover he is directing\nevery effort to maintaining this state of things so flatly opposed\nto all his beliefs.\n\nWe are all brothers--and yet every morning a brother or a sister\nmust empty the bedroom slops for me. We are all brothers, but\nevery morning I must have a cigar, a sweetmeat, an ice, and such\nthings, which my brothers and sisters have been wasting their\nhealth in manufacturing, and I enjoy these things and demand them.\nWe are all brothers, yet I live by working in a bank, or\nmercantile house, or shop at making all goods dearer for my\nbrothers. We are all brothers, but I live on a salary paid me for\nprosecuting, judging, and condemning the thief or the prostitute\nwhose existence the whole tenor of my life tends to bring about,\nand who I know ought not to be punished but reformed. We are all\nbrothers, but I live on the salary I gain by collecting taxes from\nneedy laborers to be spent on the luxuries of the rich and idle.\nWe are all brothers, but I take a stipend for preaching a false\nChristian religion, which I do not myself believe in, and which\nonly serve's to hinder men from understanding true Christianity.\nI take a stipend as priest or bishop for deceiving men in the\nmatter of the greatest importance to them. We are all brothers,\nbut I will not give the poor the benefit of my educational,\nmedical, or literary labors except for money. We are all\nbrothers, yet I take a salary for being ready to commit murder,\nfor teaching men to murder, or making firearms, gunpowder, or\nfortifications.\n\nThe whole life of the upper classes is a constant inconsistency.\nThe more delicate a man's conscience is, the more painful this\ncontradiction is to him.\n\nA man of sensitive conscience cannot but suffer if he lives such a\nlife. The only means by which he can escape from this suffering\nis by blunting his conscience, but even if some men succeed in\ndulling their conscience they cannot dull their fears.\n\nThe men of the higher dominating classes whose conscience is\nnaturally not sensitive or has become blunted, if they don't\nsuffer through conscience, suffer from fear and hatred. They are\nbound to suffer. They know all the hatred of them existing, and\ninevitably existing in the working classes. They are aware that\nthe working classes know that they are deceived and exploited, and\nthat they are beginning to organize themselves to shake off\noppression and revenge themselves on their oppressors. The higher\nclasses see the unions, the strikes, the May Day Celebrations, and\nfeel the calamity that is threatening them, and their terror\npasses into an instinct of self-defense and hatred. They know\nthat if for one instant they are worsted in the struggle with\ntheir oppressed slaves, they will perish, because the slaves are\nexasperated and their exasperation is growing more intense with\nevery day of oppression. The oppressors, even if they wished to\ndo so, could not make an end to oppression. They know that they\nthemselves will perish directly they even relax the harshness of\ntheir oppression. And they do not relax it, in spite of all their\npretended care for the welfare of the working classes, for the\neight-hour day, for regulation of the labor of minors and of\nwomen, for savings banks and pensions. All that is humbug, or\nelse simply anxiety to keep the slave fit to do his work. But the\nslave is still a slave, and the master who cannot live without a\nslave is less disposed to set him free than ever.\n\nThe attitude of the ruling classes to the laborers is that of a\nman who has felled his adversary to the earth and holds him down,\nnot so much because he wants to hold him down, as because he knows\nthat if he let him go, even for a second, he would himself be\nstabbed, for his adversary is infuriated and has a knife in his\nhand. And therefore, whether their conscience is tender or the\nreverse, our rich men cannot enjoy the wealth they have filched\nfrom the poor as the ancients did who believed in their right to\nit. Their whole life and all their enjoyments are embittered\neither by the stings of conscience or by terror.\n\nSo much for the economic contradiction. The political\ncontradiction is even more striking.\n\nAll men are brought up to the habit of obeying the laws of the\nstate before everything. The whole existence of modern times is\ndefined by laws. A man marries and is divorced, educates his\nchildren, and even (in many countries) professes his religious\nfaith in accordance with the law. What about the law then which\ndefines our whole existence? Do men believe in it? Do they\nregard it as good? Not at all. In the majority of cases people\nof the present time do not believe in the justice of the law, they\ndespise it, but still they obey it. It was very well for the\nmen of the ancient world to observe their laws. They firmly\nbelieved that their law (it was generally of a religious\ncharacter) was the only just law, which everyone ought to obey.\nBut is it so with us? we know and cannot help knowing that the law\nof our country is not the one eternal law; that it is only one of\nthe many laws of different countries, which are equally imperfect,\noften obviously wrong and unjust, and are criticised from every\npoint of view in the newspapers. The Jew might well obey his\nlaws, since he had not the slightest doubt that God had written\nthem with his finger; the Roman too might well obey the laws which\nhe thought had been dictated by the nymph Egeria. Men might well\nobserve the laws if they believed the Tzars who made them were\nGod's anointed, or even if they thought they were the work of\nassemblies of lawgivers who had the power and the desire to make\nthem as good as possible. But we all know how our laws are\nmade. We have all been behind the scenes, we know that they are\nthe product of covetousness, trickery, and party struggles; that\nthere is not and cannot be any real justice in them. And so\nmodern men cannot believe that obedience to civic or political\nlaws can satisfy the demands of the reason or of human nature.\nMen have long ago recognized that it is irrational to obey a law\nthe justice of which is very doubtful, and so they cannot but\nsuffer in obeying a law which they do not accept as judicious and\nbinding.\n\nA man cannot but suffer when his whole life is defined beforehand\nfor him by laws, which he must obey under threat of punishment,\nthough he does not believe in their wisdom or justice, and often\nclearly perceives their injustice, cruelty, and artificiality.\n\nWe recognize the uselessness of customs and import duties, and are\nobliged to pay them. We recognize the uselessness of the\nexpenditure on the maintenance of the Court and other members of\nGovernment, and we regard the teaching of the Church as injurious,\nbut we are obliged to bear our share of the expenses of these\ninstitutions. We regard the punishments inflicted by law as cruel\nand shameless, but we must assist in supporting them. We regard\nas unjust and pernicious the distribution of landed property, but\nwe are obliged to submit to it. We see no necessity for wars and\narmies, but we must bear terribly heavy burdens in support of\ntroops and war expenses.\n\nBut this contradiction is nothing in comparison with the\ncontradiction which confronts us when we turn to international\nquestions, and which demands a solution, under pain of the loss of\nthe sanity and even the existence of the human race. That is the\ncontradiction between the Christian conscience and war.\n\nWe are all Christian nations living the same spiritual life, so that\nevery noble and pregnant thought, springing up at one end of the world,\nis at once communicated to the whole of Christian humanity and evokes\neverywhere the same emotion at pride and rejoicing without distinction\nof nationalities. We who love thinkers, philanthropists, poets, and\nscientific men of foreign origin, and are as proud of the exploits of\nFather Damien as if he were one of ourselves, we, who have a simple love\nfor men of foreign nationalities, Frenchmen, Germans, Americans, and\nEnglishmen, who respect their qualities, are glad to meet them and make\nthem so warmly welcome, cannot regard war with them as anything heroic.\nWe cannot even imagine without horror the possibility of a disagreement\nbetween these people and ourselves which would call for reciprocal\nmurder. Yet we are all bound to take a hand in this slaughter which is\nbound to come to pass to-morrow not to-day.\n\nIt was very well for the Jew, the Greek, and the Roman to defend\nthe independence of his nation by murder. For he piously believed\nthat his people was the only true, fine, and good people dear to\nGod, and all the rest were Philistines, barbarians. Men of\nmedieval times--even up to the end of the last and beginning of\nthis century--might continue to hold this belief. But however\nmuch we work upon ourselves we cannot believe it. And this\ncontradiction for men of the present day has become so full of\nhorror that without its solution life is no longer possible.\n\n\"We live in a time which is full of inconsistencies,\" writes Count\nKomarovsky, the professor of international law, in his learned\ntreatise.\n\n \"The press of all countries is continually expressing the\n universal desire for peace, and the general sense of its\n necessity for all nations.\n\n \"Representatives of governments, private persons, and official\n organs say the same thing; it is repeated in parliamentary\n debates, diplomatic correspondence, and even in state treaties.\n At the same time governments are increasing the strength of\n their armies every year, levying fresh taxes, raising loans,\n and leaving as a bequest to future generations the duty of\n repairing the blunders of the senseless policy of the present.\n What a striking contrast between words and deeds! Of course\n governments will plead in justification of these measures that\n all their expenditure and armament are exclusively for purposes\n of defense. But it remains a mystery to every disinterested\n man whence they can expect attacks if all the great powers are\n single-hearted in their policy, in pursuing nothing but self\n defense. In reality it looks as if each of the great powers\n were every instant anticipating an attack on the part of the\n others. And this results in a general feeling of insecurity\n and superhuman efforts on the part of each government to\n increase their forces beyond those of the other powers. Such a\n competition of itself increases the danger of war. Nations\n cannot endure the constant increase of armies for long, and\n sooner or later they will prefer war to all the disadvantages\n of their present position and the constant menace of war. Then\n the most trifling pretext will be sufficient to throw the whole\n of Europe into the fire of universal war. And it is a mistaken\n idea that such a crisis might deliver us from the political and\n economical troubles that are crushing us. The experience of\n the wars of latter years teaches us that every war has only\n intensified national hatreds, made military burdens more\n crushing and insupportable, and rendered the political and\n economical grievous and insoluble.\"\n\n\"Modern Europe keeps under arms an active army of nine millions of\nmen,\" writes Enrico Ferri,\n\n \"besides fifteen millions of reserve, with an outlay of four\n hundred millions of francs per annum. By continual increase of\n the armed force, the sources of social and individual\n prosperity are paralyzed, and the state of the modern world may\n be compared to that of a man who condemns himself to wasting\n from lack of nutrition in order to provide himself with arms,\n losing thereby the strength to use the arms he provides, under\n the weight of which he will at last succumb.\"\n\nCharles Booth, in his paper read in London before the Association\nfor the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations, June 26,\n1887, says the same thing. After referring to the same number,\nnine millions of the active army and fifteen millions of reserve,\nand the enormous expenditure of governments on the support and\narming of these forces, he says:\n\n \"These figures represent only a small part of the real cost,\n because besides the recognized expenditure of the war budget of\n the various nations, we ought also to take into account the\n enormous loss to society involved in withdrawing from it such\n an immense number of its most vigorous men, who are taken from\n industrial pursuits and every kind of labor, as well as the\n enormous interest on the sums expended on military preparations\n without any return. The inevitable result of this expenditure\n on war and preparations for war is a continually growing\n national debt. The greater number of loans raised by the\n governments of Europe were with a view to war. Their total sum\n amounts to four hundred millions sterling, and these debts are\n increasing every year.\"\n\nThe same Professor Komarovsky says in another place:\n\n \"We live in troubled times. Everywhere we hear complaints of\n the depression of trade and manufactures, and the wretchedness\n of the economic position generally, the miserable conditions of\n existence of the working classes, and the universal\n impoverishment of the masses. But in spite of this, governments\n in their efforts to maintain their independence rush to the\n greatest extremes of senselessness. New taxes and duties are\n being devised everywhere, and the financial oppression of the\n nations knows no limits. If we glance at the budgets of the\n states of Europe for the last hundred years, what strikes us\n most of all is their rapid and continually growing increase.\n\n \"How can we explain this extraordinary phenomenon which sooner\n or later threatens us all with inevitable bankruptcy?\n\n \"It is caused beyond dispute by the expenditure for the\n maintenance of armaments which swallows up a third and even a\n half of all the expenditure of European states. And the most\n melancholy thing is that one can foresee no limit to this\n augmentation of the budget and impoverishment of the masses.\n What is socialism but a protest against this abnormal position\n in which the greater proportion of the population of our world\n is placed?\n\n\"We are ruining ourselves,\" says Frederick Passy in a letter read\nbefore the last Congress of Universal Peace (in 1890) in London,\n\n \"we are ruining ourselves in order to be able to take part in\n the senseless wars of the future or to pay the interest on\n debts we have incurred by the senseless and criminal wars of\n the past. We are dying of hunger so as to secure the means of\n killing each other.\"\n\nSpeaking later on of the way the subject is looked at in France,\nhe says:\n\n \"We believe that, a hundred years after the Declaration of the\n Rights of Man and of the citizen, the time has come to\n recognize the rights of nations and to renounce at once and\n forever all those undertakings based on fraud and force, which,\n under the name of conquests, are veritable crimes against\n humanity, and which, whatever the vanity of monarchs and the\n pride of nations may think of them, only weaken even those who\n are triumphant over them.\"\n\n\"I am surprised at the way religion is carried on in this\ncountry,\" said Sir Wilfrid Lawson at the same congress.\n\n \"You send a boy to Sunday school, and you tell him: 'Dear boy,\n you must love your enemies. If another boy strikes you, you\n mustn't hit him back, but try to reform him by loving him.'\n Well. The boy stays in the Sunday school till he is fourteen\n or fifteen, and then his friends send him into the army. What\n has he to do in the army? He certainly won't love his enemy;\n quite the contrary, if he can only get at him, he will run him\n through with his bayonet. That is the nature of all religious\n teaching in this country. I do not think that that is a very\n good way of carrying out the precepts of religion. I think if\n it is a good thing for a boy to love his enemy, it is good for\n a grown-up man.\"\n\n\"There are in Europe twenty-eight millions of men under arms,\"\nsays Wilson,\n\n \"to decide disputes, not by discussion, but by murdering one\n another. That is the accepted method for deciding disputes\n among Christian nations. This method is, at the same time,\n very expensive, for, according to the statistics I have read,\n the nations of Europe spent in the year 1872 a hundred and\n fifty millions sterling on preparations for deciding disputes\n by means of murder. It seems to me, therefore, that in such a\n state of things one of two alternatives must be admitted:\n either Christianity is a failure, or those who have undertaken\n to expound it have failed in doing so. Until our warriors are\n disarmed and our armies disbanded, the have not the right to\n call ourselves a Christian nation.\"\n\nIn a conference on the subject of the duty of Christian ministers\nto preach against war, G. D. Bartlett said among other things:\n\n \"If I understand the Scriptures, I say that men are only\n playing with Christianity so long as they ignore the question\n of war. I have lived a longish life and have heard our\n ministers preach on universal peace hardly half a dozen times.\n Twenty years ago, in a drawing room, I dared in the presence of\n forty persons to moot the proposition that war was incompatible\n with Christianity; I was regarded as an arrant fanatic. The\n idea that we could get on without war was regarded as\n unmitigated weakness and folly.\"\n\nThe Catholic priest Defourney has expressed himself in the same\nspirit. \"One of the first precepts of the eternal law inscribed\nin the consciences of all men,\" says the Abby Defourney,\n\n \"is the prohibition of taking the life or shedding the blood of\n a fellow-creature without sufficient cause, without being\n forced into the necessity of it. This is one of the\n commandments which is most deeply stamped in the heart of man.\n But so soon as it is a question of war, that is, of shedding\n blood in torrents, men of the present day do not trouble\n themselves about a sufficient cause. Those who take part in\n wars do not even think of asking themselves whether there is\n any justification for these innumerable murders, whether they\n are justifiable or unjustifiable, lawful or unlawful, innocent\n or criminal; whether they are breaking that fundamental\n commandment that forbids killing without lawful cause.\n But their conscience is mute. War has ceased to be something\n dependent on moral considerations. In warfare men have in all\n the toil and dangers they endure no other pleasure than that of\n being conquerors, no sorrow other than that of being conquered.\n Don't tell me that they are serving their country. A great\n genius answered that long ago in the words that have become a\n proverb: 'Without justice, what is an empire but a great band\n of brigands?' And is not every band of brigands a little\n empire? They too have their laws; and they too make war to\n gain booty, and even for honor.\n\n \"The aim of the proposed institution [the institution of an\n international board of arbitration] is that the nations of\n Europe may cease to be nations of robbers, and their armies,\n bands of brigands. And one must add, not only brigands, but\n slaves. For our armies are simply gangs of slaves at the\n disposal of one or two commanders or ministers, who exercise a\n despotic control over them without any real responsibility, as\n we very well know.\n\n \"The peculiarity of a slave is that he is a mere tool in the\n hands of his master, a thing, not a man. That is just what\n soldiers, officers, and generals are, going to murder and be\n murdered at the will of a ruler or rulers. Military slavery is\n an actual fact, and it is the worst form of slavery, especially\n now when by means of compulsory service it lays its fetters on\n the necks of all the strong and capable men of a nation, to\n make them instruments of murder, butchers of human flesh, for\n that is all they are taken and trained to do.\n\n \"The rulers, two or three in number, meet together in cabinets,\n secretly deliberate without registers, without publicity, and\n consequently without responsibility, and send men to be\n murdered.\"\n\n\"Protests against armaments, burdensome to the people, have not\noriginated in our times,\" says Signor E. G. Moneta.\n\n \"Hear what Montesquieu wrote in his day. 'France [and one\n might say, Europe] will be ruined by soldiers. A new plague is\n spreading throughout Europe. It attacks sovereigns and forces\n them to maintain an incredible number of armed men. This\n plague is infectious and spreads, because directly one\n government increases its armament, all the others do likewise.\n So that nothing is gained by it but general ruin.\n\n \"'Every government maintains as great an army as it possibly\n could maintain if its people were threatened with\n extermination, and people call peace this state of tension of\n all against all. And therefore Europe is so ruined that if\n private persons were in the position of the governments of our\n continent, the richest of them would not have enough to live\n on. We are poor though we have the wealth and trade of the\n whole world.'\n\n \"That was written almost 150 years ago. The picture seems drawn\n from the world of to-day. One thing only has changed-the form\n of government. In Montesquieu's time it was said that the\n cause of the maintenance of great armaments was the despotic\n power of kings, who made war in the hope of augmenting by\n conquest their personal revenues and gaining glory. People\n used to say then: 'Ah, if only people could elect those who\n would have the right to refuse governments the soldiers and the\n money--then there would be an end to military politics.' Now\n there are representative governments in almost the whole of\n Europe, and in spite of that, war expenditures and the\n preparations for war have increased to alarming proportions.\n\n \"It is evident that the insanity of sovereigns has gained\n possession of the ruling classes. War is not made now because\n one king has been wanting in civility to the mistress of\n another king, as it was in Louis XIV.'s time. But the natural\n and honorable sentiments of national honor and patriotism are\n so exaggerated, and the public opinion of one nation so excited\n against another, that it is enough for a statement to be made\n (even though it may be a false report) that the ambassador of\n one state was not received by the principal personage of\n another state to cause the outbreak of the most awful and\n destructive war there has ever been seen. Europe keeps more\n soldiers under arms to-day than in the time of the great\n Napoleonic wars. All citizens with few exceptions are forced\n to spend some years in barracks. Fortresses, arsenals, and\n ships are built, new weapons are constantly being invented, to\n be replaced in a short time by fresh ones, for, sad to say,\n science, which ought always to be aiming at the good of\n humanity, assists in the work of destruction, and is constantly\n inventing new means for killing the greatest number of men in\n the shortest time. And to maintain so great a multitude of\n soldiers and to make such vast preparations for murder,\n hundreds of millions are spent annually, sums which would be\n sufficient for the education of the people and for immense\n works of public utility, and which would make it possible to\n find a peaceful solution of the social question.\n\n \"Europe, then, is, in this respect, in spite of all the\n conquests of science, in the same position as in the darkest\n and most barbarous days of the Middle Ages. All deplore this\n state of things--neither peace nor war--and all would be glad\n to escape from it. The heads of governments all declare that\n they all wish for peace, and vie with one another in the most\n solemn protestations of peaceful intentions. But the same day\n or the next they will lay a scheme for the increase of the\n armament before their legislative assembly, saying that these\n are the preventive measures they take for the very purpose of\n securing peace.\n\n \"But this is not the kind of peace we want. And the nations\n are not deceived by it. True peace is based on mutual\n confidence, while these huge armaments show open and utter lack\n of confidence, if not concealed hostility, between states.\n What should we say of a man who, wanting to show his friendly\n feelings for his neighbor, should invite him to discuss their\n differences with a loaded revolver in his hand?\n\n \"It is just this flagrant contradiction between the peaceful\n professions and the warlike policy of governments which all\n good citizens desire to put an end to, at any cost.\"\n\nPeople are astonished that every year there are sixty thousand\ncases of suicide in Europe, and those only the recognized and\nrecorded cases--and excluding Russia and Turkey; but one ought\nrather to be surprised that there are so few. Every man of the\npresent day, if we go deep enough into the contradiction between\nhis conscience and his life, is in a state of despair.\n\nNot to speak of all the other contradictions between modern life\nand the conscience, the permanently armed condition of Europe\ntogether with its profession of Christianity is alone enough to\ndrive any man to despair, to doubt of the sanity of mankind, and\nto terminate an existence in this senseless and brutal world.\nThis contradiction, which is a quintessence of all the other\ncontradictions, is so terrible that to live and to take part in it\nis only possible if one does not think of it--if one is able to\nforget it.\n\nWhat! all of us, Christians, not only profess to love one another, but\ndo actually live one common life; we whose social existence beats with\none common pulse--we aid one another, learn from one another, draw ever\ncloser to one another to our mutual happiness, and find in this\ncloseness the whole meaning of life!--and to-morrow some crazy ruler\nwill say some stupidity, and another will answer in the same spirit, and\nthen I must go expose myself to being murdered, and murder men--who have\ndone me no harm--and more than that, whom I love. And this is not a\nremote contingency, but the very thing we are all preparing for, which\nis not only probable, but an inevitable certainty.\n\nTo recognize this clearly is enough to drive a man out of his\nsenses or to make him shoot himself. And this is just what does\nhappen, and especially often among military men. A man need only\ncome to himself for an instant to be impelled inevitably to such\nan end.\n\nAnd this is the only explanation of the dreadful intensity with\nwhich men of modern times strive to stupefy themselves, with\nspirits, tobacco, opium, cards, reading newspapers, traveling, and\nall kinds of spectacles and amusements. These pursuits are\nfollowed up as an important, serious business. And indeed they\nare a serious business. If there were no external means of\ndulling their sensibilities, half of mankind would shoot\nthemselves without delay, for to live in opposition to one's\nreason is the most intolerable condition. And that is the\ncondition of all men of the present day. All men of the modern\nworld exist in a state of continual and flagrant antagonism\nbetween their conscience and their way of life. This antagonism\nis apparent in economic as well as political life. But most\nstriking of all is the contradiction between the Christian law of\nthe brotherhood of men existing in the conscience and the\nnecessity under which all men are placed by compulsory military\nservice of being prepared for hatred and murder--of being at the\nsame time a Christian and a gladiator.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TO WAR.\n\nPeople do not Try to Remove the Contradiction between Life and\nConscience by a Change of Life, but their Cultivated Leaders Exert Every\nEffort to Obscure the Demands of Conscience, and justify their Life; in\nthis Way they Degrade Society below Paganism to a State of Primeval\nBarbarism--Undefined Attitude of Modern Leaders of Thought to War, to\nUniversal Militarism, and to Compulsory Service in Army--One Section\nRegards War as an Accidental Political Phenomenon, to be Avoided by\nExternal Measures only--Peace Congress--The Article in the REVUE DES\nREVUES--Proposition of Maxime du Camp--Value of Boards of Arbitration\nand Suppression of Armies--Attitude of Governments to Men of this\nOpinion and What they Do--Another Section Regards War as Cruel, but\nInevitable--Maupassant--Rod--A Third Section Regard War as Necessary,\nand not without its Advantages--Doucet-Claretie-Zola-Vog\u00fc\u00e9.\n\n\nThe antagonism between life and the conscience may be removed in\ntwo ways: by a change of life or by a change of conscience. And\nthere would seem there can be no doubt as to these alternatives.\n\nA man may cease to do what he regards as wrong, but he cannot\ncease to consider wrong what is wrong. Just in the same way all\nhumanity may cease to do what it regards as wrong, but far from\nbeing able to change, it cannot even retard for a time the\ncontinual growth of a clearer recognition of what is wrong and\ntherefore ought not to be. And therefore it would seem inevitable\nfor Christian men to abandon the pagan forms of society which they\ncondemn, and to reconstruct their social existence on the\nChristian principles they profess.\n\nSo it would be were it not for the law of inertia, as immutable a\nforce in men and nations as in inanimate bodies. In men it takes\nthe form of the psychological principle, so truly expressed in the\nwords of the Gospel, \"They have loved darkness better than light\nbecause their deeds were evil.\" This principle shows itself in\nmen not trying to recognize the truth, but to persuade themselves\nthat the life they are leading, which is what they like and are\nused to, is a life perfectly consistent with truth.\n\nSlavery was opposed to all the moral principles advocated by Plato\nand Aristotle, yet neither of them saw that, because to renounce\nslavery would have meant the break up of the life they were\nliving. We see the same thing in our modern world.\n\nThe division of men into two castes, as well as the use of force\nin government and war, are opposed to every moral principle\nprofessed by our modern society. Yet the cultivated and advanced\nmen of the day seem not to see it.\n\nThe majority, if not all, of the cultivated men of our day try\nunconsciously to maintain the old social conception of life, which\njustifies their position, and to hide from themselves and others\nits insufficiency, and above all the necessity of adopting the\nChristian conception of life, which will mean the break up of the\nwhole existing social order. They struggle to keep up the\norganization based on the social conception of life, but do not\nbelieve in it themselves, because it is extinct and it is\nimpossible to believe in it.\n\nAll modern literature--philosophical, political, and artistic--is\nstriking in this respect. What wealth of idea, of form, of color,\nwhat erudition, what art, but what a lack of serious matter, what\ndread of any exactitude of thought or expression! Subtleties,\nallegories, humorous fancies, the widest generalizations, but\nnothing simple and clear, nothing going straight to the point,\nthat is, to the problem of life.\n\nBut that is not all; besides these graceful frivolities, our\nliterature is full of simple nastiness and brutality, of arguments\nwhich would lead men back in the most refined way to primeval\nbarbarism, to the principles not only of the pagan, but even of\nthe animal life, which we have left behind us five thousand years\nago.\n\nAnd it could not be otherwise. In their dread of the Christian\nconception of life which will destroy the social order, which some\ncling to only from habit, others also from interest, men cannot\nbut be thrown back upon the pagan conception of life and the\nprinciples based on it. Nowadays we see advocated not only\npatriotism and aristocratic principles just as they were advocated\ntwo thousand years ago, but even the coarsest epicureanism and\nanimalism, only with this difference, that the men who then\nprofessed those views believed in them, while nowadays even the\nadvocates of such views do not believe in them, for they have no\nmeaning for the present day. No one can stand still when the\nearth is shaking under his feet. If we do not go forward we must\ngo back. And strange and terrible to say, the cultivated men of\nour day, the leaders of thought, are in reality with their subtle\nreasoning drawing society back, not to paganism even, but to a\nstate of primitive barbarism.\n\nThis tendency on the part of the leading thinkers of the day is\nnowhere more apparent than in their attitude to the phenomenon in\nwhich all the insufficiency of the social conception of life is\npresented in the most concentrated form--in their attitude, that\nis, to war, to the general arming of nations, and to universal\ncompulsory service.\n\nThe undefined, if not disingenuous, attitude of modern thinkers to\nthis phenomenon is striking. It takes three forms in cultivated\nsociety. One section look at it as an incidental phenomenon,\narising out of the special political situation of Europe, and\nconsider that this state of things can be reformed without a\nrevolution in the whole internal social order of nations, by\nexternal measures of international diplomacy. Another section\nregard it as something cruel and hideous, but at the same time\nfated and inevitable, like disease and death. A third party with\ncool indifference consider war as an inevitable phenomenon,\nbeneficial in its effects and therefore desirable.\n\nMen look at the subject from different points of view, but all\nalike talk of war as though it were something absolutely\nindependent of the will of those who take part in it. And\nconsequently they do not even admit the natural question which\npresents itself to every simple man: \"How about me--ought I to\ntake any part in it?\" In their view no question of this kind even\nexists, and every man, however he may regard war from a personal\nstandpoint, must slavishly submit to the requirements of the\nauthorities on the subject.\n\nThe attitude of the first section of thinkers, those who see a way\nout of war in international diplomatic measures, is well expressed\nin the report of the last Peace Congress in London, and the\narticles and letters upon war that appeared in No. 8 of the REVUE\nDES REVUES, 1891. The congress after gathering together from\nvarious quarters the verbal and written opinion of learned men\nopened the proceedings by a religious service, and after listening\nto addresses for five whole days, concluded them by a public\ndinner and speeches. They adopted the following resolutions:\n\n \"1. The congress affirms its belief that the brotherhood of man\n involves as a necessary consequence a brotherhood of nations.\n\n \"2. The congress recognizes the important influence that\n Christianity exercises on the moral and political progress of\n mankind, and earnestly urges upon ministers of the Gospel and\n other religious teachers the duty of setting forth the\n principles of peace and good will toward men. AND IT RECOMMENDS\n THAT THE THIRD SUNDAY IN DECEMBER BE SET APART FOR THAT\n PURPOSE.\n\n \"3. The congress expresses the opinion that all teachers of\n history should call the attention of the young to the grave\n evils inflicted on mankind in all ages by war, and to the fact\n that such war has been waged for most inadequate causes.\n\n \"4. The congress protests against the use of military drill in\n schools by way of physical exercise, and suggests the formation\n of brigades for saving life rather than of a quasi-military\n character; and urges the desirability of impressing on the\n Board of Examiners who formulate the questions for examination\n the propriety of guiding the minds of children in the\n principles of peace.\n\n \"5. The congress holds that the doctrine of the Rights of Man\n requires that the aboriginal and weaker races, their\n territories and liberties, shall be guarded from injustice and\n fraud, and that these races shall be shielded against the vices\n so prevalent among the so-called advanced races of men. It\n further expresses its conviction that there should be concert\n of action among the nations for the accomplishment of these\n ends. The congress expresses its hearty appreciation of the\n resolutions of the Anti-slavery Conference held recently at\n Brussels for the amelioration of the condition of the peoples\n of Africa.\n\n \"6. The congress believes that the warlike prejudices and\n traditions which are still fostered in the various\n nationalities, and the misrepresentations by leaders of public\n opinion in legislative assemblies or through the press, are\n often indirect causes of war, and that these evils should be\n counteracted by the publication of accurate information tending\n to the removal of misunderstanding between nations, and\n recommends the importance of considering the question of\n commencing an international newspaper with such a purpose.\n\n \"7. The congress proposes to the Inter-parliamentary Conference\n that the utmost support should be given to every project for\n unification of weights and measures, coinage, tariff, postage,\n and telegraphic arrangements, etc., which would assist in\n constituting a commercial, industrial, and scientific union of\n the peoples.\n\n \"8. The congress, in view of the vast social and moral\n influence of woman, urges upon every woman to sustain the\n things that make for peace, as otherwise she incurs grave\n responsibility for the continuance of the systems of\n militarism.\n\n \"9. The congress expresses the hope that the Financial Reform\n Association and other similar societies in Europe and America\n should unite in considering means for establishing equitable\n commercial relations between states, by the reduction of import\n duties. The congress feels that it can affirm that the whole\n of Europe desires peace, and awaits with impatience the\n suppression of armaments, which, under the plea of defense,\n become in their turn a danger by keeping alive mutual distrust,\n and are, at the same time, the cause of that general economic\n disturbance which stands in the way of settling in a\n satisfactory manner the problems of labor and poverty, which\n ought to take precedence of all others.\n\n \"10. The congress, recognizing that a general disarmament would\n be the best guarantee of peace and would lead to the solution\n of the questions which now most divide states, expresses the\n wish that a congress of representatives of all the states of\n Europe may be assembled as soon as possible to consider the\n means of effecting a gradual general disarmament.\n\n \"11. The congress, in consideration of the fact that the\n timidity of a single power might delay the convocation of the\n above-mentioned congress, is of opinion that the government\n which should first dismiss any considerable number of soldiers\n would confer a signal benefit on Europe and mankind, because it\n would, by public opinion, oblige other governments to follow\n its example, and by the moral force of this accomplished fact\n would have increased rather than diminished the conditions of\n its national defense.\n\n \"12. The congress, considering the question of disarmament, as\n of peace in general, depends on public opinion, recommends the\n peace societies, as well as all friends of peace, to be active\n in its propaganda, especially at the time of parliamentary\n elections, in order that the electors should give their votes\n to candidates who are pledged to support Peace, Disarmament,\n and Arbitration.\n\n \"13. The congress congratulates the friends of peace on the\n resolution adopted by the International American Conference,\n held at Washington in April last, by which it was recommended\n that arbitration should be obligatory in all controversies,\n whatever their origin, except only those which may imperil the\n independence of one of the nations involved.\n\n \"14. The congress recommends this resolution to the attention\n of European statesmen, and expresses the ardent desire that\n similar treaties may speedily be entered into between the other\n nations of the world.\n\n \"15. The congress expresses its satisfaction at the adoption by\n the Spanish Senate on June 16 last of a project of law\n authorizing the government to negotiate general or special\n treaties of arbitration for the settlement of all disputes\n except those relating to the independence or internal\n government of the states affected; also at the adoption of\n resolutions to a like effect by the Norwegian Storthing and by\n the Italian Chamber.\n\n \"16. The congress resolves that a committee be appointed to\n address communications to the principal political, religious,\n commercial, and labor and peace organizations, requesting them\n to send petitions to the governmental authorities praying that\n measures be taken for the formation of suitable tribunals for\n the adjudicature of international questions so as to avoid the\n resort to war.\n\n \"17. Seeing (1) that the object pursued by all peace societies\n is the establishment of judicial order between nations, and (2)\n that neutralization by international treaties constitutes a\n step toward this judicial state and lessens the number of\n districts in which war can be carried on, the congress\n recommends a larger extension of the rule of neutralization,\n and expresses the wish, (1) that all treaties which at present\n assure to certain states the benefit of neutrality remain in\n force, or if necessary be amended in a manner to render the\n neutrality more effective, either by extending neutralization\n to the whole of the state or by ordering the demolition of\n fortresses, which constitute rather a peril than a guarantee\n for neutrality; (2) that new treaties in harmony with the\n wishes of the populations concerned be concluded for\n establishing the neutralization of other states.\n\n \"18. The sub-committee proposes, (1) that the annual Peace\n Congress should be held either immediately before the meeting\n of the annual Sub-parliamentary Conference, or immediately\n after it in the same town; (2) that the question of an\n international peace emblem be postponed SINE DIE; (3) that the\n following resolutions be adopted:\n\n \"a. To express satisfaction at the official overtures of the\n Presbyterian Church in the United States addressed to the\n highest representatives of each church organization in\n Christendom to unite in a general conference to promote the\n substitution of international arbitration for war.\n\n \"b. To express in the name of the congress its profound\n reverence for the memory of Aurelio Saffi, the great Italian\n jurist, a member of the committee of the International\n League of Peace and Liberty.\n\n \"(4) That the memorial adopted by this congress and\n signed by the president to the heads of the civilized states\n should, as far as practicable, be presented to each power by\n influential deputations.\n\n \"(5) That the following resolutions be adopted:\n\n \"a. A resolution of thanks to the presidents of the various\n sittings of the congress.\n\n \"b. A resolution of thanks to the chairman, the secretaries,\n and the members of the bureau of the congress.\n\n \"c. A resolution of thanks to the conveners and members of\n the sectional committees.\n\n \"d. A resolution of thanks to Rev. Canon Scott Holland, Rev.\n Dr. Reuen Thomas, and Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon for their pulpit\n addresses before the congress, and also to the authorities\n of St. Paul's Cathedral, the City Temple, and Stamford Hill\n Congregational Church for the use of those buildings for\n public services.\n\n \"e. A letter of thanks to her Majesty for permission to\n visit Windror Castle.\n\n \"f. And also a resolution of thanks to the Lord Mayor and\n Lady Mayoress, to Mr. Passmore Edwards, and other friends\n who have extended their hospitality to the members of the\n congress.\n\n \"19. The congress places on record a heartfelt expression of\n gratitude to Almighty God for the remarkable harmony and\n concord which have characterized the meetings of the assembly,\n in which so many men and women of varied nations, creeds,\n tongues, and races have gathered in closest co-operation, and\n for the conclusion of the labors of the congress; and expresses\n its firm and unshaken belief in the ultimate triumph of the\n cause of peace and of the principles advocated at these\n meetings.\"\n\nThe fundamental idea of the congress is the necessity (1) of\ndiffusing among all people by all means the conviction of the\ndisadvantages of war and the great blessing of peace, and (2) of\nrousing governments to the sense of the superiority of\ninternational arbitration over war and of the consequent\nadvisability and necessity of disarmament. To attain the first\naim the congress has recourse to teachers of history, to women,\nand to the clergy, with the advice to the latter to preach on the\nevil of war and the blessing of peace every third Sunday in\nDecember. To attain the second object the congress appeals to\ngovernments with the suggestion that they should disband their\narmies and replace war by arbitration.\n\nTo preach to men of the evil of war and the blessing of peace!\nBut the blessing of peace is so well known to men that, ever since\nthere have been men at all, their best wish has been expressed in\nthe greeting, \"Peace be with you.\" So why preach about it?\n\nNot only Christians, but pagans, thousands of years ago, all\nrecognized the evil of war and the blessing of peace. So that the\nrecommendation to ministers of the Gospel to preach on the evil of\nwar and the blessing of peace every third Sunday in December is\nquite superfluous.\n\nThe Christian cannot but preach on that subject every day of his\nlife. If Christians and preachers of Christianity do not do so,\nthere must be reasons for it. And until these have been removed\nno recommendations will be effective. Still less effective will\nbe the recommendations to governments to disband their armies and\nreplace them by international boards of arbitration. Governments,\ntoo, know very well the difficulty and the burdensomeness of\nraising and maintaining forces, and if in spite of that knowledge\nthey do, at the cost of terrible strain and effort, raise and\nmaintain forces, it is evident that they cannot do otherwise, and\nthe recommendation of the congress can never change it. But the\nlearned gentlemen are unwilling to see that, and keep hoping to\nfind a political combination, through which governments shall be\ninduced to limit their powers themselves.\n\n\"Can we get rid of war\"? asks a learned writer in the REVUE DES\nREVUES.\n\n \"All are agreed that if it were to break out in Europe, its\n consequences would be like those of the great inroads of\n barbarians. The existence of whole nationalities would be at\n stake, and therefore the war would be desperate, bloody,\n atrocious.\n\n \"This consideration, together with the terrible engines of\n destruction invented by modern science, retards the moment of\n declaring war, and maintains the present temporary situation,\n which might continue for an indefinite period, except for the\n fearful cost of maintaining armaments which are exhausting the\n European states and threatening to reduce nations to a state of\n misery hardly less than that of war itself.\n\n \"Struck by this reflection, men of various countries have tried\n to find means for preventing, or at least for softening, the\n results of the terrible slaughter with which we are threatened.\n\n \"Such are the questions brought forward by the Peace Congress\n shortly to be held in Rome, and the publication of a pamphlet,\n Sur le D\u00e9sarmement.'\n\n \"It is unhappily beyond doubt that with the present\n organization of the majority of European states, isolated from\n one another and guided by distinct interests, the absolute\n suppression of war is an illusion with which it would be\n dangerous to cheat ourselves. Wiser rules and regulations\n imposed on these duels between nations might, however, at least\n limit its horrors.\n\n \"It is equally chimerical to reckon on projects of disarmament,\n the execution of which is rendered almost impossible by\n considerations of a popular character present to the mind of\n all our readers. [This probably means that France cannot\n disband its army before taking its revenge.] Public opinion is\n not prepared to accept them, and moreover, the international\n relations between different peoples are not such as to make\n their acceptance possible. Disarmament imposed on one nation\n by another in circumstances threatening its security would be\n equivalent to a declaration of war.\n\n \"However, one may admit that an exchange of ideas between the\n nations interested could aid, to a certain degree, in bringing\n about the good understanding indispensable to any negotiations,\n and would render possible a considerable reduction of the\n military expenditure which is crushing the nations of Europe\n and greatly hindering the solution of the social question,\n which each individually must solve on pain of having internal\n war as the price for escaping it externally.\n\n \"We might at least demand the reduction of the enormous\n expenses of war organized as it is at present with a view to\n the power of invasion within twenty-four hours and a decisive\n battle within a week of the declaration of war.\n\n \"We ought to manage so that states could not make the attack\n suddenly and invade each other's territories within twenty-four\n hours.\"\n\nThis practical notion has been put forth by Maxime du Camp, and\nhis article concludes with it.\n\nThe propositions of M. du Camp are as follows:\n\n 1. A diplomatic congress to be held every year.\n\n 2. No war to be declared till two months after the incident\n which provoked it. (The difficulty here would be to decide\n precisely what incident did provoke the war, since whenever war\n is declared there are very many such incidents, and one would\n have to decide from which to reckon the two months' interval.)\n\n 3. No war to be declared before it has been submitted to a\n plebiscitum of the nations preparing to take part in it.\n\n 4. No hostilities to be commenced till a month after the\n official declaration of war.\n\n\"No war to be declared. No hostilities to be commenced,\" etc.\nBut who is to arrange that no war is to be declared? Who is to\ncompel people to do this and that? Who is to force states to\ndelay their operations for a certain fixed time? All the other\nstates. But all these others are also states which want holding\nin check and keeping within limits, and forcing, too. Who is to\nforce them, and how? Public opinion. But if there is a public\nopinion which can force governments to delay their operations for\na fixed period, the same public opinion can force governments not\nto declare war at all.\n\nBut, it will be replied, there may be such a balance of power,\nsuch a POND\u00c9RATION DE FORCES, as would lead states to hold back of\ntheir own accord. Well, that has been tried and is being tried\neven now. The Holy Alliance was nothing but that, the League of\nPeace was another attempt at the same thing, and so on.\n\nBut, it will be answered, suppose all were agreed. If all were\nagreed there would be no more war certainly, and no need for\narbitration either.\n\n\"A court of arbitration! Arbitration shall replace war. Questions\nshall be decided by a court of arbitration. The Alabama question\nwas decided by a court of arbitration, and the question of the\nCaroline Islands was submitted to the decision of the Pope.\nSwitzerland, Belgium, Denmark, and Holland have all declared that\nthey prefer arbitration to war.\"\n\nI dare say Monaco has expressed the same preference. The only\nunfortunate thing is that Germany, Russia, Austria, and France\nhave not so far shown the same inclination. It is amazing how men\ncan deceive themselves when they find it necessary! Governments\nconsent to decide their disagreements by arbitration and to\ndisband their armies! The differences between Russia and Poland,\nbetween England and Ireland, between Austria and Bohemia, between\nTurkey and the Slavonic states, between France and Germany, to be\nsoothed away by amiable conciliation!\n\nOne might as well suggest to merchants and bankers that they\nshould sell nothing for a greater price than they gave for it,\nshould undertake the distribution of wealth for no profit, and\nshould abolish money, as it would thus be rendered unnecessary.\n\nBut since commercial and banking operations consist in nothing but\nselling for more than the cost price, this would be equivalent to\nan invitation to suppress themselves. It is the same in regard to\ngovernments. To suggest to governments that they should not have\nrecourse to violence, but should decide their misunderstandings in\naccordance with equity, is inviting them to abolish themselves as\nrulers, and that no government can ever consent to do.\n\nThe learned men form societies (there are more than a hundred such\nsocieties), assemble in congresses (such as those recently held in\nLondon and Paris, and shortly to be held in Rome), deliver\naddresses, eat public dinners and make speeches, publish journals,\nand prove by every means possible that the nations forced to\nsupport millions of troops are strained to the furthest limits of\ntheir endurance, that the maintenance of these huge armed forces\nis in opposition to all the aims, the interests, and the wishes of\nthe people, and that it is possible, moreover, by writing numerous\npapers, and uttering a great many words, to bring all men into\nagreement and to arrange so that they shall have no antagonistic\ninterests, and then there will be no more war.\n\nWhen I was a little boy they told me if I wanted to catch a bird I\nmust put salt on its tail. I ran after the birds with the salt in\nmy hand, but I soon convinced myself that if I could put salt on a\nbird's tail, I could catch it, and realized that I had been\nhoaxed.\n\nPeople ought to realize the same fact when they read books and\narticles on arbitration and disarmament.\n\nIf one could put salt on a bird's tail, it would be because it\ncould not fly and there would be no difficulty in catching it. If\nthe bird had wings and did not want to be caught, it would not let\none put salt on its tail, because the specialty of a bird is to\nfly. In precisely the same way the specialty of government is not\nto obey, but to enforce obedience. And a government is only a\ngovernment so long as it can make itself obeyed, and therefore it\nalways strives for that and will never willingly abandon its\npower. But since it is on the army that the power of government\nrests, it will never give up the army, and the use of the army in\nwar.\n\nThe error arises from the learned jurists deceiving themselves and\nothers, by asserting that government is not what it really is, one\nset of men banded together to oppress another set of men, but, as\nshown by science, is the representation of the citizens in their\ncollective capacity. They have so long been persuading other\npeople of this that at last they have persuaded themselves of it;\nand thus they often seriously suppose that government can be bound\nby considerations of justice. But history shows that from Caesar\nto Napoleon, and from Napoleon to Bismarck, government is in its\nessence always a force acting in violation of justice, and that it\ncannot be otherwise. Justice can have no binding force on a ruler\nor rulers who keep men, deluded and drilled in readiness for acts\nof violence--soldiers, and by means of them control others. And\nso governments can never be brought to consent to diminish the\nnumber of these drilled slaves, who constitute their whole power\nand importance.\n\nSuch is the attitude of certain learned men to the contradiction\nunder which our society is being crushed, and such are their\nmethods of solving it. Tell these people that the whole matter\nrests on the personal attitude of each man to the moral and\nreligious question put nowadays to everyone, the question, that\nis, whether it is lawful or unlawful for him to take his share of\nmilitary service, and these learned gentlemen will shrug their\nshoulders and not condescend to listen or to answer you. The\nsolution of the question in their idea is to be found in reading\naddresses, writing books, electing presidents, vice-presidents,\nand secretaries, and meeting and speaking first in one town and\nthen in another. From all this speechifying and writing it will\ncome to pass, according to their notions, that governments will\ncease to levy the soldiers, on whom their whole strength depends,\nwill listen to their discourses, and will disband their forces,\nleaving themselves without any defense, not only against their\nneighbors, but also against their own subjects. As though a band\nof brigands, who have some unarmed travelers bound and ready to be\nplundered, should be so touched by their complaints of the pain\ncaused by the cords they are fastened with as to let them go\nagain.\n\nStill there are people who believe in this, busy themselves over\npeace congresses, read addresses, and write books. And\ngovernments, we may be quite sure, express their sympathy and make\na show of encouraging them. In the same way they pretend to\nsupport temperance societies, while they are living principally on\nthe drunkenness of the people; and pretend to encourage education,\nwhen their whole strength is based on ignorance; and to support\nconstitutional freedom, when their strength rests on the absence\nof freedom; and to be anxious for the improvement of the condition\nof the working classes, when their very existence depends on their\noppression; and to support Christianity, when Christianity\ndestroys all government.\n\nTo be able to do this they have long ago elaborated methods\nencouraging temperance, which cannot suppress drunkenness; methods\nof supporting education, which not only fail to prevent ignorance,\nbut even increase it; methods of aiming at freedom and\nconstitutionalism, which are no hindrance to despotism; methods of\nprotecting the working classes, which will not free them from\nslavery; and a Christianity, too, they have elaborated, which does\nnot destroy, but supports governments.\n\nNow there is something more for the government to encourage--peace. The\nsovereigns, who nowadays take counsel with their ministers, decide by\ntheir will alone whether the butchery of millions is to be begun this\nyear or next. They know very well that all these discourses upon peace\nwill not hinder them from sending millions of men to butchery when it\nseems good to them. They listen even with satisfaction to these\ndiscourses, encourage them, and take part in them.\n\nAll this, far from being detrimental, is even of service to\ngovernments, by turning people's attention from the most important\nand pressing question: Ought or ought not each man called upon for\nmilitary service to submit to serve in the army?\n\n\"Peace will soon be arranged, thanks to alliances and congresses,\nto books and pamphlets; meantime go and put on your uniform, and\nprepare to cause suffering and to endure it for our benefit,\" is\nthe government's line of argument. And the learned gentlemen who\nget up congresses and write articles are in perfect agreement with\nit.\n\nThis is the attitude of one set of thinkers. And since it is that\nmost beneficial to governments, it is also the most encouraged by\nall intelligent governments.\n\nAnother attitude to war has something tragical in it. There are\nmen who maintain that the love for peace and the inevitability of\nwar form a hideous contradiction, and that such is the fate of\nman. These are mostly gifted and sensitive men, who see and\nrealize all the horror and imbecility and cruelty of war, but\nthrough some strange perversion of mind neither see nor seek to\nfind any way out of this position, and seem to take pleasure in\nteasing the wound by dwelling on the desperate position of\nhumanity. A notable example of such an attitude to war is to be\nfound in the celebrated French writer Guy de Maupassant. Looking\nfrom his yacht at the drill and firing practice of the French\nsoldiers the following reflections occur to him:\n\n \"When I think only of this word war, a kind of terror seizes\n upon me, as though I were listening to some tale of sorcery, of\n the Inquisition, some long past, remote abomination, monstrous,\n unnatural.\n\n \"When cannibalism is spoken of, we smile with pride,\n proclaiming our superiority to these savages. Which are the\n savages, the real savages? Those who fight to eat the\n conquered, or those who fight to kill, for nothing but to kill?\n\n \"The young recruits, moving about in lines yonder, are destined\n to death like the flocks of sheep driven by the butcher along\n the road. They will fall in some plain with a saber cut in the\n head, or a bullet through the breast. And these are young men\n who might work, be productive and useful. Their fathers are\n old and poor. Their mothers, who have loved them for twenty\n years, worshiped them as none but mothers can, will learn in\n six months' time, or a year perhaps, that their son, their boy,\n the big boy reared with so much labor, so much expense, so much\n love, has been thrown in a hole like some dead dog, after being\n disemboweled by a bullet, and trampled, crushed, to a mass of\n pulp by the charges of cavalry. Why have they killed her boy,\n her handsome boy, her one hope, her pride, her life? She does\n not know. Ah, why?\n\n \"War! fighting! slaughter! massacres of men! And we have now,\n in our century, with our civilization, with the spread of\n science, and the degree of philosophy which the genius of man\n is supposed to have attained, schools for training to kill, to\n kill very far off, to perfection, great numbers at once, to\n kill poor devils of innocent men with families and without any\n kind of trial.\n\n \"AND WHAT IS MOST BEWILDERING IS THAT THE PEOPLE DO NOT RISE\n AGAINST THEIR GOVERNMENTS. FOR WHAT DIFFERENCE IS THERE\n BETWEEN MONARCHIES AND REPUBLICS? THE MOST BEWILDERING THING\n IS THAT THE WHOLE OF SOCIETY IS NOT IN REVOLT AT THE WORD WAR.\"\n\n \"Ah! we shall always live under the burden of the ancient and\n odious customs, the criminal prejudices, the ferocious ideas of\n our barbarous ancestors, for we are beasts, and beasts we shall\n remain, dominated by instinct and changed by nothing. Would\n not any other man than Victor Hugo have been exiled for that\n mighty cry of deliverance and truth? 'To-day force is called\n violence, and is being brought to judgment; war has been put on\n its trial. At the plea of the human race, civilization\n arraigns warfare, and draws up the great list of crimes laid at\n the charge of conquerors and generals. The nations are coming\n to understand that the magnitude of a crime cannot be its\n extenuation; that if killing is a crime, killing many can be no\n extenuating circumstance; that if robbery is disgraceful,\n invasion cannot be glorious. Ah! let us proclaim these\n absolute truths; let us dishonor war!'\n\n\"Vain wrath,\" continues Maupassant, \"a poet's indignation. War is\nheld in more veneration than ever.\n\n \"A skilled proficient in that line, a slaughterer of genius,\n Von Moltke, in reply to the peace delegates, once uttered these\n strange words:\n\n \"'War is holy, war is ordained of God. It is one of the most\n sacred laws of the world. It maintains among men all the great\n and noble sentiments--honor, devotion, virtue, and courage, and\n saves them in short from falling into the most hideous\n materialism.'\n\n \"So, then, bringing millions of men together into herds,\n marching by day and by night without rest, thinking of nothing,\n studying nothing, learning nothing, reading nothing, being\n useful to no one, wallowing in filth, sleeping in mud, living\n like brutes in a continual state of stupefaction, sacking\n towns, burning villages, ruining whole populations, then\n meeting another mass of human flesh, falling upon them, making\n pools of blood, and plains of flesh mixed with trodden mire and\n red with heaps of corpses, having your arms or legs carried\n off, your brains blown out for no advantage to anyone, and\n dying in some corner of a field while your old parents, your\n wife and children are perishing of hunger--that is what is\n meant by not falling into the most hideous materialism!\n\n \"Warriors are the scourge of the world. We struggle against\n nature and ignorance and obstacles of all kinds to make our\n wretched life less hard. Learned men--benefactors of all--spend\n their lives in working, in seeking what can aid, what be\n of use, what can alleviate the lot of their fellows. They\n devote themselves unsparingly to their task of usefulness,\n making one discovery after another, enlarging the sphere of\n human intelligence, extending the bounds of science, adding\n each day some new store to the sum of knowledge, gaining each\n day prosperity, ease, strength for their country.\n\n \"War breaks out. In six months the generals have destroyed the\n work of twenty years of effort, of patience, and of genius.\n\n \"That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous\n materialism.\n\n \"We have seen it, war. \"We have seen men turned to brutes,\n frenzied, killing for fun, for terror, for bravado, for\n ostentation. Then when right is no more, law is dead, every\n notion of justice has disappeared. We have seen men shoot\n innocent creatures found on the road, and suspected because\n they were afraid. We have seen them kill dogs chained at their\n masters' doors to try their new revolvers, we have seen them\n fire on cows lying in a field for no reason whatever, simply\n for the sake of shooting, for a joke.\n\n \"That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous\n materialism.\n\n \"Going into a country, cutting the man's throat who defends his\n house because he wears a blouse and has not a military cap on\n his head, burning the dwellings of wretched beings who have\n nothing to eat, breaking furniture and stealing goods, drinking\n the wine found in the cellars, violating the women in the\n streets, burning thousands of francs' worth of powder, and\n leaving misery and cholera in one's track--\n\n \"That is what is meant by not falling into the most hideous\n materialism.\n\n \"What have they done, those warriors, that proves the least\n intelligence? Nothing. What have they invented? Cannons and\n muskets. That is all.\n\n \"What remains to us from Greece? Books and statues. Is Greece\n great from her conquests or her creations?\n\n \"Was it the invasions of the Persians which saved Greece from\n falling into the most hideous materialism?\n\n \"Were the invasions of the barbarians what saved and\n regenerated Rome?\n\n \"Was it Napoleon I. who carried forward the great intellectual\n movement started by the philosophers of the end of last\n century?\n\n \"Yes, indeed, since government assumes the right of\n annihilating peoples thus, there is nothing surprising in the\n fact that the peoples assume the right of annihilating\n governments.\n\n \"They defend themselves. They are right. No one has an\n absolute right to govern others. It ought only to be done for\n the benefit of those who are governed. And it is as much the\n duty of anyone who governs to avoid war as it is the duty of a\n captain of a ship to avoid shipwreck.\n\n \"When a captain has let his ship come to ruin, he is judged and\n condemned, if he is found guilty of negligence or even\n incapacity.\n\n \"Why should not the government be put on its trial after every\n declaration of war? IF THE PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THAT, IF THEY\n THEMSELVES PASSED JUDGMENT ON MURDEROUS GOVERNMENTS, IF THEY\n REFUSED TO LET THEMSELVES BE KILLED FOR NOTHING, IF THEY WOULD\n ONLY TURN THEIR ARMS AGAINST THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN THEM TO THEM\n FOR MASSACRE, ON THAT DAY WAR WOULD BE NO MORE. BUT THAT DAY\n WILL NEVER COME\" [Footnote: \"Sur l'Eau,\" pp. 71-80].\n\nThe author sees all the horror of war. He sees that it is caused\nby governments forcing men by deception to go out to slaughter and\nbe slain without any advantage to themselves. And he sees, too,\nthat the men who make up the armies could turn their arms against\nthe governments and bring them to judgment. But he thinks that\nthat will never come to pass, and that there is, therefore, no\nescape from the present position.\n\n \"I think war is terrible, but that it is inevitable; that\n compulsory military service is as inevitable as death, and that\n since government will always desire it, war will always exist.\"\n\nSo writes this talented and sincere writer, who is endowed with\nthat power of penetrating to the innermost core of the subjects\nwhich is the essence of the poetic faculty. He brings before us\nall the cruelty of the inconsistency between men's moral sense and\ntheir actions, but without trying to remove it; seems to admit\nthat this inconsistency must exist and that it is the poetic\ntragedy of life.\n\nAnother no less gifted writer, Edouard Rod, paints in still more\nvivid colors the cruelty and madness of the present state of\nthings. He too only aims at presenting its tragic features,\nwithout suggesting or forseeing any issue from the position.\n\n \"What is the good of doing anything? What is the good of\n undertaking any enterprise? And how are we to love men in\n these troubled times when every fresh day is a menace of\n danger?... All we have begun, the plans we are developing, our\n schemes of work, the little good we may have been able to do,\n will it not all be swept away by the tempest that is in\n preparation?... Everywhere the earth is shaking under our feet\n and storm-clouds are gathering on our horizon which will have\n no pity on us.\n\n \"Ah! if all we had to dread were the revolution which is held\n up as a specter to terrify us! Since I cannot imagine a\n society more detestable than ours, I feel more skeptical than\n alarmed in regard to that which will replace it. If I should\n have to suffer from the change, I should be consoled by\n thinking that the executioners of that day were the victims of\n the previous time, and the hope of something better would help\n us to endure the worst. But it is not that remote peril which\n frightens me. I see another danger, nearer and far more cruel;\n more cruel because there is no excuse for it, because it is\n absurd, because it can lead to no good. Every day one balances\n the chances of war on the morrow, every day they become more\n merciless.\n\n \"The imagination revolts before the catastrophe which is coming\n at the end of our century as the goal of the progress of our\n era, and yet we must get used to facing it. For twenty years\n past every resource of science has been exhausted in the\n invention of engines of destruction, and soon a few charges of\n cannon will suffice to annihilate a whole army. No longer a\n few thousands of poor devils, who were paid a price for their\n blood, are kept under arms, but whole nations are under arms to\n cut each other's throats. They are robbed of their time now\n (by compulsory service) that they may be robbed of their lives\n later. To prepare them for the work of massacre, their hatred\n is kindled by persuading them that they are hated. And\n peaceable men let themselves be played on thus and go and fall\n on one another with the ferocity of wild beasts; furious troops\n of peaceful citizens taking up arms at an empty word of\n command, for some ridiculous question of frontiers or colonial\n trade interests--Heaven only knows what... They will go like\n sheep to the slaughter, knowing all the while where they are\n going, knowing that they are leaving their wives, knowing\n that their children will want for food, full of misgivings, yet\n intoxicated by the fine-sounding lies that are dinned into\n their ears. THEY WILL MARCH WITHOUT REVOLT, PASSIVE,\n RESIGNED--THOUGH THE NUMBERS AND THE STRENGTH ARE THEIRS, AND\n THEY MIGHT, IF THEY KNEW HOW TO CO-OPERATE TOGETHER, ESTABLISH\n THE REIGN OF GOOD SENSE AND FRATERNITY, instead of the\n barbarous trickery of diplomacy. They will march to battle so\n deluded, so duped, that they will believe slaughter to be a\n duty, and will ask the benediction of God on their lust for\n blood. They will march to battle trampling underfoot the\n harvests they have sown, burning the towns they have built--with\n songs of triumph, festive music, and cries of jubilation.\n And their sons will raise statues to those who have done most\n in their slaughter.\n\n \"The destiny of a whole generation depends on the hour in which\n some ill-fated politician may give the signal that will be\n followed. We know that the best of us will be cut down and our\n work will be destroyed in embryo. WE KNOW IT AND TREMBLE WITH\n RAGE, BUT WE CAN DO NOTHING. We are held fast in the toils of\n officialdom and red tape, and too rude a shock would be needed\n to set us free. We are enslaved by the laws we set up for our\n protection, which have become our oppression. WE ARE BUT THE\n TOOLS OF THAT AUTOCRATIC ABSTRACTION THE STATE, WHICH ENSLAVES\n EACH INDIVIDUAL IN THE NAME OF THE WILL OF ALL, WHO WOULD ALL,\n TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY, DESIRE EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY\n WILL BE MADE TO DO.\n\n \"And if it were only a generation that must be sacrificed! But\n there are graver interests at stake.\n\n \"The paid politicians, the ambitious statesmen, who exploit the\n evil passions of the populace, and the imbeciles who are\n deluded by fine-sounding phrases, have so embittered national\n feuds that the existence of a whole race will be at stake in\n the war of the morrow. One of the elements that constitute the\n modern world is threatened, the conquered people will be wiped\n out of existence, and whichever it may be, we shall see a moral\n force annihilated, as if there were too many forces to work for\n good--we shall have a new Europe formed on foundations so\n unjust, so brutal, so sanguinary, stained with so monstrous a\n crime, that it cannot but be worse than the Europe of to-day--more\n iniquitous, more barbarous, more violent.\n\n \"Thus one feels crushed under the weight of an immense\n discouragement. We are struggling in a CUL DE SAC with muskets\n aimed at us from the housetops. Our labor is like that of\n sailors executing their last task as the ship begins to sink.\n Our pleasures are those of the condemned victim, who is\n offered his choice of dainties a quarter of an hour before his\n execution. Thought is paralyzed by anguish, and the most it is\n capable of is to calculate--interpreting the vague phrases of\n ministers, spelling out the sense of the speeches of\n sovereigns, and ruminating on the words attributed to\n diplomatists reported on the uncertain authority of the\n newspapers--whether it is to be to-morrow or the day after,\n this year or the next, that we are to be murdered. So that one\n might seek in vain in history an epoch more insecure, more\n crushed under the weight of suffering\" [footnote: \"Le Sens de\n la Vie,\" pp. 208-13].\n\nHere it is pointed out that the force is in the hands of those who\nwork their own destruction, in the hands of the individual men who\nmake up the masses; it is pointed out that the source of the evil\nis the government. It would seem evident that the contradiction\nbetween life and conscience had reached the limit beyond which it\ncannot go, and after reaching this limit some solution of it must\nbe found.\n\nBut the author does not think so. He sees in this the tragedy of\nhuman life, and after depicting all the horror of the position he\nconcludes that human life must be spent in the midst of this\nhorror.\n\nSo much for the attitude to war of those who regard it as\nsomething tragic and fated by destiny.\n\nThe third category consists of men who have lost all conscience\nand, consequently, all common sense and feeling of humanity.\n\nTo this category belongs Moltke, whose opinion has been quoted\nabove by Maupassant, and the majority of military men, who have\nbeen educated in this cruel superstition, live by it, and\nconsequently are often in all simplicity convinced that war is not\nonly an inevitable, but even a necessary and beneficial thing.\nThis is also the view of some civilians, so-called educated and\ncultivated people.\n\nHere is what the celebrated academician Camille Doucet writes in\nreply to the editor of the REVUE DES REVUES, where several letters\non war were published together:\n\n \"Dear Sir: When you ask the least warlike of academicians\n whether he is a partisan of war, his answer is known\n beforehand.\n\n \"Alas! sir, you yourself speak of the pacific ideal inspiring\n your generous compatriots as a dream.\n\n \"During my life I have heard a great many good people protest\n against this frightful custom of international butchery, which\n all admit and deplore; but how is it to be remedied?\n\n \"Often, too, there have been attempts to suppress dueling; one\n would fancy that seemed an easy task: but not at all! All that\n has been done hitherto with that noble object has never been\n and never will be of use.\n\n \"All the congresses of both hemispheres may vote against war,\n and against dueling too, but above all arbitrations,\n conventions, and legislations there will always be the personal\n honor of individual men, which has always demanded dueling, and\n the interests of nations, which will always demand war.\n\n \"I wish none the less from the depths of my heart that the\n Congress of Universal Peace may succeed at last in its very\n honorable and difficult enterprise.\n\n \"I am, dear sir, etc.,\n \"CAMILLE DOUCET.\"\n\nThe upshot of this is that personal honor requires men to fight,\nand the interests of nations require them to ruin and exterminate\neach other. As for the efforts to abolish war, they call for\nnothing but a smile.\n\nThe opinion of another well-known academician, Jules Claretie, is\nof the same kind.\n\n \"Dear Sir [he writes]: For a man of sense there can be but one\n opinion on the subject of peace and war.\n\n \"Humanity is created to live, to live free, to perfect and\n ameliorate its fate by peaceful labor. The general harmony\n preached by the Universal Peace Congress is but a dream\n perhaps, but at least it is the fairest of all dreams. Man is\n always looking toward the Promised Land, and there the harvests\n are to ripen with no fear of their being torn up by shells or\n crushed by cannon wheels... But! Ah! but----since philosophers\n and philanthropists are not the controlling powers, it is well\n for our soldiers to guard our frontier and homes, and their\n arms, skillfully used, are perhaps the surest guarantee of the\n peace we all love.\n\n \"Peace is a gift only granted to the strong and the resolute.\n\n \"I am, dear sir, etc.,\n \"JULES CLARETIE.\"\n\nThe upshot of this letter is that there is no harm in talking\nabout what no one intends or feels obliged to do. But when it\ncomes to practice, we must fight.\n\nAnd here now is the view lately expressed by the most popular\nnovelist in Europe, \u00c9mile Zola:\n\n \"I regard war as a fatal necessity, which appears inevitable\n for us from its close connection with human nature and the\n whole constitution of the world. I should wish that war could\n be put off for the longest possible time. Nevertheless, the\n moment will come when we shall be forced to go to war. I am\n considering it at this moment from the standpoint of universal\n humanity, and making no reference to our misunderstanding with\n Germany--a most trivial incident in the history of mankind. I\n say that war is necessary and beneficial, since it seems one of\n the conditions of existence for humanity. War confronts us\n everywhere, not only war between different races and peoples,\n but war too, in private and family life. It seems one of the\n principal elements of progress, and every step in advance that\n humanity has taken hitherto has been attended by bloodshed.\n\n \"Men have talked, and still talk, of disarmament, while\n disarmament is something impossible, to which, even if it were\n possible, we ought not to consent. I am convinced that a\n general disarmament throughout the world would involve\n something like a moral decadence, which would show itself in\n general feebleness, and would hinder the progressive\n advancement of humanity. A warlike nation has always been\n strong and flourishing. The art of war has led to the\n development of all the other arts. History bears witness to\n it. So in Athens and in Rome, commerce, manufactures, and\n literature never attained so high a point of development as\n when those cities were masters of the whole world by force of\n arms. To take an example from times nearer our own, we may\n recall the age of Louis XIV. The wars of the Grand Monarque\n were not only no hindrance to the progress of the arts and\n sciences, but even, on the contrary, seem to have promoted and\n favored their development.\"\n\nSo war is a beneficial thing!\n\nBut the best expression of this attitude is the view of the most\ngifted of the writers of this school, the academician de Vog\u00fc\u00e9.\nThis is what he writes in an article on the Military Section of\nthe Exhibition of 1889:\n\n \"On the Esplanade des Invalides, among the exotic and colonial\n encampments, a building in a more severe style overawes the\n picturesque bazaar; all these fragments of the globe have come\n to gather round the Palace of War, and in turn our guests mount\n guard submissively before the mother building, but for whom\n they would not be here. Fine subject for the antithesis of\n rhetoric, of humanitarians who could not fail to whimper over\n this juxtaposition, and to say that 'CECI TUERA CELA,'\n [footnote: Phrase quoted from Victor-Hugo, \"Notre-Dame de\n Paris.\"] that the union of the nations through science and\n labor will overcome the instinct of war. Let us leave them to\n cherish the chimera of a golden age, which would soon become,\n if it could be realized, an age of mud. All history teaches us\n that the one is created for the other, that blood is needed to\n hasten and cement the union of the nations. Natural science\n has ratified in our day the mysterious law revealed to Joseph\n de Maistre by the intuition of his genius and by meditation on\n fundamental truths; he saw the world redeeming itself from\n hereditary degenerations by sacrifice; science shows it\n advancing to perfection through struggle and violent selection;\n there is the statement of the same law in both, expressed in\n different formulas. The statement is disagreeable, no doubt;\n but the laws of the world are not made for our pleasure, they\n are made for our progress. Let us enter this inevitable,\n necessary palace of war; we shall be able to observe there how\n the most tenacious of our instincts, without losing any of its\n vigor, is transformed and adapted to the varying exigencies of\n historical epochs.\"\n\nM. de Vog\u00fc\u00e9 finds the necessity for war, according to his views,\nwell expressed by the two great writers, Joseph de Maistre and\nDarwin, whose statements he likes so much that he quotes them\nagain.\n\n \"Dear Sir [he writes to the editor of the REVUE DES REVUES]:\n You ask me my view as to the possible success of the Universal\n Congress of Peace. I hold with Darwin that violent struggle is\n a law of nature which overrules all other laws; I hold with\n Joseph de Maistre that it is a divine law; two different ways\n of describing the same thing. If by some impossible chance a\n fraction of human society--all the civilized West, let us\n suppose--were to succeed in suspending the action of this law,\n some races of stronger instincts would undertake the task of\n putting it into action against us: those races would vindicate\n nature's reasoning against human reason; they would be\n successful, because the certainty of peace--I do not say PEACE,\n I say the CERTAINTY OF PEACE--would, in half a century,\n engender a corruption and a decadence more destructive for\n mankind than the worst of wars. I believe that we must do with\n war--the criminal law of humanity--as with all our criminal\n laws, that is, soften them, put them in force as rarely as\n possible; use every effort to make their application\n unnecessary. But all the experience of history teaches us that\n they cannot be altogether suppressed so long as two men are\n left on earth, with bread, money, and a woman between them.\n\n \"I should be very happy if the Congress would prove me in\n error. But I doubt if it can prove history, nature, and God in\n error also.\n\n \"I am, dear sir, etc.\n \"E. M. DE VOG\u00dc\u00c9.\"\n\nThis amounts to saying that history, human nature, and God show us that\nso long as there are two men, and bread, money and a woman--there will\nbe war. That is to say that no progress will lead men to rise above the\nsavage conception of life, which regards no participation of bread,\nmoney (money is good in this context) and woman possible without\nfighting.\n\nThey are strange people, these men who assemble in Congresses, and\nmake speeches to show us how to catch birds by putting salt on\ntheir tails, though they must know it is impossible to do it. And\namazing are they too, who, like Maupassant, Rod, and many others,\nsee clearly all the horror of war, all the inconsistency of men\nnot doing what is needful, right, and beneficial for them to do;\nwho lament over the tragedy of life, and do not see that the whole\ntragedy is at an end directly men, ceasing to take account of any\nunnecessary considerations, refuse to do what is hateful and\ndisastrous to them. They are amazing people truly, but those who,\nlike De Vog\u00fc\u00e9 and others, who, professing the doctrine of\nevolution, regard war as not only inevitable, but beneficial and\ntherefore desirable--they are terrible, hideous, in their moral\nperversion. The others, at least, say that they hate evil, and\nlove good, but these openly declare that good and evil do not\nexist.\n\nAll discussion of the possibility of re-establishing peace instead\nof everlasting war--is the pernicious sentimentality of\nphrasemongers. There is a law of evolution by which it follows\nthat I must live and act in an evil way; what is to be done? I am\nan educated man, I know the law of evolution, and therefore I will\nact in an evil way. \"ENTRONS AU PALAIS DE LA GUERRE.\" There is\nthe law of evolution, and therefore there is neither good nor\nevil, and one must live for the sake of one's personal existence,\nleaving the rest to the action of the law of evolution. This is\nthe last word of refined culture, and with it, of that\novershadowing of conscience which has come upon the educated\nclasses of our times. The desire of the educated classes to\nsupport the ideas they prefer, and the order of existence based on\nthem, has attained its furthest limits. They lie, and delude\nthemselves, and one another, with the subtlest forms of deception,\nsimply to obscure, to deaden conscience.\n\nInstead of transforming their life into harmony with their\nconscience, they try by every means to stifle its voice. But\nit is in darkness that the light begins to shine, and so the\nlight is rising upon our epoch.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nSIGNIFICANCE OF COMPULSORY SERVICE.\n\nUniversal Compulsory Service is not a Political Accident, but the\nFurthest Limit of the Contradiction Inherent in the Social Conception of\nLife--Origin of Authority in Society--Basis of Authority is Physical\nViolence--To be Able to Perform its Acts of Violence Authority Needs a\nSpecial Organization--The Army--Authority, that is, Violence, is the\nPrinciple which is Destroying the Social Conception of Life--Attitude of\nAuthority to the Masses, that is, Attitude of Government to Working\nOppressed Classes--Governments Try to Foster in Working Classes the Idea\nthat State Force is Necessary to Defend Them from External Enemies--But\nthe Army is Principally Needed to Preserve Government from its own\nSubjects--The Working Classes--Speech of M. de Caprivi--All Privileges\nof Ruling Classes Based on Violence--The Increase of Armies up to Point\nof Universal Service--Universal Compulsory Service Destroys all the\nAdvantages of Social Life, which Government is Intended to\nPreserve--Compulsory Service is the Furthest Limit of Submission, since\nin Name of the State it Requires Sacrifice of all that can be Precious\nto a Man--Is Government Necessary?--The Sacrifices Demanded by\nGovernment in Compulsory Service have No Longer any Reasonable\nBasis--And there is More Advantage to be Gained by not Submitting to the\nDemands of the State than by Submitting to Them.\n\n\nEducated people of the upper classes are trying to stifle the\never-growing sense of the necessity of transforming the existing\nsocial order. But life, which goes on growing more complex, and\ndeveloping in the same direction, and increases the\ninconsistencies and the sufferings of men, brings them to the\nlimit beyond which they cannot go. This furthest limit of\ninconsistency is universal compulsory military service.\n\nIt is usually supposed that universal military service and the\nincreased armaments connected with it, as well as the resulting\nincrease of taxes and national debts, are a passing phenomenon,\nproduced by the particular political situation of Europe, and that\nit may be removed by certain political combinations without any\nmodification of the inner order of life.\n\nThis is absolutely incorrect. Universal military service is only\nthe internal inconsistency inherent in the social conception of\nlife, carried to its furthest limits, and becoming evident when a\ncertain stage of material development is reached.\n\nThe social conception of life, we have seen, consists in the\ntransfer of the aim of life from the individual to groups and\ntheir maintenance--to the tribe, family, race, or state.\n\nIn the social conception of life it is supposed that since the aim\nof life is found in groups of individuals, individuals will\nvoluntarily sacrifice their own interests for the interests of the\ngroup. And so it has been, and still is, in fact, in certain\ngroups, the distinction being that they are the most primitive\nforms of association in the family or tribe or race, or even in\nthe patriarchal state. Through tradition handed down by education\nand supported by religious sentiment, individuals without\ncompulsion merged their interests in the interest of the group and\nsacrificed their own good for the general welfare.\n\nBut the more complex and the larger societies become, and\nespecially the more often conquest becomes the cause of the\namalgamation of people into a state, the more often individuals\nstrive to attain their own aims at the public expense, and the\nmore often it becomes necessary to restrain these insubordinate\nindividuals by recourse to authority, that is, to violence. The\nchampions of the social conception of life usually try to connect\nthe idea of authority, that is, of violence, with the idea of\nmoral influence, but this connection is quite impossible.\n\nThe effect of moral influence on a man is to change his desires\nand to bend them in the direction of the duty required of him.\nThe man who is controlled by moral influence acts in accordance\nwith his own desires. Authority, in the sense in which the word\nis ordinarily understood, is a means of forcing a man to act in\nopposition to his desires. The man who submits to authority does\nnot do as he chooses but as he is obliged by authority. Nothing\ncan oblige a man to do what he does not choose except physical\nforce, or the threat of it, that is--deprivation of freedom,\nblows, imprisonment, or threats--easily carried out--of such\npunishments. This is what authority consists of and always has\nconsisted of.\n\nIn spite of the unceasing efforts of those who happen to be in authority\nto conceal this and attribute some other significance to it, authority\nhas always meant for man the cord, the chain with which he is bound and\nfettered, or the knout with which he is to be flogged, or the ax with\nwhich he is to have hands, ears, nose, or head cut off, or at the very\nleast, the threat of these terrors. So it was under Nero and Ghenghis\nKhan, and so it is to-day, even under the most liberal government in the\nRepublics of the United States or of France. If men submit to authority,\nit is only because they are liable to these punishments in case of\nnon-submission. All state obligations, payment of taxes, fulfillment of\nstate duties, and submission to punishments, exile, fines, etc., to\nwhich people appear to submit voluntarily, are always based on bodily\nviolence or the threat of it.\n\nThe basis of authority is bodily violence. The possibility of\napplying bodily violence to people is provided above all by an\norganization of armed men, trained to act in unison in submission\nto one will. These bands of armed men, submissive to a single\nwill, are what constitute the army. The army has always been and\nstill is the basis of power. Power is always in the hands of\nthose who control the army, and all men in power--from the Roman\nCaesars to the Russian and German Emperors--take more interest in\ntheir army than in anything, and court popularity in the army,\nknowing that if that is on their side their power is secure.\n\nThe formation and aggrandizement of the army, indispensable to the\nmaintenance of authority, is what has introduced into the social\nconception of life the principle that is destroying it.\n\nThe object of authority and the justification for its existence\nlie in the restraint of those who aim at attaining their personal\ninterests to the detriment of the interests of society.\n\nBut however power has been gained, those who possess it are in no\nway different from other men, and therefore no more disposed than\nothers to subordinate their own interests to those of the society.\nOn the contrary, having the power to do so at their disposal, they\nare more disposed than others to subordinate the public interests\nto their own. Whatever means men have devised for preventing\nthose in authority from over-riding public interests for their own\nbenefit, or for intrusting power only to the most faultless\npeople, they have not so far succeeded in either of those aims.\n\nAll the methods of appointing authorities that have been tried,\ndivine right, and election, and heredity, and balloting, and\nassemblies and parliaments and senate--have all proved\nineffectual. Everyone knows that not one of these methods attains\nthe aim either of intrusting power only to the incorruptible, or\nof preventing power from being abused. Everyone knows on the\ncontrary that men in authority--be they emperors, ministers,\ngovernors, or police officers--are always, simply from the\npossession of power, more liable to be demoralized, that is, to\nsubordinate public interests to their personal aims than those who\nhave not the power to do so. Indeed, it could not be otherwise.\n\nThe state conception of life could be justified only so long as\nall men voluntarily sacrificed their personal interests to the\npublic welfare. But so soon as there were individuals who would\nnot voluntarily sacrifice their own interests, and authority, that\nis, violence, was needed to restrain them, then the disintegrating\nprinciple of the coercion of one set of people by another set\nentered into the social conception of the organization based on\nit.\n\nFor the authority of one set of men over another to attain its\nobject of restraining those who override public interests for\ntheir personal ends, power ought only to be put into the hands of\nthe impeccable, as it is supposed to be among the Chinese, and as\nit was supposed to be in the Middle Ages, and is even now supposed\nto be by those who believe in the consecration by anointing. Only\nunder those conditions could the social organization be justified.\n\nBut since this is not the case, and on the contrary men in power\nare always far from being saints, through the very fact of their\npossession of power, the social organization based on power has no\njustification.\n\nEven if there was once a time when, owing to the low standard of\nmorals, and the disposition of men to violence, the existence of\nan authority to restrain such violence was an advantage, because\nthe violence of government was less than the violence of\nindividuals, one cannot but see that this advantage could not be\nlasting. As the disposition of individuals to violence\ndiminished, and as the habits of the people became more civilized,\nand as power grew more social organization demoralized through\nlack of restraint, this advantage disappeared.\n\nThe whole history of the last two thousand years is nothing but\nthe history of this gradual change of relation between the moral\ndevelopment of the masses on the one hand and the demoralization\nof governments on the other.\n\nThis, put simply, is how it has come to pass.\n\nMen lived in families, tribes, and races, at feud with one\nanother, plundering, outraging, and killing one another. These\nviolent hostilities were carried on on a large and on a small\nscale: man against man, family against family, tribe against\ntribe, race against race, and people against people. The larger\nand stronger groups conquered and absorbed the weaker, and the\nlarger and stronger they became, the more internal feuds\ndisappeared and the more the continuity of the group seemed\nassured.\n\nThe members of a family or tribe, united into one community, are\nless hostile among themselves, and families and tribes do not die\nlike one man, but have a continuity of existence. Between the\nmembers of one state, subject to a single authority, the strife\nbetween individuals seems still less and the life of the state\nseems even more secure.\n\nTheir association into larger and larger groups was not the result\nof the conscious recognition of the benefits of such associations,\nas it is said to be in the story of the Varyagi. It was produced,\non one hand, by the natural growth of population, and, on the\nother, by struggle and conquest.\n\nAfter conquest the power of the emperor puts an end to internal\ndissensions, and so the state conception of life justifies itself.\nBut this justification is never more than temporary. Internal\ndissensions disappear only in proportion to the degree of\noppression exerted by the authority over the dissentient\nindividuals. The violence of internal feud crushed by authority\nreappears in authority itself, which falls into the hands of men\nwho, like the rest, are frequently or always ready to sacrifice\nthe public welfare to their personal interest, with the difference\nthat their subjects cannot resist them, and thus they are exposed\nto all the demoralizing influence of authority. And thus the evil\nof violence, when it passes into the hands of authority, is always\ngrowing and growing, and in time becomes greater than the evil it\nis supposed to suppress, while, at the same time, the tendency to\nviolence in the members of the society becomes weaker and weaker,\nso that the violence of authority is less and less needed.\n\nGovernment authority, even if it does suppress private violence,\nalways introduces into the life of men fresh forms of violence,\nwhich tend to become greater and greater in proportion to the\nduration and strength of the government.\n\nSo that though the violence of power is less noticeable in\ngovernment than when it is employed by members of society against\none another, because it finds expression in submission, and not in\nstrife, it nevertheless exists, and often to a greater degree than\nin former days.\n\nAnd it could not be otherwise, since, apart from the demoralizing\ninfluence of power, the policy or even the unconscious tendency of\nthose in power will always be to reduce their subjects to the\nextreme of weakness, for the weaker the oppressed, the less effort\nneed be made to keep him in subjection.\n\nAnd therefore the oppression of the oppressed always goes on\ngrowing up to the furthest limit, beyond which it cannot go\nwithout killing the goose with the golden eggs. And if the goose\nlays no more eggs, like the American Indians, negroes, and\nFijians, then it is killed in spite of the sincere protests of\nphilanthropists.\n\nThe most convincing example of this is to be found in the\ncondition of the working classes of our epoch, who are in reality\nno better than the slaves of ancient times subdued by conquest.\n\nIn spite of the pretended efforts of the higher classes to\nameliorate the position of the workers, all the working classes of\nthe present day are kept down by the inflexible iron law by which\nthey only get just what is barely necessary, so that they are\nforced to work without ceasing while still retaining strength\nenough to labor for their employers, who are really those who have\nconquered and enslaved them.\n\nSo it has always been. In ratio to the duration and increasing\nstrength of authority its advantages for its subjects disappear\nand its disadvantages increase.\n\nAnd this has been so, independently of the forms of government\nunder which nations have lived. The only difference is that under\na despotic form of government the authority is concentrated in a\nsmall number of oppressors and violence takes a cruder form; under\nconstitutional monarchies and republics as in France and America\nauthority is divided among a great number of oppressors and the\nforms assumed by violence is less crude, but its effect of making\nthe disadvantages of authority greater than its advantages, and of\nenfeebling the oppressed to the furthest extreme to which they can\nbe reduced with advantage to the oppressors, remains always the\nsame.\n\nSuch has been and still is the condition of all the oppressed, but\nhitherto they have not recognized the fact. In the majority of instances\nthey have believed in all simplicity that governments exist for their\nbenefit; that they would be lost without a government; that the very\nidea of living without a government is a blasphemy which one hardly dare\nput into words; that this is the--for some reason terrible--doctrine of\nanarchism, with which a mental picture of all kinds of horrors is\nassociated.\n\nPeople have believed, as though it were something fully proved,\nand so needing no proof, that since all nations have hitherto\ndeveloped in the form of states, that form of organization is an\nindispensable condition of the development of humanity.\n\nAnd in that way it has lasted for hundreds and thousands of years,\nand governments--those who happened to be in power--have tried it,\nand are now trying more zealously than ever to keep their subjects\nin this error.\n\nSo it was under the Roman emperors and so it is now. In spite of\nthe fact that the sense of the uselessness and even injurious\neffects of state violence is more and more penetrating into men's\nconsciousness, things might have gone on in the same way forever\nif governments were not under the necessity of constantly\nincreasing their armies in order to maintain their power.\n\nIt is generally supposed that governments strengthen their forces\nonly to defend the state from other states, in oblivion of the\nfact that armies are necessary, before all things, for the defense\nof governments from their own oppressed and enslaved subjects.\n\nThat has always been necessary, and has become more and more\nnecessary with the increased diffusion of education among the\nmasses, with the improved communication between people of the same\nand of different nationalities. It has become particularly\nindispensable now in the face of communism, socialism, anarchism,\nand the labor movement generally. Governments feel that it is so,\nand strengthen the force of their disciplined armies. [See\nFootnote]\n\n [Footnote: The fact that in America the abuses of\n authority exist in spite of the small number of their\n troops not only fails to disprove this position,\n but positively confirms it. In America there are\n fewer soldiers than in other states. That is why\n there is nowhere else so little oppression of the\n working classes, and no country where the end of the\n abuses of government and of government itself seems\n so near. Of late as the combinations of laborers\n gain in strength, one hears more and more frequently\n the cry raised for the increase of the army, though\n the United States are not threatened with any attack\n from without. The upper classes know that an army of\n fifty thousand will soon be insufficient, and no longer\n relying on Pinkerton's men, they feel that the security\n of their position depends on the increased strength of\n the army.]\n\n\nIn the German Reichstag not long ago, in reply to a question why funds\nwere needed for raising the salaries of the under-officers, the German\nChancellor openly declared that trustworthy under-officers were\nnecessary to contend against socialism. Caprivi only said aloud what\nevery statesman knows and assiduously conceals from the people. The\nreason to which he gave expression is essentially the same as that which\nmade the French kings and the popes engage Swiss and Scotch guards, and\nmakes the Russian authorities of to-day so carefully distribute the\nrecruits, so that the regiments from the frontiers are stationed in\ncentral districts, and the regiments from the center are stationed on\nthe frontiers. The meaning of Caprivi's speech, put into plain language,\nis that funds are needed, not to resist foreign foes, but to BUY\nUNDER-OFFICERS to be ready to act against the enslaved toiling masses.\n\nCaprivi incautiously gave utterance to what everyone knows\nperfectly well, or at least feels vaguely if he does not recognize\nit, that is, that the existing order of life is as it is, not, as\nwould be natural and right, because the people wish it to be so,\nbut because it is so maintained by state violence, by the army\nwith its BOUGHT UNDER-OFFICERS and generals.\n\nIf the laborer has no land, if he cannot use the natural right of\nevery man to derive subsistence for himself and his family out of\nthe land, that is not because the people wish it to be so, but\nbecause a certain set of men, the land-owners, have appropriated\nthe right of giving or refusing admittance to the land to the\nlaborers. And this abnormal order of things is maintained by the\narmy. If the immense wealth produced by the labor of the working\nclasses is not regarded as the property of all, but as the\nproperty of a few exceptional persons; if labor is taxed by\nauthority and the taxes spent by a few on what they think fit; if\nstrikes on the part of laborers are repressesd, while on the part\nof capitalists they are encouraged; if certain persons appropriate\nthe right of choosing the form of the education, religious and\nsecular, of children, and certain persons monopolize the right of\nmaking the laws all must obey, and so dispose of the lives and\nproperties of other people--all this is not done because the\npeople wish it and because it is what is natural and right, but\nbecause the government and ruling classes wish this to be so for\ntheir own benefit, and insist on its being so even by physical\nviolence.\n\nEveryone, if he does not recognize this now, will know that it is\nso at the first attempt at insubordination or at a revolution of\nthe existing order.\n\nArmies, then, are needed by governments and by the ruling classes\nabove all to support the present order, which, far from being the\nresult of the people's needs, is often in direct antagonism to\nthem, and is only beneficial to the government and ruling classes.\n\nTo keep their subjects in oppression and to be able to enjoy the\nfruits of their labor the government must have armed forces.\n\nBut there is not only one government. There are other\ngovernments, exploiting their subjects by violence in the same\nway, and always ready to pounce down on any other government and\ncarry off the fruits of the toil of its enslaved subjects. And so\nevery government needs an army also to protect its booty from its\nneighbor brigands. Every government is thus involuntarily reduced\nto the necessity of emulating one another in the increase of their\narmies. This increase is contagious, as Montesquieu pointed out\n150 years ago.\n\nEvery increase in the army of one state, with the aim of\nself-defense against its subjects, becomes a source of danger for\nneighboring states and calls for a similar increase in their\narmies.\n\nThe armed forces have reached their present number of millions not\nonly through the menace of danger from neighboring states, but\nprincipally through the necessity of subduing every effort at\nrevolt on the part of the subjects.\n\nBoth causes, mutually dependent, contribute to the same result at\nonce; troops are required against internal forces and also to keep\nup a position with other states. One is the result of the other.\nThe despotism of a government always increases with the strength\nof the army and its external successes, and the aggressiveness of\na government increases with its internal despotism.\n\nThe rivalry of the European states in constantly increasing their\nforces has reduced them to the necessity of having recourse to\nuniversal military service, since by that means the greatest\npossible number of soldiers is obtained at the least possible\nexpense. Germany first hit on this device. And directly one\nstate adopted it the others were obliged to do the same. And by\nthis means all citizens are under arms to support the iniquities\npracticed upon them; all citizens have become their own\noppressors.\n\nUniversal military service was an inevitable logical necessity, to\nwhich we were bound to come. But it is also the last expression\nof the inconsistency inherent in the social conception of life,\nwhen violence is needed to maintain it. This inconsistency has\nbecome obvious in universal military service. In fact, the whole\nsignificance of the social conception of life consists in man's\nrecognition of the barbarity of strife between individuals, and\nthe transitoriness of personal life itself, and the transference\nof the aim of life to groups of persons. But with universal\nmilitary service it comes to pass that men, after making every\nsacrifice to get rid of the cruelty of strife and the insecurity\nof existence, are called upon to face all the perils they had\nmeant to avoid. And in addition to this the state, for whose sake\nindividuals renounced their personal advantages, is exposed again\nto the same risks of insecurity and lack of permanence as the\nindividual himself was in previous times.\n\nGovernments were to give men freedom from the cruelty of personal\nstrife and security in the permanence of the state order of\nexistence. But instead of doing that they expose the individuals\nto the same necessity of strife, substituting strife with\nindividuals of other states for strife with neighbors. And the\ndanger of destruction for the individual, and the state too, they\nleave just as it was.\n\nUniversal military service may be compared to the efforts of a man\nto prop up his falling house who so surrounds it and fills it with\nprops and buttresses and planks and scaffolding that he manages to\nkeep the house standing only by making it impossible to live in\nit.\n\nIn the same way universal military service destroys all the\nbenefits of the social order of life which it is employed to\nmaintain.\n\nThe advantages of social organization are security of property and labor\nand associated action for the improvement of existence--universal\nmilitary service destroys all this.\n\nThe taxes raised from the people for war preparations absorb the greater\npart of the produce of labor which the army ought to defend.\n\nThe withdrawing of all men from the ordinary course of life\ndestroys the possibility of labor itself. The danger of war, ever\nready to break out, renders all reforms of life social life vain\nand fruitless.\n\nIn former days if a man were told that if he did not acknowledge\nthe authority of the state, he would be exposed to attack from\nenemies domestic and foreign, that he would have to resist them\nalone, and would be liable to be killed, and that therefore it\nwould be to his advantage to put up with some hardships to secure\nhimself from these calamities, he might well believe it, seeing\nthat the sacrifices he made to the state were only partial and\ngave him the hope of a tranquil existence in a permanent state.\nBut now, when the sacrifices have been increased tenfold and\nthe promised advantages are disappearing, it would be a natural\nreflection that submission to authority is absolutely useless.\n\nBut the fatal significance of universal military service, as the\nmanifestation of the contradiction inherent in the social\nconception of life, is not only apparent in that. The greatest\nmanifestation of this contradiction consists in the fact that\nevery citizen in being made a soldier becomes a prop of the\ngovernment organization, and shares the responsibility of\neverything the government does, even though he may not admit its\nlegitimacy.\n\nGovernments assert that armies are needed above all for external\ndefense, but that is not true. They are needed principally\nagainst their subjects, and every man, under universal military\nservice, becomes an accomplice in all the acts of violence of the\ngovernment against the citizens without any choice of his own.\n\nTo convince oneself of this one need only remember what things are\ndone in every state, in the name of order and the public welfare,\nof which the execution always falls to the army. All civil\noutbreaks for dynastic or other party reasons, all the executions\nthat follow on such disturbances, all repression of insurrections,\nand military intervention to break up meetings and to suppress\nstrikes, all forced extortion of taxes, all the iniquitous\ndistributions of land, all the restrictions on labor--are either\ncarried out directly by the military or by the police with the\narmy at their back. Anyone who serves his time in the army shares\nthe responsibility of all these things, about which he is, in some\ncases, dubious, while very often they are directly opposed to his\nconscience. People are unwilling to be turned out of the land\nthey have cultivated for generations, or they are unwilling to\ndisperse when the government authority orders them, or they are\nunwilling to pay the taxes required of them, or to recognize laws\nas binding on them when they have had no hand in making them, or\nto be deprived of their nationality--and I, in the fulfillment of\nmy military duty, must go and shoot them for it. How can I help\nasking myself when I take part in such punishments, whether they\nare just, and whether I ought to assist in carrying them out?\n\nUniversal service is the extreme limit of violence necessary for\nthe support of the whole state organization, and it is the extreme\nlimit to which submission on the part of the subjects can go. It\nis the keystone of the whole edifice, and its fall will bring it\nall down.\n\nThe time has come when the ever-growing abuse of power by governments\nand their struggles with one another has led to their demanding such\nmaterial and even moral sacrifices from their subjects that everyone is\nforced to reflect and ask himself, \"Can I make these sacrifices? And for\nthe sake of what am I making them? I am expected for the sake of the\nstate to make these sacrifices, to renounce everything that can be\nprecious to man--peace, family, security, and human dignity.\" What is\nthis state, for whose sake such terrible sacrifices have to be made? And\nwhy is it so indispensably necessary? \"The state,\" they tell us, \"is\nindispensably needed, in the first place, because without it we should\nnot be protected against the attacks of evil-disposed persons; and\nsecondly, except for the state we should be savages and should have\nneither religion, culture, education, nor commerce, nor means of\ncommunication, nor other social institutions; and thirdly, without the\nstate to defend us we should be liable to be conquered and enslaved by\nneighboring peoples.\"\n\n\"Except for the state,\" they say, \"we should be exposed to the\nattacks of evil-disposed persons in our own country.\"\n\nBut who are these evil-disposed persons in our midst from whose attacks\nwe are preserved by the state and its army? Even if, three or four\ncenturies ago, when men prided themselves on their warlike prowess, when\nkilling men was considered an heroic achievement, there were such\npersons; we know very well that there are no such persons now, that we\ndo not nowadays carry or use firearms, but everyone professes humane\nprinciples and feels sympathy for his fellows, and wants nothing more\nthan we all do--that is, to be left in peace to enjoy his existence\nundisturbed. So that nowadays there are no special malefactors from whom\nthe state could defend us. If by these evil disposed persons is meant\nthe men who are punished as criminals, we know very well that they are\nnot a different kind of being like wild beasts among sheep, but are men\njust like ourselves, and no more naturally inclined to crimes than those\nagainst whom they commit them. We know now that threats and punishments\ncannot diminish their number; that that can only be done by change of\nenvironment and moral influence. So that the justification of state\nviolence on the ground of the protection it gives us from evil-disposed\npersons, even if it had some foundation three or four centuries ago, has\nnone whatever now. At present one would rather say on the contrary that\nthe action of the state with its cruel methods of punishment, behind the\ngeneral moral standard of the age, such as prisons, galleys, gibbets,\nand guillotines, tends rather to brutalize the people than to civilize\nthem, and consequently rather to increase than diminish the number of\nmalefactors.\n\n\"Except for the state,\" they tell us, \"we should not have any\nreligion, education, culture, means of communication, and so on.\nWithout the state men would not have been able to form the social\ninstitutions needed for doing any thing.\" This argument too was\nwell founded only some centuries ago.\n\nIf there was a time when people were so disunited, when they had\nso little means of communication and interchange of ideas, that\nthey could not co-operate and agree together in any common action\nin commerce, economics, or education without the state as a\ncenter, this want of common action exists no longer. The great\nextension of means of communication and interchange of ideas has\nmade men completely able to dispense with state aid in forming\nsocieties, associations, corporations, and congresses for\nscientific, economic, and political objects. Indeed government is\nmore often an obstacle than an assistance in attaining these aims.\n\nFrom the end of last century there has hardly been a single\nprogressive movement of humanity which has not been retarded by\nthe government. So it has been with abolition of corporal\npunishment, of trial by torture, and of slavery, as well as with\nthe establishment of the liberty of the press and the right of\npublic meeting. In our day governments not only fail to\nencourage, but directly hinder every movement by which people try\nto work out new forms of life for themselves. Every attempt at\nthe solution of the problems of labor, land, politics, and\nreligion meets with direct opposition on the part of government.\n\n\"Without governments nations would be enslaved by their\nneighbors.\" It is scarcely necessary to refute this last\nargument. It carries its refutation on the face of it. The\ngovernment, they tell us, with its army, is necessary to defend us\nfrom neighboring states who might enslave us. But we know this is\nwhat all governments say of one another, and yet we know that all\nthe European nations profess the same principles of liberty and\nfraternity, and therefore stand in no need of protection against\none another. And if defense against barbarous nations is meant,\none-thousandth part of the troops now under arms would be amply\nsufficient for that purpose. We see that it is really the very\nopposite of what we have been told. The power of the state, far\nfrom being a security against the attacks of our neighbors,\nexposes us, on the contrary, to much greater danger of such\nattacks. So that every man who is led, through his compulsory\nservice in the army, to reflect on the value of the state for\nwhose sake he is expected to be ready to sacrifice his peace,\nsecurity, and life, cannot fail to perceive that there is no kind\nof justification in modern times for such a sacrifice.\n\nAnd it is not only from the theoretical standpoint that every man\nmust see that the sacrifices demanded by the state have no\njustification. Even looking at it practically, weighing, that is\nto say, all the burdens laid on him by the state, no man can fail\nto see that for him personally to comply with state demands and\nserve in the army, would, in the majority of cases, be more\ndisadvantageous than to refuse to do so.\n\nIf the majority of men choose to submit rather than to refuse, it\nis not the result of sober balancing of advantages and\ndisadvantages, but because they are induced by a kind of\nhypnotizing process practiced upon them. In submitting they\nsimply yield to the suggestions given them as orders, without\nthought or effort of will. To resist would need independent\nthought and effort of which every man is not capable. Even apart\nfrom the moral significance of compliance or non-compliance,\nconsidering material advantage only, non-compliance will be more\nadvantageous in general.\n\nWhoever I may be, whether I belong to the well-to-do class of the\noppressors, or the working class of the oppressed, in either case\nthe disadvantages of non-compliance are less and its advantages\ngreater than those of compliance. If I belong to the minority of\noppressors the disadvantages of non-compliance will consist in my\nbeing brought to judgment for refusing to perform my duties to the\nstate, and if I am lucky, being acquitted or, as is done in the\ncase of the Mennonites in Russia, being set to work out my\nmilitary service at some civil occupation for the state; while if\nI am unlucky, I may be condemned to exile or imprisonment for two\nor three years (I judge by the cases that have occurred in\nRussia), possibly to even longer imprisonment, or possibly to\ndeath, though the probability of that latter is very remote.\n\nSo much for the disadvantages of non-compliance. The\ndisadvantages of compliance will be as follows: if I am lucky I\nshall not be sent to murder my fellow-creatures, and shall not be\nexposed to great danger of being maimed and killed, but shall only\nbe enrolled into military slavery. I shall be dressed up like a\nclown, I shall be at the beck and call of every man of a higher\ngrade than my own from corporal to field-marshal, shall be put\nthrough any bodily contortions at their pleasure, and after being\nkept from one to five years I shall have for ten years afterward\nto be in readiness to undertake all of it again at any minute. If\nI am unlucky I may, in addition, be sent to war, where I shall be\nforced to kill men of foreign nations who have done me no harm,\nwhere I may be maimed or killed, or sent to certain destruction as\nin the case of the garrison of Sevastopol, and other cases in\nevery war, or what would be most terrible of all, I may be sent\nagainst my own compatriots and have to kill my own brothers for\nsome dynastic or other state interests which have absolutely\nnothing to do with me. So much for the comparative disadvantages.\n\nThe comparative advantages of compliance and non-compliance are as\nfollows:\n\nFor the man who submits, the advantages will be that, after\nexposing himself to all the humiliation and performing all the\nbarbarities required of him, he may, if he escapes being killed,\nget a decoration of red or gold tinsel to stick on his clown's\ndress; he may, if he is very lucky, be put in command of hundreds\nof thousands of others as brutalized as himself; be called a\nfield-marshal, and get a lot of money.\n\nThe advantages of the man who refuses to obey will consist in\npreserving his dignity as a man, gaining the approbation of good\nmen, and above all knowing that he is doing the work of God, and\nso undoubtedly doing good to his fellow-men.\n\nSo much for the advantages and disadvantages of both lines of\nconduct for a man of the wealthy classes, an oppressor. For a man\nof the poor working class the advantages and disadvantages will be\nthe same, but with a great increase of disadvantages. The\ndisadvantages for the poor man who submits will be aggravated by\nthe fact that he will by taking part in it, and, as it were,\nassenting to it strengthen the state of subjection in which he is\nheld himself.\n\nBut no considerations as to how far the state is useful or\nbeneficial to the men who help to support it by serving in the\narmy, nor of the advantages or disadvantages for the individual of\ncompliance or non-compliance with state demands, will decide the\nquestion of the continued existence or the abolition of\ngovernment. This question will be finally decided beyond appeal\nby the religious consciousness or conscience of every man who is\nforced, whether he will or no, through universal conscription, to\nface the question whether the state is to continue to exist or\nnot.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nDOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY FORCE MUST INEVITABLY BE\nACCEPTED BY MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY.\n\nChristianity is Not a System of Rules, but a New Conception of\nLife, and therefore it was Not Obligatory and was Not Accepted\nin its True Significance by All, but only by a Few--Christianity\nis, Moreover, Prophetic of the Destruction of the Pagan Life,\nand therefore of Necessity of the Acceptance of the Christian\nDoctrines--Non-resistance of Evil by Force is One Aspect of the\nChristian Doctrine, which must Inevitably in Our Times be\nAccepted by Men--Two Methods of Deciding Every Quarrel--First\nMethod is to Find a Universal Definition of Evil, which All Must\nAccept, and to Resist this Evil by Force--Second Method is the\nChristian One of Complete Non-resistance by Force--Though the\nFailure of the First Method was Recognized since the Early Days of\nChristianity, it was Still Proposed, and only as Mankind has\nProgressed it has Become More and More Evident that there Cannot\nbe any Universal Definition of Evil--This is Recognized by All at\nthe Present Day, and if Force is Still Used to Resist Evil, it is\nNot Because it is Now Regarded as Right, but Because People Don't\nKnow How to Avoid It--The Difficulty of Avoiding It is the Result\nof the Subtle and Complex Character of the Government Use of\nForce--Force is Used in Four Ways: Intimidation, Bribery,\nHypnotism, and Coercion by Force of Arms--State Violence Can Never\nbe Suppressed by the Forcible Overthrow of the Government--Men are\nLed by the Sufferings of the Pagan Mode of Life to the Necessity\nof Accepting Christ's Teaching with its Doctrine of Non-resistance\nby Force--The Consciousness of its Truth which is Diffused\nThroughout Our Society, Will also Bring About its Acceptance--This\nConsciousness is in Complete Contradiction with Our Life--This is\nSpecially Obvious in Compulsory Military Service, but Through\nHabit and the Application of the Four Methods of Violence by the\nState, Men do not See this Inconsistency of Christianity with Life\nof a Soldier--They do Not even See It, though the Authorities\nThemselves Show all the Immorality of a Soldier's Duties with\nPerfect Clearness--The Call to Military Service is the Supreme\nTest for Every Man, when the Choice is Offered Him, between\nAdopting the Christian Doctrine of Non-resistance, or Slavishly\nSubmitting to the Existing State Organization--Men Usually\nRenounce All They Hold Sacred, and Submit to the Demands of\nGovernment, Seeming to See No Other Course Open to Them--For Men\nof the Pagan Conception of Life there is No Other Course Open, and\nNever Will Be, in Spite of the Growing Horrors of War--Society,\nMade Up of Such Men, Must Perish, and No Social Reorganization Can\nSave It--Pagan Life Has Reached Its Extreme Limit, and Will\nAnnihilate Itself.\n\n\nIt is often said that if Christianity is a truth, it ought to have\nbeen accepted by everyone directly it appeared, and ought to have\ntransformed men's lives for the better. But this is like saying\nthat if the seed were ripe it ought at once to bring forth stalls,\nflower, and fruit.\n\nThe Christian religion is not a legal system which, being imposed\nby violence, may transform men's lives. Christianity is a new and\nhigher conception of life. A new conception of life cannot be\nimposed on men; it can only be freely assimilated. And it can\nonly be freely assimilated in two ways: one spiritual and\ninternal, the other experimental and external.\n\nSome people--a minority--by a kind of prophetic instinct divine\nthe truth of the doctrine, surrender themselves to it and adopt\nit. Others--the majority--only through a long course of mistakes,\nexperiments, and suffering are brought to recognize the truth of\nthe doctrine and the necessity of adopting it.\n\nAnd by this experimental external method the majority of Christian\nmen have now been brought to this necessity of assimilating the\ndoctrine. One sometimes wonders what necessitated the corruption\nof Christianity which is now the greatest obstacle to its\nacceptance in its true significance.\n\nIf Christianity had been presented to men in its true, uncorrupted\nform, it would not have been accepted by the majority, who would\nhave been as untouched by it as the nations of Asia are now. The\npeoples who accepted it in its corrupt form were subjected to its\nslow but certain influence, and by a long course of errors and\nexperiments and their resultant sufferings have now been brought\nto the necessity of assimilating it in its true significance.\n\nThe corruption of Christianity and its acceptance in its corrupt\nform by the majority of men was as necessary as it is that the\nseed should remain hidden for a certain time in the earth in order\nto germinate.\n\nChristianity is at once a doctrine of truth and a prophecy.\nEighteen centuries ago Christianity revealed to men the truth in\nwhich they ought to live, and at the same time foretold what human\nlife would become if men would not live by it but continued to\nlive by their previous principles, and what it would become if\nthey accepted the Christian doctrine and carried it out in their\nlives.\n\nLaying down in the Sermon on the Mount the principles by which to\nguide men's lives, Christ said: \"Whosoever heareth these sayings\nof mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who\nbuilt his house upon a rock; and the rain descended, and the\nfloods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it\nfell not, for it was founded upon a rock. And everyone that\nheareth these sayings, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a\nfoolish man, who built his house upon the sand; and the rain\ndescended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon\nthat house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it\" (Matt. vii.\n24-27).\n\nAnd now after eighteen centuries the prophecy has been fulfilled.\nNot having followed Christ's teaching generally and its\napplication to social life in non-resistance to evil, men have\nbeen brought in spite of themselves to the inevitable destruction\nforetold by Christ for those who do not fulfill his teaching.\n\nPeople often think the question of non-resistance to evil by force\nis a theoretical one, which can be neglected. Yet this question\nis presented by life itself to all men, and calls for some answer\nfrom every thinking man. Ever since Christianity has been\noutwardly professed, this question is for men in their social life\nlike the question which presents itself to a traveler when the\nroad on which he has been journeying divides into two branches.\nHe must go on and he cannot say: I will not think about it, but\nwill go on just as I did before. There was one road, now there\nare two, and he must make his choice.\n\nIn the same way since Christ's teaching has been known by men they\ncannot say: I will live as before and will not decide the question\nof resistance or non-resistance to evil by force. At every new\nstruggle that arises one must inevitably decide; am I, or am I\nnot, to resist by force what I regard as evil.\n\nThe question of resistance or non-resistance to evil arose when\nthe first conflict between men took place, since every conflict is\nnothing else than resistance by force to what each of the\ncombatants regards as evil. But before Christ, men did not see\nthat resistance by force to what each regards as evil, simply\nbecause one thinks evil what the other thinks good, is only one of\nthe methods of settling the dispute, and that there is another\nmethod, that of not resisting evil by force at all.\n\nBefore Christ's teaching, it seemed to men that the one only means\nof settling a dispute was by resistance to evil by force. And\nthey acted accordingly, each of the combatants trying to convince\nhimself and others that what each respectively regards as evil, is\nactually, absolutely evil.\n\nAnd to do this from the earliest time men have devised definitions\nof evil and tried to make them binding on everyone. And such\ndefinitions of evil sometimes took the form of laws, supposed to\nhave been received by supernatural means, sometimes of the\ncommands of rulers or assemblies to whom infallibility was\nattributed. Men resorted to violence against others, and\nconvinced themselves and others that they were directing their\nviolence against evil recognized as such by all.\n\nThis means was employed from the earliest times, especially by\nthose who had gained possession of authority, and for a long while\nits irrationality was not detected.\n\nBut the longer men lived in the world and the more complex their\nrelations became, the more evident it was that to resist by force\nwhat each regarded as evil was irrational, that conflict was in no\nway lessened thereby, and that no human definitions can succeed in\nmaking what some regard as evil be accepted as such by others.\n\nAlready at the time Christianity arose, it was evident to a great\nnumber of people in the Roman Empire where it arose, that what was\nregarded as evil by Nero and Caligula could not be regarded as\nevil by others. Even at that time men had begun to understand\nthat human laws, though given out for divine laws, were compiled\nby men, and cannot be infallible, whatever the external majesty\nwith which they are invested, and that erring men are not rendered\ninfallible by assembling together and calling themselves a senate\nor any other name. Even at that time this was felt and understood\nby many. And it was then that Christ preached his doctrine, which\nconsisted not only of the prohibition of resistance to evil by\nforce, but gave a new conception of life and a means of putting an\nend to conflict between all men, not by making it the duty of one\nsection only of mankind to submit without conflict to what is\nprescribed to them by certain authorities, but by making it the\nduty of all--and consequently of those in authority--not to resort\nto force against anyone in any circumstances.\n\nThis doctrine was accepted at the time by only a very small number\nof disciples. The majority of men, especially all who were in\npower, even after the nominal acceptance of Christianity,\ncontinued to maintain for themselves the principle of resistance\nby force to what they regarded as evil. So it was under the Roman\nand Byzantine emperors, and so it continued to be later.\n\nThe insufficiency of the principle of the authoritative definition\nof evil and resistance to it by force, evident as it was in the\nearly ages of Christianity, becomes still more obvious through the\ndivision of the Roman Empire into many states of equal authority,\nthrough their hostilities and the internal conflicts that broke\nout within them.\n\nBut men were not ready to accept the solution given by Christ, and\nthe old definitions of evil, which ought to be resisted, continued\nto be laid down by means of making laws binding on all and\nenforced by forcible means. The authority who decided what ought\nto be regarded as evil and resisted by force was at one time the\nPope, at another an emperor or king, an elective assembly or a\nwhole nation. But both within and without the state there were\nalways men to be found who did not accept as binding on themselves\nthe laws given out as the decrees of a god, or made by men\ninvested with a sacred character, or the institutions supposed to\nrepresent the will of the nation; and there were men who thought\ngood what the existing authorities regarded as bad, and who\nstruggled against the authorities with the same violence as was\nemployed against them.\n\nThe men invested with religious authority regarded as evil what\nthe men and institutions invested with temporal authority regarded\nas good and vice versa, and the struggle grew more and more\nintense. And the longer men used violence as the means of\nsettling their disputes, the more obvious it became that it was an\nunsuitable means, since there could be no external authority able\nto define evil recognized by all.\n\nThings went on like this for eighteen centuries, and at last\nreached the present position in which it is absolutely obvious\nthat there is, and can be, no external definition of evil binding\nupon all. Men have come to the point of ceasing to believe in the\npossibility or even desirability of finding and establishing such\na general definition. It has come to men in power ceasing to\nattempt to prove that what they regard as evil is evil, and simply\ndeclaring that they regard as evil what they don't like, while\ntheir subjects no longer obey them because they accept the\ndefinition of evil laid down by them, but simply obey because they\ncannot help themselves. It was not because it was a good thing,\nnecessary and beneficial to men, and the contrary course would\nhave been an evil, but simply because it was the will of those in\npower that Nice was incorporated into France, and Lorraine into\nGermany, and Bohemia into Austria, and that Poland was divided,\nand Ireland and India ruled by the English government, and that\nthe Chinese are attacked and the Africans slaughtered, and the\nChinese prevented from immigrating by the Americans, and the Jews\npersecuted by the Russians, and that landowners appropriate lands\nthey do not cultivate and capitalists enjoy the fruits of the\nlabor of others. It has come to the present state of things; one\nset of men commit acts of violence no longer on the pretext of\nresistance to evil, but simply for their profit or their caprice,\nand another set submit to violence, not because they suppose, as\nwas supposed in former times, that this violence was practised\nupon them for the sake of securing them from evil, but simply\nbecause they cannot avoid it.\n\nIf the Roman, or the man of mediaeval times, or the average\nRussian of fifty years ago, as I remember him, was convinced\nwithout a shade of doubt that the violence of authority was\nindispensable to preserve him from evil; that taxes, dues,\nserfage, prisons, scourging, knouts, executions, the army and war\nwere what ought to be--we know now that one can seldom find a man\nwho believes that all these means of violence preserve anyone from\nany evil whatever, and indeed does not clearly perceive that most\nof these acts of violence to which he is exposed, and in which he\nhas some share, are in themselves a great and useless evil.\n\nThere is no one to-day who does not see the uselessness and injustice of\ncollecting taxes from the toiling masses to enrich idle officials; or\nthe senselessness of inflicting punishments on weak or depraved persons\nin the shape of transportation from one place to another, or of\nimprisonment in a fortress where, living in security and indolence, they\nonly become weaker and more depraved; or the worse than uselessness and\ninjustice, the positive insanity and barbarity of preparations for war\nand of wars, causing devastation and ruin, and having no kind of\njustification. Yet these forms of violence continue and are supported by\nthe very people who see their uselessness, injustice, and cruelty, and\nsuffer from them. If fifty years ago the idle rich man and the\nilliterate laborer were both alike convinced that their state of\neverlasting holiday for one and everlasting toil for the other was\nordained by God himself, we know very well that nowadays, thanks to the\ngrowth of population and the diffusion of books and education, it would\nbe hard to find in Europe or even in Russia, either among rich or poor,\na man to whom in one shape or another a doubt as to the justice of this\nstate of things had never presented itself. The rich know that they are\nguilty in the very fact of being rich, and try to expiate their guilt by\nsacrifices to art and science, as of old they expiated their sins by\nsacrifices to the Church. And even the larger half of the working people\nopenly declare that the existing order is iniquitous and bound to be\ndestroyed or reformed. One set of religious people of whom there are\nmillions in Russia, the so-called sectaries, consider the existing\nsocial order as unjust and to be destroyed on the ground of the Gospel\nteaching taken in its true sense. Others regard it as unjust on the\nground of the socialistic, communistic, or anarchistic theories, which\nare springing up in the lower strata of the working people. Violence no\nlonger rests on the belief in its utility, but only on the fact of its\nhaving existed so long, and being organized by the ruling classes who\nprofit by it, so that those who are under their authority cannot\nextricate themselves from it. The governments of our day--all of them,\nthe most despotic and the liberal alike--have become what Herzen so well\ncalled \"Ghenghis Khan with the telegraph;\" that is to say, organizations\nof violence based on no principle but the grossest tyranny, and at the\nsame time taking advantage of all the means invented by science for the\npeaceful collective social activity of free and equal men, used by them\nto enslave and oppress their fellows.\n\nGovernments and the ruling classes no longer take their stand on\nright or even on the semblance of justice, but on a skillful\norganization carried to such a point of perfection by the aid of\nscience that everyone is caught in the circle of violence and has\nno chance of escaping from it. This circle is made up now of four\nmethods of working upon men, joined together like the limes of a\nchain ring.\n\nThe first and oldest method is intimidation. This consists in\nrepresenting the existing state organization--whatever it may be,\nfree republic or the most savage despotism--as something sacred\nand immutable, and therefore following any efforts to alter it\nwith the cruellest punishments. This method is in use now--as it\nhas been from olden times--wherever there is a government: in\nRussia against the so-called Nihilists, in America against\nAnarchists, in France against Imperialists, Legitimists,\nCommunards, and Anarchists.\n\nRailways, telegraphs, telephones, photographs, and the great\nperfection of the means of getting rid of men for years, without\nkilling them, by solitary confinement, where, hidden from the\nworld, they perish and are forgotten, and the many other modern\ninventions employed by government, give such power that when once\nauthority has come into certain hands, the police, open and\nsecret, the administration and prosecutors, jailers and\nexecutioners of all kinds, do their work so zealously that there\nis no chance of overturning the government, however cruel and\nsenseless it may be.\n\nThe second method is corruption. It consists in plundering the\nindustrious working people of their wealth by means of taxes and\ndistributing it in satisfying the greed of officials, who are\nbound in return to support and keep up the oppression of the\npeople. These bought officials, from the highest ministers to the\npoorest copying clerks, make up an unbroken network of men bound\ntogether by the same interest--that of living at the expense of\nthe people. They become the richer the more submissively they\ncarry out the will of the government; and at all times and places,\nsticking at nothing, in all departments support by word and deed\nthe violence of government, on which their own prosperity also\nrests.\n\nThe third method is what I can only describe as hypnotizing the\npeople. This consists in checking the moral development of men,\nand by various suggestions keeping them back in the ideal of life,\noutgrown by mankind at large, on which the power of government\nrests. This hypnotizing process is organized at the present in the\nmost complex manner, and starting from their earliest childhood,\ncontinues to act on men till the day of their death. It begins in\ntheir earliest years in the compulsory schools, created for this\npurpose, in which the children have instilled into them the ideas\nof life of their ancestors, which are in direct antagonism with\nthe conscience of the modern world. In countries where there is a\nstate religion, they teach the children the senseless blasphemies\nof the Church catechisms, together with the duty of obedience to\ntheir superiors. In republican states they teach them the savage\nsuperstition of patriotism and the same pretended obedience to the\ngoverning authorities.\n\nThe process is kept up during later years by the encouragement of\nreligious and patriotic superstitions.\n\nThe religious superstition is encouraged by establishing, with\nmoney taken from the people, temples, processions, memorials, and\nfestivals, which, aided by painting, architecture, music, and\nincense, intoxicate the people, and above all by the support of\nthe clergy, whose duty consists in brutalizing the people and\nkeeping them in a permanent state of stupefaction by their\nteaching, the solemnity of their services, their sermons, and\ntheir interference in private life--at births, deaths, and\nmarriages. The patriotic superstition is encouraged by the\ncreation, with money taken from the people, of national f\u00eates,\nspectacles, monuments, and festivals to dispose men to attach\nimportance to their own nation, and to the aggrandizement of the\nstate and its rulers, and to feel antagonism and even hatred for\nother nations. With these objects under despotic governments there\nis direct prohibition against printing and disseminating books to\nenlighten the people, and everyone who might rouse the people from\ntheir lethargy is exiled or imprisoned. Moreover, under every\ngovernment without exception everything is kept back that might\nemancipate and everything encouraged that tends to corrupt the\npeople, such as literary works tending to keep them in the\nbarbarism of religious and patriotic superstition, all kinds of\nsensual amusements, spectacles, circuses, theaters, and even the\nphysical means of inducing stupefaction, as tobacco and alcohol,\nwhich form the principal source of revenue of states. Even\nprostitution is encouraged, and not only recognized, but even\norganized by the government in the majority of states. So much for\nthe third method.\n\nThe fourth method consists in selecting from all the men who have\nbeen stupefied and enslaved by the three former methods a certain\nnumber, exposing them to special and intensified means of\nstupefaction and brutalization, and so making them into a passive\ninstrument for carrying out all the cruelties and brutalities\nneeded by the government. This result is attained by taking them\nat the youthful age when men have not had time to form clear and\ndefinite principles of morals, and removing them from all natural\nand human conditions of life, home, family and kindred, and useful\nlabor. They are shut up together in barracks, dressed in special\nclothes, and worked upon by cries, drums, music, and shining\nobjects to go through certain daily actions invented for this\npurpose, and by this means are brought into an hypnotic condition\nin which they cease to be men and become mere senseless machines,\nsubmissive to the hypnotizer. These physically vigorous young men\n(in these days of universal conscription, all young men),\nhypnotized, armed with murderous weapons, always obedient to the\ngoverning authorities and ready for any act of violence at their\ncommand, constitute the fourth and principal method of enslaving\nmen.\n\nBy this method the circle of violence is completed.\n\nIntimidation, corruption, and hypnotizing bring people into a\ncondition in which they are willing to be soldiers; the soldiers\ngive the power of punishing and plundering them (and purchasing\nofficials with the spoils), and hypnotizing them and converting\nthem in time into these same soldiers again.\n\nThe circle is complete, and there is no chance of breaking through\nit by force.\n\nSome persons maintain that freedom from violence, or at least a\ngreat diminution of it, may be gained by the oppressed forcibly\noverturning the oppressive government and replacing it by a new\none under which such violence and oppression will be unnecessary,\nbut they deceive themselves and others, and their efforts do not\nbetter the position of the oppressed, but only make it worse.\nTheir conduct only tends to increase the despotism of government.\nTheir efforts only afford a plausible pretext for government to\nstrengthen their power.\n\nEven if we admit that under a combination of circumstances\nspecially unfavorable for the government, as in France in 1870,\nany government might be forcibly overturned and the power\ntransferred to other hands, the new authority would rarely be less\noppressive than the old one; on the contrary, always having to\ndefend itself against its dispossessed and exasperated enemies, it\nwould be more despotic and cruel, as has always been the rule in\nall revolutions.\n\nWhile socialists and communists regard the individualistic,\ncapitalistic organization of society as an evil, and the\nanarchists regard as an evil all government whatever, there are\nroyalists, conservatives, and capitalists who consider any\nsocialistic or communistic organization or anarchy as an evil, and\nall these parties have no means other than violence to bring men\nto agreement. Whichever of these parties were successful in\nbringing their schemes to pass, must resort to support its\nauthority to all the existing methods of violence, and even invent\nnew ones.\n\nThe oppressed would be another set of people, and coercion would\ntake some new form; but the violence and oppression would be\nunchanged or even more cruel, since hatred would be intensified by\nthe struggle, and new forms of oppression would have been devised.\nSo it has always been after all revolutions and all attempts at\nrevolution, all conspiracies, and all violent changes of\ngovernment. Every conflict only strengthens the means of\noppression in the hands of those who happen at a given moment to\nbe in power.\n\nThe position of our Christian society, and especially the ideals\nmost current in it, prove this in a strikingly convincing way.\n\nThere remains now only one sphere of human life not encroached\nupon by government authority--that is the domestic, economic\nsphere, the sphere of private life and labor. And even this is\nnow--thanks to the efforts of communists and socialists--being\ngradually encroached upon by government, so that labor and\nrecreation, dwellings, dress, and food will gradually, if the\nhopes of the reformers are successful, be prescribed and regulated\nby government.\n\nThe slow progress of eighteen centuries has brought the Christian\nnations again to the necessity of deciding the question they have\nevaded--the question of the acceptance or non-acceptance of\nChrist's teaching, and the question following upon it in social\nlife of resistance or non-resistance to evil by force. But there\nis this difference, that whereas formerly men could accept or\nrefuse to accept the solution given by Christ, now that solution\ncannot be avoided, since it alone can save men from the slavery in\nwhich they are caught like a net.\n\nBut it is not only the misery of the position which makes this\ninevitable.\n\nWhile the pagan organization has been proved more and more false,\nthe truth of the Christian religion has been growing more and more\nevident.\n\nNot in vain have the best men of Christian humanity, who\napprehended the truth by spiritual intuition, for eighteen\ncenturies testified to it in spite of every menace, every\nprivation, and every suffering. By their martyrdom they passed on\nthe truth to the masses, and impressed it on their hearts.\n\nChristianity has penetrated into the consciousness of humanity,\nnot only negatively by the demonstration of the impossibility of\ncontinuing in the pagan life, but also through its simplification,\nits increased clearness and freedom from the superstitions\nintermingled with it, and its diffusion through all classes of the\npopulation.\n\nEighteen centuries of Christianity have not passed without an\neffect even on those who accepted it only externally. These\neighteen centuries have brought men so far that even while they\ncontinue to live the pagan life which is no longer consistent with\nthe development of humanity, they not only see clearly all the\nwretchedness of their position, but in the depths of their souls\nthey believe (they can only live through this belief) that the\nonly salvation from this position is to be found in fulfilling the\nChristian doctrine in its true significance. As to the time and\nmanner of salvation, opinions are divided according to the\nintellectual development and the prejudices of each society. But\nevery man of the modern world recognizes that our salvation lies\nin fulfilling the law of Christ. Some believers in the\nsupernatural character of Christianity hold that salvation will\ncome when all men are brought to believe in Christ, whose second\ncoming is at hand. Other believers in supernatural Christianity\nhold that salvation will come through the Church, which will draw\nall men into its fold, train them in the Christian virtues, and\ntransform their life. A third section, who do not admit the\ndivinity of Christ, hold that the salvation of mankind will be\nbrought about by slow and gradual progress, through which the\npagan principles of our existence will be replaced by the\nprinciples of liberty, equality, and fraternity--that is, by\nChristian principles. A fourth section, who believe in the social\nrevolution, hold that salvation will come when through a violent\nrevolution men are forced into community of property, abolition of\ngovernment, and collective instead of individual industry--that is\nto say, the realization of one side of the Christian doctrine. In\none way or another all men of our day in their inner consciousness\ncondemn the existing effete pagan order, and admit, often\nunconsciously and while regarding themselves as hostile to\nChristianity, that our salvation is only to be found in the\napplication of the Christian doctrine, or parts of it, in its true\nsignificance to our daily life.\n\nChristianity cannot, as its Founder said, be realized by the\nmajority of men all at once; it must grow like a huge tree from a\ntiny seed. And so it has grown, and now has reached its full\ndevelopment, not yet in actual life, but in the conscience of men\nof to-day.\n\nNow not only the minority, who have always comprehended\nChristianity by spiritual intuition, but all the vast majority who\nseem so far from it in their social existence recognize its true\nsignificance.\n\nLook at individual men in their private life, listen to their\nstandards of conduct in their judgment of one another; hear not\nonly their public utterances, but the counsels given by parents\nand guardians to the young in their charge; and you will see that,\nfar as their social life based on violence may be from realizing\nChristian truth, in their private life what is considered good by\nall without exception is nothing but the Christian virtues; what\nis considered as bad is nothing but the antichristian vices. Those\nwho consecrate their lives self-sacrificingly to the service of\nhumanity are regarded as the best men. The selfish, who make use\nof the misfortunes of others for their own advantage, are regarded\nas the worst of men.\n\nThough some non-Christian ideals, such as strength, courage, and\nwealth, are still worshiped by a few who have not been penetrated\nby the Christian spirit, these ideals are out of date and are\nabandoned, if not by all, at least by all those regarded as the\nbest people. There are no ideals, other than the Christian ideals,\nwhich are accepted by all and regarded as binding on all.\n\nThe position of our Christian humanity, if you look at it from the\noutside with all its cruelty and degradation of men, is terrible\nindeed. But if one looks at it within, in its inner consciousness,\nthe spectacle it presents is absolutely different.\n\nAll the evil of our life seems to exist only because it has been\nso for so long; those who do the evil have not had time yet to\nlearn how to act otherwise, though they do not want to act as they\ndo.\n\nAll the evil seems to exist through some cause independent of the\nconscience of men.\n\nStrange and contradictory as it seems, all men of the present day\nhate the very social order they are themselves supporting.\n\nI think it is Max M\u00fcller who describes the amazement of an Indian\nconvert to Christianity, who after absorbing the essence of the\nChristian doctrine came to Europe and saw the actual life of\nChristians. He could not recover from his astonishment at the\ncomplete contrast between the reality and what he had expected to\nfind among Christian nations. If we feel no astonishment at the\ncontrast between our convictions and our conduct, that is because\nthe influences, tending to obscure the contrast, produce an effect\nupon us too. We need only look at our life from the point of view\nof that Indian, who understood Christianity in its true\nsignificance, without any compromises or concessions, we need but\nlook at the savage brutalities of which our life is full, to be\nappalled at the contradictions in the midst of which we live often\nwithout observing them.\n\nWe need only recall the preparations for war, the mitrailleuses,\nthe silver-gilt bullets, the torpedoes, and--the Red Cross; the\nsolitary prison cells, the experiments of execution by\nelectricity--and the care of the hygienic welfare of prisoners;\nthe philanthropy of the rich, and their life, which produces the\npoor they are benefiting.\n\nAnd these inconsistencies are not, as it might seem, because men\npretend to be Christians while they are really pagans, but because\nof something lacking in men, or some kind of force hindering them\nfrom being what they already feel themselves to be in their\nconsciousness, and what they genuinely wish to be. Men of the\npresent day do not merely pretend to hate oppression, inequality,\nclass distinction, and every kind of cruelty to animals as well as\nhuman beings. They genuinely detest all this, but they do not\nknow how to put a stop to it, or perhaps cannot decide to give up\nwhat preserves it all, and seems to them necessary.\n\nIndeed, ask every man separately whether he thinks it laudable and\nworthy of a man of this age to hold a position from which he\nreceives a salary disproportionate to his work; to take from the\npeople--often in poverty--taxes to be spent on constructing\ncannon, torpedoes, and other instruments of butchery, so as to\nmake war on people with whom we wish to be at peace, and who feel\nthe same wish in regard to us; or to receive a salary for devoting\none's whole life to constructing these instruments of butchery, or\nto preparing oneself and others for the work of murder. And ask\nhim whether it is laudable and worthy of a man, and suitable for a\nChristian, to employ himself, for a salary, in seizing wretched,\nmisguided, often illiterate and drunken, creatures because they\nappropriate the property of others--on a much smaller scale than\nwe do--or because they kill men in a different fashion from that\nin which we undertake to do it--and shutting them in prison for\nit, ill treating them and killing them; and whether it is laudable\nand worthy of a man and a Christian to preach for a salary to the\npeople not Christianity, but superstitions which one knows to be\nstupid and pernicious; and whether it is laudable and worthy of a\nman to rob his neighbor for his gratification of what he wants to\nsatisfy his simplest needs, as the great landowners do; or to\nforce him to exhausting labor beyond his strength to augment one's\nwealth, as do factory owners and manufacturers; or to profit by\nthe poverty of men to increase one's gains, as merchants do. And\neveryone taken separately, especially if one's remarks are\ndirected at someone else, not himself, will answer, No! And yet\nthe very man who sees all the baseness of those actions, of his\nown free will, uncoerced by anyone, often even for no pecuniary\nprofit, but only from childish vanity, for a china cross, a scrap\nof ribbon, a bit of fringe he is allowed to wear, will enter\nmilitary service, become a magistrate or justice of the peace,\ncommissioner, archbishop, or beadle, though in fulfilling these\noffices he must commit acts the baseness and shamefulness of which\nhe cannot fail to recognize.\n\nI know that many of these men will confidently try to prove that\nthey have reasons for regarding their position as legitimate and\nquite indispensable. They will say in their defense that\nauthority is given by God, that the functions of the state are\nindispensable for the welfare of humanity, that property is not\nopposed to Christianity, that the rich young man was only\ncommanded to sell all he had and give to the poor if he wished to\nbe perfect, that the existing distribution of property and our\ncommercial system must always remain as they are, and are to the\nadvantage of all, and so on. But, however much they try to\ndeceive themselves and others, they all know that what they are\ndoing is opposed to all the beliefs which they profess, and in the\ndepths of their souls, when they are left alone with their\nconscience, they are ashamed and miserable at the recollection of\nit, especially if the baseness of their action has been pointed\nout to them. A man of the present day, whether he believes in the\ndivinity of Christ or not, cannot fail to see that to assist in\nthe capacity of tzar, minister, governor, or commissioner in\ntaking from a poor family its last cow for taxes to be spent on\ncannons, or on the pay and pensions of idle officials, who live in\nluxury and are worse than useless; or in putting into prison some\nman we have ourselves corrupted, and throwing his family on the\nstreets; or in plundering and butchering in war; or in inculcating\nsavage and idolatrous superstitious in the place of the law of\nChrist; or in impounding the cow found on one's land, though it\nbelongs to a man who has no land; or to cheat the workman in a\nfactory, by imposing fines for accidentally spoiled articles; or\nmaking a poor man pay double the value for anything simply because\nhe is in the direst poverty;--not a man of the present day can\nfail to know that all these actions are base and disgraceful, and\nthat they need not do them. They all know it. They know that\nwhat they are doing is wrong, and would not do it for anything in\nthe world if they had the power of resisting the forces which shut\ntheir eyes to the criminality of their actions and impel them to\ncommit them.\n\nIn nothing is the pitch of inconsistency modern life has attained\nto so evident as in universal conscription, which is the last\nresource and the final expression of violence.\n\nIndeed, it is only because this state of universal armament has\nbeen brought about gradually and imperceptibly, and because\ngovernments have exerted, in maintaining it, every resource of\nintimidation, corruption, brutalization, and violence, that we do\nnot see its flagrant inconsistency with the Christian ideas and\nsentiments by which the modern world is permeated.\n\nWe are so accustomed to the inconsistency that we do not see all\nthe hideous folly and immorality of men voluntarily choosing the\nprofession of butchery as though it were an honorable career, of\npoor wretches submitting to conscription, or in countries where\ncompulsory service has not been introduced, of people voluntarily\nabandoning a life of industry to recruit soldiers and train them\nas murderers. We know that all of these men are either\nChristians, or profess humane and liberal principles, and they\nknow that they thus become partly responsible--through universal\nconscription, personally responsible--for the most insane,\naimless, and brutal murders. And yet they all do it.\n\nMore than that, in Germany, where compulsory service first\noriginated, Caprivi has given expression to what had been hitherto\nso assiduously concealed--that is, that the men that the soldiers\nwill have to kill are not foreigners alone, but their own\ncountrymen, the very working people from whom they themselves are\ntaken. And this admission has not opened people's eyes, has not\nhorrified them! They still go like sheep to the slaughter, and\nsubmit to everything required of them.\n\nAnd that is not all: the Emperor of Germany has lately shown still\nmore clearly the duties of the army, by thanking and rewarding a\nsoldier for killing a defenseless citizen who made his approach\nincautiously. By rewarding an action always regarded as base and\ncowardly even by men on the lowest level of morality, William has\nshown that a soldier's chief duty--the one most appreciated by the\nauthorities--is that of executioner; and not a professional\nexecutioner who kills only condemned criminals, but one ready to\nbutcher any innocent man at the word of command.\n\nAnd even that is not all. In 1892, the same William, the ENFANT\nTERRIBLE of state authority, who says plainly what other people\nonly think, in addressing some soldiers gave public utterance to\nthe following speech, which was reported next day in thousands of\nnewspapers: \"Conscripts!\" he said, \"you have sworn fidelity to ME\nbefore the altar and the minister of God! You are still too young\nto understand all the importance of what has been said here; let\nyour care before all things be to obey the orders and instructions\ngiven you. You have sworn fidelity TO ME, lads of my guard; THAT\nMEANS THAT YOU ARE NOW MY SOLDIERS, that YOU HAVE GIVEN YOURSELVES\nTO ME BODY AND SOUL. For you there is now but one enemy, MY\nenemy. IN THESE DAYS OF SOCIALISTIC SEDITION IT MAY COME TO PASS\nTHAT I COMMAND YOU TO FIRE ON YOUR OWN KINDRED, YOUR BROTHERS,\nEVEN YOUR OWN FATHERS AND MOTHERS--WHICH GOD FORBID!--even then\nyou are bound to obey my orders without hesitation.\"\n\nThis man expresses what all sensible rulers think, but studiously\nconceal. He says openly that the soldiers are in HIS service, at\nHIS disposal, and must be ready for HIS advantage to murder even\ntheir brothers and fathers.\n\nIn the most brutal words he frankly exposes all the horrors and\ncriminality for which men prepare themselves in entering the army,\nand the depths of ignominy to which they fall in promising\nobedience. Like a bold hypnotizer, he tests the degree of\ninsensibility of the hypnotized subject. He touches his skin with\na red-hot iron; the skin smokes and scorches, but the sleeper does\nnot awake.\n\nThis miserable man, imbecile and drunk with power, outrages in\nthis utterance everything that can be sacred for a man of the\nmodern world. And yet all the Christians, liberals, and\ncultivated people, far from resenting this outrage, did not even\nobserve it.\n\nThe last, the most extreme test is put before men in its coarsest\nform. And they do not seem even to notice that it is a test, that\nthere is any choice about it. They seem to think there is no\ncourse open but slavish submission. One would have thought these\ninsane words, which outrage everything a man of the present day\nholds sacred, must rouse indignation. But there has been nothing\nof the kind.\n\nAll the young men through the whole of Europe are exposed year\nafter year to this test, and with very few exceptions they\nrenounce all that a man can hold sacred, all express their\nreadiness to kill their brothers, even their fathers, at the\nbidding of the first crazy creature dressed up in a livery with\nred and gold trimming, and only wait to be told where and when\nthey are to kill. And they actually are ready.\n\nEvery savage has something he holds sacred, something for which he\nis ready to suffer, something he will not consent to do. But what\nis it that is sacred to the civilized man of to-day? They say to\nhim: \"You must become my slave, and this slavery may force you\nto kill even your own father;\" and he, often very well educated,\ntrained in all the sciences at the university, quietly puts his\nhead under the yoke. They dress him up in a clown's costume, and\norder him to cut capers, turn and twist and bow, and kill--he does\nit all submissively. And when they let him go, he seems to shake\nhimself and go back to his former life, and he continues to\ndiscourse upon the dignity of man, liberty, equality, and\nfraternity as before.\n\n\"Yes, but what is one to do?\" people often ask in genuine\nperplexity. \"If everyone would stand out it would be something,\nbut by myself, I shall only suffer without doing any good to\nanyone.\"\n\nAnd that is true. A man with the social conception of life cannot\nresist. The aim of his life is his personal welfare. It is better\nfor his personal welfare for him to submit, and he submits.\n\nWhatever they do to him, however they torture or humiliate him, he\nwill submit, for, alone, he can do nothing; he has no principle\nfor the sake of which he could resist violence alone. And those\nwho control them never allow them to unite together. It is often\nsaid that the invention of terrible weapons of destruction will\nput an end to war. That is an error. As the means of\nextermination are improved, the means of reducing men who hold the\nstate conception of life to submission can be improved to\ncorrespond. They may slaughter them by thousands, by millions,\nthey may tear them to pieces, still they will march to war like\nsenseless cattle. Some will want beating to make them move,\nothers will be proud to go if they are allowed to wear a scrap of\nribbon or gold lace.\n\nAnd of this mass of men so brutalized as to be ready to promise to\nkill their own parents, the social reformers--conservatives,\nliberals, socialists, and anarchists--propose to form a rational\nand moral society. What sort of moral and rational society can be\nformed out of such elements? With warped and rotten planks you\ncannot build a house, however you put them together. And to form\na rational moral society of such men is just as impossible a task.\nThey can be formed into nothing but a herd of cattle, driven by\nthe shouts and whips of the herdsmen. As indeed they are.\n\nSo, then, we have on one side men calling themselves Christians,\nand professing the principles of liberty, equality, and\nfraternity, and along with that ready, in the name of liberty, to\nsubmit to the most slavish degradation; in the name of equality,\nto accept the crudest, most senseless division of men by externals\nmerely into higher and lower classes, allies and enemies; and, in\nthe name of fraternity, ready to murder their brothers [see\nfootnote].\n\n [Footnote: The fact that among certain nations, as\n the English and the American, military service is not\n compulsory (though already one hears there are some\n who advocate that it should be made so) does not\n affect the servility of the citizens to the government\n in principle. Here we have each to go and kill or be\n killed, there they have each to give the fruit of their\n toil to pay for the recruiting and training of soldiers.]\n\nThe contradiction between life and conscience and the misery\nresulting from it have reached the extreme limit and can go no\nfurther. The state organization of life based on violence, the\naim of which was the security of personal, family, and social\nwelfare, has come to the point of renouncing the very objects for\nwhich it was founded--it has reduced men to absolute renunciation\nand loss of the welfare it was to secure.\n\nThe first half of the prophecy has been fulfilled in the\ngeneration of men who have not accepted Christ's teaching, Their\ndescendants have been brought now to the absolute necessity of\npatting the truth of the second half to the test of experience.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE WILL EMANCIPATE\nMEN FROM THE MISERIES OF OUR PAGAN LIFE.\n\nThe External Life of Christian Peoples Remains Pagan Though they are\nPenetrated by Christian Consciousness--The Way Out of this Contradiction\nis by the Acceptance of the Christian Theory of Life--Only Through\nChristianity is Every Man Free, and Emancipated of All Human\nAuthority--This Emancipation can be Effected by no Change in External\nConditions of Life, but Only by a Change in the Conception of Life--The\nChristian Ideal of Life Requires Renunciation of all Violence, and in\nEmancipating the Man who Accepts it, Emancipates the Whole World from\nAll External Authorities--The Way Out of the Present Apparently Hopeless\nPosition is for Every Man who is Capable of Assimilating the Christian\nConception of Life, to Accept it and Live in Accordance with it--But Men\nConsider this Way too Slow, and Look for Deliverance Through Changes in\nMaterial Conditions of Life Aided by Government--That Will Lead to No\nImprovement, as it is simply Increasing the Evil under which Men are\nSuffering--A Striking Instance of this is the Submission to Compulsory\nMilitary Service, which it would be More Advantageous for Every Man to\nRefuse than to Submit to--The Emancipation of Men Can Only be Brought\nAbout by each Individual Emancipating Himself, and the Examples of this\nSelf-emancipation which are already Appearing Threaten the Destruction\nof Governmental Authority--Refusal to Comply with the Unchristian\nDemands of Government Undermines the Authority of the State and\nEmancipates Men--And therefore Cases of such Non-compliance are Regarded\nwith more Dread by State Authorities than any Conspiracies or Acts of\nViolence--Examples of Non-compliance in Russia, in Regard to Oath of\nAllegiance, Payment of Taxes, Passports, Police Duties, and Military\nService--Examples of such Non-compliance in other States--Governments do\nnot Know how to Treat Men who Refuse to Comply with their Demands on\nChristian Grounds--Such People, without Striking a Blow, Undermine the\nvery Basis of Government from Within--To Punish them is Equivalent to\nOpenly Renouncing Christianity, and Assisting in Diffusing the Very\nPrinciple by which these Men justify their Non-compliance--So\nGovernments are in a Helpless Position--Men who Maintain the Uselessness\nof Personal Independence, only Retard the Dissolution of the Present\nState Organization Based on Force.\n\n\nThe position of the Christian peoples in our days has remained\njust as cruel as it was in the times of paganism. In many\nrespects, especially in the oppression of the masses, it has\nbecome even more cruel than it was in the days of paganism.\n\nBut between the condition of men in ancient times and their\ncondition in our days there is just the difference that we see in\nthe world of vegetation between the last days of autumn and the\nfirst days of spring. In the autumn the external lifelessness in\nnature corresponds with its inward condition of death, while in\nthe spring the external lifelessness is in sharp contrast with the\ninternal state of reviving and passing into new forms of life.\n\nIn the same way the similarity between the ancient heathen life\nand the life of to-day is merely external: the inward condition of\nmen in the times of heathenism was absolutely different from their\ninward condition at the present time.\n\nThen the outward condition of cruelty and of slavery was in\ncomplete harmony with the inner conscience of men, and every step\nin advance intensified this harmony; now the outward condition of\ncruelty and of slavery is completely contradictory to the\nChristian consciousness of men, and every step in advance only\nintensifies this contradiction.\n\nHumanity is passing through seemingly unnecessary, fruitless\nagonies. It is passing through something like the throes of\nbirth. Everything is ready for the new life, but still the new\nlife does not come.\n\nThere seems no way out of the position. And there would be none,\nexcept that a man (and thereby all men) is gifted with the power\nof forming a different, higher theory of life, which at once frees\nhim from all the bonds by which he seems indissolubly fettered.\n\nAnd such a theory is the Christian view of life made known to\nmankind eighteen hundred years ago.\n\nA man need only make this theory of life his own, for the fetters\nwhich seemed so indissolubly forged upon him to drop off of\nthemselves, and for him to feel himself absolutely free, just as a\nbird would feel itself free in a fenced-in place directly it tools\nto its wings.\n\nPeople talk about the liberty of the Christian Church, about\ngiving or not giving freedom to Christians. Underlying all these\nideas and expressions there is some strange misconception.\nFreedom cannot be bestowed on or taken from a Christian or\nChristians. Freedom is an inalienable possession of the\nChristian.\n\nIf we talk of bestowing freedom on Christians or withholding it\nfrom them, we are obviously talking not of real Christians but of\npeople who only call themselves Christians. A Christian cannot\nfail to be free, because the attainment of the aim he sets before\nhimself cannot be prevented or even hindered by anyone or\nanything.\n\nLet a man only understand his life as Christianity teaches him to\nunderstand it, let him understand, that is, that his life belongs\nnot to him--not to his own individuality, nor to his family, nor\nto the state--but to him who has sent him into the world, and let\nhim once understand that he must therefore fulfill not the law of\nhis own individuality, nor his family, nor of the state, but the\ninfinite law of him from whom he has come; and he will not only\nfeel himself absolutely free from every human power, but will even\ncease to regard such power as at all able to hamper anyone.\n\nLet a man but realize that the aim of his life is the fulfillment\nof God's law, and that law will replace all other laws for him,\nand he will give it his sole allegiance, so that by that very\nallegiance every human law will lose all binding and controlling\npower in his eyes.\n\nThe Christian is independent of every human authority by the fact\nthat he regards the divine law of love, implanted in the soul of\nevery man, and brought before his consciousness by Christ, as the\nsole guide of his life and other men's also.\n\nThe Christian may be subjected to external violence, he may be\ndeprived of bodily freedom, he may be in bondage to his passions\n(he who commits sin is the slave of sin), but he cannot be in\nbondage in the sense of being forced by any danger or by any\nthreat of external harm to perform an act which is against his\nconscience.\n\nHe cannot be compelled to do this, because the deprivations and\nsufferings which form such a powerful weapon against men of the\nstate conception of life, have not the least power to compel him.\n\nDeprivations and sufferings take from them the happiness for which\nthey live; but far from disturbing the happiness of the Christian,\nwhich consists in the consciousness of fulfilling the will of God,\nthey may even intensify it, when they are inflicted on him for\nfulfilling his will.\n\nAnd therefore the Christian, who is subject only to the inner\ndivine law, not only cannot carry out the enactments of the\nexternal law, when they are not in agreement with the divine law\nof love which he acknowledges (as is usually the case with state\nobligations), he cannot even recognize the duty of obedience to\nanyone or anything whatever, he cannot recognize the duty of what\nis called allegiance.\n\nFor a Christian the oath of allegiance to any government whatever\n--the very act which is regarded as the foundation of the\nexistence of a state--is a direct renunciation of Christianity.\nFor the man who promises unconditional obedience in the future to\nlaws, made or to be made, by that very promise is in the most,\npositive manner renouncing Christianity, which means obeying in\nevery circumstance of life only the divine law of love he\nrecognizes within him.\n\nUnder the pagan conception of life it was possible to carry out\nthe will of the temporal authorities, without infringing the law\nof God expressed in circumcisions, Sabbaths, fixed times of\nprayer, abstention from certain kinds of food, and so on. The one\nlaw was not opposed to the other. But that is just the\ndistinction between the Christian religion and heathen religion.\nChristianity does not require of a man certain definite negative\nacts, but puts him in a new, different relation to men, from which\nmay result the most diverse acts, which cannot be defined\nbeforehand. And therefore the Christian not only cannot promise\nto obey the will of any other man, without knowing what will be\nrequired by that will; he not only cannot obey the changing laws\nof man, but he cannot even promise to do anything definite at a\ncertain time, or to abstain from doing anything for a certain\ntime. For he cannot know what at any time will be required of him\nby that Christian law of love, obedience to which constitutes the\nmeaning of life for him. The Christian, in promising\nunconditional fulfillment of the laws of men in the future, would\nshow plainly by that promise that the inner law of God does not\nconstitute for him the sole law of his life.\n\nFor a Christian to promise obedience to men, or the laws of men,\nis just as though a workman bound to one employer should also\npromise to carry out every order that might be given him by\noutsiders. One cannot serve two masters.\n\nThe Christian is independent of human authority, because he\nacknowledges God's authority alone. His law, revealed by Christ,\nhe recognizes in himself, and voluntarily obeys it.\n\nAnd this independence is gained, not by means of strife, not by\nthe destruction of existing forms of life, but only by a change in\nthe interpretation of life. This independence results first from\nthe Christian recognizing the law of love, revealed to him by his\nteacher, as perfectly sufficient for all human relations, and\ntherefore he regards every use of force as unnecessary and\nunlawful; and secondly, from the fact that those deprivations and\nsufferings, or threats of deprivations and sufferings (which\nreduce the man of the social conception of life to the necessity\nof obeying) to the Christian from his different conception of\nlife, present themselves merely as the inevitable conditions of\nexistence. And these conditions, without striving against them by\nforce, he patiently endures, like sickness, hunger, and every\nother hardship, but they cannot serve him as a guide for his\nactions. The only guide for the Christian's actions is to be\nfound in the divine principle living within him, which cannot be\nchecked or governed by anything.\n\nThe Christian acts according to the words of the prophecy applied\nto his teacher: \"He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any\nman hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not\nbreak, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth\njudgment unto victory.\" (Matt. xii. 19, 20.)\n\nThe Christian will not dispute with anyone, nor attack anyone, nor\nuse violence against anyone. On the contrary, he will bear\nviolence without opposing it. But by this very attitude to\nviolence, he will not only himself be free, but will free the\nwhole world from all external power.\n\n\"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.\" If\nthere were any doubt of Christianity being the truth, the perfect\nliberty, that nothing can curtail, which a man experiences\ndirectly he makes the Christian theory of life his own, would be\nan unmistakable proof of its truth.\n\nMen in their present condition are like a swarm of bees hanging in\na cluster to a branch. The position of the bees on the branch is\ntemporary, and must inevitably be changed. They must start off\nand find themselves a habitation. Each of the bees knows this,\nand desires to change her own and the others' position, but no one\nof them can do it till the rest of them do it. They cannot all\nstart off at once, because one hangs on to another and hinders her\nfrom separating from the swarm, and therefore they all continue to\nhang there. It would seem that the bees could never escape from\ntheir position, just as it seems that worldly men, caught in the\ntoils of the state conception of life, can never escape. And\nthere would be no escape for the bees, if each of them were not a\nliving, separate creature, endowed with wings of its own.\nSimilarly there would be no escape for men, if each were not a\nliving being endowed with the faculty of entering into the\nChristian conception of life.\n\nIf every bee who could fly, did not try to fly, the others, too,\nwould never be stirred, and the swarm would never change its\nposition. And if the man who has mastered the Christian\nconception of life would not, without waiting for other people,\nbegin to live in accordance with this conception, mankind would\nnever change its position. But only let one bee spread her wings,\nstart off, and fly away, and after her another, and another, and\nthe clinging, inert cluster would become a freely flying swarm of\nbees. Just in the same way, only let one man look at life as\nChristianity teaches him to look at it, and after him let another\nand another do the same, and the enchanted circle of existence in\nthe state conception of life, from which there seemed no escape,\nwill be broken through.\n\nBut men think that to set all men free by this means is\ntoo slow a process, that they must find some other means by which\nthey could set all men free at once. It is just as though the\nbees who want to start and fly away should consider it too long a\nprocess to wait for all the swarm to start one by one; and should\nthink they ought to find some means by which it would not be\nnecessary for every separate bee to spread her wings and fly off,\nbut by which the whole swarm could fly at once where it wanted to.\nBut that is not possible; till a first, a second, a third, a\nhundredth bee spreads her wings and flies off of her own accord,\nthe swarm will not fly off and will not begin its new life. Till\nevery individual man makes the Christian conception of life his\nown, and begins to live in accord with it, there can be no\nsolution of the problem of human life, and no establishment of a\nnew form of life.\n\nOne of the most striking phenomena of our times is precisely this\nadvocacy of slavery, which is promulgated among the masses, not by\ngovernments, in whom it is inevitable, but by men who, in\nadvocating socialistic theories, regard themselves as the\nchampions of freedom.\n\nThese people advance the opinion that the amelioration of life,\nthe bringing of the facts of life into harmony with the\nconscience, will come, not as the result of the personal efforts\nof individual men, but of itself as the result of a certain\npossible reconstruction of society effected in some way or other.\nThe idea is promulgated that men ought not to walk on their own\nlegs where they want and ought to go, but that a kind of floor\nunder their feet will be moved somehow, so that on it they can\nreach where they ought to go without moving their own legs. And,\ntherefore, all their efforts ought to be directed, not to going so\nfar as their strength allows in the direction they ought to go,\nbut to standing still and constructing such a floor.\n\nIn the sphere of political economy a theory is propounded which\namounts to saying that the worse things are the better they are;\nthat the greater the accumulation of capital, and therefore the\noppression of the workman, the nearer the day of emancipation,\nand, therefore, every personal effort on the part of a man to free\nhimself from the oppression of capital is useless. In the sphere\nof government it is maintained that the greater the power of the\ngovernment, which, according to this theory, ought to intervene in\nevery department of private life in which it has not yet\nintervened, the better it will be, and that therefore we ought to\ninvoke the interference of government in private life. In\npolitics and international questions it is maintained that the\nimprovement of the means of destruction, the multiplication of\narmaments, will lead to the necessity of making war by means of\ncongresses, arbitration, and so on. And, marvelous to say, so\ngreat is the dullness of men, that they believe in these theories,\nin spite of the fact that the whole course of life, every step\nthey take, shows how unworthy they are of belief.\n\nThe people are suffering from oppression, and to deliver them from\nthis oppression they are advised to frame general measures for the\nimprovement of their position, which measures are to be intrusted\nto the authorities, and themselves to continue to yield obedience\nto the authorities. And obviously all that results from this is\nonly greater power in the hands of the authorities, and greater\noppression resulting from it.\n\nNot one of the errors of men carries them so far away from the aim\ntoward which they are struggling as this very one. They do all\nkinds of different things for the attainment of their aim, but not\nthe one simple obvious thing which is within reach of everyone.\nThey devise the subtlest means for changing the position which is\nirksome to them, but not that simplest means, that everyone should\nrefrain from doing what leads to that position.\n\nI have been told a story of a gallant police officer, who came to\na village where the peasants were in insurrection and the military\nhad been called out, and he undertook to pacify the insurrection\nin the spirit of Nicholas I., by his personal influence alone. He\nordered some loads of rods to be brought, and collecting all the\npeasants together into a barn, he went in with them, locking the\ndoor after him. To begin with, he so terrified the peasants by\nhis loud threats that, reduced to submission by him, they set to\nwork to flog one another at his command. And so they flogged one\nanother until a simpleton was found who would not allow himself to\nbe flogged, and shouted to his companions not to flog one another.\nOnly then the fogging ceased, and the police officer made his\nescape. Well, this simpleton's advice would never be followed by\nmen of the state conception of life, who continue to flog one\nanother, and teach people that this very act of self-castigation\nis the last word of human wisdom.\n\nIndeed, can one imagine a more striking instance of men flogging\nthemselves than the submissiveness with which men of our times\nwill perform the very duties required of them to keep them in\nslavery, especially the duty of military service? We see people\nenslaving themselves, suffering from this slavery, and believing\nthat it must be so, that it does not matter, and will not hinder\nthe emancipation of men, which is being prepared somewhere,\nsomehow, in spite of the ever-increasing growth of slavery.\n\nIn fact, take any man of the present time whatever (I don't mean a\ntrue Christian, but an average man of the present day), educated\nor uneducated, believing or unbelieving, rich or poor, married or\nunmarried. Such a man lives working at his work, or enjoying his\namusements, spending the fruits of his labors on himself or on\nthose near to him, and, like everyone, hating every kind of\nrestriction and deprivation, dissension and suffering. Such a man\nis going his way peaceably, when suddenly people come and say to\nhim: First, promise and swear to us that you will slavishly obey\nus in everything we dictate to you, and will consider absolutely\ngood and authoritative everything we plan, decide, and call law.\nSecondly, hand over a part of the fruits of your labors for us to\ndispose of--we will use the money to keep you in slavery, and to\nhinder you from forcibly opposing our orders. Thirdly, elect\nothers, or be yourself elected, to take a pretended share in the\ngovernment, knowing all the while that the government will proceed\nquite without regard to the foolish speeches you, and those like\nyou, may utter, and knowing that its proceedings will be according\nto our will, the will of those who have the army in their hands.\nFourthly, come at a certain time to the law courts and take your\nshare in those senseless cruelties which we perpetrate on sinners,\nand those whom we have corrupted, in the shape of penal servitude,\nexile, solitary confinement, and death. And fifthly and lastly,\nmore than all this, in spite of the fact that you maybe on the\nfriendliest terms with people of other nations, be ready, directly\nwe order you to do so, to regard those whom we indicate to you as\nyour enemies; and be ready to assist, either in person or by\nproxy, in devastation, plunder, and murder of their men, women,\nchildren, and aged alike--possibly your own kinsmen or relations--if\nthat is necessary to us.\n\nOne would expect that every man of the present day who has a grain\nof sense left, might reply to such requirements, \"But why should I\ndo all this?\" One would think every right-minded man must say in\namazement: \"Why should I promise to yield obedience to everything\nthat has been decreed first by Salisbury, then by Gladstone; one\nday by Boulanger, and another by Parliament; one day by Peter\nIII., the next by Catherine, and the day after by Pougachef; one\nday by a mad king of Bavaria, another by William? Why should I\npromise to obey them, knowing them to be wicked or foolish people,\nor else not knowing them at all? Why am I to hand over the fruits\nof my labors to them in the shape of taxes, knowing that the money\nwill be spent on the support of officials, prisons, churches,\narmies, on things that are harmful, and on my own enslavement?\nWhy should I punish myself? Why should I go wasting my time and\nhoodwinking myself, giving to miscreant evildoers a semblance of\nlegality, by taking part in elections, and pretending that I am\ntaking part in the government, when I know very well that the real\ncontrol of the government is in the hands of those who have got\nhold of the army? Why should I go to the law courts to take part\nin the trial and punishment of men because they have sinned,\nknowing, if I am a Christian, that the law of vengeance is replaced\nby the law of love, and, if I am an educated man, that punishments\ndo not reform, but only deprave those on whom they are inflicted?\nAnd why, most of all, am I to consider as enemies the people of a\nneighboring nation, with whom I have hitherto lived and with whom\nI wish to live in love and harmony, and to kill and rob them, or\nto bring them to misery, simply in order that the keys of the\ntemple at Jerusalem may be in the hands of one archbishop and not\nanother, that one German and not another may be prince in\nBulgaria, or that the English rather than the American merchants\nmay capture seals?\n\nAnd why, most of all, should I take part in person or hire others\nto murder my own brothers and kinsmen? Why should I flog myself?\nIt is altogether unnecessary for me; it is hurtful to me, and from\nevery point of view it is immoral, base, and vile. So why should\nI do this? If you tell me that if I do it not I shall receive\nsome injury from someone, then, in the first place, I cannot\nanticipate from anyone an injury so great as the injury you bring\non me if I obey you; and secondly, it is perfectly clear to me\nthat if we our own selves do not flog ourselves, no one will flog\nus.\n\nAs for the government--that means the tzars, ministers, and\nofficials with pens in their hands, who cannot force us into doing\nanything, as that officer of police compelled the peasants; the\nmen who will drag us to the law court, to prison, and to\nexecution, are not tzars or officials with pens in their hands,\nbut the very people who are in the same position as we are. And\nit is just as unprofitable and harmful and unpleasant to them to\nbe flogged as to me, and therefore there is every likelihood that\nif I open their eyes they not only would not treat me with\nviolence, but would do just as I am doing.\n\nThirdly, even if it should come to pass that I had to suffer for it,\neven then it would be better for me to be exiled or sent to prison for\nstanding up for common sense and right--which, if not to-day, at least\nwithin a very short time, must be triumphant--than to suffer for folly\nand wrong which must come to an end directly. And therefore, even in\nthat case, it is better to run the risk of their banishing me, shutting\nme up in prison, or executing me, than of my living all my life in\nbondage, through my own fault, to wicked men. Better is this than the\npossibility of being destroyed by victorious enemies, and being stupidly\ntortured and killed by them, in fighting for a cannon, or a piece of\nland of no use to anyone, or for a senseless rag called a banner.\n\nI don't want to flog myself and I won't do it. I have no reason to do\nit. Do it yourselves, if you want it done; but I won't do it.\n\nOne would have thought that not religious or moral feeling alone,\nbut the simplest common sense and foresight should impel every man\nof the present day to answer and to act in that way. But not so.\nMen of the state conception of life are of the opinion that to act\nin that way is not necessary, and is even prejudicial to the\nattainment of their object, the emancipation of men from slavery.\nThey hold that we must continue, like the police officer's\npeasants, to flog one another, consoling ourselves with the\nreflection that we are talking away in the assemblies and\nmeetings, founding trades unions, marching through the streets on\nthe 1st of May, getting up conspiracies, and stealthily teasing\nthe government that is flogging us, and that through all this it\nwill be brought to pass that, by enslaving ourselves in closer and\ncloser bondage, we shall very soon be free.\n\nNothing hinders the emancipation of men from slavery so much as\nthis amazing error. Instead of every man directing his energies\nto freeing himself, to transforming his conception of life, people\nseek for an external united method of gaining freedom, and\ncontinue to rivet their chains faster and faster.\n\nIt is much as if men were to maintain that to make up a fire there\nwas no need to kindle any of the coals, but that all that was\nnecessary was to arrange the coals in a certain order. Yet the\nfact that the freedom of all men will be brought about only\nthrough the freedom of individual persons, becomes more and more\nclear as time goes on. The freedom of individual men, in the name\nof the Christian conception of life, from state domination, which\nwas formerly an exceptional and unnoticed phenomenon, has of late\nacquired threatening significance for state authorities.\n\nIf in a former age, in the Roman times, it happened that a\nChristian confessed his religion and refused to take part in\nsacrifices, and to worship the emperors or the gods; or in the\nMiddle Ages a Christian refused to worship images, or to\nacknowledge the authority of the Pope--these cases were in the\nfirst place a matter of chance. A man might be placed under the\nnecessity of confessing his faith, or he might live all his life\nwithout being placed under this necessity. But now all men,\nwithout exception, are subjected to this trial of their faith.\nEvery man of the present day is under the necessity of taking part\nin the cruelties of pagan life, or of refusing all participation\nin them. And secondly, in those days cases of refusal to worship\nthe gods or the images or the Pope were not incidents that had any\nmaterial bearing on the state. Whether men worshiped or did not\nworship the gods or the images or the Pope, the state remained\njust as powerful. But now cases of refusing to comply with the\nunchristian demands of the government are striking at the very\nroot of state authority, because the whole authority of the state\nis based on the compliance with these unchristian demands.\n\nThe sovereign powers of the world have in the course of time been\nbrought into a position in which, for their own preservation, they\nmust require from all men actions which cannot be performed by men\nwho profess true Christianity.\n\nAnd therefore in our days every profession of true Christianity,\nby any individual man, strikes at the most essential power of the\nstate, and inevitably leads the way for the emancipation of all.\n\nWhat importance, one might think, can one attach to such an\nincident as some dozens of crazy fellows, as people will call\nthem, refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the government,\nrefusing to pay taxes, to take part in law proceedings or in\nmilitary service?\n\nThese people are punished and exiled to a distance, and life goes\non in its old way. One might think there was no importance in\nsuch incidents; but yet, it is just those incidents, more than\nanything else, that will undermine the power of the state and\nprepare the way for the freedom of men. These are the individual\nbees, who are beginning to separate from the swarm, and are flying\nnear it, waiting till the whole swarm can no longer be prevented\nfrom starting off after them. And the governments know this, and\nfear such incidents more than all the socialists, communists, and\nanarchists, and their plots and dynamite bombs.\n\nA new reign is beginning. According to the universal rule and\nestablished order it is required that all the subjects should take\nthe oath of allegiance to the new government. There is a general\ndecree to that effect, and all are summoned to the council-houses\nto take the oath. All at once one man in Perm, another in Tula, a\nthird in Moscow, and a fourth in Kalouga declare that they will\nnot take the oath, and though there is no communication between\nthem, they all explain their refusal on the same grounds--namely,\nthat swearing is forbidden by the law of Christ, and that even if\nswearing had not been forbidden, they could not, in the spirit of\nthe law of Christ, promise to perform the evil actions required of\nthem in the oath, such as informing against all such as may act\nagainst the interests of the government, or defending their\ngovernment with firearms or attacking its enemies. They are\nbrought before rural police officers, district police captains,\npriests, and governors. They are admonished, questioned,\nthreatened, and punished; but they adhere to their resolution, and\ndo not take the oath. And among the millions of those who did\ntake the oath, those dozens go on living who did not take the\noath. And they are questioned:\n\n\"What, didn't you take the oath?\"\n\n\"No, I didn't take the oath.\"\n\n\"And what happened--nothing?\"\n\n\"Nothing.\"\n\nThe subjects of a state are all bound to pay taxes. And everyone\npays taxes, till suddenly one man in Kharkov, another in Tver, and\na third in Samara refuse to pay taxes--all, as though in\ncollusion, saying the same thing. One says he will only pay when\nthey tell him what object the money taken from him will be spent\non. \"If it is for good deeds,\" he says, \"he will give it of his\nown accord, and more even than is required of him. If for evil\ndeeds, then he will give nothing voluntarily, because by the law\nof Christ, whose follower he is, he cannot take part in evil\ndeeds.\" The others, too, say the same in other words, and will\nnot voluntarily pay the taxes.\n\nThose who have anything to be taken have their property taken from\nthem by force; as for those who have nothing, they are left alone.\n\n\"What, didn't you pay the tax?\"\n\n\"No, I didn't pay it.\"\n\n\"And what happened-nothing?\"\n\n\"Nothing.\"\n\nThere is the institution of passports. Everyone moving from his\nplace of residence is bound to carry one, and to pay a duty on it.\nSuddenly people are to be found in various places declaring that\nto carry a passport is not necessary, that one ought not to\nrecognize one's dependence on a state which exists by means of\nforce; and these people do not carry passports, or pay the duty on\nthem. And again, it's impossible to force those people by any\nmeans to do what is required. They send them to jail, and let\nthem out again, and these people live without passports.\n\nAll peasants are bound to fill certain police offices--that of\nvillage constable, and of watchman, and so on. Suddenly in\nKharkov a peasant refuses to perform this duty, justifying his\nrefusal on the ground that by the law of Christ, of which he is a\nfollower, he cannot put any man in fetters, lock him up, or drag\nhim from place to place. The same declaration is made by a\npeasant in Tver, another in Tambov. These peasants are abused,\nbeaten, shut up in prison, but they stick to their resolution and\ndon't fill these offices against their convictions. And at last\nthey cease to appoint them as constables. And again nothing\nhappens.\n\nAll citizens are obliged to take a share in law proceedings in the\ncharacter of jurymen. Suddenly the most different people--mechanics,\nprofessors, tradesmen, peasants, servants, as though by agreement refuse\nto fill this office, and not on the grounds allowed as sufficient by\nlaw, but because any process at law is, according to their views,\nunchristian. They fine these people, trying not to let them have an\nopportunity of explaining their motives in public, and replace them by\nothers. And again nothing can be done.\n\nAll young men of twenty-one years of age are obliged to draw lots\nfor service in the army. All at once one young man in Moscow,\nanother in Tver, a third in Kharkov, and a fourth in Kiev present\nthemselves before the authorities, and, as though by previous\nagreement, declare that they will not take the oath, they will not\nserve because they are Christians. I will give the details of one\nof the first cases, since they have become more frequent, which I\nhappen to know about [footnote: All the details of this case, as\nwell as those preceding it, are authentic]. The same treatment\nhas been repeated in every other case. A young man of fair\neducation refuses in the Moscow Townhall to take the oath. No\nattention is paid to what he says, and it is requested that he\nshould pronounce the words of the oath like the rest. He\ndeclines, quoting a particular passage of the Gospel in which\nswearing is forbidden. No attention is paid to his arguments, and\nhe is again requested to comply with the order, but he does not\ncomply with it. Then it is supposed that he is a sectary and\ntherefore does not understand Christianity in the right sense,\nthat is to say, not in the sense in which the priests in the pay\nof the government understand it. And the young man is conducted\nunder escort to the priests, that they may bring him to reason.\nThe priests begin to reason with him, but their efforts in\nChrist's name to persuade him to renounce Christ obviously have no\ninfluence on him; he is pronounced incorrigible and sent back\nagain to the army. He persists in not taking the oath and openly\nrefuses to perform any military duties. It is a case that has not\nbeen provided for by the laws. To overlook such a refusal to\ncomply with the demands of the authorities is out of the question,\nbut to put such a case on a par with simple breach of discipline\nis also out of the question.\n\nAfter deliberation among themselves, the military authorities\ndecide to get rid of the troublesome young man, to consider him as\na revolutionist, and they dispatch him under escort to the\ncommittee of the secret police. The police authorities and\ngendarmes cross-question him, but nothing that he says can be\nbrought under the head of any of the misdemeanors which come under\ntheir jurisdiction. And there is no possibility of accusing him\neither of revolutionary acts or revolutionary plotting, since he\ndeclares that he does not wish to attack anything, but, on the\ncontrary, is opposed to any use of force, and, far from plotting\nin secret, he seeks every opportunity of saying and doing all that\nhe says and does in the most open manner. And the gendarmes,\nthough they are bound by no hard-and-fast rules, still find no\nground for a criminal charge in the young man, and, like the\nclergy, they send him back to the army. Again the authorities\ndeliberate together, and decide to accept him though he has not\ntaken the oath, and to enrol him among the soldiers. They put him\ninto the uniform, enrol him, and send him under guard to the place\nwhere the army is quartered. There the chief officer of the\ndivision which he enters again expects the young man to perform\nhis military duties, and again he refuses to obey, and in the\npresence of other soldiers explains the reason of his refusal,\nsaying that he as a Christian cannot voluntarily prepare himself\nto commit murder, which is forbidden by the law of Moses.\n\nThis incident occurs in a provincial town. The case awakens the\ninterest, and even the sympathy, not only of outsiders, but even\nof the officers. And the chief officers consequently do not\ndecide to punish this refusal of obedience with disciplinary\nmeasures. To save appearances, though, they shut the young man up\nin prison, and write to the highest military authorities to\ninquire what they are to do. To refuse to serve in the army, in\nwhich the Tzar himself serves, and which enjoys the blessing of\nthe Church, seems insanity from the official point of view.\nConsequently they write from Petersburg that, since the young man\nmust be out of his mind, they must not use any severe treatment\nwith him, but must send him to a lunatic asylum, that his mental\ncondition may be inquired into and be scientifically treated.\nThey send him to the asylum in the hope that he will remain there,\nlike another young man, who refused ten years ago at Tver to serve\nin the army, and who was tortured in the asylum till he submitted.\nBut even this step does not rid the military authorities of the\ninconvenient man. The doctors examine him, interest themselves\nwarmly in his case, and naturally finding in him no symptoms of\nmental disease, send him back to the army. There they receive\nhim, and making believe to have forgotten his refusal, and his\nmotives for it, they again request him to go to drill, and again\nin the presence of the other soldiers he refuses and explains the\nreason of his refusal. The affair continues to attract more and\nmore attention, both among the soldiers and the inhabitants of the\ntown. Again they write to Petersburg, and thence comes the decree\nto transfer the young man to some division of the army stationed\non the frontier, in some place where the army is under martial\nlaw, where he can be shot for refusing to obey, and where the\nmatter can proceed without attracting observation, seeing that\nthere are few Russians and Christians in such a distant part, but\nthe majority are foreigners and Mohammedans. This is accordingly\ndone. They transfer him to a division stationed on the Zacaspian\nborder, and in company with convicts send him to a chief officer\nwho is notorious for his harshness and severity.\n\nAll this time, through all these changes from place to place, the\nyoung man is roughly treated, kept in cold, hunger, and filth, and\nlife is made burdensome to him generally. But all these\nsufferings do not compel him to change his resolution. On the\nZacaspian border, where he is again requested to go on guard fully\narmed, he again declines to obey. He does not refuse to go and\nstand near the haystacks where they place him, but refuses to take\nhis arms, declaring that he will not use violence in any case\nagainst anyone. All this takes place in the presence of the other\nsoldiers. To let such a refusal pass unpunished is impossible,\nand the young man is put on his trial for breach of discipline.\nThe trial takes place, and he is sentenced to confinement in the\nmilitary prison for two years. He is again transferred, in\ncompany with convicts, by \u00e9tape, to Caucasus, and there he is shut\nup in prison and falls under the irresponsible power of the\njailer. There he is persecuted for a year and a half, but he does\nnot for all that alter his decision not to bear arms, and he\nexplains why he will not do this to everyone with whom he is\nbrought in contact. At the end of the second year they set him\nfree, before the end of his term of imprisonment, reckoning it\ncontrary to law to keep him in prison after his time of military\nservice was over, and only too glad to get rid of him as soon as\npossible.\n\nOther men in various parts of Russia behave, as though by\nagreement, precisely in the same way as this young man, and in all\nthese cases the government has adopted the same timorous,\nundecided, and secretive course of action. Some of these men are\nsent to the lunatic asylum, some are enrolled as clerks and\ntransferred to Siberia, some are sent to work in the forests, some\nare sent to prison, some are fined. And at this very time some\nmen of this kind are in prison, not charged with their real\noffense--that is, denying the lawfulness of the action of the\ngovernment, but for non-fulfillment of special obligations imposed\nby government. Thus an officer of reserve, who did not report his\nchange of residence, and justified this on the ground that he\nwould not serve in the army any longer, was fined thirty rubles\nfor non-compliance with the orders of the superior authority.\nThis fine he also declined voluntarily to pay. In the same way\nsome peasants and soldiers who have refused to be drilled and to\nbear arms have been placed under arrest on a charge of breach of\ndiscipline and insolence.\n\nAnd cases of refusing to comply with the demands of government when they\nare opposed to Christianity, and especially cases of refusing to serve\nin the army, are occurring of late not in Russia only, but everywhere.\nThus I happen to know that in Servia men of the so-called sect of\nNazarenes steadily refuse to serve in the army, and the Austrian\nGovernment has been carrying on a fruitless contest with them for years,\npunishing them with imprisonment. In the year 1885 there were 130 such\ncases. I know that in Switzerland in the year 1890 there were men in\nprison in the castle of Chillon for declining to serve in the army,\nwhose resolution was not shaken by their punishment. There have been\nsuch cases in Sweden, and the men who refused obedience were sent to\nprison in exactly the same way, and the government studiously concealed\nthese cases from the people. There have been similar cases also in\nPrussia. I know of the case of a sub-lieutenant of the Guards, who in\n1891 declared to the authorities in Berlin that he would not, as a\nChristian, continue to serve, and in spite of all admonitions, threats,\nand punishments he stuck to his resolution. In the south of France a\nsociety has arisen of late bearing the name of the Hinschists (these\nfacts are taken from the PEACE HERALD, July, 1891), the members of which\nrefuse to enter military service on the grounds of their Christian\nprinciples. At first they were enrolled in the ambulance corps, but now,\nas their numbers increase, they are subjected to punishment for\nnon-compliance, but they still refuse to bear arms just the same.\n\nThe socialists, the communists, the anarchists, with their bombs\nand riots and revolutions, are not nearly so much dreaded by\ngovernments as these disconnected individuals coming from\ndifferent parts, and all justifying their non-compliance on the\ngrounds of the same religion, which is known to all the world.\nEvery government knows by what means and in what manner to defend\nitself from revolutionists, and has resources for doing so, and\ntherefore does not dread these external foes. But what are\ngovernments to do against men who show the uselessness,\nsuperfluousness, and perniciousness of all governments, and who\ndo not contend against them, but simply do not need them and do\nwithout them, and therefore are unwilling to take any part in\nthem? The revolutionists say: The form of government is bad in\nthis respect and that respect; we must overturn it and substitute\nthis or that form of government. The Christian says: I know\nnothing about the form of government, I don't know whether it is\ngood or bad, and I don't want to overturn it precisely because I\ndon't know whether it is good or bad, but for the very same reason\nI don't want to support it either. And I not only don't want to,\nbut I can't, because what it demands of me is against my\nconscience.\n\nAll state obligations are against the conscience of a Christian--the\noath of allegiance, taxes, law proceedings, and military service. And\nthe whole power of the government rests on these very obligations.\n\nRevolutionary enemies attack the government from without.\nChristianity does not attack it at all, but, from within, it\ndestroys all the foundations on which government rests.\n\nAmong the Russian people, especially since the age of Peter I., the\nprotest of Christianity against the government has never ceased, and the\nsocial organization has been such that men emigrate in communes to\nTurkey, to China, and to uninhabited lands, and not only feel no need of\nstate aid, but always regard the state as a useless burden, only to be\nendured as a misfortune, whether it happens to be Turkish, Russian, or\nChinese. And so, too, among the Russian people more and more frequent\nexamples have of late appeared of conscious Christian freedom from\nsubjection to the state. And these examples are the more alarming for\nthe government from the fact that these non-compliant persons often\nbelong not to the so-called lower uneducated classes, but are men of\nfair or good education; and also from the fact that they do not in these\ndays justify their position by any mystic and exceptional views, as in\nformer times, do not associate themselves with any superstitious or\nfanatic rites, like the sects who practice self-immolation by fire, or\nthe wandering pilgrims, but put their refusal on the very simplest and\nclearest grounds, comprehensible to all, and recognized as true by all.\n\nThus they refuse the voluntary payment of taxes, because taxes are spent\non deeds of violence--on the pay of men of violence--soldiers, on the\nconstruction of prisons, fortresses, and cannons. They as Christians\nregard it as sinful and immoral to have any hand in such deeds.\n\nThose who refuse to take the oath of allegiance refuse because to\npromise obedience to authorities, that is, to men who are given to\ndeeds of violence, is contrary to the sense of Christ's teaching.\nThey refuse to take the oath in the law courts, because oaths are\ndirectly forbidden by the Gospel. They refuse to perform police\nduties, because in the performance of these duties they must use\nforce against their brothers and ill treat them, and a Christian\ncannot do that. They refuse to take part in trials at law,\nbecause they consider every appeal to law is fulfilling the law of\nvengeance, which is inconsistent with the Christian law of\nforgiveness and love. They refuse to take any part in military\npreparations and in the army, because they cannot be executioners,\nand they are unwilling to prepare themselves to be so.\n\nThe motives in all these cases are so excellent that, however\ndespotic governments may be, they could hardly punish them openly.\nTo punish men for refusing to act against their conscience the\ngovernment must renounce all claim to good sense and benevolence.\nAnd they assure people that they only rule in the name of good\nsense and benevolence.\n\nWhat are governments to do against such people?\n\nGovernments can of course flog to death or execute or keep in\nperpetual imprisonment all enemies who want to overturn them by\nviolence, they can lavish gold on that section of the people who\nare ready to destroy their enemies. But what can they do against\nmen who, without wishing to overturn or destroy anything, desire\nsimply for their part to do nothing against the law of Christ, and\nwho, therefore, refuse to perform the commonest state\nrequirements, which are, therefore, the most indispensable to the\nmaintenance of the state?\n\nIf they had been revolutionists, advocating and practicing\nviolence and murder, their suppression would have been an easy\nmatter; some of them could have been bought over, some could have\nbeen duped, some could have been overawed, and these who could not\nbe bought over, duped, or overawed would have been treated as\ncriminals, enemies of society, would have been executed or\nimprisoned, and the crowd would have approved of the action of the\ngovernment. If they had been fanatics, professing some peculiar\nbelief, it might have been possible, in disproving the\nsuperstitious errors mixed in with their religion, to attack also\nthe truth they advocate. But what is to be done with men who\nprofess no revolutionary ideas nor any peculiar religious dogmas,\nbut merely because they are unwilling to do evil to any man,\nrefuse to take the oath, to pay taxes, to take part in law\nproceedings, to serve in the army, to fulfill, in fact, any of the\nobligations upon which the whole fabric of a state rests? What is\nto done with such people? To buy them over with bribes is\nimpossible; the very risks to which they voluntarily expose\nthemselves show that they are incorruptible. To dupe them into\nbelieving that this is their duty to God is also impossible, since\ntheir refusal is based on the clear, unmistakable law of God,\nrecognized even by those who are trying to compel men to act\nagainst it. To terrify them by threats is still less possible,\nbecause the deprivations and sufferings to which they are\nsubjected only strengthen their desire to follow the faith by\nwhich they are commanded: to obey God rather than men, and not to\nfear those who can destroy the body, but to fear him who can\ndestroy body and soul. To kill them or keep them in perpetual\nimprisonment is also impossible. These men have friends, and a\npast; their way of thinking and acting is well known; they are\nknown by everyone for good, gentle, peaceable people, and they\ncannot be regarded as criminals who must be removed for the safety\nof society. And to put men to death who are regarded as good men\nis to provoke others to champion them and justify their refusal.\nAnd it is only necessary to explain the reasons of their refusal\nto make clear to everyone that these reasons have the same force\nfor all other men, and that they all ought to have done the same\nlong ago. These cases put the ruling powers into a desperate\nposition. They see that the prophecy of Christianity is coming to\npass, that it is loosening the fetters of those in chains, and\nsetting free them that are in bondage, and that this must\ninevitably be the end of all oppressors. The ruling authorities\nsee this, they know that their hours are numbered, and they can do\nnothing. All that they can do to save themselves is only\ndeferring the hour of their downfall. And this they do, but their\nposition is none the less desperate.\n\nIt is like the position of a conqueror who is trying to save a\ntown which has been been set on fire by its own inhabitants.\nDirectly he puts out the conflagration in one place, it is alight\nin two other places; directly he gives in to the fire and cuts off\nwhat is on fire from a large building, the building itself is\nalight at both ends. These separate fires may be few, but they\nare burning with a flame which, however small a spark it starts\nfrom, never ceases till it has set the whole ablaze.\n\nThus it is that the ruling authorities are in such a defenseless\nposition before men who advocate Christianity, that but little is\nnecessary to overthrow this sovereign power which seems so\npowerful, and has held such an exalted position for so many\ncenturies. And yet social reformers are busy promulgating the\nidea that it is not necessary and is even pernicious and immoral\nfor every man separately to work out his own freedom. As though,\nwhile one set of men have been at work a long while turning a\nriver into a new channel, and had dug out a complete water-course\nand had only to open the floodgates for the water to rush in and\ndo the rest, another set of men should come along and begin to\nadvise them that it would be much better, instead of letting the\nwater out, to construct a machine which would ladle the water up\nfrom one side and pour it over the other side.\n\nBut the thing has gone too far. Already ruling governments feel\ntheir weak and defenseless position, and men of Christian\nprinciples are awakening from their apathy, and already begin to\nfeel their power.\n\n\"I am come to send a fire on the earth,\" said Christ, \"and what\nwill I, if it be already kindled?\"\n\nAnd this fire is beginning to burn.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nEVIL CANNOT BE SUPPRESSED BY THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF THE\nGOVERNMENT--THE MORAL PROGRESS OF HUMANITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT NOT\nONLY BY INDIVIDUAL RECOGNITION OF TRUTH, BUT ALSO THROUGH THE\nESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC OPINION.\n\nChristianity Destroys the State--But Which is Most Necessary:\nChristianity or the State?--There are Some who Assert the Necessity of a\nState Organization, and Others who Deny it, both Arguing from same First\nPrinciples--Neither Contention can be Proved by Abstract Argument--The\nQuestion must be Decided by the Stage in the Development of Conscience\nof Each Man, which will either Prevent or Allow him to Support a\nGovernment Organization--Recognition of the Futility and Immorality of\nSupporting a State Organization Contrary to Christian Principles will\nDecide the Question for Every Man, in Spite of any Action on Part of the\nState--Argument of those who Defend the Government, that it is a Form of\nSocial Life, Needed to Protect the Good from the Wicked, till all\nNations and all Members of each Nation have Become Christians--The Most\nWicked are Always those in Power--The whole History of Humanity is the\nHistory of the Forcible Appropriation of Power by the Wicked and their\nOppression of the Good--The Recognition by Governments of the Necessity\nof Opposing Evil by Force is Equivalent to Suicide on their Part--The\nAbolition of State-violence cannot Increase the Sum Total of Acts of\nViolence--The Suppression of the Use of Force is not only Possible, but\nis even Taking Place before Our Eyes--But it will Never be Suppressed by\nthe Violence of Government, but through Men who have Attained Power by\nEvidence Recognizing its Emptiness and Becoming Better and Less Capable\nof Using Force--Individual Men and also Whole Nations Pass Through this\nProcess--By this Means Christianity is Diffused Through Consciousness of\nMen, not only in Spite of Use of Violence by Government, but even\nThrough its Action, and therefore the Suppression is not to be Dreaded,\nbut is Brought About by the National Progress of Life--Objection of\nthose who Defend State Organization that Universal Adoption of\nChristianity is hardly Likely to be Realized at any Time--The General\nAdoption of the Truths of Christianity is being Brought About not only\nby the Gradual and Inward Means, that is, by Knowledge of the Truth,\nProphetic Insight, and Recognition of the Emptiness of Power, and\nRenunciation of it by Individuals, but also by Another External Means,\nthe Acceptance of a New Truth by Whole Masses of Men on a Lower Level of\nDevelopment Through Simple Confidence in their Leaders--When a Certain\nStage in the Diffusion of a Truth has been Reached, a Public Opinion is\nCreated which Impels a Whole Mass of Men, formerly Antagonistic to the\nNew Truth, to Accept it--And therefore all Men may Quickly be Brought to\nRenounce the use of Violence when once a Christian Public Opinion is\nEstablished--The Conviction of Force being Necessary Hinders the\nEstablishment of a Christian Public Opinion--The Use of Violence Leads\nMen to Distrust the Spiritual Force which is the Only Force by which\nthey Advance--Neither Nations nor Individuals have been really\nSubjugated by Force, but only by Public Opinion, which no Force can\nResist--Savage Nations and Savage Men can only be Subdued by the\nDiffusion of a Christian Standard among them, while actually Christian\nNations in order to Subdue them do all they can to Destroy a Christian\nStandard--These Fruitless Attempts to Civilize Savages Cannot be Adduced\nas Proofs that Men Cannot be Subdued by Christianity--Violence by\nCorrupting Public Opinion, only Hinders the Social Organization from\nbeing What it Ought to Be--And by the Use of Violence being Suppressed,\na Christian Public Opinion would be Established--Whatever might be the\nResult of the Suppression of Use of Force, this Unknown Future could not\nbe Worse than the Present Condition, and so there is no Need to Dread\nit--To Attain Knowledge of the Unknown, and to Move Toward it, is the\nEssence of Life.\n\n\nChristianity in its true sense puts an end to government. So it\nwas understood at its very commencement; it was for that cause\nthat Christ was crucified. So it has always been understood by\npeople who were not under the necessity of justifying a Christian\ngovernment. Only from the time that the heads of government\nassumed an external and nominal Christianity, men began to invent\nall the impossible, cunningly devised theories by means of which\nChristianity can be reconciled with government. But no honest and\nserious-minded man of our day can help seeing the incompatibility\nof true Christianity--the doctrine of meekness, forgiveness of\ninjuries, and love--with government, with its pomp, acts of\nviolence, executions, and wars. The profession of true\nChristianity not only excludes the possibility of recognizing\ngovernment, but even destroys its very foundations.\n\nBut if it is so, and we are right in saying that Christianity is\nincompatible with government, then the question naturally presents\nitself: which is more necessary to the good of humanity, in which\nway is men's happiness best to be secured, by maintaining the\norganization of government or by destroying it and replacing it by\nChristianity?\n\nSome people maintain that government is more necessary for\nhumanity, that the destruction of the state organization would\ninvolve the destruction of all that humanity has gained, that the\nstate has been and still is the only form in which humanity can\ndevelop. The evil which we see among peoples living under a\ngovernment organization they attribute not to that type of\nsociety, but to its abuses, which, they say, can be corrected\nwithout destroying it, and thus humanity, without discarding the\nstate organization, can develop and attain a high degree of\nhappiness. And men of this way of thinking bring forward in\nsupport of their views arguments which they think irrefutable\ndrawn from history, philosophy, and even religion. But there are\nmen who hold on the contrary that, as there was a time when\nhumanity lived without government, such an organization is\ntemporary, and that a time must come when men need a new\norganization, and that that time has come now. And men of this\nway of thinking also bring forward in support of their views\narguments which they think irrefutable from philosophy, history,\nand religion.\n\nVolumes may be written in defense of the former view (and volumes\nindeed have long ago been written and more will still be written\non that side), but much also can be written against it (and much\nalso, and most brilliantly, has been written--though more recently\n--on this side).\n\nAnd it cannot be proved, as the champions of the state maintain,\nthat the destruction of government involves a social chaos, mutual\nspoliation and murder, the destruction of all social institutions,\nand the return of mankind to barbarism. Nor can it be proved as\nthe opponents of government maintain that men have already become\nso wise and good that they will not spoil or murder one another,\nbut will prefer peaceful associations to hostilities; that of\ntheir own accord, unaided by the state, they will make all the\narrangements that they need, and that therefore government, far\nfrom being any aid, under show of guarding men exerts a pernicious\nand brutalizing influence over them. It is impossible to prove\neither of these contentions by abstract reasoning. Still less\npossible is it to prove them by experiment, since the whole matter\nturns on the question, ought we to try the experiment? The\nquestion whether or not the time has come to make an end of\ngovernment would be unanswerable, except that there exists another\nliving means of settling it beyond dispute.\n\nWe may dispute upon the question whether the nestlings are ready\nto do without the mother-hen and to come out of the eggs, or\nwhether they are not yet advanced enough. But the young birds\nwill decide the question without any regard for our arguments when\nthey find themselves cramped for space in the eggs. Then they\nwill begin to try them with their beaks and come out of them of\ntheir own accord.\n\nIt is the same with the question whether the time has come to do\naway with the governmental type of society and to replace it by a\nnew type. If a man, through the growth of a higher conscience,\ncan no longer comply with the demands of government, he finds\nhimself cramped by it and at the same time no longer needs its\nprotection. When this comes to pass, the question whether men are\nready to discard the governmental type is solved. And the\nconclusion will be as final for them as for the young birds\nhatched out of the eggs. Just as no power in the world can put\nthem back into the shells, so can no power in the world bring men\nagain under the governmental type of society when once they have\noutgrown it.\n\n\"It may well be that government was necessary and is still\nnecessary for all the advantages which you attribute to it,\" says\nthe man who has mastered the Christian theory of life. \"I only\nknow that on the one hand, government is no longer necessary for\nME, and on the other hand, I can no longer carry out the measures\nthat are necessary to the existence of a government. Settle for\nyourselves what you need for your life. I cannot prove the need\nor the harm of governments in general. I know only what I need\nand do not need, what I can do and what I cannot. I know that I\ndo not need to divide myself off from other nations, and therefore\nI cannot admit that I belong exclusively to any state or nation,\nor that I owe allegiance to any government. I know that I do not\nneed all the government institutions organized within the state,\nand therefore I cannot deprive people who need my labor to give it\nin the form of taxes to institutions which I do not need, which\nfor all I know may be pernicious. I know that I have no need of\nthe administration or of courts of justice founded upon force, and\ntherefore I can take no part in either. I know that I do not need\nto attack and slaughter other nations or to defend myself from\nthem with arms, and therefore I can take no part in wars or\npreparations for wars. It may well be that there are people who\ncannot help regarding all this as necessary and indispensable. I\ncannot dispute the question with them, I can only speak for\nmyself; but I can say with absolute certainty that I do not need\nit, and that I cannot do it. And I do not need this and I cannot\ndo it, not because such is my own, my personal will, but because\nsuch is the will of him who sent me into life, and gave me an\nindubitable law for my conduct through life.\"\n\nWhatever arguments may be advanced in support of the contention\nthat the suppression of government authority would be injurious\nand would lead to great calamities, men who have once outgrown the\ngovernmental form of society cannot go back to it again. And all\nthe reasoning in the world cannot make the man who has outgrown\nthe governmental form of society take part in actions disallowed\nby his conscience, any more than the full-grown bird can be made\nto return into the egg-shell.\n\n\"But even it be so,\" say the champions of the existing order of\nthings, \"still the suppression of government violence can only be\npossible and desirable when all men have become Christians. So\nlong as among people nominally Christians there are unchristian\nwicked men, who for the gratification of their own lusts are ready\nto do harm to others, the suppression of government authority, far\nfrom being a blessing to others, would only increase their\nmiseries. The suppression of the governmental type of society is\nnot only undesirable so long as there is only a minority of true\nChristians; it would not even be desirable if the whole of a\nnation were Christians, but among and around them were still\nunchristian men of other nations. For these unchristian men would\nrob, outrage, and kill the Christians with impunity and would make\ntheir lives miserable. All that would result, would be that the\nbad would oppress and outrage the good with impunity. And\ntherefore the authority of government must not be suppressed till\nall the wicked and rapacious people in the world are extinct. And\nsince this will either never be, or at least cannot be for a long\ntime to come, in spite of the efforts of individual Christians to\nbe independent of government authority, it ought to be maintained\nin the interests of the majority. The champions of government\nassert that without it the wicked will oppress and outrage the\ngood, and that the power of the government enables the good to\nresist the wicked.\"\n\nBut in this assertion the champions of the existing order of\nthings take for granted the proposition they want to prove. When\nthey say that except for the government the bad would oppress the\ngood, they take it for granted that the good are those who at the\npresent time are in possession of power, and the bad are those who\nare in subjection to it. But this is just what wants proving. It\nwould only be true if the custom of our society were what is, or\nrather is supposed to be, the custom in China; that is, that the\ngood always rule, and that directly those at the head of\ngovernment cease to be better than those they rule over, the\ncitizens are bound to remove them. This is supposed to be the\ncustom in China. In reality it is not so and can never be so.\nFor to remove the heads of a government ruling by force, it is not\nthe right alone, but the power to do so that is needed. So that\neven in China this is only an imaginary custom. And in our\nChristian world we do not even suppose such a custom, and we have\nnothing on which to build up the supposition that it is the good\nor the superior who are in power; in reality it is those who have\nseized power and who keep it for their own and their retainers'\nbenefit.\n\nThe good cannot seize power, nor retain it; to do this men must\nlove power. And love of power is inconsistent with goodness; but\nquite consistent with the very opposite qualities--pride, cunning,\ncruelty.\n\nWithout the aggrandizement of self and the abasement of others,\nwithout hypocrisies and deceptions, without prisons, fortresses,\nexecutions, and murders, no power can come into existence or be\nmaintained.\n\n\"If the power of government is suppressed the more wicked will\noppress the less wicked,\" say the champions of state authority.\nBut when the Egyptians conquered the Jews, the Romans conquered\nthe Greeks, and the Barbarians conquered the Romans, is it\npossible that all the conquerors were always better than those\nthey conquered? And the same with the transitions of power within\na state from one personage to another: has the power always passed\nfrom a worse person to a better one? When Louis XVI. was removed\nand Robespierre came to power, and afterward Napoleon--who ruled\nthen, a better man or a worse? And when were better men in power,\nwhen the Versaillist party or when the Commune was in power? When\nCharles I. was ruler, or when Cromwell? And when Peter III. was\nTzar, or when he was killed and Catherine was Tzaritsa in one-half\nof Russia and Pougachef ruled the other? Which was bad then, and\nwhich was good? All men who happen to be in authority assert that\ntheir authority is necessary to keep the bad from oppressing the\ngood, assuming that they themselves are the good PAR EXCELLENCE,\nwho protect other good people from the bad.\n\nBut ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him to whom\nforce is used, what he does not like and what he who uses the force\nwould certainly not like done to himself. Consequently ruling means\ndoing to others what we would not they should do unto us, that is, doing\nwrong.\n\n\nTo submit means to prefer suffering to using force. And to prefer\nsuffering to using force means to be good, or at least less wicked\nthan those who do unto others what they would not like themselves.\n\nAnd therefore, in all probability, not the better but the worse\nhave always ruled and are ruling now. There may be bad men among\nthose who are ruled, but it cannot be that those who are better\nhave generally ruled those who are worse.\n\nIt might be possible to suppose this with the inexact heathen\ndefinition of good; but with the clear Christian definition of\ngood and evil, it is impossible to imagine it.\n\nIf the more or less good, and the more or less bad cannot be\ndistinguished in the heathen world, the Christian conception of\ngood and evil has so clearly defined the characteristics of the\ngood and the wicked, that it is impossible to confound them.\nAccording to Christ's teaching the good are those who are meek and\nlong-suffering, do not resist evil by force, forgive injuries, and\nlove their enemies; those are wicked who exalt themselves,\noppress, strive, and use force. Therefore by Christ's teaching\nthere can be no doubt whether the good are to be found among\nrulers or ruled, and whether the wicked are among the ruled or the\nrulers. Indeed it is absurd even to speak of Christians ruling.\n\nNon-Christians, that is those who find the aim of their lives in\nearthly happiness, must always rule Christians, the aim of whose\nlives is the renunciation of such earthly happiness.\n\nThis difference has always existed and has become more and more\ndefined as the Christian religion has been more widely diffused\nand more correctly understood.\n\nThe more widely true Christianity was diffused and the more it\npenetrated men's conscience, the more impossible it was for\nChristians to be rulers, and the easier it became for non-Christians\nto rule them.\n\n\"To get rid of governmental violence in a society in which all are\nnot true Christians, will only result in the wicked dominating the\ngood and oppressing them with impunity,\" say the champions of the\nexisting order of things. But it has never been, and cannot be\notherwise. So it has always been from the beginning of the world,\nand so it is still. THE WICKED WILL ALWAYS DOMINATE THE GOOD, AND\nWILL ALWAYS OPPRESS THEM. Cain overpowered Abel, the cunning\nJacob oppressed the guileless Esau and was in his turn deceived by\nLaban, Caiaphas and Pilate oppressed Christ, the Roman emperors\noppressed Seneca, Epictetus, and the good Romans who lived in\ntheir times. John IV. with his favorites, the syphilitic drunken\nPeter with his buffoons, the vicious Catherine with her paramours,\nruled and oppressed the industrious religious Russians of their\ntimes.\n\nWilliam is ruling over the Germans, Stambouloff over the\nBulgarians, the Russian officials over the Russian people. The\nGermans have dominated the Italians, now they dominate the\nHungarians and Slavonians; the Turks have dominated and still\ndominate the Slavonians and Greeks; the English dominate the\nHindoos, the Mongolians dominate the Chinese.\n\nSo that whether governmental violence is suppressed or not, the\nposition of good men, in being oppressed by the wicked, will be\nunchanged.\n\nTo terrify men with the prospect of the wicked dominating the good\nis impossible, for that is just what has always been, and is now,\nand cannot but be.\n\nThe whole history of pagan times is nothing but a recital of the\nincidents and means by which the more wicked gained possession of\npower over the less wicked, and retained it by cruelties and\ndeceptions, ruling over the good under the pretense of guarding\nthe right and protecting the good from the wicked. All the\nrevolutions in history are only examples of the more wicked\nseizing power and oppressing the good. In declaring that if their\nauthority did not exist the more wicked would oppress the good,\nthe ruling authorities only show their disinclination to let other\noppressors come to power who would like to snatch it from them.\n\nBut in asserting this they only accuse themselves, say that their\npower, i. e., violence, is needed to defend men from other\npossible oppressors in the present or the future [see footnote].\n\n [Footnote: I may quote in this connection the amazingly\n naive and comic declaration of the Russian authorities,\n the oppressors of other nationalities--the Poles, the\n Germans of the Baltic provinces, and the Jews. The\n Russian Government has oppressed its subjects for\n centuries, and has never troubled itself about the\n Little Russians of Poland, or the Letts of the Baltic\n provinces, or the Russian peasants, exploited by everyone.\n And now it has all of a sudden become the champion of\n the oppressed--the very oppressed whom it is itself\n oppressing.]\n\nThe weakness of the use of violence lies in the fact that all the\narguments brought forward by oppressors in their own defense can\nwith even better reason be advanced against them. They plead the\ndanger of violence--most often imagined in the future--but they\nare all the while continuing to practice actual violence\nthemselves. \"You say that men used to pillage and murder in the\npast, and that you are afraid that they will pillage and murder\none another if your power were no more. That may happen--or it\nmay not happen. But the fact that you ruin thousands of men in\nprisons, fortresses, galleys, and exile, break up millions of\nfamilies and ruin millions of men, physically as well as morally,\nin the army, that fact is not an imaginary but a real act of\nviolence, which, according to your own argument, one ought to\noppose by violence. And so you are yourselves these wicked men\nagainst whom, according to your own argument, it is absolutely\nnecessary to use violence,\" the oppressed are sure to say to their\noppressors. And non-Christian men always do say, and think and\nact on this reasoning. If the oppressed are more wicked than\ntheir oppressors, they attack them and try to overthrow them; and\nin favorable circumstances they succeed in overthrowing them, or\nwhat is more common, they rise into the ranks of the oppressors\nand assist in their acts of violence.\n\nSo that the very violence which the champions of government hold\nup as a terror--pretending that except for its oppressive power\nthe wicked would oppress the good--has really always existed and\nwill exist in human society. And therefore the suppression of\nstate violence cannot in any case be the cause of increased\noppression of the good by the wicked.\n\nIf state violence ceased, there would be acts of violence perhaps\non the part of different people, other than those who had done\ndeeds of violence before. But the total amount of violence could\nnot in any case be increased by the mere fact of power passing\nfrom one set of men to another.\n\n\"State violence can only cease when there are no more wicked men\nin society,\" say the champions of the existing order of things,\nassuming in this of course that since there will always be wicked\nmen, it can never cease. And that would be right enough if it\nwere the case, as they assume, that the oppressors are always the\nbest of men, and that the sole means of saving men from evil is by\nviolence. Then, indeed, violence could never cease. But since\nthis is not the case, but quite the contrary, that it is not the\nbetter oppress the worse, but the worse oppress the better, and\nsince violence will never put an end to evil, and there is,\nmoreover, another means of putting an end to it, the assertion\nthat violence will never cease is incorrect. The use of violence\ngrows less and less and evidently must disappear. But this will\nnot come to pass, as some champions of the existing order imagine,\nthrough the oppressed becoming better and better under the\ninfluence of government (on the contrary, its influence causes\ntheir continual degradation), but through the fact that all men\nare constantly growing better and better of themselves, so that\neven the most wicked, who are in power, will become less and less\nwicked, till at last they are so good as to be incapable of using\nviolence.\n\nThe progressive movement of humanity does not proceed from the\nbetter elements in society seizing power and making those who are\nsubject to them better, by forcible means, as both conservatives\nand revolutionists imagine. It proceeds first and principally\nfrom the fact that all men in general are advancing steadily and\nundeviatingly toward a more and more conscious assimilation of the\nChristian theory of life; and secondly, from the fact that, even\napart from conscious spiritual life, men are unconsciously brought\ninto a more Christian attitude to life by the very process of one\nset of men grasping the power, and again being replaced by others.\n\nThe worse elements of society, gaining possession of power, under the\nsobering influence which always accompanies power, grow less and less\ncruel, and become incapable of using cruel forms of violence.\nConsequently others are able to seize their place, and the same process\nof softening and, so to say, unconscious Christianizing goes on with\nthem. It is something like the process of ebullition. The majority of\nmen, having the non-Christian view of life, always strive for power and\nstruggle to obtain it. In this struggle the most cruel, the coarsest,\nthe least Christian elements of society overpower the most gentle,\nwell-disposed, and Christian, and rise by means of their violence to the\nupper ranks of society. And in them is Christ's prophecy fulfilled: \"Woe\nto you that are rich! woe unto you that are full! woe unto you when all\nmen shall speak well of you!\" For the men who are in possession of power\nand all that results from it--glory and wealth--and have attained the\nvarious aims they set before themselves, recognize the vanity of it all\nand return to the position from which they came. Charles V., John IV.,\nAlexander I., recognizing the emptiness and the evil of power, renounced\nit because they were incapable of using violence for their own benefit\nas they had done.\n\nBut they are not the solitary examples of this recognition of the\nemptiness and evil of power. Everyone who gains a position of\npower he has striven for, every general, every minister, every\nmillionaire, every petty official who has gained the place he has\ncoveted for ten years, every rich peasant who has laid by some\nhundred rubles, passes through this unconscious process of\nsoftening.\n\nAnd not only individual men, but societies of men, whole nations,\npass through this process.\n\nThe seductions of power, and all the wealth, honor, and luxury it\ngives, seem a sufficient aim for men's efforts only so long as\nthey are unattained. Directly a man reaches them he sees all\ntheir vanity, and they gradually lose all their power of\nattraction. They are like clouds which have form and beauty only\nfrom the distance; directly one ascends into them, all their\nsplendor vanishes.\n\nMen who are in possession of power and wealth, sometimes even\nthose who have gained for themselves their power and wealth, but\nmore often their heirs, cease to be so eager for power, and so\ncruel in their efforts to obtain it.\n\nHaving learnt by experience, under the operation of Christian\ninfluence, the vanity of all that is gained by violence, men\nsometimes in one, sometimes in several generations lose the vices\nwhich are generated by the passion for power and wealth. They\nbecome less cruel and so cannot maintain their position, and are\nexpelled from power by others less Christian and more wicked.\nThus they return to a rank of society lower in position, but\nhigher in morality, raising thereby the average level of Christian\nconsciousness in men. But directly after them again the worst,\ncoarsest, least Christian elements of society rise to the top, and\nare subjected to the same process as their predecessors, and again\nin a generation or so, seeing the vanity of what is gained by\nviolence, and having imbibed Christianity, they come down again\namong the oppressed, and their place is again filled by new\noppressors, less brutal than former oppressors, though more so\nthan those they oppress. So that, although power remains\nexternally the same as it was, with every change of the men in\npower there is a constant increase of the number of men who have\nbeen brought by experience to the necessity of assimilating the\nChristian conception of life, and with every change--though it is\nthe coarsest, crudest, and least Christian who come into\npossession of power, they are less coarse and cruel and more\nChristian than their predecessors when they gained possession of\npower.\n\nPower selects and attracts the worst elements of society,\ntransforms them, improves and softens them, and returns them to\nsociety.\n\n\"Such is the process by means of which Christianity, in spite of\nthe hindrances to human progress resulting from the violence of\npower, gains more and more hold of men. Christianity penetrates\nto the consciousness of men, not only in spite of the violence of\npower, but also by means of it.\n\nAnd therefore the assertion of the champions of the state, that if\nthe power of government were suppressed the wicked would oppress\nthe good, not only fails to show that that is to be dreaded, since\nit is just what happens now, but proves, on the contrary, that it\nis governmental power which enables the wicked to oppress the\ngood, and is the evil most desirable to suppress, and that it is\nbeing gradually suppressed in the natural course of things.\n\n\"But if it be true that governmental power will disappear when\nthose in power become so Christian that they renounce power of\ntheir own accord, and there are no men found willing to take their\nplace, and even if this process is already going on,\" say the\nchampions of the existing order, \"when will that come to pass?\nIf, after eighteen hundred years, there are still so many eager\nfor power, and so few anxious to obey, there seems no likelihood\nof its happening very soon--or indeed of its ever happening at\nall.\n\n\"Even if there are, as there have always been, some men who prefer\nrenouncing power to enjoying it, the mass of men in reserve, who\nprefer dominion to subjection, is so great that it is difficult to\nimagine a time when the number will be exhausted.\n\n\"Before this Christianizing process could so affect all men one\nafter another that they would pass from the heathen to the\nChristian conception of life, and would voluntarily abandon power\nand wealth, it would be necessary that all the coarse, half-savage\nmen, completely incapable of appreciating Christianity or acting\nupon it, of whom there are always a great many in every Christian\nsociety, should be converted to Christianity. More than this, all\nthe savage and absolutely non-Christian peoples, who are so\nnumerous outside the Christian world, must also be converted. And\ntherefore, even if we admit that this Christianizing process will\nsome day affect everyone, still, judging by the amount of progress\nit has made in eighteen hundred years, it will be many times\neighteen centuries before it will do so. And it is therefore\nimpossible and unprofitable to think at present of anything so\nimpracticable as the suppression of authority. We ought only to\ntry to put authority into the best hands.\"\n\nAnd this criticism would be perfectly just, if the transition from\none conception of life to another were only accomplished by the\nsingle process of all men, separately and successively, realizing,\neach for himself, the emptiness of power, and reaching Christian\ntruth by the inner spiritual path. That process goes on\nunceasingly, and men are passing over to Christianity one after\nanother by this inner way.\n\nBut there is also another external means by which men reach\nChristianity and by which the transition is less gradual.\n\nThis transition from one organization of life to another is not\naccomplished by degrees like the sand running through the\nhourglass grain after grain. It is more like the water filling a\nvessel floating on water. At first the water only runs in slowly\non one side, but as the vessel grows heavier it suddenly begins to\nsink, and almost instantaneously fills with water.\n\nIt is just the same with the transitions of mankind from one\nconception--and so from one organization of life--to another. At\nfirst only gradually and slowly, one after another, men attain to\nthe new truth by the inner spiritual way, and follow it out in\nlife. But when a certain point in the diffusion of the truth has\nbeen reached, it is suddenly assimilated by everyone, not by the\ninner way, but, as it were, involuntarily.\n\nThat is why the champions of the existing order are wrong in\narguing that, since only a small section of mankind has passed\nover to Christianity in eighteen centuries, it must be many times\neighteen centuries before all the remainder do the same. For in\nthat argument they do not take into account any other means,\nbesides the inward spiritual one, by which men assimilate a new\ntruth and pass from one order of life to another.\n\nMen do not only assimilate a truth through recognizing it by\nprophetic insight, or by experience of life. When the truth has\nbecome sufficiently widely diffused, men at a lower stage of\ndevelopment accept it all at once simply through confidence in\nthose who have reached it by the inner spiritual way, and are\napplying it to life.\n\nEvery new truth, by which the order of human life is changed and\nhumanity is advanced, is at first accepted by only a very small\nnumber of men who understand it through inner spiritual intuition.\nThe remainder of mankind who accepted on trust the preceding truth\non which the existing order is based, are always opposed to the\ndiffusion of the new truth.\n\nBut seeing that, to begin with, men do not stand still, but are\nsteadily advancing to a greater recognition of the truth and a\ncloser adaptation of their life to it, and secondly, all men in\nvarying degrees according to their age, their education, and their\nrace are capable of understanding the new truths, at first those\nwho are nearest to the men who have attained the new truth by\nspiritual intuition, slowly and one by one, but afterward more and\nmore quickly, pass over to the new truth. Thus the number of men\nwho accept the new truth becomes greater and greater, and the\ntruth becomes more and more comprehensible.\n\nAnd thus more confidence is aroused in the remainder, who are at a\nless advanced stage of capacity for understanding the truth. And\nit becomes easier for them to grasp it, and an increasing number\naccept it.\n\nAnd so the movement goes on more and more quickly, and on an\never-increasing scale, like a snowball, till at last a public opinion in\nharmony with the new truth is created, and then the whole mass of men is\ncarried over all at once by its momentum to the new truth and\nestablishes a new social order in accordance with it.\n\nThose men who accept a new truth when it has gained a certain\ndegree of acceptance, always pass over all at once in masses.\nThey are like the ballast with which every ship is always loaded,\nat once to keep it upright and enable it to sail properly. If\nthere were no ballast, the ship would not be low enough in the\nwater, and would shift its position at the slightest change in its\nconditions. This ballast, which strikes one at first as\nsuperfluous and even as hindering the progress of the vessel, is\nreally indispensable to its good navigation.\n\nIt is the same with the mass of mankind, who not individually, but\nalways in a mass, under the influence of a new social idea pass\nall at once from one organization of life to another. This mass\nalways hinders, by its inertia, frequent and rapid revolutions in\nthe social order which have not been sufficiently proved by human\nexperience. And it delays every truth a long while till it has\nstood the test of prolonged struggles, and has thoroughly\npermeated the consciousness of humanity.\n\nAnd that is why it is a mistake to say that because only a very\nsmall minority of men has assimilated Christianity in eighteen\ncenturies, it must take many times as many centuries for all\nmankind to assimilate it, and that since that time is so far off\nwe who live in the present need not even think about it. It is a\nmistake, because the men at a lower stage of culture, the, men and\nthe nations who are represented as the obstacle to the realization\nof the Christian order of life, are the very people who always\npass over in masses all at once to any truth that has once been\nrecognized by public opinion.\n\nAnd therefore the transformation of human life, through which men\nin power will renounce it, and there will be none anxious to take\ntheir place, will not come only by all men consciously and\nseparately assimilating the Christian conception of life. It will\ncome when a Christian public opinion has arisen, so definite and\neasily comprehensible as to reach the whole of the inert mass,\nwhich is not able to attain truth by its own intuition, and\ntherefore is always under the sway of public opinion.\n\nPublic opinion arises spontaneously and spreads for hundreds and\nthousands of years, but it has the power of working on men by\ninfection, and with great rapidity gains a hold on great numbers\nof men.\n\n\"But,\" say the champions of the existing order, \"even if it is\ntrue that public opinion, when it has attained a certain degree of\ndefiniteness and precision, can convert the inert mass of men\noutside the Christian world--the non-Christian races--as well as\nthe coarse and depraved who are living in its midst, what proofs\nhave we that this Christian public opinion has arisen and is able\nto replace force and render it unnecessary.\n\n\"We must not give up force, by which the existing order is\nmaintained, and by relying on the vague and impalpable influence\nof public opinion expose Christians to the risk of being pillaged,\nmurdered, and outraged in every way by the savages inside and\noutside of civilized society.\n\n\"Since, even supported by the use of force, we can hardly control\nthe non-Christian elements which are always ready to pour down on\nus and to destroy all that has been gained by civilization, is it\nlikely that public opinion could take the place of force and\nrender us secure? And besides, how are we to find the moment when\npublic opinion has become strong enough to be able to replace the\nuse of force? To reject the use of force and trust to public\nopinion to defend us would be as insane as to remove all weapons\nof defense in a menagerie, and then to let loose all the lions and\ntigers, relying on the fact that the animals seemed peaceable when\nkept in their cages and held in check by red-hot irons. And\ntherefore people in power, who have been put in positions of\nauthority by fate or by God, have not the right to run the risk,\nruining all that has been gained by civilization, just because\nthey want to try an experiment to see whether public opinion is or\nis not able to replace the protection given by authority.\"\n\nA French writer, forgotten now, Alphonse Karr, said somewhere,\ntrying to show the impossibility of doing away with the death\npenalty: \"Que messieurs les assassins commencent par nous donner\nl'exemple.\" Often have I heard this BON MOT repeated by men who\nthought that these words were a witty and convincing argument\nagainst the abolition of capital punishment. And yet all the\nerroneousness of the argument of those who consider that\ngovernments cannot give up the use of force till all people are\ncapable of doing the same, could not be more clearly expressed\nthan it is in that epigram.\n\n\"Let the murderers,\" say the champions of state violence, \"set us\nthe example by giving up murder and then we will give it up.\" But\nthe murderers say just the same, only with much more right. They\nsay: \"Let those who have undertaken to teach us and guide us set\nus the example of giving up legal murder, and then we will imitate\nthem.\" And they say this, not as a jest, but seriously, because\nit is the actual state of the case.\n\n\"We cannot give up the use of violence, because we are surrounded\nby violent ruffians.\" Nothing in our days hinders the progress of\nhumanity and the establishment of the organization corresponding\nto its present development more than this false reasoning. Those\nin authority are convinced that men are only guided and only\nprogress through the use of force, and therefore they confidently\nmake use of it to support the existing organization. The existing\norder is maintained, not by force, but by public opinion, the\naction of which is disturbed by the use of force. So that the\neffect of using force is to disturb and to weaken the very thing\nit tries to maintain.\n\nViolence, even in the most favorable case, when it is not used\nsimply for some personal aims of those in power, always punishes\nunder the one inelastic formula of the law what has long before\nbeen condemned by public opinion. But there is this difference,\nthat while public opinion censures and condemns all the acts\nopposed to the moral law, including the most varied cases in its\nreprobation, the law which rests on violence only condemns and\npunishes a certain very limited range of acts, and by so doing\nseems to justify all other acts of the same kind which do not come\nunder its scope.\n\nPublic opinion ever since the time of Moses has regarded\ncovetousness, profligacy, and cruelty as wrong, and censured them\naccordingly. And it condemns every kind of manifestation of\ncovetousness, not only the appropriation of the property of others\nby force or fraud or trickery, but even the cruel abuse of wealth;\nit condemns every form of profligacy, whether with concubine,\nslave, divorced woman, or even one's own wife; it condemns every\nkind of cruelty, whether shown in blows, in ill-treatment, or in\nmurder, not only of men, but even of animals. The law resting on\nforce only punishes certain forms of covetousness, such as robbery\nand swindling, certain forms of profligacy and cruelty, such as\nconjugal infidelity, murder, and wounding. And in this way it\nseems to countenance all the manifestations of covetousness,\nprofligacy, and cruelty which do not come under its narrow\ndefinition.\n\nBut besides corrupting public opinion, the use of force leads men to the\nfatal conviction that they progress, not through the spiritual impulse\nwhich impels them to the attainment of truth and its realization in\nlife, and which constitutes the only source of every progressive\nmovement of humanity, but by means of violence, the very force which,\nfar from leading men to truth, always carries them further away from it.\nThis is a fatal error, because it leads men to neglect the chief force\nunderlying their life--their spiritual activity--and to turn all their\nattention and energy to the use of violence, which is superficial,\nsluggish, and most generally pernicious in its action.\n\nThey make the same mistake as men who, trying to set a steam\nengine in motion, should turn its wheels round with their hands,\nnot suspecting that the underlying cause of its movement was the\nexpansion of the steam, and not the motion of the wheels. By\nturning the wheels by hand and by levers they could only produce a\nsemblance of movement, and meantime they would be wrenching the\nwheels and so preventing their being fit for real movement.\n\nThat is just what people are doing who think to make men advance\nby means of external force.\n\nThey say that the Christian life cannot be established without the\nuse of violence, because there are savage races outside the pale\nof Christian societies in Africa and in Asia (there are some who\neven represent the Chinese as a danger to civilization), and that\nin the midst of Christian societies there are savage, corrupt,\nand, according to the new theory of heredity, congenital\ncriminals. And violence, they say, is necessary to keep savages\nand criminals from annihilating our civilization.\n\nBut these savages within and without Christian society, who are\nsuch a terror to us, have never been subjugated by violence, and\nare not subjugated by it now. Nations have never subjugated other\nnations by violence alone. If a nation which subjugated another\nwas on a lower level of civilization, it has never happened that\nit succeeded in introducing its organization of life by violence.\nOn the contrary, it was always forced to adopt the organization of\nlife existing in the conquered nation. If ever any of the nations\nconquered by force have been really subjugated, or even nearly so,\nit has always been by the action of public opinion, and never by\nviolence, which only tends to drive a people to further rebellion.\n\nWhen whole nations have been subjugated by a new religion, and\nhave become Christian or Mohammedan, such a conversion has never\nbeen brought about because the authorities made it obligatory (on\nthe contrary, violence has much oftener acted in the opposite\ndirection), but because public opinion made such a change\ninevitable. Nations, on the contrary, who have been driven by\nforce to accept the faith of their conquerors have always remained\nantagonistic to it.\n\nIt is just the same with the savage elements existing in the midst\nof our civilized societies. Neither the increased nor the\ndiminished severity of punishment, nor the modifications of\nprisons, nor the increase of police will increase or diminish the\nnumber of criminals. Their number will only be diminished by the\nchange of the moral standard of society. No severities could put\nan end to duels and vendettas in certain districts. In spite of\nthe number of Tcherkesses executed for robbery, they continue to\nbe robbers from their youth up, for no maiden will marry a\nTcherkess youth till he has given proof of his bravery by carrying\noff a horse, or at least a sheep. If men cease to fight duels,\nand the Tcherkesses cease to be robbers, it will not be from fear\nof punishment (indeed, that invests the crime with additional\ncharm for youth), but through a change in the moral standard of\npublic opinion. It is the same with all other crimes. Force can\nnever suppress what is sanctioned by public opinion. On the\ncontrary, public opinion need only be in direct opposition to\nforce to neutralize the whole effect of the use of force. It has\nalways been so and always will be in every case of martyrdom.\n\nWhat would happen if force were not used against hostile nations\nand the criminal elements of society we do not know. But we do\nknow by prolonged experience that neither enemies nor criminals\nhave been successfully suppressed by force.\n\nAnd indeed how could nations be subjugated by violence who are led\nby their whole education, their traditions, and even their\nreligion to see the loftiest virtue in warring with their\noppressors and fighting for freedom? And how are we to suppress\nby force acts committed in the midst of our society which are\nregarded as crimes by the government and as daring exploits by the\npeople?\n\nTo exterminate such nations and such criminals by violence is\npossible, and indeed is done, but to subdue them is impossible.\n\nThe sole guide which directs men and nations has always been and\nis the unseen, intangible, underlying force, the resultant of all\nthe spiritual forces of a certain people, or of all humanity,\nwhich finds its outward expression in public opinion.\n\nThe use of violence only weakens this force, hinders it and\ncorrupts it, and tries to replace it by another which far from\nbeing conducive to the progress of humanity, is detrimental to it.\n\nTo bring under the sway of Christianity all the savage nations\noutside the pale of the Christian world--all the Zulus, Mandchoos,\nand Chinese, whom many regard as savages--and the savages who live\nin our midst, there is only ONE MEANS. That means is the\npropagation among these nations of the Christian ideal of society,\nwhich can only be realized by a Christian life, Christian actions,\nand Christian examples. And meanwhile, though this is the ONE\nONLY MEANS of gaining a hold over the people who have remained\nnon-Christian, the men of our day set to work in the directly\nopposite fashion to attain this result.\n\nTo bring under the sway of Christianity savage nations who do not\nattack us and whom we have therefore no excuse for oppressing, we\nought before all things to leave them in peace, and in case we\nneed or wish to enter into closer relations with them, we ought\nonly to influence them by Christian manners and Christian\nteaching, setting them the example of the Christian virtues of\npatience, meekness, endurance, purity, brotherhood, and love.\nInstead of that we begin by establishing among them new markets\nfor our commerce, with the sole aim of our own profit; then we\nappropriate their lands, i. e., rob them; then we sell them\nspirits, tobacco, and opium, i. e., corrupt them; then we\nestablish our morals among them, teach them the use of violence\nand new methods of destruction, i, e., we teach them nothing but\nthe animal law of strife, below which man cannot sink, and we do\nall we can to conceal from them all that is Christian in us.\nAfter this we send some dozens of missionaries prating to them of\nthe hypocritical absurdities of the Church, and then quote the\nfailure of our efforts to turn the heathen to Christianity as an\nincontrovertible proof of the impossibility of applying the truths\nof Christianity in practical life.\n\nIt is just the same with the so-called criminals living in our\nmidst. To bring these people under the sway of Christianity there\nis one only means, that is, the Christian social ideal, which can\nonly be realized among them by true Christian teaching and\nsupported by a true example of the Christian life. And to preach\nthis Christian truth and to support it by Christian example we set\nup among them prisons, guillotines, gallows, preparations for\nmurder; we diffuse among the common herd idolatrous superstitions\nto stupefy them; we sell them spirits, tobacco, and opium to\nbrutalize them; we even organize legalized prostitution; we give\nland to those who do not need it; we make a display of senseless\nluxury in the midst of suffering poverty; we destroy the\npossibility of anything like a Christian public opinion, and\nstudiously try to suppress what Christian public opinion is\nexisting. And then, after having ourselves assiduously corrupted\nmen, we shut them up like wild beasts in places from which they\ncannot escape, and where they become still more brutalized, or\nelse we kill them. And these very men whom we have corrupted and\nbrutalized by every means, we bring forward as a proof that one\ncannot deal with criminals except by brute force.\n\nWe are just like ignorant doctors who put a man, recovering from\nillness by the force of nature, into the most unfavorable\nconditions of hygiene, and dose him with the most deleterious\ndrugs, and then assert triumphantly that their hygiene and their\ndrugs saved his life, when the patient would have been well long\nbefore if they had left him alone.\n\nViolence, which is held up as the means of supporting the\nChristian organization of life, not only fails to produce that\neffect, it even hinders the social organization of life from being\nwhat it might and ought to be. The social organization is as good\nas it is not as a result of force, but in spite of it.\n\nAnd therefore the champions of the existing order are mistaken in\narguing that since, even with the aid of force, the bad and\nnon-Christian elements of humanity can hardly be kept from attacking us,\nthe abolition of the use of force and the substitution of public opinion\nfor it would leave humanity quite unprotected.\n\nThey are mistaken, because force does not protect humanity, but,\non the contrary, deprives it of the only possible means of really\nprotecting itself, that is, the establishment and diffusion of a\nChristian public opinion. Only by the suppression of violence\nwill a Christian public opinion cease to be corrupted, and be\nenabled to be diffused without hindrance, and men will then turn\ntheir efforts in the spiritual direction by which alone they can\nadvance.\n\n\"But how are we to cast off the visible tangible protection of an\narmed policeman, and trust to something so intangible as public\nopinion? Does it yet exist? Moreover, the condition of things in\nwhich we are living now, we know, good or bad; we know its\nshortcomings and are used to it, we know what to do, and how to\nbehave under present conditions. But what will happen when we\ngive it up and trust ourselves to something invisible and\nintangible, and altogether unknown?\"\n\nThe unknown world on which they are entering in renouncing their\nhabitual ways of life appears itself as dreadful to them. It is\nall very well to dread the unknown when our habitual position is\nsound and secure. But our position is so far from being secure\nthat we know, beyond all doubt, that we are standing on the brink\nof a precipice. If we must be afraid let us be afraid of what is\nreally alarming, and not what we imagine as alarming.\n\nFearing to make the effort to detach ourselves from our perilous\nposition because the future is not fully clear to us, we are like\npassengers in a foundering ship who, through being afraid to trust\nthemselves to the boat which would carry them to the shore, shut\nthemselves up in the cabin and refuse to come out of it; or like\nsheep, who, terrified by their barn being on fire, huddle in a\ncorner and do not go out of the wide-open door.\n\nWe are standing on the threshold of the murderous war of social\nrevolution, terrific in its miseries, beside which, as those who\nare preparing it tell us, the horrors of 1793 will be child's\nplay. And can we talk of the danger threatening us from the\nwarriors of Dahomey, the Zulus, and such, who live so far away and\nare not dreaming of attacking us, and from some thousands of\nswindlers, thieves, and murderers, brutalized and corrupted by\nourselves, whose number is in no way lessened by all our\nsentences, prisons, and executions?\n\nMoreover this dread of the suppression of the visible protection\nof the policeman is essentially a sentiment of townspeople, that\nis, of people who are living in abnormal and artificial\nconditions. People living in natural conditions of life, not in\ntowns, but in the midst of nature, and carrying on the struggle\nwith nature, live without this protection and know how little\nforce can protect us from the real dangers with which we are\nsurrounded. There is something sickly in this dread, which is\nessentially dependent on the artificial conditions in which many\nof us live and have been brought up.\n\nA doctor, a specialist in insanity, told a story that one summer\nday when he was leaving the asylum, the lunatics accompanied him\nto the street door. \"Come for a walk in the town with me?\" the\ndoctor suggested to them. The lunatics agreed, and a small band\nfollowed the doctor. But the further they proceeded along the\nstreet where healthy people were freely moving about, the more\ntimid they became, and they pressed closer and closer to the\ndoctor, hindering him from walking. At last they all began to beg\nhim to take them back to the asylum, to their meaningless but\ncustomary way of life, to their keepers, to blows, strait\nwaistcoats, and solitary cells.\n\nThis is just how men of to-day huddle in terror and draw back to\ntheir irrational manner of life, their factories, law courts,\nprisons, executions, and wars, when Christianity calls them to\nliberty, to the free, rational life of the future coming age.\n\nPeople ask, \"How will our security be guaranteed when the existing\norganization is suppressed? What precisely will the new\norganization be that is to replace it? So long as we do not know\nprecisely how our life will be organized, we will not stir a step\nforward.\"\n\nAn explorer going to an unknown country might as well ask for a\ndetailed map of the country before he would start.\n\nIf a man, before he passed from one stage to another, could know\nhis future life in full detail, he would have nothing to live for.\nIt is the same with the life of humanity. If it had a programme of\nthe life which awaited it before entering a new stage, it would be\nthe surest sign that it was not living, nor advancing, but simply\nrotating in the same place.\n\nThe conditions of the new order of life cannot be known by us\nbecause we have to create them by our own labors. That is all\nthat life is, to learn the unknown, and to adapt our actions to\nthis new knowledge.\n\nThat is the life of each individual man, and that is the life of\nhuman societies and of humanity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE HAS ALREADY ARISEN IN OUR\nSOCIETY, AND WILL INFALLIBLY PUT AN END TO THE PRESENT\nORGANIZATION OF OUR LIFE BASED ON FORCE--WHEN THAT WILL BE.\n\nThe Condition and Organization of our Society are Terrible, but they\nRest only on Public Opinion, and can be Destroyed by it--Already\nViolence is Regarded from a Different Point of View; the Number of those\nwho are Ready to Serve the Government is Diminishing; and even the\nServants of Government are Ashamed of their Position, and so often Do\nNot Perform their Duties--These Facts are all Signs of the Rise of a\nPublic Opinion, which Continually Growing will Lead to No One being\nWilling to Enter Government Service--Moreover, it Becomes More and More\nEvident that those Offices are of No Practical Use--Men already Begin to\nUnderstand the Futility of all Institutions Based on Violence, and if a\nFew already Understand it, All will One Day Understand it--The Day of\nDeliverance is Unknown, but it Depends on Men Themselves, on how far\nEach Man Lives According to the Light that is in Him.\n\n\nThe position of Christian humanity with its prisons, galleys,\ngibbets, its factories and accumulation of capital, its taxes,\nchurches, gin-palaces, licensed brothels, its ever-increasing\narmament and its millions of brutalized men, ready, like chained\ndogs, to attack anyone against whom their master incites them,\nwould be terrible indeed if it were the product of violence, but\nit is pre-eminently the product of public opinion. And what has\nbeen established by public opinion can be destroyed by public\nopinion--and, indeed, is being destroyed by public opinion.\n\nMoney lavished by hundreds of millions, tens of millions of\ndisciplined troops, weapons of astounding destructive power, all\norganizations carried to the highest point of perfection, a whole\narmy of men charged with the task of deluding and hypnotizing the\npeople, and all this, by means of electricity which annihilates\ndistance, under the direct control of men who regard such an\norganization of society not only as necessary for profit, but even\nfor self-preservation, and therefore exert every effort of their\ningenuity to preserve it--what an invincible power it would seem!\nAnd yet we need only imagine for a moment what will really\ninevitably come to pass, that is, the Christian social standard\nreplacing the heathen social standard and established with the\nsame power and universality, and the majority of men as much\nashamed of taking any part in violence or in profiting by it, as\nthey are to-day of thieving, swindling, begging, and cowardice;\nand at once we see the whole of this complex, and seemingly\npowerful organization of society falls into ruins of itself\nwithout a struggle.\n\nAnd to bring this to pass, nothing new need be brought before\nmen's minds. Only let the mist, which veils from men's eyes the\ntrue meaning of certain acts of violence, pass away, and the\nChristian public opinion which is springing up would overpower the\nextinct public opinion which permitted and justified acts of\nviolence. People need only come to be as much ashamed to do deeds\nof violence, to assist in them or to profit by them, as they now\nare of being, or being reputed a swindler, a thief, a coward, or a\nbeggar. And already this change is beginning to take place. We\ndo not notice it just as we do not notice the movement of the\nearth, because we are moved together with everything around us.\n\nIt is true that the organization of society remains in its\nprincipal features just as much an organization based on violence\nas it was one thousand years ago, and even in some respects,\nespecially in the preparation for war and in war itself, it\nappears still more brutal. But the rising Christian ideal, which\nmust at a certain stage of development replace the heathen ideal\nof life, already makes its influence felt. A dead tree stands\napparently as firmly as ever--it may even seem firmer because it\nis harder--but it is rotten at the core, and soon must fall. It\nis just so with the present order of society, based on force. The\nexternal aspect is unchanged. There is the same division of\noppressors and oppressed, but their view of the significance and\ndignity of their respective positions is no longer what it once\nwas.\n\nThe oppressors, that is, those who take part in government, and\nthose who profit by oppression, that is, the rich, no longer\nimagine, as they once did, that they are the elect of the world,\nand that they constitute the ideal of human happiness and\ngreatness, to attain which was once the highest aim of the\noppressed.\n\nVery often now it is not the oppressed who strive to attain the\nposition of the oppressors, and try to imitate them, but on the\ncontrary the oppressors who voluntarily abandon the advantages of\ntheir position, prefer the condition of the oppressed, and try to\nresemble them in the simplicity of their life.\n\nNot to speak of the duties and occupations now openly despised,\nsuch as that of spy, agent of secret police, moneylender, and\npublican, there are a great number of professions formerly\nregarded as honorable, such as those of police officials,\ncourtiers, judges, and administrative functionaries, clergymen,\nmilitary officers, speculators, and bankers, which are no longer\nconsidered desirable positions by everyone, and are even despised\nby a special circle of the most respected people. There are\nalready men who voluntarily abandon these professions which were\nonce reckoned irreproachable, and prefer less lucrative callings\nwhich are in no way connected with the use of force.\nAnd there are even rich men who, not through religious sentiment,\nbut simply through special sensitiveness to the social standard\nthat is springing up, relinquish their inherited property,\nbelieving that a man can only justly consume what he has gained by\nhis own labor.\n\nThe position of a government official or of a rich man is no\nlonger, as it once was, and still is among non-Christian peoples,\nregarded as necessarily honorable and deserving of respect, and\nunder the special blessing of God. The most delicate and moral\npeople (they are generally also the most cultivated) avoid such\npositions and prefer more humble callings that are not dependent\non the use of force.\n\nThe best of our young people, at the age when they are still\nuncorrupted by life and are choosing a career, prefer the calling\nof doctor, engineer, teacher, artist, writer, or even that of\nsimple farmer living on his own labor, to legal, administrative,\nclerical, and military positions in the pay of government, or to\nan idle existence living on their incomes.\n\nMonuments and memorials in these days are mostly not erected in\nhonor of government dignitaries, or generals, or still less of\nrich men, but rather of artists, men of science, and inventors,\npersons who have nothing in common with the government, and often\nhave even been in conflict with it. They are the men whose\npraises are celebrated in poetry, who are honored by sculpture and\nreceived with triumphant jubilations.\n\nThe best men of our day are all striving for such places of honor.\nConsequently the class from which the wealthy and the government\nofficials are drawn grows less in number and lower in intelligence\nand education, and still more in moral qualities. So that\nnowadays the wealthy class and men at the head of government do\nnot constitute, as they did in former days, the \u00c9LITE of society;\non the contrary, they are inferior to the middle class.\n\nIn Russia and Turkey as in America and France, however often the\ngovernment change its officials, the majority of them are self-seeking\nand corrupt, of so low a moral standard that they do not even come up\nthe elementary requirements of common honesty expected by the\ngovernment. One may often nowadays hear from persons in authority the\nna\u00efve complaint that the best people are always, by some strange--as it\nseems to them--fatality, to be found in the camp of the opposition. As\nthough men were to complain that those who accepted the office of\nhangman were--by some strange fatality--all persons of very little\nrefinement or beauty of character.\n\nThe most cultivated and refined people of our society are not\nnowadays to be found among the very rich, as used formerly to be\nthe rule. The rich are mostly coarse money grubbers, absorbed\nonly, in increasing their hoard, generally by dishonest means, or\nelse the degenerate heirs of such money grubbers, who, far from\nplaying any prominent part in society, are mostly treated with\ngeneral contempt.\n\nAnd besides the fact that the class from which the servants of\ngovernment and the wealthy are drawn grows less in number and\nlower in caliber, they no longer themselves attach the same\nimportance to their positions as they once did; often they are\nashamed of the ignominy of their calling and do not perform the\nduties they are bound to perform in their position. Kings and\nemperors scarcely govern at all; they scarcely ever decide upon an\ninternal reform or a new departure in foreign politics. They\nmostly leave the decision of such questions to government\ninstitutions or to public opinion. All their duties are reduced\nto representing the unity and majesty of government. And even\nthis duty they perform less and less successfully. The majority\nof them do not keep up their old unapproachable majesty, but\nbecome more and more democratized and even vulgarized, casting\naside the external prestige that remained to them, and thereby\ndestroying the very thing it was their function to maintain.\n\nIt is just the same with the army. Military officers of the\nhighest rank, instead of encouraging in their soldiers the\nbrutality and ferocity necessary for their work, diffuse education\namong the soldiers, inculcate humanity, and often even themselves\nshare the socialistic ideas of the masses and denounce war. In\nthe last plots against the Russian Government many of the\nconspirators were in the army. And the number of the disaffected\nin the army is always increasing. And it often happens (there was\na case, indeed, within the last few days) that when called upon to\nquell disturbances they refuse to fire upon the people. Military\nexploits are openly reprobated by the military themselves, and are\noften the subject of jests among them.\n\nIt is the same with judges and public prosecutors. The judges,\nwhose duty it is to judge and condemn criminals, conduct the\nproceedings so as to whitewash them as far as possible. So that\nthe Russian Government, to procure the condemnation of those whom\nthey want to punish, never intrust them to the ordinary tribunals,\nbut have them tried before a court martial, which is only a\nparody of justice. The prosecutors themselves often refuse to\nproceed, and even when they do proceed, often in spite of the law,\nreally defend those they ought to be accusing. The learned\njurists whose business it is to justify the violence of authority,\nare more and more disposed to deny the right of punishment and to\nreplace it by theories of irresponsibility and even of moral\ninsanity, proposing to deal with those they call criminals by\nmedical treatment only.\n\nJailers and overseers of galleys generally become the champions of\nthose whom they ought to torture. Police officers and detectives\nare continually assisting the escape of those they ought to\narrest. The clergy preach tolerance, and even sometimes condemn\nthe use of force, and the more educated among them try in their\nsermons to avoid the very deception which is the basis of their\nposition and which it is their duty to support. Executioners\nrefuse to perform their functions, so that in Russia the death\npenalty cannot be carried out for want of executioners. And in\nspite of all the advantages bestowed on these men, who are\nselected from convicts, there is a constantly diminishing number\nof volunteers for the post. Governors, police officials, tax\ncollectors often have compassion on the people and try to find\npretexts for not collecting the tax from them. The rich are not\nat ease in spending their wealth only on themselves, and lavish\nit on works of public utility. Landowners build schools and\nhospitals on their property, and some even give up the ownership\nof their land and transfer it to the cultivators, or establish\ncommunities upon it. Millowners and manufacturers build\nhospitals, schools, savings banks, asylums, and dwellings for\ntheir workpeople. Some of them form co-operative associations in\nwhich they have shares on the same terms as the others.\nCapitalists expend a part of their capital on educational,\nartistic, philanthropic, and other public institutions. And many,\nwho are not equal to parting with their wealth in their lifetime,\nleave it in their wills to public institutions.\n\nAll these phenomena might seem to be mere exceptions, except that\nthey can all be referred to one common cause. Just as one might\nfancy the first leaves on the budding trees in April were\nexceptional if we did not know that they all have a common cause,\nthe spring, and that if we see the branches on some trees shooting\nand turning green, it is certain that it will soon be so with all.\n\nSo it is with the manifestation of the Christian standard of\nopinion on force and all that is based on force. If this standard\nalready influences some, the most impressionable, and impels each\nin his own sphere to abandon advantages based on the use of force,\nthen its influence will extend further and further till it\ntransforms the whole order of men's actions and puts it into\naccord with the Christian ideal which is already a living force in\nthe vanguard of humanity.\n\nAnd if there are now rulers, who do not decide on any step on\ntheir own authority, who try to be as unlike monarchs, and as like\nplain mortals as possible, who state their readiness to give up\ntheir prerogatives and become simply the first citizens of a\nrepublic; if there are already soldiers who realize all the sin\nand harm of war, and are not willing to fire on men either of\ntheir own or a foreign country; judges and prosecutors who do not\nlike to try and to condemn criminals; priests, who abjure\ndeception; tax-gatherers who try to perform as little as they can\nof their duties, and rich men renouncing their wealth--then the\nsame thing will inevitably happen to other rulers, other soldiers,\nother judges, priests, tax-gatherers, and rich men. And when\nthere are no longer men willing to fill these offices, these\noffices themselves will disappear too.\n\nBut this is not the only way in which public opinion is leading\nmen to the abolition of the prevailing order and the substitution\nof a new order. As the positions based on the rule of force\nbecome less attractive and fewer men are found willing to fill\nthem, the more will their uselessness be apparent.\n\nEverywhere throughout the Christian world the same rulers, and the\nsame governments, the same armies, the same law courts, the same\ntax-gatherers, the same priests, the same rich men, landowners,\nmanufacturers, and capitalists, as ever, but the attitude of the\nworld to them, and their attitude to themselves is altogether\nchanged.\n\nThe same sovereigns have still the same audiences and interviews,\nhunts and banquets, and balls and uniforms; there are the same\ndiplomats and the same deliberations on alliances and wars; there\nare still the same parliaments, with the same debates on the\nEastern question and Africa, on treaties and violations of\ntreaties, and Home Rule and the eight-hour day; and one set of\nministers replacing another in the same way, and the same speeches\nand the same incidents. But for men who observe how one newspaper\narticle has more effect on the position of affairs than dozens of\nroyal audiences or parliamentary sessions, it becomes more and\nmore evident that these audiences and interviews and debates in\nparliaments do not direct the course of affairs, but something\nindependent of all that, which cannot be concentrated in one\nplace.\n\nThe same generals and officers and soldiers, and cannons and\nfortresses, and reviews and maneuvers, but no war breaks out. One\nyear, ten, twenty years pass by. And it becomes less and less\npossible to rely on the army for the pacification of riots, and\nmore and more evident, consequently, that generals, and officers,\nand soldiers are only figures in solemn processions--objects of\namusement for governments--a sort of immense--and far too\nexpensive--CORPS DE BALLET.\n\nThe same lawyers and judges, and the same assizes, but it becomes\nmore and more evident that the civil courts decide cases on the\nmost diverse grounds, but regardless of justice, and that criminal\ntrials are quite senseless, because the punishments do not attain\nthe objects aimed at by the judges themselves. These institutions\ntherefore serve no other purpose than to provide a means of\nlivelihood for men who are not capable of doing anything more\nuseful.\n\nThe same priests and archbishops and churches and synods, but it\nbecomes more and more evident that they have long ago ceased to\nbelieve in what they preach, and therefore they can convince no\none of the necessity of believing what they don't believe\nthemselves.\n\nThe same tax collectors, but they are less and less capable of\ntaking men's property from them by force, and it becomes more and\nmore evident that people can collect all that is necessary by\nvoluntary subscription without their aid.\n\nThe same rich men, but it becomes more and more evident that they\ncan only be of use by ceasing to administer their property in\nperson and giving up to society the whole or at least a part of\ntheir wealth.\n\nAnd when all this has become absolutely evident to everyone, it\nwill be natural for men to ask themselves: \"But why should we keep\nand maintain all these kings, emperors, presidents, and members of\nall sorts of senates and ministries, since nothing comes of all\ntheir debates and audiences? Wouldn't it be better, as some\nhumorist suggested, to make a queen of india-rubber?\"\n\nAnd what good to us are these armies with their generals and bands\nand horses and drums? And what need is there of them when there\nis no war, and no one wants to make war? and if there were a war,\nother nations would not let us gain any advantage from it; while\nthe soldiers refuse to fire on their fellow-countrymen.\n\nAnd what is the use of these lawyers and judges who don't decide\ncivil cases with justice and recognize themselves the uselessness\nof punishments in criminal cases?\n\nAnd what is the use of tax collectors who collect the taxes\nunwillingly, when it is easy to raise all that is wanted without\nthem?\n\nWhat is the use of the clergy, who don't believe in what they\npreach?\n\nAnd what is the use of capital in the hands of private persons,\nwhen it can only be of use as the property of all?\n\nAnd when once people have asked themselves these questions they\ncannot help coming to some decision and ceasing to support all\nthese institutions which are no longer of use.\n\nBut even before those who support these institutions decide to\nabolish them, the men who occupy these positions will be reduced\nto the necessity of throwing them up.\n\nPublic opinion more and more condemns the use of force, and\ntherefore men are less and less willing to fill positions which\nrest on the use of force, and if they do occupy them, are less and\nless able to make use of force in them. And hence they must become\nmore and more superfluous.\n\nI once took part in Moscow in a religious meeting which used to\ntake place generally in the week after Easter near the church in\nthe Ohotny Row. A little knot of some twenty men were collected\ntogether on the pavement, engaged in serious religious discussion.\nAt the same time there was a kind of concert going on in the\nbuildings of the Court Club in the same street, and a police\nofficer noticing the little group collected near the church sent a\nmounted policeman to disperse it. It was absolutely unnecessary\nfor the officer to disperse it. A group of twenty men was no\nobstruction to anyone, but he had been standing there the whole\nmorning, and he wanted to do something. The policeman, a young\nfellow, with a resolute flourish of his right arm and a clink of\nhis saber, came up to us and commanded us severely: \"Move on!\nwhat's this meeting about?\" Everyone looked at the policeman, and\none of the speakers, a quiet man in a peasant's dress, answered\nwith a calm and gracious air, \"We are speaking of serious matters,\nand there is no need for us to move on; you would do better, young\nman, to get off your horse and listen. It might do you good\";\nand turning round he continued his discourse. The policeman\nturned his horse and went off without a word.\n\nThat is just what should be done in all cases of violence.\n\nThe officer was bored, he had nothing to do. He had been put,\npoor fellow, in a position in which he had no choice but to give\norders. He was shut off from all human existence; he could do\nnothing but superintend and give orders, and give orders and\nsuperintend, though his superintendence and his orders served no\nuseful purpose whatever. And this is the position in which all\nthese unlucky rulers, ministers, members of parliament, governors,\ngenerals, officers, archbishops, priests, and even rich men find\nthemselves to some extent already, and will find themselves\naltogether as time goes on. They can do nothing but give orders,\nand they give orders and send their messengers, as the officer\nsent the policeman, to interfere with people. And because the\npeople they hinder turn to them and request them not to interfere,\nthey fancy they are very useful indeed.\n\nBut the time will come and is coming when it will be perfectly\nevident to everyone that they are not of any use at all, and only\na hindrance, and those whom they interfere with will say gently\nand quietly to them, like my friend in the street meeting, \"Pray\ndon't interfere with us.\" And all the messengers and those who\nsend them too will be obliged to follow this good advice, that is\nto say, will leave off galloping about, with their arms akimbo,\ninterfering with people, and getting off their horses and removing\ntheir spurs, will listen to what is being said, and mixing with\nothers, will take their place with them in some real human work.\n\nThe time will come and is inevitably coming when all institutions\nbased on force will disappear through their uselessness,\nstupidity, and even inconvenience becoming obvious to all.\n\nThe time must come when the men of our modern world who fill\noffices based upon violence will find themselves in the position\nof the emperor in Andersen's tale of \"The Emperor's New Clothes,\"\nwhen the child seeing the emperor undressed, cried in all\nsimplicity, \"Look, he is naked!\" And then all the rest, who had\nseen him and said nothing, could not help recognizing it too.\n\nThe story is that there was once an emperor, very fond of new\nclothes. And to him came two tailors, who promised to make him\nsome extraordinary clothes. The emperor engages them and they\nbegin to sew at them, but they explain that the clothes have the\nextraordinary property of remaining invisible to anyone who is\nunfit for his position. The courtiers come to look at the\ntailors' work and see nothing, for the men are plying their\nneedles in empty space. But remembering the extraordinary\nproperty of the clothes, they all declare they see them and are\nloud in their admiration. The emperor does the same himself. The\nday of the procession comes in which the emperor is to go out in\nhis new clothes. The emperor undresses and puts on his new\nclothes, that is to say, remains naked, and naked he walks through\nthe town. But remembering the magic property of the clothes, no\none ventures to say that he has nothing on till a little child\ncries out: \"Look, he is naked!\"\n\nThis will be exactly the situation of all who continue through\ninertia to fill offices which have long become useless directly\nsomeone who has no interest in concealing their uselessness\nexclaims in all simplicity: \"But these people have been of no use\nto anyone for a long time past!\"\n\nThe condition of Christian humanity with its fortresses, cannons,\ndynamite, guns, torpedoes, prisons, gallows, churches, factories,\ncustoms offices, and palaces is really terrible. But still\ncannons and guns will not fire themselves, prisons will not shut\nmen up of themselves, gallows will not hang them, churches will\nnot delude them, nor customs offices hinder them, and palaces and\nfactories are not built nor kept up of themselves. All those\nthings are the work of men. If men come to understand that they\nought not to do these things, then they will cease to be. And\nalready they are beginning to understand it. Though all do not\nunderstand it yet, the advanced guard understand and the rest will\nfollow them. And the advanced guard cannot cease to understand\nwhat they have once understood; and what they understand the rest\nnot only can but must inevitably understand hereafter.\n\nSo that the prophecy that the time will come when men will be\ntaught of God, will learn war no more, will beat their swords into\nplowshares and their spears into reaping-hooks, which means,\ntranslating it into our language, the fortresses, prisons,\nbarracks, palaces, and churches will remain empty, and all the\ngibbets and guns and cannons will be left unused, is no longer a\ndream, but the definite new form of life to which mankind is\napproaching with ever-increasing rapidity.\n\nBut when will it be?\n\nEighteen hundred years ago to this question Christ answered\nthat the end of the world (that is, of the pagan organization of\nlife) shall come when the tribulation of men is greater than it\nhas ever been, and when the Gospel of the kingdom of God, that is,\nthe possibility of a new organization of life, shall be preached\nin the world unto all nations. (Matt. xxiv. 3-28.) But of that\nday and hour knoweth no man but the Father only (Matt. xxiv. 3-6),\nsaid Christ. For it may come any time, in such an hour as\nye think not.\n\nTo the question when this hour cometh Christ answers that we\ncannot know, but just because we cannot know when that hour is\ncoming we ought to be always ready to meet it, just as the master\nought to watch who guards his house from thieves, as the virgins\nought to watch with lamps alight for the bridegroom; and further,\nwe ought to work with all the powers given us to bring that hour\nto pass, as the servants ought to work with the talents intrusted\nto them. (Matt. xxiv. 43, and xxvi. 13, 14-30.) And there could\nbe no answer but this one. Men cannot know when the day and the\nhour of the kingdom of God will come, because its coming depends\non themselves alone.\n\nThe answer is like that of the wise man who, when asked whether it\nwas far to the town, answered, \"Walk!\"\n\nHow can we tell whether it is far to the goal which humanity is\napproaching, when we do not know how men are going toward it,\nwhile it depends on them whether they go or do not go, stand\nstill, slacken their pace or hasten it? All we can know is what\nwe who make up mankind ought to do, and not to do, to bring about\nthe coming of the kingdom of God. And that we all know. And we\nneed only each begin to do what we ought to do, we need only each\nlive with all the light that is in us, to bring about at once the\npromised kingdom of God to which every man's heart is yearning.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nCONCLUSION--REPENT YE, FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND.\n\n1. Chance Meeting with a Train Carrying Soldiers to Restore Order\nAmong the Famishing Peasants--Reason of the Expedition--How the\nDecisions of the Higher Authorities are Enforced in Cases of\nInsubordination on Part of the Peasants--What Happened at Orel, as\nan Example of How the Rights of the Propertied Classes are\nMaintained by Murder and Torture--All the Privileges of the\nWealthy are Based on Similar Acts of Violence.\n\n2. The Elements that Made up the Force Sent to Toula, and the Conduct of\nthe Men Composing it--How these Men Could Carry Out such Acts--The\nExplanation is Not to be Found in Ignorance, Conviction, Cruelty,\nHeartlessness, or Want of Moral Sense--They do these Things Because they\nare Necessary to Support the Existing Order, which they Consider it\nEvery Man's Duty to Support--The Basis of this Conviction that the\nExisting Order is Necessary and Inevitable--In the Upper Classes this\nConviction is Based on the Advantages of the Existing Order for\nThemselves--But what Forces Men of the Lower Classes to Believe in the\nImmutability of the Existing Order, from which they Derive no Advantage,\nand which they Aid in Maintaining, Facts Contrary to their\nConscience?--This is the Result of the Lower Classes being Deluded by\nthe Upper, Both as to the Inevitability of the Existing Order and the\nLawfulness of the Acts of Violence Needed to Maintain it--Deception in\nGeneral--Special Form of Deception in Regard to Military\nService--Conscription.\n\n3. How can Men Allow that Murder is Permissible while they Preach\nPrinciples of Morality, and How can they Allow of the Existence in their\nMidst of a Military Organization of Physical Force which is a Constant\nMenace to Public Security?--It is only Allowed by the Upper Classes, who\nProfit by this Organization, Because their Privileges are Maintained by\nit--The Upper Classes Allow it, and the Lower Classes Carry it into\nEffect in Spite of their Consciousness of the Immorality of the Deeds of\nViolence, the More Readily Because Through the Arrangements of the\nGovernment the Moral Responsibility for such Deeds is Divided among a\nGreat Number of Participants in it, and Everyone Throws the\nResponsibility on Someone Else--Moreover, the Sense of Moral\nResponsibility is Lost through the Delusion of Inequality, and the\nConsequent Intoxication of Power on the Part of Superiors, and Servility\non the Part of Inferiors--The Condition of these Men, Acting against the\nDictates of their Conscience, is Like that of Hypnotized Subjects Acting\nby Suggestion--The Difference between this Obedience to Government\nSuggestion, and Obedience to Public Opinion, and to the Guidance of Men\nof a Higher Moral Sense--The Existing Order of Society, which is the\nResult of an Extinct Public Opinion and is Inconsistent with the Already\nExisting Public Opinion of the Future, is only Maintained by the\nStupefaction of the Conscience, Produced Spontaneously by Self-interest\nin the Upper Classes and Through Hypnotizing in the Lower Classes--The\nConscience or the Common Sense of such Men may Awaken, and there are\nExamples of its Sudden Awakening, so that one can Never be Sure of the\nDeeds of Violence they are Prepared for--It Depends Entirely on the\nPoint which the Sense of the Unlawfulness of Acts of Violence has\nReached, and this Sense may Spontaneously Awaken in Men, or may be\nReawakened by the Influence of Men of more Conscience.\n\n4. Everything Depends on the Strength of the Consciousness of\nChristian Truths in Each Individual Man--The Leading Men of Modern\nTimes, however, do not Think it Necessary to Preach or Practice\nthe Truths of Christianity, but Regard the Modification of the\nExternal Conditions of Existence within the Limit Imposed by\nGovernments as Sufficient to Reform the Life of Humanity--On this\nScientific Theory of Hypocrisy, which has Replaced the Hypocrisy\nof Religion, Men of the Wealthy Classes Base their Justification\nof their Position--Through this Hypocrisy they can Enjoy the\nExclusive Privileges of their Position by Force and Fraud, and\nStill Pretend to be Christians to One Another and be Easy in their\nMinds--This Hypocrisy Allows Men who Preach Christianity to Take\nPart in Institutions Based on Violence--No External Reformation of\nLife will Render it Less Miserable--Its Misery the Result of\nDisunion Caused by Following Lies, not the Truth--Union only\nPossible in Truth--Hypocrisy Hinders this Union, since Hypocrites\nConceal from themselves and Others the Truth they Know--Hypocrisy\nTurns all Reforms of Life to Evil--Hypocrisy Distorts the Idea of\nGood and Evil, and so Stands in the Way of the Progress of Men\ntoward Perfection--Undisguised Criminals and Malefactors do Less\nHarm than those who Live by Legalized Violence, Disguised by\nHypocrisy--All Men Feel the Iniquity of our Life, and would Long\nAgo have Transformed it if it had not been Dissimulated by\nHypocrisy--But Seem to have Reached the Extreme Limits of\nHypocrisy, and we Need only Make an Effort of Conscience to Awaken\nas from a Nightmare to a Different Reality.\n\n5. Can Man Make this Effort?--According to the Hypocritical Theory\nof the Day, Man is not Free to Transform his Life--Man is not Free\nin his Actions, but he is Free to Admit or to Deny the Truth he\nKnows--When Truth is Once Admitted, it Becomes the Basis of\nAction--Man's Threefold Relation to Truth--The Reason of the\nApparent Insolubility of the Problem of Free Will--Man's Freedom\nConsists in the Recognition of the Truth Revealed to him. There\nis no Other Freedom--Recognition of Truth Gives Freedom, and Shows\nthe Path Along which, Willingly or Unwillingly by Mankind, Man\nMust Advance--The Recognition of Truth and Real Freedom Enables\nMan to Share in the Work of God, not as the Slave, but as the\nCreator of Life--Men Need only Make the Effort to Renounce all\nThought of Bettering the External Conditions of Life and Bend all\ntheir Efforts to Recognizing and Preaching the Truth they Know, to\nput an End to the Existing Miserable State of Things, and to Enter\nupon the Kingdom of God so far as it is yet Accessible to Man--All\nthat is Needed is to Make an End of Lying and Hypocrisy--But then\nwhat Awaits us in the Future?--What will Happen to Humanity if Men\nFollow the Dictates of their Conscience, and how can Life go on\nwith the Conditions of Civilized Life to which we are Accustomed?\n--All Uneasiness on these Points may be Removed by the Reflection\nthat Nothing True and Good can be Destroyed by the Realization of\nTruth, but will only be Freed from the Alloy of Falsehood.\n\n6. Our Life has Reached the Extreme Limit of Misery and Cannot be\nImproved by any Systems of Organization--All our Life and all our\nInstitutions are Quite Meaningless--Are we Doing what God Wills of us by\nPreserving our Privileges and Duties to Government?--We are put in this\nPosition not Because the World is so Made and it is Inevitable, but\nBecause we Wish it to be so, Because it is to the Advantage of Some of\nus--Our Conscience is in Opposition to our Position and all our Conduct,\nand the Way Out of the Contradiction is to be Found in the Recognition\nof the Christian Truth: Do Not unto Others what you Would Not they\nshould Do unto You--As our Duties to Self Must be Subordinated to our\nDuties to Others, so Must our Duties to Others be Subordinated to our\nDuties to God--The Only Way Out of our Position Lies, if not in\nRenouncing our Position and our Privileges, at Least in Recognizing our\nSin and not Justifying it nor Disguising it--The Only Object of Life is\nto Learn the Truth and to Act on it--Acceptance of the Position and of\nState Action Deprives Life of all Object--It is God's Will that we\nshould Serve Him in our Life, that is, that we should Bring About the\nGreatest Unity of all that has Life, a Unity only Possible in Truth.\n\n\nI was finishing this book, which I had been working at for two\nyears, when I happened on the 9th of September to be traveling by\nrail through the governments of Toula and Riazan, where the\npeasants were starving last year and where the famine is even more\nsevere now. At one of the railway stations my train passed an\nextra train which was taking a troop of soldiers under the conduct\nof the governor of the province, together with muskets,\ncartridges, and rods, to flog and murder these same famishing\npeasants.\n\nThe punishment of flogging by way of carrying the decrees of the\nauthorities into effect has been more and more frequently adopted\nof late in Russia, in spite of the fact that corporal punishment\nwas abolished by law thirty years ago.\n\nI had heard of this, I had even read in the newspapers of the\nfearful floggings which had been inflicted in Tchernigov, Tambov,\nSaratov, Astrakhan, and Orel, and of those of which the governor\nof Nijni-Novgorod, General Baranov, had boasted. But I had never\nbefore happened to see men in the process of carrying out these\npunishments.\n\nAnd here I saw the spectacle of good Russians full of the\nChristian spirit traveling with guns and rods to torture and kill\ntheir starving brethren. The reason for their expedition was as\nfollows:\n\nOn one of the estates of a rich landowner the peasants had common\nrights on the forest, and having always enjoyed these rights,\nregarded the forest as their own, or at least as theirs in common\nwith the owner. The landowner wished to keep the forest entirely\nto himself and began to fell the trees. The peasants lodged a\ncomplaint. The judges in the first instance gave an unjust\ndecision (I say unjust on the authority of the lawyer and\ngovernor, who ought to understand the matter), and decided the\ncase in favor of the landowner. All the later decisions, even\nthat of the senate, though they could see that the matter had been\nunjustly decided, confirmed the judgment and adjudged the forest\nto the landowner. He began to cut down the trees, but the\npeasants, unable to believe that such obvious injustice could be\ndone them by the higher authorities, did not submit to the\ndecision and drove away the men sent to cut down the trees,\ndeclaring that the forest belonged to them and they would go to\nthe Tzar before they would let them cut it down.\n\nThe matter was referred to Petersburg, and the order was\ntransmitted to the governor to carry the decision of the court\ninto effect. The governor asked for a troop of soldiers. And\nhere were the soldiers with bayonets and cartridges, and moreover,\na supply of rods, expressly prepared for the purpose and heaped up\nin one of the trucks, going to carry the decision of the higher\nauthorities into effect.\n\nThe decisions of the higher authorities are carried into effect by\nmeans of murder or torture, or threats of one or the other,\naccording to whether they offer resistance or not.\n\nIn the first case if the peasants offer resistance the practice is\nin Russia, and it is the same everywhere where a state\norganization and private property exist, as follows. The governor\ndelivers an address in which he demands submission. The excited\ncrowd, generally deluded by their leaders, don't understand a word\nof what the representative of authority is saying in the pompous\nofficial language, and their excitement continues. Then the\ngovernor announces that if they do not submit and disperse, he\nwill be obliged to have recourse to force. If the crowd does not\ndisperse even on this, the governor gives the order to fire over\nthe heads of the crowd. If the crowd does not even then disperse,\nthe governor gives the order to fire straight into the crowd; the\nsoldiers fire and the killed and wounded fall about the street.\nThen the crowd usually runs away in all directions, and the troops\nat the governor's command take those who are supposed to be the\nringleaders and lead them off under escort. Then they pick up the\ndying, the wounded, and the dead, covered with blood, sometimes\nwomen and children among them. The dead they bury and the wounded\nthey carry to the hospital. Those whom they regard as the\nringleaders they take to the town hall and have them tried by a\nspecial court-martial. And if they have had recourse to violence\non their side, they are condemned to be hanged. And then the\ngallows is erected. And they solemnly strangle a few defenseless\ncreatures.\n\nThis is what has often been done in Russia, and is and must always\nbe done where the social order is based on force.\n\nBut in the second case, when the peasants do submit, something\nquite special, peculiar to Russia, takes place. The governor\narrives on the scene of action and delivers an harangue to the\npeople, reproaching them for their insubordination, and either\nstations troops in the houses of the villages, where sometimes for\na whole month the soldiers drain the resources of the peasants, or\ncontenting himself with threats, he mercifully takes leave of the\npeople, or what is the most frequent course, he announces that the\nringleaders must be punished, and quite arbitrarily without any\ntrial selects a certain number of men, regarded as ringleaders,\nand commands them to be flogged in his presence.\n\nIn order to give an idea of how such things are done I will\ndescribe a proceeding of the kind which took place in Orel, and\nreceived the full approval of the highest authorities.\n\nThis is what took place in Orel. Just as here in the Toula\nprovince, a landlord wanted to appropriate the property of the\npeasants and just in the same way the peasants opposed it. The\nmatter in dispute was a fall of water, which irrigated the\npeasants' fields, and which the landowner wanted to cut off and\ndivert to turn his mill. The peasants rebelled against this being\ndone. The land owner laid a complaint before the district\ncommander, who illegally (as was recognized later even by a legal\ndecision) decided the matter in favor of the landowner, and\nallowed him to divert the water course. The landowner sent\nworkmen to dig the conduit by which the water was to be let off to\nturn the mill. The peasants were indignant at this unjust\ndecision, and sent their women to prevent the landowner's men from\ndigging this conduit. The women went to the dykes, overturned the\ncarts, and drove away the men. The landowner made a complaint\nagainst the women for thus taking the law into their own hands.\nThe district commander made out an order that from every house\nthroughout the village one woman was to be taken and put in prison.\nThe order was not easily executed. For in every household there\nwere several women, and it was impossible to know which one was to\nbe arrested. Consequently the police did not carry out the order.\nThe landowner complained to the governor of the neglect on the\npart of the police, and the latter, without examining into the\naffair, gave the chief official of the police strict orders to\ncarry out the instructions of the district commander without\ndelay. The police official, in obedience to his superior, went to\nthe village and with the insolence peculiar to Russian officials\nordered his policemen to take one woman out of each house. But\nsince there were more than one woman in each house, and there was\nno knowing which one was sentenced to imprisonment, disputes and\nopposition arose. In spite of these disputes and opposition,\nhowever, the officer of police gave orders that some woman,\nwhichever came first, should be taken from each household and led\naway to prison. The peasants began to defend their wives and\nmothers, would not let them go, and beat the police and their\nofficer. This was a fresh and terrible crime: resistance was\noffered to the authorities. A report of this new offense was sent\nto the town. And so this governor--precisely as the governor of\nToula was doing on that day--with a battalion of soldiers with\nguns and rods, hastily brought together by means of telegraphs and\ntelephones and railways, proceeded by a special train to the scene\nof action, with a learned doctor whose duty it was to insure the\nflogging being of an hygienic character. Herzen's prophecy of the\nmodern Ghenghis Khan with his telegrams is completely realized by\nthis governor.\n\nBefore the town hall of the district were the soldiery, a\nbattalion of police with their revolvers slung round them with red\ncords, the persons of most importance among the peasants, and the\nculprits. A crowd of one thousand or more people were standing\nround. The governor, on arriving, stepped out of his carriage,\ndelivered a prepared harangue, and asked for the culprits and a\nbench. The latter demand was at first not understood. But a\npolice constable whom the governor always took about with him, and\nwho undertook to organize such executions--by no means exceptional\nin that province--explained that what was meant was a bench for\nflogging. A bench was brought as well as the rods, and then the\nexecutioners were summoned (the latter had been selected\nbeforehand from some horsestealers of the same village, as the\nsoldiers refused the office). When everything was ready, the\ngovernor ordered the first of the twelve culprits pointed out by\nthe landowner as the most guilty to come forward. The first to\ncome forward was the head of a family, a man of forty who had\nalways stood up manfully for the rights of his class, and\ntherefore was held in the greatest esteem by all the villagers.\nHe was led to the bench and stripped, and then ordered to lie\ndown.\n\nThe peasant attempted to supplicate for mercy, but seeing it was\nuseless, he crossed himself and lay down. Two police constables\nhastened to hold him down. The learned doctor stood by, in\nreadiness to give his aid and his medical science when they should\nbe needed. The convicts spit into their hands, brandished the\nrods, and began to flog. It seemed, however, that the bench was\ntoo narrow, and it was difficult to keep the victim writhing in\ntorture upon it. Then the governor ordered them to bring another\nbench and to put a plank across them. Soldiers, with their hands\nraised to their caps, and respectful murmurs of \"Yes, your\nExcellency,\" hasten obediently to carry out this order. Meanwhile\nthe tortured man, half naked, pale and scowling, stood waiting,\nhis eyes fixed on the ground and his teeth chattering. When\nanother bench had been brought they again made him lie down, and\nthe convicted thieves again began to flog him.\n\nThe victim's back and thighs and legs, and even his sides, became\nmore and more covered with scars and wheals, and at every blow\nthere came the sound of the deep groans which he could no longer\nrestrain. In the crowd standing round were heard the sobs of\nwives, mothers, children, the families of the tortured man and of\nall the others picked out for punishment.\n\nThe miserable governor, intoxicated with power, was counting the\nstrokes on his fingers, and never left off smoking cigarettes,\nwhile several officious persons hastened on every opportunity to\noffer him a burning match to light them. When more than fifty\nstrokes had been given, the peasant ceased to shriek and writhe,\nand the doctor, who had been educated in a government institution\nto serve his sovereign and his country with his scientific\nattainments, went up to the victim, felt his pulse, listened to\nhis heart, and announced to the representative of authority that\nthe man undergoing punishment had lost consciousness, and that, in\naccordance with the conclusions of science, to continue the\npunishment would endanger the victim's life. But the miserable\ngovernor, now completely intoxicated by the sight of blood, gave\norders that the punishment should go on, and the flogging was\ncontinued up to seventy strokes, the number which the governor had\nfor some reason fixed upon as necessary. When the seventieth\nstroke had been reached, the governor said \"Enough! Next one!\"\nAnd the mutilated victim, his back covered with blood, was lifted\nup and carried away unconscious, and another was led up. The sobs\nand groans of the crowd grew louder. But the representative of\nthe state continued the torture.\n\nThus they flogged each of them up to the twelfth, and each of them\nreceived seventy strokes. They all implored mercy, shrieked and\ngroaned. The sobs and cries of the crowd of women grew louder and\nmore heart-rending, and the men's faces grew darker and darker.\nBut they were surrounded by troops, and the torture did not cease\ntill it had reached the limit which had been fixed by the caprice\nof the miserable half-drunken and insane creature they called the\ngovernor.\n\nThe officials, and officers, and soldiers not only assisted in it,\nbut were even partly responsible for the affair, since by their\npresence they prevented any interference on the part of the crowd.\n\nWhen I inquired of one of the governors why they made use of this\nkind of torture when people had already submitted and soldiers\nwere stationed in the village, he replied with the important air\nof a man who thoroughly understands all the subtleties of\nstatecraft, that if the peasants were not thoroughly subdued by\nflogging, they would begin offering opposition to the decisions of\nauthorities again. When some of them had been thoroughly\ntortured, the authority of the state would be secured forever\namong them.\n\nAnd so that was why the Governor of Toula was going in his turn\nwith his subordinate officials, officers, and soldiers to carry\nout a similar measure. By precisely the same means, i. e., by\nmurder and torture, obedience to the decision of the higher\nauthorities was to be secured. And this decision was to enable a\nyoung landowner, who had an income of one hundred thousand, to\ngain three thousand rubles more by stealing a forest from a whole\ncommunity of cold and famished peasants, to spend it, in two or\nthree weeks in the saloons of Moscow, Petersburg, or Paris. That\nwas what those people whom I met were going to do.\n\nAfter my thoughts had for two years been turned in the same\ndirection, fate seemed expressly to have brought me face to face\nfor the first time in my life with a fact which showed me\nabsolutely unmistakably in practice what had long been clear to me\nin theory, that the organization of our society rests, not as\npeople interested in maintaining the present order of things like\nto imagine, on certain principles of jurisprudence, but on simple\nbrute force, on the murder and torture of men.\n\nPeople who own great estates or fortunes, or who receive great\nrevenues drawn from the class who are in want even of necessities,\nthe working class, as well as all those who like merchants,\ndoctors, artists, clerks, learned professors, coachmen, cooks,\nwriters, valets, and barristers, make their living about these\nrich people, like to believe that the privileges they enjoy are\nnot the result of force, but of absolutely free and just\ninterchange of services, and that their advantages, far from being\ngained by such punishments and murders as took place in Orel and\nseveral parts of Russia this year, and are always taking place all\nover Europe and America, have no kind of connection with these\nacts of violence. They like to believe that their privileges\nexist apart and are the result of free contract among people; and\nthat the violent cruelties perpetrated on the people also exist\napart and are the result of some general judicial, political, or\neconomical laws. They try not to see that they all enjoy their\nprivileges as a result of the same fact which forces the peasants\nwho have tended the forest, and who are in the direct need of it\nfor fuel, to give it up to a rich landowner who has taken no part\nin caring for its growth and has no need of it whatever--the fact,\nthat is, that if they don't give it up they will be flogged or\nkilled.\n\nAnd yet if it is clear that it was only by means of menaces, blows, or\nmurder, that the mill in Orel was enabled to yield a larger income, or\nthat the forest which the peasants had planted became the property of a\nlandowner, it should be equally clear that all the other exclusive\nrights enjoyed by the rich, by robbing the poor of their necessities,\nrest on the same basis of violence. If the peasants, who need land to\nmaintain their families, may not cultivate the land about their houses,\nbut one man, a Russian, English, Austrian, or any other great landowner,\npossesses land enough to maintain a thousand families, though he does\nnot cultivate it himself, and if a merchant profiting by the misery of\nthe cultivators, taking corn from them at a third of its value, can keep\nthis corn in his granaries with perfect security while men are starving\nall around him, and sell it again for three times its value to the very\ncultivators he bought it from, it is evident that all this too comes\nfrom the same cause. And if one man may not buy of another a commodity\nfrom the other side of a certain fixed line, called the frontier,\nwithout paying certain duties on it to men who have taken no part\nwhatever in its production--and if men are driven to sell their last cow\nto pay taxes which the government distributes among its functionaries,\nand spends on maintaining soldiers to murder these very taxpayers--it\nwould appear self-evident that all this does not come about as the\nresult of any abstract laws, but is based on just what was done in Orel,\nand which may be done in Toula, and is done periodically in one form or\nanother throughout the whole world wherever there is a government, and\nwhere there are rich and poor.\n\nSimply because torture and murder are not employed in every\ninstance of oppression by force, those who enjoy the exclusive\nprivileges of the ruling classes persuade themselves and others\nthat their privileges are not based on torture and murder, but on\nsome mysterious general causes, abstract laws, and so on. Yet one\nwould think it was perfectly clear that if men, who consider it\nunjust (and all the working classes do consider it so nowadays),\nstill pay the principal part of the produce of their labor away to\nthe capitalist and the landowner, and pay taxes, though they know\nto what a bad use these taxes are put, they do so not from\nrecognition of abstract laws of which they have never heard, but\nonly because they know they will be beaten and killed if they\ndon't do so.\n\nAnd if there is no need to imprison, beat, and kill men every time\nthe landlord collects his rents, every time those who are in want\nof bread have to pay a swindling merchant three times its value,\nevery time the factory hand has to be content with a wage less\nthan half of the profit made by the employer, and every time a\npoor man pays his last ruble in taxes, it is because so many men\nhave been beaten and killed for trying to resist these demands,\nthat the lesson has now been learnt very thoroughly.\n\nJust as a trained tiger, who does not eat meat put under his nose,\nand jumps over a stick at the word of command, does not act thus\nbecause he likes it, but because he remembers the red-hot irons or\nthe fast with which he was punished every time he did not obey; so\nmen submitting to what is disadvantageous or even ruinous to them,\nand considered by them as unjust, act thus because they remember\nwhat they suffered for resisting it.\n\nAs for those who profit by the privileges gained by previous acts\nof violence, they often forget and like to forget how these\nprivileges were obtained. But one need only recall the facts of\nhistory, not the history of the exploits of different dynasties of\nrulers, but real history, the history of the oppression of the\nmajority by a small number of men, to see that all the advantages\nthe rich have over the poor are based on nothing but flogging,\nimprisonment, and murder.\n\nOne need but reflect on the unceasing, persistent struggle of all\nto better their material position, which is the guiding motive of\nmen of the present day, to be convinced that the advantages of the\nrich over the poor could never and can never be maintained by\nanything but force.\n\nThere may be cases of oppression, of violence, and of punishments,\nthough they are rare, the aim of which is not to secure the\nprivileges of the propertied classes. But one may confidently\nassert that in any society where, for every man living in ease,\nthere are ten exhausted by labor, envious, covetous, and often\nsuffering with their families from direct privation, all the\nprivileges of the rich, all their luxuries and superfluities, are\nobtained and maintained only by tortures, imprisonment, and\nmurder.\n\nThe train I met on the 9th of September going with soldiers, guns,\ncartridges, and rods, to confirm the rich landowner in the\npossession of a small forest which he had taken from the starving\npeasants, which they were in the direst need of, and he was in no\nneed of at all, was a striking proof of how men are capable of\ndoing deeds directly opposed to their principles and their\nconscience without perceiving it.\n\nThe special train consisted of one first-class carriage for the\ngovernor, the officials, and officers, and several luggage vans\ncrammed full of soldiers. The latter, smart young fellows in\ntheir clean new uniforms, were standing about in groups or sitting\nswinging their legs in the wide open doorways of the luggage vans.\nSome were smoking, nudging each other, joking, grinning, and\nlaughing, others were munching sunflower seeds and spitting out\nthe husks with an air of dignity. Some of them ran along the\nplatform to drink some water from a tub there, and when they met\nthe officers they slackened their pace, made their stupid gesture\nof salutation, raising their hands to their heads with serious\nfaces as though they were doing something of the greatest\nimportance. They kept their eyes on them till they had passed by\nthem, and then set off running still more merrily, stamping their\nheels on the platform, laughing and chattering after the manner of\nhealthy, good-natured young fellows, traveling in lively company.\n\nThey were going to assist at the murder of their fathers or\ngrandfathers just as if they were going on a party of pleasure, or\nat any rate on some quite ordinary business.\n\nThe same impression was produced by the well-dressed functionaries\nand officers who were scattered about the platform and in the\nfirst-class carriage. At a table covered with bottles was sitting\nthe governor, who was responsible for the whole expedition,\ndressed in his half-military uniform and eating something while he\nchatted tranquilly about the weather with some acquaintances he\nhad met, as though the business he was upon was of so simple and\nordinary a character that it could not disturb his serenity and\nhis interest in the change of weather.\n\nAt a little distance from the table sat the general of the police.\nHe was not taking any refreshment, and had an impenetrable bored\nexpression, as though he were weary of the formalities to be gone\nthrough. On all sides officers were bustling noisily about in\ntheir red uniforms trimmed with gold; one sat at a table finishing\nhis bottle of beer, another stood at the buffet eating a cake, and\nbrushing the crumbs off his uniform, threw down his money with a\nself-confident air; another was sauntering before the carriages of\nour train, staring at the faces of the women.\n\nAll these men who were going to murder or to torture the famishing\nand defenseless creatures who provide them their sustenance had\nthe air of men who knew very well that they were doing their duty,\nand some were even proud, were \"glorying\" in what they were doing.\n\nWhat is the meaning of it?\n\nAll these people are within half an hour of reaching the place\nwhere, in order to provide a wealthy young man with three thousand\nrubles stolen from a whole community of famishing peasants, they\nmay be forced to commit the most horrible acts one can conceive,\nto murder or torture, as was done in Orel, innocent beings, their\nbrothers. And they see the place and time approaching with\nuntroubled serenity.\n\nTo say that all these government officials, officers, and soldiers\ndo not know what is before them is impossible, for they are\nprepared for it. The governor must have given directions about\nthe rods, the officials must have sent an order for them,\npurchased them, and entered the item in their accounts. The\nmilitary officers have given and received orders about cartridges.\nThey all know that they are going to torture, perhaps to kill,\ntheir famishing fellow-creatures, and that they must set to work\nwithin an hour.\n\nTo say, as is usually said, and as they would themselves repeat,\nthat they are acting from conviction of the necessity for\nsupporting the state organization, would be a mistake. For in the\nfirst place, these men have probably never even thought about\nstate organization and the necessity of it; in the second place,\nthey cannot possibly be convinced that the act in which they are\ntaking part will tend to support rather than to ruin the state;\nand thirdly, in reality the majority, if not all, of these men,\nfar from ever sacrificing their own pleasure or tranquillity to\nsupport the state, never let slip an opportunity of profiting at\nthe expense of the state in every way they can increase their own\npleasure and ease. So that they are not acting thus for the sake\nof the abstract principle of the state.\n\nWhat is the meaning of it?\n\nYet I know all these men. If I don't know all of them personally,\nI know their characters pretty nearly, their past, and their way\nof thinking. They certainly all have mothers, some of them wives\nand children. They are certainly for the most part good, kind,\neven tender-hearted fellows, who hate every sort of cruelty, not\nto speak of murder; many of them would not kill or hurt an animal.\nMoreover, they are all professed Christians and regard all\nviolence directed against the defenseless as base and disgraceful.\n\nCertainly not one of them would be capable in everyday life, for\nhis own personal profit, of doing a hundredth part of what the\nGovernor of Orel did. Every one of them would be insulted at the\nsupposition that he was capable of doing anything of the kind in\nprivate life.\n\nAnd yet they are within half an hour of reaching the place where\nthey may be reduced to the inevitable necessity of committing this\ncrime.\n\nWhat is the meaning of it?\n\nBut it is not only these men who are going by train prepared for\nmurder and torture. How could the men who began the whole\nbusiness, the landowner, the commissioner, the judges, and those\nwho gave the order and are responsible for it, the ministers, the\nTzar, who are also good men, professed Christians, how could they\nelaborate such a plan and assent to it, knowing its consequences?\nThe spectators even, who took no part in the affair, how could\nthey, who are indignant at the sight of any cruelty in private\nlife, even the overtaxing of a horse, allow such a horrible deed\nto be perpetrated? How was it they did not rise in indignation\nand bar the roads, shouting, \"No; flog and kill starving men\nbecause they won't let their last possession be stolen from them\nwithout resistance, that we won't allow!\" But far from anyone\ndoing this, the majority, even of those who were the cause of the\naffair, such as the commissioner, the landowner, the judge, and\nthose who took part in it and arranged it, as the governor, the\nministers, and the Tzar, are perfectly tranquil and do not even\nfeel a prick of conscience. And apparently all the men who are\ngoing to carry out this crime are equally undisturbed.\n\nThe spectators, who one would suppose could have no personal\ninterest in the affair, looked rather with sympathy than with\ndisapproval at all these people preparing to carry out this\ninfamous action. In the same compartment with me was a wood\nmerchant, who had risen from a peasant. He openly expressed aloud\nhis sympathy with such punishments. \"They can't disobey the\nauthorities,\" he said; \"that's what the authorities are for. Let\nthem have a lesson; send their fleas flying! They'll give over\nmaking commotions, I warrant you. That's what they want.\"\n\nWhat is the meaning of it?\n\nIt is not possible to say that all these people who have provoked\nor aided or allowed this deed are such worthless creatures that,\nknowing all the infamy of what they are doing, they do it against\ntheir principles, some for pay and for profit, others through fear\nof punishment. All of them in certain circumstances know how to\nstand up for their principles. Not one of these officials would\nsteal a purse, read another man's letter, or put up with an\naffront without demanding satisfaction. Not one of these officers\nwould consent to cheat at cards, would refuse to pay a debt of\nhonor, would betray a comrade, run away on the field of battle, or\ndesert the flag. Not one of these soldiers would spit out the\nholy sacrament or eat meat on Good Friday. All these men are\nready to face any kind of privation, suffering, or danger rather\nthan consent to do what they regard as wrong. They have therefore\nthe strength to resist doing what is against their principles.\n\nIt is even less possible to assert that all these men are such\nbrutes that it is natural and not distasteful to them to do such\ndeeds. One need only talk to these people a little to see that\nall of them, the landowner even, and the judge, and the minister\nand the Tzar and the government, the officers and the soldiers,\nnot only disapprove of such things in the depth of their soul, but\nsuffer from the consciousness of their participation in them when\nthey recollect what they imply. But they try not to think about\nit.\n\nOne need only talk to any of these who are taking part in the\naffair from the landowner to the lowest policeman or soldier to\nsee that in the depth of their soul they all know it is a wicked\nthing, that it would be better to have nothing to do with it, and\nare suffering from the knowledge.\n\nA lady of liberal views, who was traveling in the same train with\nus, seeing the governor and the officers in the first-class saloon\nand learning the object of the expedition, began, intentionally\nraising her voice so that they should hear, to abuse the existing\norder of things and to cry shame on men who would take part in\nsuch proceedings. Everyone felt awkward, none knew where to look,\nbut no one contradicted her. They tried to look as though such\nremarks were not worth answering. But one could see by their\nfaces and their averted eyes that they were ashamed. I noticed\nthe same thing in the soldiers. They too knew that what they were\nsent to do was a shameful thing, but they did not want to think\nabout what was before them.\n\nWhen the wood merchant, as I suspect insincerely only to show that\nhe was a man of education, began to speak of the necessity of such\nmeasures, the soldiers who heard him all turned away from him,\nscowling and pretending not to hear.\n\nAll the men who, like the landowner, the commissioner, the\nminister, and the Tzar, were responsible for the perpetration of\nthis act, as well as those who were now going to execute it, and\neven those who were mere spectators of it, knew that it was a\nwickedness, and were ashamed of taking any share in it, and even\nof being present at it.\n\nThen why did they do it, or allow it to be done?\n\nAsk them the question. And the landowner who started the affair,\nand the judge who pronounced a clearly unjust even though formally\nlegal decision, and those who commanded the execution of the\ndecision, and those who, like the policemen, soldiers, and\npeasants, will execute the deed with their own hands, flogging and\nkilling their brothers, all who have devised, abetted, decreed,\nexecuted, or allowed such crimes, will make substantially the same\nreply.\n\nThe authorities, those who have started, devised, and decreed the\nmatter, will say that such acts are necessary for the maintenance\nof the existing order; the maintenance of the existing order is\nnecessary for the welfare of the country and of humanity, for the\npossibility of social existence and human progress.\n\nMen of the poorer class, peasants and soldiers, who will have to\nexecute the deed of violence with their own hands, say that they\ndo so because it is the command of their superior authority, and\nthe superior authority knows what he is about. That those are in\nauthority who ought to be in authority, and that they know what\nthey are doing appears to them a truth of which there can be no\ndoubt. If they could admit the possibility of mistake or error,\nit would only be in functionaries of a lower grade; the highest\nauthority on which all the rest depends seems to them immaculate\nbeyond suspicion.\n\nThough expressing the motives of their conduct differently, both\nthose in command and their subordinates are agreed in saying that\nthey act thus because the existing order is the order which must\nand ought to exist at the present time, and that therefore to\nsupport it is the sacred duty of every man.\n\nOn this acceptance of the necessity and therefore immutability of\nthe existing order, all who take part in acts of violence on the\npart of government base the argument always advanced in their\njustification. \"Since the existing order is immutable,\" they say,\n\"the refusal of a single individual to perform the duties laid\nupon him will effect no change in things, and will only mean that\nsome other man will be put in his place who may do the work worse,\nthat is to say, more cruelly, to the still greater injury of the\nvictims of the act of violence.\"\n\nThis conviction that the existing order is the necessary and\ntherefore immutable order, which it is a sacred duty for every man\nto support, enables good men, of high principles in private life,\nto take part with conscience more or less untroubled in crimes\nsuch as that perpetrated in Orel, and that which the men in the\nToula train were going to perpetrate.\n\nBut what is this conviction based on? It is easy to understand\nthat the landowner prefers to believe that the existing order is\ninevitable and immutable, because this existing order secures him\nan income from his hundreds and thousands of acres, by means of\nwhich he can lead his habitual indolent and luxurious life.\n\nIt is easy to understand that the judge readily believes in the\nnecessity of an order of things through which he receives a wage\nfifty times as great as the most industrious laborer can earn, and\nthe same applies to all the higher officials. It is only under\nthe existing R\u00c9GIME that as governor, prosecutor, senator, members\nof the various councils, they can receive their several thousands\nof rubles a year, without which they and their families would at\nonce sink into ruin, since if it were not for the position they\noccupy they would never by their own abilities, industry, or\nacquirements get a thousandth part of their salaries. The\nminister, the Tzar, and all the higher authorities are in the same\nposition. The only distinction is that the higher and the more\nexceptional their position, the more necessary it is for them to\nbelieve that the existing order is the only possible order of\nthings. For without it they would not only be unable to gain an\nequal position, but would be found to fall lower than all other\npeople. A man who has of his own free will entered the police\nforce at a wage of ten rubles, which he could easily earn in any\nother position, is hardly dependent on the preservation of the\nexisting R\u00c9GIME, and so he may not believe in its immutability.\nBut a king or an emperor, who receives millions for his post, and\nknows that there are thousands of people round him who would like\nto dethrone him and take his place, who knows that he will never\nreceive such a revenue or so much honor in any other position, who\nknows, in most cases through his more or less despotic rule, that\nif he were dethroned he would have to answer for all his abuse of\npower--he cannot but believe in the necessity and even sacredness\nof the existing order. The higher and the more profitable a man's\nposition, the more unstable it becomes, and the more terrible and\ndangerous a fall from it for him, the more firmly the man believes\nin the existing order, and therefore with the more ease of\nconscience can such a man perpetrate cruel and wicked acts, as\nthough they were not in his own interest, but for the maintenance\nof that order.\n\nThis is the case with all men in authority, who occupy positions\nmore profitable than they could occupy except for the present\nR\u00c9GIME, from the lowest police officer to the Tzar. All of them\nare more or less convinced that the existing order is immutable,\nbecause--the chief consideration--it is to their advantage. But\nthe peasants, the soldiers, who are at the bottom of the social\nscale, who have no kind of advantage from the existing order, who\nare in the very lowest position of subjection and humiliation,\nwhat forces them to believe that the existing order in which they\nare in their humble and disadvantageous position is the order\nwhich ought to exist, and which they ought to support even at the\ncost of evil actions contrary to their conscience?\n\nWhat forces these men to the false reasoning that the existing\norder is unchanging, and that therefore they ought to support it,\nwhen it is so obvious, on the contrary, that it is only unchanging\nbecause they themselves support it?\n\nWhat forces these peasants, taken only yesterday from the plow and\ndressed in ugly and unseemly costumes with blue collars and gilt\nbuttons, to go with guns and sabers and murder their famishing\nfathers and brothers? They gain no kind of advantage and can be\nin no fear of losing the position they occupy, because it is worse\nthan that from which they have been taken.\n\nThe persons in authority of the higher orders--landowners,\nmerchants, judges, senators, governors, ministers, tzars, and\nofficers--take part in such doings because the existing order is\nto their advantage. In other respects they are often good and\nkind-hearted men, and they are more able to take part in such\ndoings because their share in them is limited to suggestions,\ndecisions, and orders. These persons in authority never do\nthemselves what they suggest, decide, or command to be done. For\nthe most part they do not even see how all the atrocious deeds\nthey have suggested and authorized are carried out. But the\nunfortunate men of the lower orders, who gain no kind of advantage\nfrom the existing R\u00c9GIME, but, on the contrary, are treated with\nthe utmost contempt, support it even by dragging people with their\nown hands from their families, handcuffing them, throwing them in\nprison, guarding them, shooting them.\n\nWhy do they do it? What forces them to believe that the existing\norder is unchanging and they must support it?\n\nAll violence rests, we know, on those who do the beating, the\nhandcuffing, the imprisoning, and the killing with their own hands. If\nthere were no soldiers or armed policemen, ready to kill or outrage\nanyone as they are ordered, not one of those people who sign sentences\nof death, imprisonment, or galley-slavery for life would make up his\nmind to hang, imprison, or torture a thousandth part of those whom,\nquietly sitting in his study, he now orders to be tortured in all kinds\nof ways, simply because he does not see it nor do it himself, but only\ngets it done at a distance by these servile tools.\n\nAll the acts of injustice and cruelty which are committed in the\nordinary course of daily life have only become habitual because\nthere are these men always ready to carry out such acts of\ninjustice and cruelty. If it were not for them, far from anyone\nusing violence against the immense masses who are now ill-treated,\nthose who now command their punishment would not venture to\nsentence them, would not even dare to dream of the sentences they\ndecree with such easy confidence at present. And if it were not\nfor these men, ready to kill or torture anyone at their\ncommander's will, no one would dare to claim, as all the idle\nlandowners claim with such assurance, that a piece of land,\nsurrounded by peasants, who are in wretchedness from want of land,\nis the property of a man who does not cultivate it, or that stores\nof corn taken by swindling from the peasants ought to remain\nuntouched in the midst of a population dying of hunger because the\nmerchants must make their profit. If it were not for these\nservile instruments at the disposal of the authorities, it could\nnever have entered the head of the landowner to rob the peasants\nof the forest they had tended, nor of the officials to think they\nare entitled to their salaries, taken from the famishing people,\nthe price of their oppression; least of all could anyone dream of\nkilling or exiling men for exposing falsehood and telling the\ntruth. All this can only be done because the authorities are\nconfidently assured that they have always these servile tools at\nhand, ready to carry all their demands into effect by means of\ntorture and murder.\n\nAll the deeds of violence of tyrants from Napoleon to the lowest\ncommander of a company who fires upon a crowd, can only be\nexplained by the intoxicating effect of their absolute power over\nthese slaves. All force, therefore, rests on these men, who carry\nout the deeds of violence with their own hands, the men who serve\nin the police or the army, especially the army, for the police\nonly venture to do their work because the army is at their back.\n\nWhat, then, has brought these masses of honest men, on whom the\nwhole thing depends, who gain nothing by it, and who have to do\nthese atrocious deeds with their own hands, what has brought them\nto accept the amazing delusion that the existing order,\nunprofitable, ruinous, and fatal as it is for them, is the order\nwhich ought to exist?\n\nWho has led them into this amazing delusion?\n\nThey can never have persuaded themselves that they ought to do what is\nagainst their conscience, and also the source of misery and ruin for\nthemselves, and all their class, who make up nine-tenths of the\npopulation.\n\n\"How can you kill people, when it is written in God's commandment:\n'Thou shalt not kill'?\" I have often inquired of different\nsoldiers. And I always drove them to embarrassment and confusion\nby reminding them of what they did not want to think about. They\nknew they were bound by the law of God, \"Thou shalt not kill,\" and\nknew too that they were bound by their duty as soldiers, but had\nnever reflected on the contradiction between these duties. The\ndrift of the timid answers I received to this question was always\napproximately this: that killing in war and executing criminals by\ncommand of the government are not included in the general\nprohibition of murder. But when I said this distinction was not\nmade in the law of God, and reminded them of the Christian duty of\nfraternity, forgiveness of injuries, and love, which could not be\nreconciled with murder, the peasants usually agreed, but in their\nturn began to ask me questions. \"How does it happen,\" they\ninquired, \"that the government [which according to their ideas\ncannot do wrong] sends the army to war and orders criminals to be\nexecuted.\" When I answered that the government does wrong in\ngiving such orders, the peasants fell into still greater\nconfusion, and either broke off the conversation or else got angry\nwith me.\n\n\"They must have found a law for it. The archbishops know as much\nabout it as we do, I should hope,\" a Russian soldier once observed\nto me. And in saying this the soldier obviously set his mind at\nrest, in the full conviction that his spiritual guides had found a\nlaw which authorized his ancestors, and the tzars and their\ndescendants, and millions of men, to serve as he was doing\nhimself, and that the question I had put him was a kind of hoax or\nconundrum on my part.\n\nEveryone in our Christian society knows, either by tradition or by\nrevelation or by the voice of conscience, that murder is one of\nthe most fearful crimes a man can commit, as the Gospel tells us,\nand that the sin of murder cannot be limited to certain persons,\nthat is, murder cannot be a sin for some and not a sin for others.\nEveryone knows that if murder is a sin, it is always a sin,\nwhoever are the victims murdered, just like the sin of adultery,\ntheft, or any other. At the same time from their childhood up men\nsee that murder is not only permitted, but even sanctioned by the\nblessing of those whom they are accustomed to regard as their\ndivinely appointed spiritual guides, and see their secular leaders\nwith calm assurance organizing murder, proud to wear murderous\narms, and demanding of others in the name of the laws of the\ncountry, and even of God, that they should take part in murder.\nMen see that there is some inconsistency here, but not being able\nto analyze it, involuntarily assume that this apparent\ninconsistency is only the result of their ignorance. The very\ngrossness and obviousness of the inconsistency confirms them in\nthis conviction.\n\nThey cannot imagine that the leaders of civilization, the\neducated classes, could so confidently preach two such opposed\nprinciples as the law of Christ and murder. A simple uncorrupted\nyouth cannot imagine that those who stand so high in his opinion,\nwhom he regards as holy or learned men, could for any object\nwhatever mislead him so shamefully. But this is just what has\nalways been and always is done to him. It is done (1) by\ninstilling, by example and direct instruction, from childhood up,\ninto the working people, who have not time to study moral and\nreligious questions for themselves, the idea that torture and\nmurder are compatible with Christianity, and that for certain\nobjects of state, torture and murder are not only admissible, but\nought to be employed; and (2) by instilling into certain of the\npeople, who have either voluntarily enlisted or been taken by\ncompulsion into the army, the idea that the perpetration of murder\nand torture with their own hands is a sacred duty, and even a\nglorious exploit, worthy of praise and reward.\n\nThe general delusion is diffused among all people by means of the\ncatechisms or books, which nowadays replace them, in use for the\ncompulsory education of children. In them it is stated that\nviolence, that is, imprisonment and execution, as well as murder\nin civil or foreign war in the defense and maintenance of the\nexisting state organization (whatever that may be, absolute or\nlimited monarchy, convention, consulate, empire of this or that\nNapoleon or Boulanger, constitutional monarchy, commune or\nrepublic) is absolutely lawful and not opposed to morality and\nChristianity.\n\nThis is stated in all catechisms or books used in schools. And\nmen are so thoroughly persuaded of it that they grow up, live and\ndie in that conviction without once entertaining a doubt about it.\n\nThis is one form of deception, the general deception instilled\ninto everyone, but there is another special deception practiced\nupon the soldiers or police who are picked out by one means or\nanother to do the torturing and murdering necessary to defend and\nmaintain the existing R\u00c9GIME.\n\nIn all military instructions there appears in one form or another\nwhat is expressed in the Russian military code in the following\nwords:\n\nARTICLE 87. To carry out exactly and without comment the orders\nof a superior officer means: to carry out an order received from a\nsuperior officer exactly without considering whether it is good or\nnot, and whether it is possible to carry it out. The superior\nofficer is responsible for the consequences of the order he gives.\n\nARTICLE 88. The subordinate ought never to refuse to carry out\nthe orders of a superior officer except when he sees clearly that\nin carrying out his superior officer's command, he breaks [the law\nof God, one involuntarily expects; not at all] HIS OATH OF\nFIDELITY AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE TZAR.\n\nIt is here said that the man who is a soldier can and ought to\ncarry out all the orders of his superior without exception. And\nas these orders for the most part involve murder, it follows that\nhe ought to break all the laws of God and man. The one law he may\nnot break is that of fidelity and allegiance to the man who\nhappens at a given moment to be in power.\n\nPrecisely the same thing is said in other words in all codes of\nmilitary instruction. And it could not be otherwise, since the\nwhole power of the army and the state is based in reality on this\ndelusive emancipation of men from their duty to God and their\nconscience, and the substitution of duty to their superior officer\nfor all other duties.\n\nThis, then, is the foundation of the belief of the lower classes\nthat the existing R\u00c9GIME so fatal for them is the R\u00c9GIME which\nought to exist, and which they ought therefore to support even by\ntorture and murder.\n\nThis belief is founded on a conscious deception practiced on them\nby the higher classes.\n\nAnd it cannot be otherwise. To compel the lower classes, which\nare more numerous, to oppress and ill treat themselves, even at\nthe cost of actions opposed to their conscience, it was necessary\nto deceive them. And it has been done accordingly.\n\nNot many days ago I saw once more this shameless deception being\nopenly practiced, and once more I marveled that it could be\npracticed so easily and impudently.\n\nAt the beginning of November, as I was passing through Toula, I\nsaw once again at the gates of the Zemsky Courthouse the crowd of\npeasants I had so often seen before, and heard the drunken shouts\nof the men mingled with the pitiful lamentations of their wives\nand mothers. It was the recruiting session.\n\nI can never pass by the spectacle. It attracts me by a kind of\nfascination of repulsion. I again went into the crowd, took my\nstand among the peasants, looked about and asked questions. And\nonce again I was amazed that this hideous crime can be perpetrated\nso easily in broad daylight and in the midst of a large town.\n\nAs the custom is every year, in all the villages and hamlets of\nthe one hundred millions of Russians, on the 1st of November, the\nvillage elders had assembled the young men inscribed on the lists,\noften their own sons among them, and had brought them to the town.\n\nOn the road the recruits have been drinking without intermission,\nunchecked by the elders, who feel that going on such an insane\nerrand, abandoning their wives and mothers and renouncing all they\nhold sacred in order to become a senseless instrument of\ndestruction, would be too agonizing if they were not stupefied\nwith spirits.\n\nAnd so they have come, drinking, swearing, singing, fighting and\nscuffling with one another. They have spent the night in taverns.\nIn the morning they have slept off their drunkenness and have\ngathered together at the Zemsky Court-house.\n\nSome of them, in new sheepskin pelisses, with knitted scarves\nround their necks, their eyes swollen from drinking, are shouting\nwildly to one another to show their courage; others, crowded near\nthe door, are quietly and mournfully waiting their turn, between\ntheir weeping wives and mothers (I had chanced upon the day of the\nactual enrolling, that is, the examination of those whose names\nare on the list); others meantime were crowding into the hall of\nthe recruiting office.\n\nInside the office the work was going on rapidly. The door is\nopened and the guard calls Piotr Sidorov. Piotr Sidorov starts,\ncrosses himself, and goes into a little room with a glass door,\nwhere the conscripts undress. A comrade of Piotr Sidorov's, who\nhas just been passed for service, and come naked out of the\nrevision office, is dressing hurriedly, his teeth chattering.\nSidorov has already heard the news, and can see from his face too\nthat he has been taken. He wants to ask him questions, but they\nhurry him and tell him to make haste and undress. He throws off\nhis pelisse, slips his boots off his feet, takes off his waistcoat\nand draws his shirt over his head, and naked, trembling all over,\nand exhaling an odor of tobacco, spirits, and sweat, goes into the\nrevision office, not knowing what to do with his brawny bare arms.\n\nDirectly facing him in the revision office hangs in a great gold\nframe a portrait of the Tzar in full uniform with decorations, and\nin the corner a little portrait of Christ in a shirt and a crown\nof thorns. In the middle of the room is a table covered with\ngreen cloth, on which there are papers lying and a three-cornered\nornament surmounted by an eagle--the zertzal. Round the table are\nsitting the revising officers, looking collected and indifferent.\nOne is smoking a cigarette; another is looking through some\npapers. Directly Sidorov comes in, a guard goes up to him, places\nhim under the measuring frame, raising him under his chin, and\nstraightening his legs.\n\nThe man with the cigarette--he is the doctor--comes up, and without\nlooking at the recruit's face, but somewhere beyond it, feels his body\nover with an air of disgust, measures him, tests him, tells the guard to\nopen his mouth, tells him to breathe, to speak. Someone notes something\ndown. At last without having once looked him in the face the doctor\nsays, \"Right. Next one!\" and with a weary air sits down again at the\ntable. The soldiers again hustle and hurry the lad. He somehow gets into\nhis trousers, wraps his feet in rags, puts on his boots, looks for his\nscarf and cap, and bundles his pelisse under his arm. Then they lead him\ninto the main hall, shutting him off apart from the rest by a bench,\nbehind which all the conscripts who have been passed for service are\nwaiting. Another village lad like himself, but from a distant province,\nnow a soldier armed with a gun with a sharp-pointed bayonet at the end,\nkeeps watch over him, ready to run him through the body if he should\nthink of trying to escape.\n\nMeantime the crowd of fathers, mothers, and wives, hustled by the\npolice, are pressing round the doors to hear whose lad has been\ntaken, whose is let off. One of the rejected comes out and\nannounces that Piotr is taken, and at once a shrill cry is heard\nfrom Piotr's young wife, for whom this word \"taken\" means\nseparation for four or five years, the life of a soldier's wife as\na servant, often a prostitute.\n\nBut here comes a man along the street with flowing hair and in a\npeculiar dress, who gets out of his droskhy and goes into the\nZemsky Court-house. The police clear a way for him through the\ncrowd. It is the \"reverend father\" come to administer the oath.\nAnd this \"father,\" who has been persuaded that he is specially and\nexclusively devoted to the service of Christ, and who, for the\nmost part, does not himself see the deception in which he lives,\ngoes into the hall where the conscripts are waiting. He throws\nround him a kind of curtain of brocade, pulls his long hair out\nover it, opens the very Gospel in which swearing is forbidden,\ntakes the cross, the very cross on which Christ was crucified\nbecause he would not do what this false servant of his is telling\nmen to do, and puts them on the lectern. And all these unhappy,\ndefenseless, and deluded lads repeat after him the lie, which he\nutters with the assurance of familiarity.\n\nHe reads and they repeat after him:\n\n\"I promise and swear by Almighty God upon his holy Gospel,\" etc.,\n\"to defend,\" etc., and that is, to murder anyone I am told to, and\nto do everything I am told by men I know nothing of, and who care\nnothing for me except as an instrument for perpetrating the crimes\nby which they are kept in their position of power, and my brothers\nin their condition of misery. All the conscripts repeat these\nferocious words without thinking. And then the so-called\n\"father\" goes away with a sense of having correctly and\nconscientiously done his duty. And all these poor deluded lads\nbelieve that these nonsensical and incomprehensible words which\nthey have just uttered set them free for the whole time of their\nservice from their duties as men, and lay upon them fresh and more\nbinding duties as soldiers.\n\nAnd this crime is perpetrated publicly and no one cries out to the\ndeceiving and the deceived: \"Think what you are doing; this is the\nbasest, falsest lie, by which not bodies only, but souls too, are\ndestroyed.\"\n\nNo one does this. On the contrary, when all have been enrolled,\nand they are to be let out again, the military officer goes with a\nconfident and majestic air into the hall where the drunken,\ncheated lads are shut up, and cries in a bold, military voice:\n\"Your health, my lads! I congratulate you on 'serving the Tzar!'\"\nAnd they, poor fellows (someone has given them a hint beforehand),\nmutter awkwardly, their voices thick with drink, something to the\neffect that they are glad.\n\nMeantime the crowd of fathers, mothers, and wives is standing at\nthe doors waiting. The women keep their tearful eyes fixed on the\ndoors. They open at last, and out come the conscripts, unsteady,\nbut trying to put a good face on it. Here are Piotr and Vania and\nMakar trying not to look their dear ones in the face. Nothing is\nheard but the wailing of the wives and mothers. Some of the lads\nembrace them and weep with them, others make a show of courage,\nand others try to comfort them.\n\nThe wives and mothers, knowing that they will be left for three,\nfour, or five years without their breadwinners, weep and rehearse\ntheir woes aloud. The fathers say little. They only utter a\nclucking sound with their tongues and sigh mournfully, knowing\nthat they will see no more of the steady lads they have reared and\ntrained to help them, that they will come back not the same quiet\nhard-working laborers, but for the most part conceited and\ndemoralized, unfitted for their simple life.\n\nAnd then all the crowd get into their sledges again and move away\ndown the street to the taverns and pot-houses, and louder than\never sounds the medley of singing and sobbing, drunken shouts, and\nthe wailing of the wives and mothers, the sounds of the accordeon\nand oaths. They all turn into the taverns, whose revenues go to\nthe government, and the drinking bout begins, which stifles their\nsense of the wrong which is being done them.\n\nFor two or three weeks they go on living at home, and most of that\ntime they are \"jaunting,\" that is, drinking.\n\nOn a fixed day they collect them, drive them together like a flock\nof sheep, and begin to train them in the military exercises and\ndrill. Their teachers are fellows like themselves, only deceived\nand brutalized two or three years sooner. The means of\ninstruction are: deception, stupefaction, blows, and vodka. And\nbefore a year has passed these good, intelligent, healthy-minded\nlads will be as brutal beings as their instructors.\n\n\"Come, now, suppose your father were arrested and tried to make\nhis escape?\" I asked a young soldier.\n\n\"I should run him through with my bayonet,\" he answered with the\nfoolish intonation peculiar to soldiers; \"and if he made off, I\nought to shoot him,\" he added, obviously proud of knowing what he\nmust do if his father were escaping.\n\nAnd when a good-hearted lad has been brought to a state lower than\nthat of a brute, he is just what is wanted by those who use him as\nan instrument of violence. He is ready; the man has been\ndestroyed and a new instrument of violence has been created. And\nall this is done every year, every autumn, everywhere, through all\nRussia in broad daylight in the midst of large towns, where all\nmay see it, and the deception is so clever, so skillful, that\nthough all men know the infamy of it in their hearts, and see all\nits horrible results, they cannot throw it off and be free.\n\nWhen one's eyes are opened to this awful deception practiced upon\nus, one marvels that the teachers of the Christian religion and of\nmorals, the instructors of youth, or even the good-hearted and\nintelligent parents who are to be found in every society, can\nteach any kind of morality in a society in which it is openly\nadmitted (it is so admitted, under all governments and all\nchurches) that murder and torture form an indispensable element in\nthe life of all, and that there must always be special men trained\nto kill their fellows, and that any one of us may have to become\nsuch a trained assassin.\n\nHow can children, youths, and people generally be taught any kind\nof morality--not to speak of teaching in the spirit of\nChristianity--side by side with the doctrine that murder is\nnecessary for the public weal, and therefore legitimate, and that\nthere are men, of whom each of us may have to be one, whose duty\nis to murder and torture and commit all sorts of crimes at the\nwill of those who are in possession of authority. If this is so,\nand one can and ought to murder and torture, there is not, and\ncannot be, any kind of moral law, but only the law that might is\nright. And this is just how it is. In reality that is the\ndoctrine--justified to some by the theory of the struggle for\nexistence--which reigns in our society.\n\nAnd, indeed, what sort of ethical doctrine could admit the\nlegitimacy of murder for any object whatever? It is as impossible\nas a theory of mathematics admitting that two is equal to three.\n\nThere may be a semblance of mathematics admitting that two is\nequal to three, but there can be no real science of mathematics.\nAnd there can only be a semblance of ethics in which murder in the\nshape of war and the execution of criminals is allowed, but no\ntrue ethics. The recognition of the life of every man as sacred\nis the first and only basis of all ethics.\n\nThe doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth has been\nabrogated by Christianity, because it is the justification of\nimmorality, and a mere semblance of equity, and has no real\nmeaning. Life is a value which has no weight nor size, and cannot\nbe compared to any other, and so there is no sense in destroying a\nlife for a life. Besides, every social law aims at the\namelioration of man's life. What way, then, can the annihilation\nof the life of some men ameliorate men's life? Annihilation of\nlife cannot be a means of the amelioration of life; it is a\nsuicidal act.\n\nTo destroy another life for the sake of justice is as though a\nman, to repair the misfortune of losing one arm, should cut off\nthe other arm for the sake of equity.\n\nBut putting aside the sin of deluding men into regarding the most\nawful crime as a duty, putting aside the revolting sin of using\nthe name and authority of Christ to sanction what he most\ncondemned, not to speak of the curse on those who cause these\n\"little ones\" to offend--how can people who cherish their own way\nof life, their progress, even from the point of view of their\npersonal security, allow the formation in their midst of an\noverwhelming force as senseless, cruel, and destructive as every\ngovernment is organized on the basis of an army? Even the most\ncruel band of brigands is not so much to be dreaded as such a\ngovernment.\n\nThe power of every brigand chief is at least so far limited that\nthe men of his band preserve at least some human liberty, and can\nrefuse to commit acts opposed to their conscience. But, owing to\nthe perfection to which the discipline of the army has been\nbrought, there is no limit to check men who form part of a\nregularly organized government. There are no crimes so revolting\nthat they would not readily be committed by men who form part of a\ngovernment or army, at the will of anyone (such as Boulanger,\nNapoleon, or Pougachef) who may chance to be at their head.\n\nOften when one sees conscription levies, military drills and\nmaneuvers, police officers with loaded revolvers, and sentinels at\ntheir posts with bayonets on their rifles; when one hears for\nwhole days at a time (as I hear it in Hamovniky where I live) the\nwhistle of balls and the dull thud as they fall in the sand; when\none sees in the midst of a town where any effort at violence in\nself-defense is forbidden, where the sale of powder and of\nchemicals, where furious driving and practicing as a doctor\nwithout a diploma, and so on, are not allowed; thousands of\ndisciplined troops, trained to murder, and subject to one man's\nwill; one asks oneself how can people who prize their security\nquietly allow it, and put up with it? Apart from the immorality\nand evil effects of it, nothing can possibly be more unsafe. What\nare people thinking about? I don't mean now Christians, ministers\nof religion, philanthropists, and moralists, but simply people who\nvalue their life, their security, and their comfort. This\norganization, we know, will work just as well in one man's hands\nas another's. To-day, let us assume, power is in the hands of a\nruler who can be endured, but to-morrow it may be seized by a\nBiron, an Elizabeth, a Catherine, a Pougachef, a Napoleon I., or a\nNapoleon III.\n\nAnd the man in authority, endurable to-day, may become a brute\nto-morrow, or may be succeeded by a mad or imbecile heir, like the King\nof Bavaria or our Paul I.\n\nAnd not only the highest authorities, but all little satraps\nscattered over everywhere, like so many General Baranovs,\ngovernors, police officers even, and commanders of companies, can\nperpetrate the most awful crimes before there is time for them to\nbe removed from office. And this is what is constantly happening.\n\nOne involuntarily asks how can men let it go on, not from higher\nconsiderations only, but from regard to their own safety?\n\nThe answer to this question is that it is not all people who do\ntolerate it (some--the greater proportion--deluded and submissive,\nhave no choice and have to tolerate anything). It is tolerated by\nthose who only under such an organization can occupy a position of\nprofit. They tolerate it, because for them the risks of suffering\nfrom a foolish or cruel man being at the head of the government or\nthe army are always less than the disadvantages to which they\nwould be exposed by the destruction of the organization itself.\n\nA judge, a commander of police, a governor, or an officer will\nkeep his position just the same under Boulanger or the republic,\nunder Pougachef or Catherine. He will lose his profitable\nposition for certain, if the existing order of things which\nsecured it to him is destroyed. And so all these people feel no\nuneasiness as to who is at the head of the organization, they will\nadapt themselves to anyone; they only dread the downfall of the\norganization itself, and that is the reason--though often an\nunconscious one--that they support it.\n\nOne often wonders why independent people, who are not forced to do so in\nany way, the so-called \u00c9LITE of society, should go into the army in\nRussia, England, Germany, Austria, and even France, and seek\nopportunities of becoming murderers. Why do even high-principled parents\nsend their boys to military schools? Why do mothers buy their children\ntoy helmets, guns, and swords as playthings? (The peasant's children\nnever play at soldiers, by the way). Why do good men and even women, who\nhave certainly no interest in war, go into raptures over the various\nexploits of Skobeloff and others, and vie with one another in glorifying\nthem? Why do men, who are not obliged to do so, and get no fee for it,\ndevote, like the marshals of nobility in Russia, whole months of toil to\na business physically disagreeable and morally painful--the enrolling of\nconscripts? Why do all kings and emperors wear the military uniform? Why\ndo they all hold military reviews, why do they organize maneuvers,\ndistribute rewards to the military, and raise monuments to generals and\nsuccessful commanders? Why do rich men of independent position consider\nit an honor to perform a valet's duties in attendance on crowned\npersonages, flattering them and cringing to them and pretending to\nbelieve in their peculiar superiority? Why do men who have ceased to\nbelieve in the superstitions of the mediaeval Church, and who could not\npossibly believe in them seriously and consistently, pretend to believe\nin and give their support to the demoralizing and blasphemous\ninstitution of the church? Why is it that not only governments but\nprivate persons of the higher classes, try so jealously to maintain the\nignorance of the people? Why do they fall with such fury on any effort\nat breaking down religious superstitions or really enlightening the\npeople? Why do historians, novelists, and poets, who have no hope of\ngaining anything by their flatteries, make heroes of kings, emperors,\nand conquerors of past times? Why do men, who call themselves learned,\ndedicate whole lifetimes to making theories to prove that violence\nemployed by authority against the people is not violence at all, but a\nspecial right? One often wonders why a fashionable lady or an artist,\nwho, one would think, would take no interest in political or military\nquestions, should always condemn strikes of working people, and defend\nwar; and should always be found without hesitation opposed to the one,\nfavorable to the other.\n\nBut one no longer wonders when one realizes that in the higher\nclasses there is an unerring instinct of what tends to maintain\nand of what tends to destroy the organization by virtue of which\nthey enjoy their privileges. The fashionable lady had certainly\nnot reasoned out that if there were no capitalists and no army to\ndefend them, her husband would have no fortune, and she could not\nhave her entertainments and her ball-dresses. And the artist\ncertainly does not argue that he needs the capitalists and the\ntroops to defend them, so that they may buy his pictures. But\ninstinct, replacing reason in this instance, guides them\nunerringly. And it is precisely this instinct which leads all\nmen, with few exceptions, to support all the religious, political,\nand economic institutions which are to their advantage.\n\nBut is it possible that the higher classes support the existing\norder of things simply because it is to their advantage? Cannot\nthey see that this order of things is essentially irrational, that\nit is no longer consistent with the stage of moral development\nattained by people, and with public opinion, and that it is\nfraught with perils? The governing classes, or at least the good,\nhonest, and intelligent people of them, cannot but suffer from\nthese fundamental inconsistencies, and see the dangers with which\nthey are threatened. And is it possible that all the millions of\nthe lower classes can feel easy in conscience when they commit\nsuch obviously evil deeds as torture and murder from fear of\npunishment? Indeed, it could not be so, neither the former nor\nthe latter could fail to see the irrationality of their conduct,\nif the complexity of government organization did not obscure the\nunnatural senselessness of their actions.\n\nSo many instigate, assist, or sanction the commission of every one\nof these actions that no one who has a hand in them feels himself\nmorally responsible for it.\n\nIt is the custom among assassins to oblige all the witnesses of a\nmurder to strike the murdered victim, that the responsibility may\nbe divided among as large a number of people as possible. The\nsame principle in different forms is applied under the government\norganization in the perpetration of the crimes, without which no\ngovernment organization could exist. Rulers always try to\nimplicate as many citizens as possible in all the crimes committed\nin their support.\n\nOf late this tendency has been expressed in a very obvious manner\nby the obligation of all citizens to take part in legal processes\nas jurors, in the army as soldiers, in the local government, or\nlegislative assembly, as electors or members.\n\nJust as in a wicker basket all the ends are so hidden away that it\nis hard to find them, in the state organization the responsibility\nfor the crimes committed is so hidden away that men will commit\nthe most atrocious acts without seeing their responsibility for\nthem.\n\nIn ancient times tyrants got credit for the crimes they committed,\nbut in our day the most atrocious infamies, inconceivable under\nthe Neros, are perpetrated and no one gets blamed for them.\n\nOne set of people have suggested, another set have proposed, a\nthird have reported, a fourth have decided, a fifth have\nconfirmed, a sixth have given the order, and a seventh set of men\nhave carried it out. They hang, they flog to death women, old\nmen, and innocent people, as was done recently among us in Russia\nat the Yuzovsky factory, and is always being done everywhere in\nEurope and America in the struggle with the anarchists and all\nother rebels against the existing order; they shoot and hang men\nby hundreds and thousands, or massacre millions in war, or break\nmen's hearts in solitary confinement, and ruin their souls in the\ncorruption of a soldier's life, and no one is responsible.\n\nAt the bottom of the social scale soldiers, armed with guns,\npistols, and sabers, injure and murder people, and compel men\nthrough these means to enter the army, and are absolutely\nconvinced that the responsibility for the actions rests solely on\nthe officers who command them.\n\nAt the top of the scale--the Tzars, presidents, ministers, and\nparliaments decree these tortures and murders and military\nconscription, and are fully convinced that since they are either\nplaced in authority by the grace of God or by the society they\ngovern, which demands such decrees from them, they cannot be held\nresponsible. Between these two extremes are the intermediary\npersonages who superintend the murders and other acts of violence,\nand are fully convinced that the responsibility is taken off their\nshoulders partly by their superiors who have given the order,\npartly by the fact that such orders are expected from them by all\nwho are at the bottom of the scale.\n\nThe authority who gives the orders and the authority who executes\nthem at the two extreme ends of the state organization, meet\ntogether like the two ends of a ring; they support and rest on one\nanother and inclose all that lies within the ring.\n\nWithout the conviction that there is a person or persons who will\ntake the whole responsibility of his acts, not one soldier would\never lift a hand to commit a murder or other deed of violence.\n\nWithout the conviction that it is expected by the whole people not\na single king, emperor, president, or parliament would order\nmurders or acts of violence.\n\nWithout the conviction that there are persons of a higher grade\nwho will take the responsibility, and people of a lower grade who\nrequire such acts for their welfare, not one of the intermediate\nclass would superintend such deeds.\n\nThe state is so organized that wherever a man is placed in the\nsocial scale, his irresponsibility is the same. The higher his\ngrade the more he is under the influence of demands from below,\nand the less he is controlled by orders from above, and VICE\nVERSA.\n\nAll men, then, bound together by state organization, throw the\nresponsibility of their acts on one another, the peasant soldier\non the nobleman or merchant who is his officer, and the officer on\nthe nobleman who has been appointed governor, the governor on the\nnobleman or son of an official who is minister, the minister on\nthe member of the royal family who occupies the post of Tzar, and\nthe Tzar again on all these officials, noblemen, merchants, and\npeasants. But that is not all. Besides the fact that men get rid\nof the sense of responsibility for their actions in this way, they\nlose their moral sense of responsibility also, by the fact that in\nforming themselves into a state organization they persuade\nthemselves and each other so continually, and so indefatigably,\nthat they are not all equal, but \"as the stars apart,\" that they\ncome to believe it genuinely themselves. Thus some are persuaded\nthat they are not simple people like everyone else, but special\npeople who are to be specially honored. It is instilled into\nanother set of men by every possible means that they are inferior\nto others, and therefore must submit without a murmur to every\norder given them by their superiors.\n\nOn this inequality, above all, on the elevation of some and the\ndegradation of others, rests the capacity men have of being blind\nto the insanity of the existing order of life, and all the cruelty\nand criminality of the deception practiced by one set of men on\nanother.\n\nThose in whom the idea has been instilled that they are invested\nwith a special supernatural grandeur and consequence, are so\nintoxicated with a sense of their own imaginary dignity that they\ncease to feel their responsibility for what they do.\n\nWhile those, on the other hand, in whom the idea is fostered that\nthey are inferior animals, bound to obey their superiors in\neverything, fall, through this perpetual humiliation, into a\nstrange condition of stupefied servility, and in this stupefied\nstate do not see the significance of their actions and lose all\nconsciousness of responsibility for what they do.\n\nThe intermediate class, who obey the orders of their superiors on\nthe one hand and regard themselves as superior beings on the\nother, are intoxicated by power and stupefied by servility at the\nsame time and so lose the sense of their responsibility.\n\nOne need only glance during a review at the commander-in-chief,\nintoxicated with self-importance, followed by his retinue, all on\nmagnificent and gayly appareled horses, in splendid uniforms and wearing\ndecorations, and see how they ride to the harmonious and solemn strains\nof music before the ranks of soldiers, all presenting arms and petrified\nwith servility. One need only glance at this spectacle to understand\nthat at such moments, when they are in a state of the most complete\nintoxication, commander-in-chief, soldiers, and intermediate officers\nalike, would be capable of committing crimes of which they would never\ndream under other conditions.\n\nThe intoxication produced by such stimulants as parades, reviews,\nreligious solemnities, and coronations, is, however, an acute and\ntemporary condition; but there are other forms of chronic,\npermanent intoxication, to which those are liable who have any\nkind of authority, from that of the Tzar to that of the lowest\npolice officer at the street corner, and also those who are in\nsubjection to authority and in a state of stupefied servility.\nThe latter, like all slaves, always find a justification for their\nown servility, in ascribing the greatest possible dignity and\nimportance to those they serve.\n\nIt is principally through this false idea of inequality, and the\nintoxication of power and of servility resulting from it, that men\nassociated in a state organization are enabled to commit acts opposed to\ntheir conscience without the least scruple or remorse. Under the\ninfluence of this intoxication, men imagine themselves no longer simply\nmen as they are, but some special beings--noblemen, merchants,\ngovernors, judges, officers, tzars, ministers, or soldiers--no longer\nbound by ordinary human duties, but by other duties far more\nweighty--the peculiar duties of a nobleman, merchant, governor, judge,\nofficer, tzar, minister, or soldier.\n\nThus the landowner, who claimed the forest, acted as he did only\nbecause he fancied himself not a simple man, having the same\nrights to life as the peasants living beside him and everyone\nelse, but a great landowner, a member of the nobility, and under\nthe influence of the intoxication of power he felt his dignity\noffended by the peasants' claims. It was only through this\nfeeling that, without considering the consequences that might\nfollow, he sent in a claim to be reinstated in his pretended\nrights.\n\nIn the same way the judges, who wrongfully adjudged the forest to\nthe proprietor, did so simply because they fancied themselves not\nsimply men like everyone else, and so bound to be guided in\neverything only by what they consider right, but, under the\nintoxicating influence of power, imagined themselves the\nrepresentatives of the justice which cannot err; while under the\nintoxicating influence of servility they imagined themselves bound\nto carry out to the letter the instructions inscribed in a certain\nbook, the so-called law. In the same way all who take part in\nsuch an affair, from the highest representative of authority who\nsigns his assent to the report, from the superintendent presiding\nat the recruiting sessions, and the priest who deludes the\nrecruits, to the lowest soldier who is ready now to fire on his\nown brothers, imagine, in the intoxication of power or of\nservility, that they are some conventional characters. They do\nnot face the question that is presented to them, whether or not\nthey ought to take part in what their conscience judges an evil\nact, but fancy themselves various conventional personages--one as\nthe Tzar, God's anointed, an exceptional being, called to watch\nover the happiness of one hundred millions of men; another as the\nrepresentative of nobility; another as a priest, who has received\nspecial grace by his ordination; another as a soldier, bound by\nhis military oath to carry out all he is commanded without\nreflection.\n\nOnly under the intoxication of the power or the servility of their\nimagined positions could all these people act as they do.\n\nWere not they all firmly convinced that their respective vocations\nof tzar, minister, governor, judge, nobleman, landowner,\nsuperintendent, officer, and soldier are something real and\nimportant, not one of them would even think without horror and\naversion of taking part in what they do now.\n\nThe conventional positions, established hundreds of years,\nrecognized for centuries and by everyone, distinguished by special\nnames and dresses, and, moreover, confirmed by every kind of\nsolemnity, have so penetrated into men's minds through their\nsenses, that, forgetting the ordinary conditions of life common to\nall, they look at themselves and everyone only from this\nconventional point of view, and are guided in their estimation of\ntheir own actions and those of others by this conventional\nstandard.\n\nThus we see a man of perfect sanity and ripe age, simply because\nhe is decked out with some fringe, or embroidered keys on his coat\ntails, or a colored ribbon only fit for some gayly dressed girl,\nand is told that he is a general, a chamberlain, a knight of the\norder of St. Andrew, or some similar nonsense, suddenly become\nself-important, proud, and even happy, or, on the contrary, grow\nmelancholy and unhappy to the point of falling ill, because he has\nfailed to obtain the expected decoration or title. Or what is\nstill more striking, a young man, perfectly sane in every other\nmatter, independent and beyond the fear of want, simply because he\nhas been appointed judicial prosecutor or district commander,\nseparates a poor widow from her little children, and shuts her up\nin prison, leaving her children uncared for, all because the\nunhappy woman carried on a secret trade in spirits, and so\ndeprived the revenue of twenty-five rubles, and he does not feel\nthe least pang of remorse. Or what is still more amazing; a man,\notherwise sensible and good-hearted, simply because he is given a\nbadge or a uniform to wear, and told that he is a guard or customs\nofficer, is ready to fire on people, and neither he nor those\naround him regard him as to blame for it, but, on the contrary,\nwould regard him as to blame if he did not fire. To say nothing\nof judges and juries who condemn men to death, and soldiers who\nkill men by thousands without the slightest scruple merely because\nit has been instilled into them that they are not simply men, but\njurors, judges, generals, and soldiers.\n\nThis strange and abnormal condition of men under state\norganization is usually expressed in the following words: \"As a\nman, I pity him; but as guard, judge, general, governor, tzar, or\nsoldier, it is my duty to kill or torture him.\" Just as though\nthere were some positions conferred and recognized, which would\nexonerate us from the obligations laid on each of us by the fact\nof our common humanity.\n\nSo, for example, in the case before us, men are going to murder\nand torture the famishing, and they admit that in the dispute\nbetween the peasants and the landowner the peasants are right (all\nthose in command said as much to me). They know that the peasants\nare wretched, poor, and hungry, and the landowner is rich and\ninspires no sympathy. Yet they are all going to kill the peasants\nto secure three thousand rubles for the landowner, only because at\nthat moment they fancy themselves not men but governor, official,\ngeneral of police, officer, and soldier, respectively, and\nconsider themselves bound to obey, not the eternal demands of the\nconscience of man, but the casual, temporary demands of their\npositions as officers or soldiers.\n\nStrange as it may seem, the sole explanation of this astonishing\nphenomenon is that they are in the condition of the hypnotized,\nwho, they say, feel and act like the creatures they are commanded\nby the hypnotizer to represent. When, for instance, it is\nsuggested to the hypnotized subject that he is lame, he begins to\nwalk lame, that he is blind, and he cannot see, that he is a wild\nbeast, and he begins to bite. This is the state, not only of\nthose who were going on this expedition, but of all men who\nfulfill their state and social duties in preference to and in\ndetriment of their human duties.\n\nThe essence of this state is that under the influence of one\nsuggestion they lose the power of criticising their actions, and\ntherefore do, without thinking, everything consistent with the\nsuggestion to which they are led by example, precept, or\ninsinuation.\n\nThe difference between those hypnotized by scientific men and\nthose under the influence of the state hypnotism, is that an\nimaginary position is suggested to the former suddenly by one\nperson in a very brief space of time, and so the hypnotized state\nappears to us in a striking and surprising form, while the\nimaginary position suggested by state influence is induced slowly,\nlittle by little, imperceptibly from childhood, sometimes during\nyears, or even generations, and not in one person alone but in a\nwhole society.\n\n\"But,\" it will be said, \"at all times, in all societies, the\nmajority of persons--all the children, all the women absorbed in\nthe bearing and rearing of the young, all the great mass of the\nlaboring population, who are under the necessity of incessant and\nfatiguing physical labor, all those of weak character by nature,\nall those who are abnormally enfeebled intellectually by the\neffects of nicotine, alcohol, opium, or other intoxicants--are\nalways in a condition of incapacity for independent thought, and\nare either in subjection to those who are on a higher intellectual\nlevel, or else under the influence of family or social traditions,\nof what is called public opinion, and there is nothing unnatural\nor incongruous in their subjection.\"\n\nAnd truly there is nothing unnatural in it, and the tendency of\nmen of small intellectual power to follow the lead of those on a\nhigher level of intelligence is a constant law, and it is owing to\nit that men can live in societies and on the same principles at\nall. The minority consciously adopt certain rational principles\nthrough their correspondence with reason, while the majority act\non the same principles unconsciously because it is required by\npublic opinion.\n\nSuch subjection to public opinion on the part of the\nunintellectual does not assume an unnatural character till the\npublic opinion is split into two.\n\nBut there are times when a higher truth, revealed at first to a\nfew persons, gradually gains ground till it has taken hold of such\na number of persons that the old public opinion, founded on a\nlower order of truths, begins to totter and the new is ready to\ntake its place, but has not yet been firmly established. It is\nlike the spring, this time of transition, when the old order of\nideas has not quite broken up and the new has not quite gained a\nfooting. Men begin to criticise their actions in the light of the\nnew truth, but in the meantime in practice, through inertia and\ntradition, they continue to follow the principles which once\nrepresented the highest point of rational consciousness, but are\nnow in flagrant contradiction with it.\n\nThen men are in an abnormal, wavering condition, feeling the\nnecessity of following the new ideal, and yet not bold enough to\nbreak with the old-established traditions.\n\nSuch is the attitude in regard to the truth of Christianity not\nonly of the men in the Toula train, but of the majority of men of\nour times, alike of the higher and the lower orders.\n\nThose of the ruling classes, having no longer any reasonable\njustification for the profitable positions they occupy, are\nforced, in order to keep them, to stifle their higher rational\nfaculty of loving, and to persuade themselves that their positions\nare indispensable. And those of the lower classes, exhausted by\ntoil and brutalized of set purpose, are kept in a permanent\ndeception, practiced deliberately and continuously by the higher\nclasses upon them.\n\nOnly in this way can one explain the amazing contradictions with\nwhich our life is full, and of which a striking example was\npresented to me by the expedition I met on the 9th of September;\ngood, peaceful men, known to me personally, going with untroubled\ntranquillity to perpetrate the most beastly, senseless, and vile\nof crimes. Had not they some means of stifling their conscience,\nnot one of them would be capable of committing a hundredth part of\nsuch a villainy.\n\nIt is not that they have not a conscience which forbids them from\nacting thus, just as, even three or four hundred years ago, when\npeople burnt men at the stake and put them to the rack they had a\nconscience which prohibited it; the conscience is there, but it\nhas been put to sleep--in those in command by what the\npsychologists call auto-suggestion; in the soldiers, by the direct\nconscious hypnotizing exerted by the higher classes.\n\nThough asleep, the conscience is there, and in spite of the\nhypnotism it is already speaking in them, and it may awake.\n\nAll these men are in a position like that of a man under\nhypnotism, commanded to do something opposed to everything he\nregards as good and rational, such as to kill his mother or his\nchild. The hypnotized subject feels himself bound to carry out\nthe suggestion--he thinks he cannot stop--but the nearer he gets\nto the time and the place of the action, the more the benumbed\nconscience begins to stir, to resist, and to try to awake. And no\none can say beforehand whether he will carry out the suggestion or\nnot; which will gain the upper hand, the rational conscience or\nthe irrational suggestion. It all depends on their relative\nstrength.\n\nThat is just the case with the men in the Toula train and in\ngeneral with everyone carrying out acts of state violence in our\nday.\n\nThere was a time when men who set out with the object of murder and\nviolence, to make an example, did not return till they had carried out\ntheir object, and then, untroubled by doubts or scruples, having calmly\nflogged men to death, they returned home and caressed their children,\nlaughed, amused themselves, and enjoyed the peaceful pleasures of family\nlife. In those days it never struck the landowners and wealthy men who\nprofited by these crimes, that the privileges they enjoyed had any\ndirect connection with these atrocities. But now it is no longer so. Men\nknow now, or are not far from knowing, what they are doing and for what\nobject they do it. They can shut their eyes and force their conscience\nto be still, but so long as their eyes are opened and their conscience\nundulled, they must all--those who carry out and those who profit by\nthese crimes alike--see the import of them. Sometimes they realize it\nonly after the crime has been perpetrated, sometimes they realize it\njust before its perpetration. Thus those who commanded the recent acts\nof violence in Nijni-Novgorod, Saratov, Orel, and the Yuzovsky factory\nrealized their significance only after their perpetration, and now those\nwho commanded and those who carried out these crimes are ashamed before\npublic opinion and their conscience. I have talked to soldiers who had\ntaken part in these crimes, and they always studiously turned the\nconversation off the subject, and when they spoke of it it was with\nhorror and bewilderment. There are cases, too, when men come to\nthemselves just before the perpetration of the crime. Thus I know the\ncase of a sergeant-major who had been beaten by two peasants during the\nrepression of disorder and had made a complaint. The next day, after\nseeing the atrocities perpetrated on the other peasants, he entreated\nthe commander of his company to tear up his complaint and let off the\ntwo peasants. I know cases when soldiers, commanded to fire, have\nrefused to obey, and I know many cases of officers who have refused to\ncommand expeditions for torture and murder. So that men sometimes come\nto their senses long before perpetrating the suggested crime, sometimes\nat the very moment before perpetrating it, sometimes only afterward.\n\nThe men traveling in the Toula train were going with the object of\nkilling and injuring their fellow-creatures, but none could tell\nwhether they would carry out their object or not. However obscure\nhis responsibility for the affair is to each, and however strong\nthe idea instilled into all of them that they are not men, but\ngovernors, officials, officers, and soldiers, and as such beings\ncan violate every human duty, the nearer they approach the place\nof the execution, the stronger their doubts as to its being right,\nand this doubt will reach its highest point when the very moment\nfor carrying it out has come.\n\nThe governor, in spite of all the stupefying effect of his\nsurroundings, cannot help hesitating when the moment comes to give\nfinal decisive command. He knows that the action of the Governor\nof Orel has called down upon him the disapproval of the best\npeople, and he himself, influenced by the public opinion of the\ncircles in which he moves, has more than once expressed his\ndisapprobation of him. He knows that the prosecutor, who ought to\nhave come, flatly refused to have anything to do with it, because\nhe regarded it as disgraceful. He knows, too, that there may be\nchanges any day in the government, and that what was a ground for\nadvancement yesterday may be the cause of disgrace to-morrow. And\nhe knows that there is a press, if not in Russia, at least abroad,\nwhich may report the affair and cover him with ignominy forever.\nHe is already conscious of a change in public opinion which\ncondemns what was formerly a duty. Moreover, he cannot feel fully\nassured that his soldiers will at the last moment obey him. He is\nwavering, and none can say beforehand what he will do.\n\nAll the officers and functionaries who accompany him experience in\ngreater or less degree the same emotions. In the depths of their\nhearts they all know that what they are doing is shameful, that to\ntake part in it is a discredit and blemish in the eyes of some\npeople whose opinion they value. They know that after murdering\nand torturing the defenseless, each of them will be ashamed to\nface his betrothed or the woman he is courting. And besides, they\ntoo, like the governor, are doubtful whether the soldiers'\nobedience to orders can be reckoned on. What a contrast with the\nconfident air they all put on as they sauntered about the station\nand platform! Inwardly they were not only in a state of suffering\nbut even of suspense. Indeed they only assumed this bold and\ncomposed manner to conceal the wavering within. And this feeling\nincreased as they drew near the scene of action.\n\nAnd imperceptible as it was, and strange as it seems to say so,\nall that mass of lads, the soldiers, who seemed so submissive,\nwere in precisely the same condition.\n\nThese are not the soldiers of former days, who gave up the natural\nlife of industry and devoted their whole existence to debauchery,\nplunder, and murder, like the Roman legionaries or the warriors of\nthe Thirty Years' War, or even the soldiers of more recent times\nwho served for twenty-five years in the army. They have mostly\nbeen only lately taken from their families, and are full of the\nrecollections of the good, rational, natural life they have left\nbehind them.\n\nAll these lads, peasants for the most part, know what is the\nbusiness they have come about; they know that the landowners\nalways oppress their brothers the peasants, and that therefore it\nis most likely the same thing here. Moreover, a majority of them\ncan now read, and the books they read are not all such as exalt a\nmilitary life; there are some which point out its immorality.\nAmong them are often free-thinking comrades--who have enlisted\nvoluntarily--or young officers of liberal ideas, and already the\nfirst germ of doubt has been sown in regard to the unconditional\nlegitimacy and glory of their occupation.\n\nIt is true that they have all passed through that terrible, skillful\neducation, elaborated through centuries, which kills all initiative in a\nman, and that they are so trained to mechanical obedience that at the\nword of command: \"Fire!--All the line!--Fire!\" and so on, their guns\nwill rise of themselves and the habitual movements will be performed.\nBut \"Fire!\" now does not mean shooting into the sand for amusement, it\nmeans firing on their broken-down, exploited fathers and brothers whom\nthey see there in the crowd, with women and children shouting and waving\ntheir arms. Here they are--one with his scanty beard and patched coat\nand plaited shoes of reed, just like the father left at home in Kazan or\nRiazan province; one with gray beard and bent back, leaning on a staff\nlike the old grandfather; one, a young fellow in boots and a red shirt,\njust as he was himself a year ago--he, the soldier who must fire upon\nhim. There, too, a woman in reed shoes and PANYOVA, just like the mother\nleft at home.\n\nIs it possible they must fire on them? And no one knows what each\nsoldier will do at the last minute. The least word, the slightest\nallusion would be enough to stop them.\n\nAt the last moment they will all find themselves in the position\nof a hypnotized man to whom it has been suggested to chop a log,\nwho coming up to what has been indicated to him as a log, with the\nax already lifted to strike, sees that it is not a log but his\nsleeping brother. He may perform the act that has been suggested\nto him, and he may come to his senses at the moment of performing\nit. In the same way all these men may come to themselves in time\nor they may go on to the end.\n\nIf they do not come to themselves, the most fearful crime will be\ncommitted, as in Orel, and then the hypnotic suggestion under\nwhich they act will be strengthened in all other men. If they do\ncome to themselves, not only this terrible crime will not be\nperpetrated, but many also who hear of the turn the affair has\ntaken will be emancipated from the hypnotic influence in which\nthey were held, or at least will be nearer being emancipated from\nit.\n\nEven if a few only come to themselves, and boldly explain to the\nothers all the wickedness of such a crime, the influence of these\nfew may rouse the others to shake off the controlling suggestion,\nand the atrocity will not be perpetrated.\n\nMore than that, if a few men, even of those who are not taking\npart in the affair but are only present at the preparations for\nit, or have heard of such things being done in the past, do not\nremain indifferent but boldly and plainly express their\ndetestation of such crimes to those who have to execute them, and\npoint out to them all the senselessness, cruelty, and wickedness\nof such acts, that alone will be productive of good.\n\nThat was what took place in the instance before us. It was enough\nfor a few men, some personally concerned in the affair and others\nsimply outsiders, to express their disapproval of floggings that\nhad taken place elsewhere, and their contempt and loathing for\nthose who had taken part in inflicting them, for a few persons in\nthe Toula case to express their repugnance to having any share in\nit; for a lady traveling by the train, and a few other bystanders\nat the station, to express to those who formed the expedition\ntheir disgust at what they were doing; for one of the commanders\nof a company, who was asked for troops for the restoration of\norder, to reply that soldiers ought not to be butchers--and thanks\nto these and a few other seemingly insignificant influences\nbrought to bear on these hypnotized men, the affair took a\ncompletely different turn, and the troops, when they reached the\nplace, did not inflict any punishment, but contented themselves\nwith cutting down the forest and giving it to the landowner.\n\nHad not a few persons had a clear consciousness that what they\nwere doing was wrong, and consequently influenced one another in\nthat direction, what was done at Orel would have taken place at\nToula. Had this consciousness been still stronger, and had the\ninfluence exerted been therefore greater than it was, it might\nwell have been that the governor with his troops would not even\nhave ventured to cut down the forest and give it to the landowner.\n\nHad that consciousness been stronger still, it might well have\nbeen that the governor would not have ventured to go to the scene\nof action at all; even that the minister would not have ventured\nto form this decision or the Tzar to ratify it.\n\nAll depends, therefore, on the strength of the consciousness of\nChristian truth on the part of each individual man.\n\nAnd, therefore, one would have thought that the efforts of all men\nof the present day who profess to wish to work for the welfare of\nhumanity would have been directed to strengthening this\nconsciousness of Christian truth in themselves and others.\n\nBut, strange to say, it is precisely those people who profess most\nanxiety for the amelioration of human life, and are regarded as\nthe leaders of public opinion, who assert that there is no need to\ndo that, and that there are other more effective means for the\namelioration of men's condition. They affirm that the\namelioration of human life is effected not by the efforts of\nindividual men, to recognize and propagate the truth, but by the\ngradual modification of the general conditions of life, and that\ntherefore the efforts of individuals should be directed to the\ngradual modification of external conditions for the better. For\nevery advocacy of a truth inconsistent with the existing order by\nan individual is, they maintain, not only useless but injurious,\nsince in provokes coercive measures on the part of the\nauthorities, restricting these individuals from continuing any\naction useful to society. According to this doctrine all\nmodifications in human life are brought about by precisely the\nsame laws as in the life of the animals.\n\nSo that, according to this doctrine, all the founders of\nreligions, such as Moses and the prophets, Confucius, Lao-Tse,\nBuddha, Christ, and others, preached their doctrines and their\nfollowers accepted them, not because they loved the truth, but\nbecause the political, social, and above all economic conditions\nof the peoples among whom these religions arose were favorable for\ntheir origination and development.\n\nAnd therefore the chief efforts of the man who wishes to serve\nsociety and improve the condition of humanity ought, according to\nthis doctrine, to be directed not to the elucidation and\npropagation of truth, but to the improvement of the external\npolitical, social, and above all economic conditions. And the\nmodification of these conditions is partly effected by serving the\ngovernment and introducing liberal and progressive principles into\nit, partly in promoting the development of industry and the\npropagation of socialistic ideas, and most of all by the diffusion\nof science. According to this theory it is of no consequence\nwhether you profess the truth revealed to you, and therefore\nrealize it in your life, or at least refrain from committing\nactions opposed to the truth, such as serving the government and\nstrengthening its authority when you regard it as injurious,\nprofiting by the capitalistic system when you regard it as wrong,\nshowing veneration for various ceremonies which you believe to be\ndegrading superstitions, giving support to the law when you\nbelieve it to be founded on error, serving as a soldier, taking\noaths, and lying, and lowering yourself generally. It is useless\nto refrain from all that; what is of use is not altering the\nexisting forms of life, but submitting to them against your own\nconvictions, introducing liberalism into the existing\ninstitutions, promoting commerce, the propaganda of socialism, and\nthe triumphs of what is called science, and the diffusion of\neducation. According to this theory one can remain a landowner,\nmerchant, manufacturer, judge, official in government pay, officer\nor soldier, and still be not only a humane man, but even a\nsocialist and revolutionist.\n\nHypocrisy, which had formerly only a religious basis in the\ndoctrine of original sin, the redemption, and the Church, has in\nour day gained a new scientific basis and has consequently caught\nin its nets all those who had reached too high a stage of\ndevelopment to be able to find support in religious hypocrisy. So\nthat while in former days a man who professed the religion of the\nChurch could take part in all the crimes of the state, and profit\nby them, and still regard himself as free from any taint of sin,\nso long as he fulfilled the external observances of his creed,\nnowadays all who do not believe in the Christianity of the Church,\nfind similar well-founded irrefutable reasons in science for\nregarding themselves as blameless and even highly moral in spite\nof their participation in the misdeeds of government and the\nadvantages they gain from them.\n\nA rich landowner--not only in Russia, but in France, England, Germany,\nor America--lives on the rents exacted; from the people living on his\nland, and robs these generally poverty-stricken people of all he can get\nfrom them. This man's right of property in the land rests on the fact\nthat at every effort on the part of the oppressed people, without his\nconsent, to make use of the land he considers his, troops are called out\nto subject them to punishment and murder. One would have thought that it\nwas obvious that a man living in this way was an evil, egoistic creature\nand could not possibly consider himself a Christian or a liberal. One\nwould have supposed it evident that the first thing such a man must do,\nif he wishes to approximate to Christianity or liberalism, would be to\ncease to plunder and ruin men by means of acts of state violence in\nsupport of his claim to the land. And so it would be if it were not for\nthe logic of hypocrisy, which reasons that from a religious point of\nview possession or non-possession of land is of no consequence for\nsalvation, and from the scientific point of view, giving up the\nownership of land is a useless individual renunciation, and that the\nwelfare of mankind is not promoted in that way, but by a gradual\nmodification of external forms. And so we see this man, without the\nleast trouble of mind or doubt that people will believe in his\nsincerity, organizing an agricultural exhibition, or a temperance\nsociety, or sending some soup and stockings by his wife or children to\nthree old women, and boldly in his family, in drawing rooms, in\ncommittees, and in the press, advocating the Gospel or humanitarian\ndoctrine of love for one's neighbor in general and the agricultural\nlaboring population in particular whom he is continually exploiting and\noppressing. And other people who are in the same position as he believe\nhim, commend him, and solemnly discuss with him measures for\nameliorating the condition of the working-class, on whose exploitation\ntheir whole life rests, devising all kinds of possible methods for this,\nexcept the one without which all improvement of their condition is\nimpossible, i. e., refraining from taking from them the land necessary\nfor their subsistence. (A striking example of this hypocrisy was the\nsolicitude displayed by the Russian landowners last year, their efforts\nto combat the famine which they had caused, and by which they profited,\nselling not only bread at the highest price, but even potato haulm at\nfive rubles the dessiatine (about 2 and four-fifths acres) for fuel to\nthe freezing peasants.)\n\nOr take a merchant whose whole trade--like all trade indeed--is\nfounded on a series of trickery, by means of which, profiting by\nthe ignorance or need of others, he buys goods below their value\nand sells them again above their value. One would have fancied it\nobvious that a man whose whole occupation was based on what in his\nown language is called swindling, if it is done under other\nconditions, ought to be ashamed of his position, and could not any\nway, while he continues a merchant, profess himself a Christian or\na liberal.\n\nBut the sophistry of hypocrisy reasons that the merchant can pass for a\nvirtuous man without giving up his pernicious course of action; a\nreligious man need only have faith and a liberal man need only promote\nthe modification of external conditions--the progress of industry. And\nso we see the merchant (who often goes further and commits acts of\ndirect dishonesty, selling adulterated goods, using false weights and\nmeasures, and trading in products injurious to health, such as alcohol\nand opium) boldly regarding himself and being regarded by others, so\nlong as he does not directly deceive his colleagues in business, as a\npattern of probity and virtue. And if he spends a thousandth part of his\nstolen wealth on some public institution, a hospital or museum or\nschool, then he is even regarded as the benefactor of the people on the\nexploitation and corruption of whom his whole prosperity has been\nfounded: if he sacrifices, too, a portion of his ill-gotten gains on a\nChurch and the poor, then he is an exemplary Christian.\n\nA manufacturer is a man whose whole income consists of value\nsqueezed out of the workmen, and whose whole occupation is based\non forced, unnatural labor, exhausting whole generations of men.\nIt would seem obvious that if this man professes any Christian or\nliberal principles, he must first of all give up ruining human\nlives for his own profit. But by the existing theory he is\npromoting industry, and he ought not to abandon his pursuit. It\nwould even be injuring society for him to do so. And so we see\nthis man, the harsh slave-driver of thousands of men, building\nalmshouses with little gardens two yards square for the workmen\nbroken down in toiling for him, and a bank, and a poorhouse, and a\nhospital--fully persuaded that he has amply expiated in this way\nfor all the human lives morally and physically ruined by him--and\ncalmly going on with his business, taking pride in it.\n\nAny civil, religious, or military official in government employ,\nwho serves the state from vanity, or, as is most often the case,\nsimply for the sake of the pay wrung from the harassed and\ntoilworn working classes (all taxes, however raised, always fall\non labor), if he, as is very seldom the case, does not directly\nrob the government in the usual way, considers himself, and is\nconsidered by his fellows, as a most useful and virtuous member of\nsociety.\n\nA judge or a public prosecutor knows that through his sentence or\nhis prosecution hundreds or thousands of poor wretches are at once\ntorn from their families and thrown into prison, where they may go\nout of their minds, kill themselves with pieces of broken glass,\nor starve themselves; he knows that they have wives and mothers\nand children, disgraced and made miserable by separation from\nthem, vainly begging for pardon for them or some alleviation of\ntheir sentence, and this judge or this prosecutor is so hardened\nin his hypocrisy that he and his fellows and his wife and his\nhousehold are all fully convinced that he may be a most exemplary\nman. According to the metaphysics of hypocrisy it is held that he\nis doing a work of public utility. And this man who has ruined\nhundreds, thousands of men, who curse him and are driven to\ndesperation by his action, goes to mass, a smile of shining\nbenevolence on his smooth face, in perfect faith in good and in\nGod, listens to the Gospel, caresses his children, preaches moral\nprinciples to them, and is moved by imaginary sufferings.\n\nAll these men and those who depend on them, their wives, tutors,\nchildren, cooks, actors, jockeys, and so on, are living on the blood\nwhich by one means or another, through one set of blood-suckers or\nanother, is drawn out of the working class, and every day their\npleasures cost hundreds or thousands of days of labor. They see the\nsufferings and privations of these laborers and their children, their\naged, their wives, and their sick, they know the punishments inflicted\non those who resist this organized plunder, and far from decreasing, far\nfrom concealing their luxury, they insolently display it before these\noppressed laborers who hate them, as though intentionally provoking them\nwith the pomp of their parks and palaces, their theaters, hunts, and\nraces. At the same time they continue to persuade themselves and others\nthat they are all much concerned about the welfare of these working\nclasses, whom they have always trampled under their feet, and on\nSundays, richly dressed, they drive in sumptuous carriages to the houses\nof God built in very mockery of Christianity, and there listen to men,\ntrained to this work of deception, who in white neckties or in brocaded\nvestments, according to their denomination, preach the love for their\nneighbor which they all gainsay in their lives. And these people have so\nentered into their part that they seriously believe that they really are\nwhat they pretend to be.\n\nThe universal hypocrisy has so entered into the flesh and blood of\nall classes of our modern society, it has reached such a pitch\nthat nothing in that way can rouse indignation. Hypocrisy in the\nGreek means \"acting,\" and acting--playing a part--is always\npossible. The representatives of Christ give their blessing to\nthe ranks of murderers holding their guns loaded against their\nbrothers; \"for prayer\" priests, ministers of various Christian\nsects are always present, as indispensably as the hangman, at\nexecutions, and sanction by their presence the compatibility of\nmurder with Christianity (a clergyman assisted at the attempt at\nmurder by electricity in America)--but such facts cause no one any\nsurprise.\n\nThere was recently held at Petersburg an international exhibition\nof instruments of torture, handcuffs, models of solitary cells,\nthat is to say instruments of torture worse than knouts or rods,\nand sensitive ladies and gentlemen went and amused themselves by\nlooking at them.\n\nNo one is surprised that together with its recognition of liberty,\nequality, and fraternity, liberal science should prove the\nnecessity of war, punishment, customs, the censure, the regulation\nof prostitution, the exclusion of cheap foreign laborers, the\nhindrance of emigration, the justifiableness of colonization,\nbased on poisoning and destroying whole races of men called\nsavages, and so on.\n\nPeople talk of the time when all men shall profess what is called\nChristianity (that is, various professions of faith hostile to one\nanother), when all shall be well-fed and clothed, when all shall\nbe united from one end of the world to the other by telegraphs and\ntelephones, and be able to communicate by balloons, when all the\nworking classes are permeated by socialistic doctrines, when the\nTrades Unions possess so many millions of members and so many\nmillions of rubles, when everyone is educated and all can read\nnewspapers and learn all the sciences.\n\nBut what good or useful thing can come of all these improvements,\nif men do not speak and act in accordance with what they believe\nto be the truth?\n\nThe condition of men is the result of their disunion. Their\ndisunion results from their not following the truth which is one,\nbut falsehoods which are many. The sole means of uniting men is\ntheir union in the truth. And therefore the more sincerely men\nstrive toward the truth, the nearer they get to unity.\n\nBut how can men be united in the truth or even approximate to it,\nif they do not even express the truth they know, but hold that\nthere is no need to do so, and pretend to regard as truth what\nthey believe to be false?\n\nAnd therefore no improvement is possible so long as men are\nhypocritical and hide the truth from themselves, so long as they\ndo not recognize that their union and therefore their welfare is\nonly possible in the truth, and do not put the recognition and\nprofession of the truth revealed to them higher than everything\nelse.\n\nAll the material improvements that religious and scientific men\ncan dream of may be accomplished; all men may accept Christianity,\nand all the reforms desired by the Bellamys may be brought about\nwith every possible addition and improvement, but if the hypocrisy\nwhich rules nowadays still exists, if men do not profess the truth\nthey know, but continue to feign belief in what they do not\nbelieve and veneration for what they do not respect, their\ncondition will remain the same, or even grow worse and worse. The\nmore men are freed from privation; the more telegraphs,\ntelephones, books, papers, and journals there are; the more means\nthere will be of diffusing inconsistent lies and hypocrisies, and\nthe more disunited and consequently miserable will men become,\nwhich indeed is what we see actually taking place.\n\nAll these material reforms may be realized, but the position of\nhumanity will not be improved. But only let each man, according\nto his powers, at once realize in his life the truth he knows, or\nat least cease to support the falsehoods he is supporting in the\nplace of the truth, and at once, in this year 1893, we should see\nsuch reforms as we do not dare to hope for within a century--the\nemancipation of men and the reign of truth upon earth.\n\nNot without good reason was Christ's only harsh and threatening\nreproof directed against hypocrites and hypocrisy. It is not\ntheft nor robbery nor murder nor fornication, but falsehood, the\nspecial falsehood of hypocrisy, which corrupts men, brutalizes\nthem and makes them vindictive, destroys all distinction between\nright and wrong in their conscience, deprives them of what is the\ntrue meaning of all real human life, and debars them from all\nprogress toward perfection.\n\nThose who do evil through ignorance of the truth provoke sympathy\nwith their victims and repugnance for their actions, they do harm\nonly to those they attack; but those who know the truth and do\nevil masked by hypocrisy, injure themselves and their victims, and\nthousands of other men as well who are led astray by the falsehood\nwith which the wrongdoing is disguised.\n\nThieves, robbers, murderers, and cheats, who commit crimes\nrecognized by themselves and everyone else as evil, serve as an\nexample of what ought not to be done, and deter others from\nsimilar crimes. But those who commit the same thefts, robberies,\nmurders, and other crimes, disguising them under all kinds of\nreligious or scientific or humanitarian justifications, as all\nlandowners, merchants, manufacturers, and government officials do,\nprovoke others to imitation, and so do harm not only to those who\nare directly the victims of their crimes, but to thousands and\nmillions of men whom they corrupt by obliterating their sense of\nthe distinction between right and wrong.\n\nA single fortune gained by trading in goods necessary to the\npeople or in goods pernicious in their effects, or by financial\nspeculations, or by acquiring land at a low price the value of\nwhich is increased by the needs of the population, or by an\nindustry ruinous to the health and life of those employed in it,\nor by military or civil service of the state, or by any employment\nwhich trades on men's evil instincts--a single fortune acquired in\nany of these ways, not only with the sanction, but even with the\napprobation of the leading men in society, and masked with an\nostentation of philanthropy, corrupts men incomparably more than\nmillions of thefts and robberies committed against the recognized\nforms of law and punishable as crimes.\n\nA single execution carried out by prosperous educated men\nuninfluenced by passion, with the approbation and assistance of\nChristian ministers, and represented as something necessary and\neven just, is infinitely more corrupting and brutalizing to men\nthan thousands of murders committed by uneducated working people\nunder the influence of passion. An execution such as was proposed\nby Joukovsky, which would produce even a sentiment of religious\nemotion in the spectators, would be one of the most perverting\nactions imaginable. (SEE vol. iv. of the works of Joukovsky.)\n\nEvery war, even the most humanely conducted, with all its ordinary\nconsequences, the destruction of harvests, robberies, the license\nand debauchery, and the murder with the justifications of its\nnecessity and justice, the exaltation and glorification of\nmilitary exploits, the worship of the flag, the patriotic\nsentiments, the feigned solicitude for the wounded, and so on,\ndoes more in one year to pervert men's minds than thousands of\nrobberies, murders, and arsons perpetrated during hundreds of\nyears by individual men under the influence of passion.\n\nThe luxurious expenditure of a single respectable and so-called\nhonorable family, even within the conventional limits, consuming\nas it does the produce of as many days of labor as would suffice\nto provide for thousands living in privation near, does more to\npervert men's minds than thousands of the violent orgies of coarse\ntradespeople, officers, and workmen of drunken and debauched\nhabits, who smash up glasses and crockery for amusement.\n\nOne solemn religious procession, one service, one sermon from the\naltar-steps or the pulpit, in which the preacher does not believe,\nproduces incomparably more evil than thousands of swindling\ntricks, adulteration of food, and so on.\n\nWe talk of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. But the hypocrisy of\nour society far surpasses the comparatively innocent hypocrisy of\nthe Pharisees. They had at least an external religious law, the\nfulfillment of which hindered them from seeing their obligations\nto their neighbors. Moreover, these obligations were not nearly\nso clearly defined in their day. Nowadays we have no such\nreligious law to exonerate us from our duties to our neighbors (I\nam not speaking now of the coarse and ignorant persons who still\nfancy their sins can be absolved by confession to a priest or by\nthe absolution of the Pope). On the contrary, the law of the\nGospel which we all profess in one form or another directly\ndefines these duties. Besides, the duties which had then been\nonly vaguely and mystically expressed by a few prophets have now\nbeen so clearly formulated, have become such truisms, that they\nare repeated even by schoolboys and journalists. And so it would\nseem that men of to-day cannot pretend that they do not know these\nduties.\n\nA man of the modern world who profits by the order of things based\non violence, and at the same time protests that he loves his\nneighbor and does not observe what he is doing in his daily life\nto his neighbor, is like a brigand who has spent his life in\nrobbing men, and who, caught at last, knife in hand, in the very\nact of striking his shrieking victim, should declare that he had\nno idea that what he was doing was disagreeable to the man he had\nrobbed and was prepared to murder. Just as this robber and\nmurderer could not deny what was evident to everyone, so it would\nseem that a man living upon the privations of the oppressed\nclasses cannot persuade himself and others that he desires the\nwelfare of those he plunders, and that he does not know how the\nadvantages he enjoys are obtained.\n\nIt is impossible to convince ourselves that we do not know that\nthere are a hundred thousand men in prison in Russia alone to\nguarantee the security of our property and tranquillity, and that\nwe do not know of the law tribunals in which we take part, and\nwhich, at our initiative, condemn those who have attacked our\nproperty or our security to prison, exile, or forced labor,\nwhereby men no worse than those who condemn them are ruined and\ncorrupted; or that we do not know that we only possess all that we\ndo possess because it has been acquired and is defended for us by\nmurder and violence.\n\nWe cannot pretend that we do not see the armed policeman who\nmarches up and down beneath our windows to guarantee our security\nwhile we eat our luxurious dinner, or look at the new piece at the\ntheater, or that we are unaware of the existence of the soldiers\nwho will make their appearance with guns and cartridges directly\nour property is attacked.\n\nWe know very well that we are only allowed to go on eating our\ndinner, to finish seeing the new play, or to enjoy to the end the\nball, the Christmas fete, the promenade, the races or, the hunt,\nthanks to the policeman's revolver or the soldier's rifle, which\nwill shoot down the famished outcast who has been robbed of his\nshare, and who looks round the corner with covetous eyes at our\npleasures, ready to interrupt them instantly, were not the\npoliceman and the soldier there prepared to run up at our first\ncall for help.\n\nAnd therefore just as a brigand caught in broad daylight in the\nact cannot persuade us that he did not lift his knife in order to\nrob his victim of his purse, and had no thought of killing him, we\ntoo, it would seem, cannot persuade ourselves or others that the\nsoldiers and policemen around us are not to guard us, but only for\ndefense against foreign foes, and to regulate traffic and f\u00eates\nand reviews; we cannot persuade ourselves and others that we do\nnot know that men do not like dying of hunger, bereft of the right\nto gain their subsistence from the earth on which they live; that\nthey do not like working underground, in the water, or in stifling\nheat, for ten to fourteen hours a day, at night in factories to\nmanufacture objects for our pleasure. One would imagine it\nimpossible to deny what is so obvious. Yet it is denied.\n\nStill, there are, among the rich, especially among the young, and\namong women, persons whom I am glad to meet more and more\nfrequently, who, when they are shown in what way and at what cost\ntheir pleasures are purchased, do not try to conceal the truth,\nbut hiding their heads in their hands, cry: \"Ah! don't speak of\nthat. If it is so, life is impossible.\" But though there are\nsuch sincere people who even though they cannot renounce their\nfault, at least see it, the vast majority of the men of the modern\nworld have so entered into the parts they play in their hypocrisy\nthat they boldly deny what is staring everyone in the face.\n\n\"All that is unjust,\" they say; \"no one forces the people to work\nfor the landowners and manufacturers. That is an affair of free\ncontract. Great properties and fortunes are necessary, because\nthey provide and organize work for the working classes. And labor\nin the factories and workshops is not at all the terrible thing\nyou make it out to be. Even if there are some abuses in\nfactories, the government and the public are taking steps to\nobviate them and to make the labor of the factory workers much\neasier, and even agreeable. The working classes are accustomed to\nphysical labor, and are, so far, fit for nothing else. The\npoverty of the people is not the result of private property in\nland, nor of capitalistic oppression, but of other causes: it is\nthe result of the ignorance, brutality, and intemperance of the\npeople. And we men in authority who are striving against this\nimpoverishment of the people by wise legislation, we capitalists\nwho are combating it by the extension of useful inventions, we\nclergymen by religious instruction, and we liberals by the\nformation of trades unions, and the diffusion of education, are in\nthis way increasing the prosperity of the people without changing\nour own positions. We do not want all to be as poor as the poor;\nwe want all to be as rich as the rich. As for the assertion that\nmen are ill treated and murdered to force them to work for the\nprofit of the rich, that is a sophism. The army is only called\nout against the mob, when the people, in ignorance of their own\ninterests, make disturbances and destroy the tranquillity\nnecessary for the public welfare. In the same way, too, it is\nnecessary to keep in restraint the malefactors for whom the\nprisons and gallows are established. We ourselves wish to\nsuppress these forms of punishment and are working in that\ndirection.\"\n\nHypocrisy in our day is supported on two sides: by false religion\nand by false science. And it has reached such proportions that if\nwe were not living in its midst, we could not believe that men\ncould attain such a pitch of self-deception. Men of the present\nday have come into such an extraordinary condition, their hearts\nare so hardened, that seeing they see not, hearing they do not\nhear, and understand not.\n\nMen have long been living in antagonism to their conscience. If\nit were not for hypocrisy they could not go on living such a life.\nThis social organization in opposition to their conscience only\ncontinues to exist because it is disguised by hypocrisy.\n\nAnd the greater the divergence between actual life and men's\nconscience, the greater the extension of hypocrisy. But even\nhypocrisy has its limits. And it seems to me that we have reached\nthose limits in the present day.\n\nEvery man of the present day with the Christian principles\nassimilated involuntarily in his conscience, finds himself in\nprecisely the position of a man asleep who dreams that he is\nobliged to do something which even in his dream he knows he ought\nnot to do. He knows this in the depths of his conscience, and all\nthe same he seems unable to change his position; he cannot stop\nand cease doing what he ought not to do. And just as in a dream,\nhis position becoming more and more painful, at last reaches such\na pitch of intensity that he begins sometimes to doubt the reality\nof what is passing and makes a moral effort to shake off the\nnightmare which is oppressing him.\n\nThis is just the condition of the average man of our Christian\nsociety. He feels that all that he does himself and that is done\naround him is something absurd, hideous, impossible, and opposed\nto his conscience; he feels that his position is becoming more and\nmore unendurable and reaching a crisis of intensity.\n\nIt is not possible that we modern men, with the Christian sense of\nhuman dignity and equality permeating us soul and body, with our\nneed for peaceful association and unity between nations, should\nreally go on living in such a way that every joy, every\ngratification we have is bought by the sufferings, by the lives of\nour brother men, and moreover, that we should be every instant\nwithin a hair's-breadth of falling on one another, nation against\nnation, like wild beasts, mercilessly destroying men's lives and\nlabor, only because some benighted diplomatist or ruler says or\nwrites some stupidity to another equally benighted diplomatist or\nruler.\n\nIt is impossible. Yet every man of our day sees that this is so\nand awaits the calamity. And the situation becomes more and more\ninsupportable.\n\nAnd as the man who is dreaming does not believe that what appears\nto him can be truly the reality and tries to wake up to the actual\nreal world again, so the average man of modern days cannot in the\nbottom of his heart believe that the awful position in which he is\nplaced and which is growing worse and worse can be the reality,\nand tries to wake up to a true, real life, as it exists in his\nconscience.\n\nAnd just as the dreamer need only make a moral effort and ask\nhimself, \"Isn't it a dream?\" and the situation which seemed to him\nso hopeless will instantly disappear, and he will wake up to\npeaceful and happy reality, so the man of the modern world need\nonly make a moral effort to doubt the reality presented to him by\nhis own hypocrisy and the general hypocrisy around him, and to ask\nhimself, \"Isn't it all a delusion?\" and he will at once, like the\ndreamer awakened, feel himself transported from an imaginary and\ndreadful world to the true, calm, and happy reality.\n\nAnd to do this a man need accomplish no great feats or exploits.\nHe need only make a moral effort.\n\nBut can a man make this effort?\n\nAccording to the existing theory so essential to support\nhypocrisy, man is not free and cannot change his life.\n\n\"Man cannot change his life, because he is not free. He is not\nfree, because all his actions are conditioned by previously\nexisting causes. And whatever the man may do there are always\nsome causes or other through which he does these or those acts,\nand therefore man cannot be free and change his life,\" say the\nchampions of the metaphysics of hypocrisy. And they would be\nperfectly right if man were a creature without conscience and\nincapable of moving toward the truth; that is to say, if after\nrecognizing a new truth, man always remained at the same stage of\nmoral development. But man is a creature with a conscience and\ncapable of attaining a higher and higher degree of truth. And\ntherefore even if man is not free as regards performing these or\nthose acts because there exists a previous cause for every act,\nthe very causes of his acts, consisting as they do for the man of\nconscience of the recognition of this or that truth, are within\nhis own control.\n\nSo that though man may not be free as regards the performance of\nhis actions, he is free as regards the foundation on which they\nare performed. Just as the mechanician who is not free to modify\nthe movement of his locomotive when it is in motion, is free to\nregulate the machine beforehand so as to determine what the\nmovement is to be.\n\nWhatever the conscious man does, he acts just as he does, and not\notherwise, only because he recognizes that to act as he is acting\nis in accord with the truth, or because he has recognized it at\nsome previous time, and is now only through inertia, through\nhabit, acting in accordance with his previous recognition of\ntruth.\n\nIn any case, the cause of his action is not to be found in any\ngiven previous fact, but in the consciousness of a given relation\nto truth, and the consequent recognition of this or that fact as a\nsufficient basis for action.\n\nWhether a man eats or does not eat, works or rests, runs risks or\navoids them, if he has a conscience he acts thus only because he\nconsiders it right and rational, because he considers that to act\nthus is in harmony with truth, or else because he has made this\nreflection in the past.\n\nThe recognition or non-recognition of a certain truth depends not\non external causes, but on certain other causes within the man\nhimself. So that at times under external conditions apparently\nvery favorable for the recognition of truth, one man will not\nrecognize it, and another, on the contrary, under the most\nunfavorable conditions will, without apparent cause, recognize it.\nAs it is said in the Gospel, \"No man can come unto me, except the\nFather which hath sent me draw him.\" That is to say, the\nrecognition of truth, which is the cause of all the manifestations\nof human life, does not depend on external phenomena, but on\ncertain inner spiritual characteristics of the man which escape\nour observation.\n\nAnd therefore man, though not free in his acts, always feels\nhimself free in what is the motive of his acts--the recognition or\nnon-recognition of truth. And he feels himself independent not\nonly of facts external to his own personality, but even of his own\nactions.\n\nThus a man who under the influence of passion has committed an act\ncontrary to the truth he recognizes, remains none the less free to\nrecognize it or not to recognize it; that is, he can by refusing\nto recognize the truth regard his action as necessary and\njustifiable, or he may recognize the truth and regard his act as\nwrong and censure himself for it.\n\nThus a gambler or a drunkard who does not resist temptation and\nyields to his passion is still free to recognize gambling and\ndrunkenness as wrong or to regard them as a harmless pastime. In\nthe first case even if he does not at once get over his passion,\nhe gets the more free from it the more sincerely he recognizes the\ntruth about it; in the second case he will be strengthened in his\nvice and will deprive himself of every possibility of shaking it\noff.\n\nIn the same way a man who has made his escape alone from a house\non fire, not having had the courage to save his friend, remains\nfree, recognizing the truth that a man ought to save the life of\nanother even at the risk of his own, to regard his action as bad\nand to censure himself for it, or, not recognizing this truth, to\nregard his action as natural and necessary and to justify it to\nhimself. In the first case, if he recognizes the truth in spite\nof his departure from it, he prepares for himself in the future a\nwhole series of acts of self-sacrifice necessarily flowing from\nthis recognition of the truth; in the second case, a whole series\nof egoistic acts.\n\nNot that a man is always free to recognize or to refuse to\nrecognize every truth. There are truths which he has recognized\nlong before or which have been handed down to him by education and\ntradition and accepted by him on faith, and to follow these truths\nhas become a habit, a second nature with him; and there are\ntruths, only vaguely, as it were distantly, apprehended by him.\nThe man is not free to refuse to recognize the first, nor to\nrecognize the second class of truths. But there are truths of a\nthird kind, which have not yet become an unconscious motive of\naction, but yet have been revealed so clearly to him that he\ncannot pass them by, and is inevitably obliged to do one thing or\nthe other, to recognize or not to recognize them. And it is in\nregard to these truths that the man's freedom manifests itself.\n\nEvery man during his life finds himself in regard to truth in the\nposition of a man walking in the darkness with light thrown before\nhim by the lantern he carries. He does not see what is not yet\nlighted up by the lantern; he does not see what he has passed\nwhich is hidden in the darkness; but at every stage of his journey\nhe sees what is lighted up by the lantern, and he can always\nchoose one side or the other of the road.\n\nThere are always unseen truths not yet revealed to the man's\nintellectual vision, and there are other truths outlived,\nforgotten, and assimilated by him, and there are also certain\ntruths that rise up before the light of his reason and require his\nrecognition. And it is in the recognition or non-recognition of\nthese truths that what we call his freedom is manifested.\n\nAll the difficulty and seeming insolubility of the question of the\nfreedom of man results from those who tried to solve the question\nimagining man as stationary in his relation to the truth.\n\nMan is certainly not free if we imagine him stationary, and if we\nforget that the life of a man and of humanity is nothing but a\ncontinual movement from darkness into light, from a lower stage of\ntruth to a higher, from a truth more alloyed with errors to a\ntruth more purified from them.\n\nMan would not be free if he knew no truth at all, and in the same\nway he would not be free and would not even have any idea of\nfreedom if the whole truth which was to guide him in life had been\nrevealed once for all to him in all its purity without any\nadmixture of error.\n\nBut man is not stationary in regard to truth, but every individual\nman as he passes through life, and humanity as a whole in the same\nway, is continually learning to know a greater and greater degree\nof truth, and growing more and more free from error.\n\nAnd therefore men are in a threefold relation to truth. Some\ntruths have been so assimilated by them that they have become the\nunconscious basis of action, others are only just on the point of\nbeing revealed to him, and a third class, though not yet\nassimilated by him, have been revealed to him with sufficient\nclearness to force him to decide either to recognize them or to\nrefuse to recognize them.\n\nThese, then, are the truths which man is free to recognize or to\nrefuse to recognize.\n\nThe liberty of man does not consist in the power of acting\nindependently of the progress of life and the influences arising\nfrom it, but in the capacity for recognizing and acknowledging the\ntruth revealed to him, and becoming the free and joyful\nparticipator in the eternal and infinite work of God, the life of\nthe world; or on the other hand for refusing to recognize the\ntruth, and so being a miserable and reluctant slave dragged\nwhither he has no desire to go.\n\nTruth not only points out the way along which human life ought to\nmove, but reveals also the only way along which it can move. And\ntherefore all men must willingly or unwillingly move along the way\nof truth, some spontaneously accomplishing the task set them in\nlife, others submitting involuntarily to the law of life. Man's\nfreedom lies in the power of this choice.\n\nThis freedom within these narrow limits seems so insignificant to\nmen that they do not notice it. Some--the determinists--consider\nthis amount of freedom so trifling that they do not recognize it\nat all. Others--the champions of complete free will--keep their\neyes fixed on their hypothetical free will and neglect this which\nseemed to them such a trivial degree of freedom.\n\nThis freedom, confined between the limits of complete ignorance of\nthe truth and a recognition of a part of the truth, seems hardly\nfreedom at all, especially since, whether a man is willing or\nunwilling to recognize the truth revealed to him, he will be\ninevitably forced to carry it out in life.\n\nA horse harnessed with others to a cart is not free to refrain\nfrom moving the cart. If he does not move forward the cart will\nknock him down and go on dragging him with it, whether he will or\nnot. But the horse is free to drag the cart himself or to be\ndragged with it. And so it is with man.\n\nWhether this is a great or small degree of freedom in comparison\nwith the fantastic liberty we should like to have, it is the only\nfreedom that really exists, and in it consists the only happiness\nattainable by man.\n\nAnd more than that, this freedom is the sole means of\naccomplishing the divine work of the life of the world.\n\nAccording to Christ's doctrine, the man who sees the significance\nof life in the domain in which it is not free, in the domain of\neffects, that is, of acts, has not the true life. According to\nthe Christian doctrine, that man is living in the truth who has\ntransported his life to the domain in which it is free--the domain\nof causes, that is, the knowledge and recognition, the profession\nand realization in life of revealed truth.\n\nDevoting his life to works of the flesh, a man busies himself with\nactions depending on temporary causes outside himself. He himself\ndoes nothing really, he merely seems to be doing something. In\nreality all the acts which seem to be his are the work of a higher\npower, and he is not the creator of his own life, but the slave of\nit. Devoting his life to the recognition and fulfillment of the\ntruth revealed to him, he identifies himself with the source of\nuniversal life and accomplishes acts not personal, and dependent\non conditions of space and time, but acts unconditioned by\nprevious causes, acts which constitute the causes of everything\nelse, and have an infinite, unlimited significance.\n\n\"The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it\nby force.\" (Matt. xi. 12.)\n\nIt is this violent effort to rise above external conditions to the\nrecognition and realization of truth by which the kingdom of\nheaven is taken, and it is this effort of violence which must and\ncan be made in our times.\n\nMen need only understand this, they need only cease to trouble\nthemselves about the general external conditions in which they are\nnot free, and devote one-hundredth part of the energy they waste\non those material things to that in which they are free, to the\nrecognition and realization of the truth which is before them, and\nto the liberation of themselves and others from deception and\nhypocrisy, and, without effort or conflict, there would be an end\nat once of the false organization of life which makes men\nmiserable, and threatens them with worse calamities in the future.\nAnd then the kingdom of God would be realized, or at least that\nfirst stage of it for which men are ready now by the degree of\ndevelopment of their conscience.\n\nJust as a single shock may be sufficient, when a liquid is\nsaturated with some salt, to precipitate it at once in crystals, a\nslight effort may be perhaps all that is needed now that the truth\nalready revealed to men may gain a mastery over hundreds,\nthousands, millions of men, that a public opinion consistent with\nconscience may be established, and through this change of public\nopinion the whole order of life may be transformed. And it\ndepends upon us to make this effort.\n\nLet each of us only try to understand and accept the Christian\ntruth which in the most varied forms surrounds us on all sides and\nforces itself upon us; let us only cease from lying and pretending\nthat we do not see this truth or wish to realize it, at least in\nwhat it demands from us above all else; only let us accept and\nboldly profess the truth to which we are called, and we should\nfind at once that hundreds, thousands, millions of men are in the\nsame position as we, that they see the truth as we do, and dread\nas we do to stand alone in recognizing it, and like us are only\nwaiting for others to recognize it also.\n\nOnly let men cease to be hypocrites, and they would at once see\nthat this cruel social organization, which holds them in bondage,\nand is represented to them as something stable, necessary, and\nordained of God, is already tottering and is only propped up by\nthe falsehood of hypocrisy, with which we, and others like us,\nsupport it.\n\nBut if this is so, if it is true that it depends on us to break\ndown the existing organization of life, have we the right to\ndestroy it, without knowing clearly what we shall set up in its\nplace? What will become of human society when the existing order\nof things is at an end?\n\n \"What shall we find the other side of the walls of the world we\n are abandoning?\n\n \"Fear will come upon us--a void, a vast emptiness, freedom--how\n are we to go forward not knowing whither, how face loss, not\n seeing hope of gain? . . . If Columbus had reasoned thus he\n would never have weighed anchor. It was madness to set off\n upon the ocean, not knowing the route, on the ocean on which no\n one had sailed, to sail toward a land whose existence was\n doubtful. By this madness he discovered a new world.\n Doubtless if the peoples of the world could simply transfer\n themselves from one furnished mansion to another and better\n one--it would make it much easier; but unluckily there is no\n one to get humanity's new dwelling ready for it. The future is\n even worse than the ocean--there is nothing there--it will be\n what men and circumstances make it.\n\n \"If you are content with the old world, try to preserve it, it\n is very sick and cannot hold out much longer. But if you\n cannot bear to live in everlasting dissonance between your\n beliefs and your life, thinking one thing and doing another,\n get out of the mediaeval whited sepulchers, and face your\n fears. I know very well it is not easy.\n\n \"It is not a little thing to cut one's self off from all to\n which a man has been accustomed from his birth, with which he\n has grown up to maturity. Men are ready for tremendous\n sacrifices, but not for those which life demands of them. Are\n they ready to sacrifice modern civilization, their manner of\n life, their religion, the received conventional morality?\n\n \"Are we ready to give up all the results we have attained with\n such effort, results of which we have been boasting for three\n centuries; to give up every convenience and charm of our\n existence, to prefer savage youth to the senile decay of\n civilization, to pull down the palace raised for us by our\n ancestors only for the pleasure of having a hand in the\n founding of a new house, which will doubtless be built long\n after we are gone?\" (Herzen, vol. v. p. 55.)\n\nThus wrote almost half a century ago the Russian writer, who with\nprophetic insight saw clearly then, what even the most\nunreflecting man sees to-day, the impossibility, that is, of life\ncontinuing on its old basis, and the necessity of establishing new\nforms of life.\n\nIt is clear now from the very simplest, most commonplace point of\nview, that it is madness to remain under the roof of a building\nwhich cannot support its weight, and that we must leave it. And\nindeed it is difficult to imagine a position more wretched than\nthat of the Christian world to-day, with its nations armed against\none another, with its constantly increasing taxation to maintain\nits armies, with the hatred of the working class for the rich ever\ngrowing more intense, with the Damocles sword of war forever\nhanging over the heads of all, ready every instant to fall,\ncertain to fall sooner or later.\n\nHardly could any revolution be more disastrous for the great mass\nof the population than the present order or rather disorder of our\nlife, with its daily sacrifices to exhausting and unnatural toil,\nto poverty, drunkenness, and profligacy, with all the horrors of\nthe war that is at hand, which will swallow up in one year more\nvictims than all the revolutions of the century.\n\nWhat will become of humanity if each of us performs the duty God\ndemands of us through the conscience implanted within us? Will\nnot harm come if, being wholly in the power of a master, I carry\nout, in the workshop erected and directed by him, the orders he\ngives me, strange though they may seem to me who do not know the\nMaster's final aims?\n\nBut it is not even this question \"What will happen?\" that agitates\nmen when they hesitate to fulfill the Master's will. They are\ntroubled by the question how to live without those habitual\nconditions of life which we call civilization, culture, art, and\nscience. We feel ourselves all the burdensomeness of life as it\nis; we see also that this organization of life must inevitably be\nour ruin, if it continues. At the same time we want the\nconditions of our life which arise out of this organization--our\ncivilization, culture, art, and science--to remain intact. It is\nas though a man, living in an old house and suffering from cold\nand all sorts of inconvenience in it, knowing, too, that it is on\nthe point of falling to pieces, should consent to its being\nrebuilt, but only on the condition that he should not be required\nto leave it: a condition which is equivalent to refusing to have\nit rebuilt at all.\n\n\"But what if I leave the house and give up every convenience for a\ntime, and the new house is not built, or is built on a different\nplan so that I do not find in it the comforts to which I am\naccustomed?\" But seeing that the materials and the builders are\nhere, there is every likelihood that the new house will on the\ncontrary be better built than the old one. And at the same time,\nthere is not only the likelihood but the certainty that the old\nhouse will fall down and crush those who remain within it.\nWhether the old habitual conditions of life are supported, or\nwhether they are abolished and altogether new and better\nconditions arise; in any case, there is no doubt we shall be\nforced to leave the old forms of life which have become impossible\nand fatal, and must go forward to meet the future.\n\n\"Civilization, art, science, culture, will disappear!\"\n\nYes, but all these we know are only various manifestations of\ntruth, and the change that is before us is only to be made for the\nsake of a closer attainment and realization of truth. How then\ncan the manifestations of truth disappear through our realizing\nit? These manifestations will be different, higher, better, but\nthey will not cease to be. Only what is false in them will be\ndestroyed; all the truth there was in them will only be stronger\nand more flourishing.\n\nTake thought, oh, men, and have faith in the Gospel, in whose\nteaching is your happiness. If you do not take thought, you will\nperish just as the men perished, slain by Pilate, or crushed by\nthe tower of Siloam; as millions of men have perished, slayers and\nslain, executing and executed, torturers and tortured alike, and\nas the man foolishly perished, who filled his granaries full and\nmade ready for a long life and died the very night that he planned\nto begin his life. Take thought and have faith in the Gospel,\nChrist said eighteen hundred years ago, and he says it with even\ngreater force now that the calamities foretold by him have come to\npass, and the senselessness of our life has reached the furthest\npoint of suffering and madness.\n\nNowadays, after so many centuries of fruitless efforts to make our\nlife secure by the pagan organization of life, it must be evident\nto everyone that all efforts in that direction only introduce\nfresh dangers into personal and social life, and do not render it\nmore secure in any way.\n\nWhatever names we dignify ourselves with, whatever uniforms we wear,\nwhatever priests we anoint ourselves before, however many millions we\npossess, however many guards are stationed along our road, however many\npolicemen guard our wealth, however many so-called criminals,\nrevolutionists, and anarchists we punish, whatever exploits we have\nperformed, whatever states we may have founded, fortresses and towers we\nmay have erected--from Babel to the Eiffel Tower--there are two\ninevitable conditions of life, confronting all of us, which destroy its\nwhole meaning; (1) death, which may at any moment pounce upon each of\nus; and (2) the transitoriness of all our works, which so soon pass away\nand leave no trace. Whatever we may do--found companies, build palaces\nand monuments, write songs and poems--it is all not for long time. Soon\nit passes away, leaving no trace. And therefore, however we may conceal\nit from ourselves, we cannot help seeing that the significance of our\nlife cannot lie in our personal fleshly existence, the prey of incurable\nsuffering and inevitable death, nor in any social institution or\norganization. Whoever you may be who are reading these lines, think of\nyour position and of your duties--not of your position as landowner,\nmerchant, judge, emperor, president, minister, priest, soldier, which\nhas been temporarily allotted you by men, and not of the imaginary\nduties laid on you by those positions, but of your real positions in\neternity as a creature who at the will of Someone has been called out of\nunconsciousness after an eternity of non-existence to which you may\nreturn at any moment at his will. Think of your duties--not your\nsupposed duties as a landowner to your estate, as a merchant to your\nbusiness, as emperor, minister, or official to the state, but of your\nreal duties, the duties that follow from your real position as a being\ncalled into life and endowed with reason and love.\n\nAre you doing what he demands of you who has sent you into the\nworld, and to whom you will soon return? Are you doing what he\nwills? Are you doing his will, when as landowner or manufacturer\nyou rob the poor of the fruits of their toil, basing your life on\nthis plunder of the workers, or when, as judge or governor, you\nill treat men, sentence them to execution, or when as soldiers you\nprepare for war, kill and plunder?\n\nYou will say that the world is so made that this is inevitable,\nand that you do not do this of your own free will, but because you\nare forced to do so. But can it be that you have such a strong\naversion to men's sufferings, ill treatment, and murder, that you\nhave such an intense need of love and co-operation with your\nfellows that you see clearly that only by the recognition of the\nequality of all, and by mutual services, can the greatest possible\nhappiness be realized; that your head and your heart, the faith\nyou profess, and even science itself tell you the same thing, and\nyet that in spite of it all you can be forced by some confused and\ncomplicated reasoning to act in direct opposition to all this;\nthat as landowner or capitalist you are bound to base your whole\nlife on the oppression of the people; that as emperor or president\nyou are to command armies, that is, to be the head and commander\nof murderers; or that as government official you are forced to\ntake from the poor their last pence for rich men to profit and\nshare them among themselves; or that as judge or juryman you could\nbe forced to sentence erring men to ill treatment and death\nbecause the truth was not revealed to them, or above all, for that\nis the basis of all the evil, that you could be forced to become a\nsoldier, and renouncing your free will and your human sentiments,\ncould undertake to kill anyone at the command of other men?\n\nIt cannot be.\n\nEven if you are told that all this is necessary for the\nmaintenance of the existing order of things, and that this social\norder with its pauperism, famines, prisons, gallows, armies, and\nwars is necessary to society; that still greater disasters would\nensue if this organization were destroyed; all that is said only\nby those who profit by this organization, while those who suffer\nfrom it--and they are ten times as numerous--think and say quite\nthe contrary. And at the bottom of your heart you know yourself\nthat it is not true, that the existing organization has outlived\nits time, and must inevitably be reconstructed on new principles,\nand that consequently there is no obligation upon you to sacrifice\nyour sentiments of humanity to support it.\n\nAbove all, even if you allow that this organization is necessary,\nwhy do you believe it to be your duty to maintain it at the cost\nof your best feelings? Who has made you the nurse in charge of\nthis sick and moribund organization? Not society nor the state\nnor anyone; no one has asked you to undertake this; you who fill\nyour position of landowner, merchant, tzar, priest, or soldier\nknow very well that you occupy that position by no means with the\nunselfish aim of maintaining the organization of life necessary to\nmen's happiness, but simply in your own interests, to satisfy your\nown covetousness or vanity or ambition or indolence or cowardice.\nIf you did not desire that position, you would not be doing your\nutmost to retain it. Try the experiment of ceasing to commit the\ncruel, treacherous, and base actions that you are constantly\ncommitting in order to retain your position, and you will lose it\nat once. Try the simple experiment, as a government official, of\ngiving up lying, and refusing to take a part in executions and\nacts of violence; as a priest, of giving up deception; as a\nsoldier, of giving up murder; as landowner or manufacturer, of\ngiving up defending your property by fraud and force; and you will\nat once lose the position which you pretend is forced upon you,\nand which seems burdensome to you.\n\nA man cannot be placed against his will in a situation opposed to\nhis conscience.\n\nIf you find yourself in such a position it is not because it is\nnecessary to anyone whatever, but simply because you wish it. And\ntherefore knowing that your position is repugnant to your heart\nand your head, and to your faith, and even to the science in which\nyou believe, you cannot help reflecting upon the question whether\nin retaining it, and above all trying to justify it, you are doing\nwhat you ought to do.\n\nYou might risk making a mistake if you had time to see and\nretrieve your fault, and if you ran the risk for something of some\nvalue. But when you know beyond all doubt that you may disappear\nany minute, without the least possibility either for yourself or\nthose you draw after you into your error, of retrieving the\nmistake, when you know that whatever you may do in the external\norganization of life it will all disappear as quickly and surely\nas you will yourself, and will leave no trace behind, it is clear\nthat you have no reasonable ground for running the risk of such a\nfearful mistake.\n\nIt would be perfectly simple and clear if you did not by your\nhypocrisy disguise the truth which has so unmistakably been\nrevealed to us.\n\nShare all that you have with others, do not heap up riches, do not\nsteal, do not cause suffering, do not kill, do not unto others\nwhat you would not they should do unto you, all that has been said\nnot eighteen hundred, but five thousand years ago, and there could\nbe no doubt of the truth of this law if it were not for hypocrisy.\nExcept for hypocrisy men could not have failed, if not to put the\nlaw in practice, at least to recognize it, and admit that it is\nwrong not to put it in practice.\n\nBut you will say that there is the public good to be considered,\nand that on that account one must not and ought not to conform to\nthese principles; for the public good one may commit acts of\nviolence and murder. It is better for one man to die than that\nthe whole people perish, you will say like Caiaphas, and you sign\nthe sentence of death of one man, of a second, and a third; you\nload your gun against this man who is to perish for the public\ngood, you imprison him, you take his possessions. You say that\nyou commit these acts of cruelty because you are a part of the\nsociety and of the state; that it is your duty to serve them, and\nas landowner, judge, emperor, or soldier to conform to their laws.\nBut besides belonging to the state and having duties created by\nthat position, you belong also to eternity and to God, who also\nlays duties upon you. And just as your duties to your family and\nto society are subordinate to your superior duties to the state,\nin the same way the latter must necessarily be subordinated to the\nduties dictated to you by the eternal life and by God. And just\nas it would be senseless to pull up the telegraph posts for fuel\nfor a family or society and thus to increase its welfare at the\nexpense of public interests, in the same way it is senseless to do\nviolence, to execute, and to murder to increase the welfare of the\nnation, because that is at the expense of the interests of\nhumanity.\n\nYour duties as a citizen cannot but be subordinated to the\nsuperior obligations of the eternal life of God, and cannot be in\nopposition to them. As Christ's disciples said eighteen centuries\nago: \"Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you\nmore than unto God, judge ye\" (Acts iv. 19); and, \"We ought to\nobey God rather than men\" (Acts v. 29).\n\nIt is asserted that, in order that the unstable order of things,\nestablished in one corner of the world for a few men, may not be\ndestroyed, you ought to commit acts of violence which destroy the\neternal and immutable order established by God and by reason. Can\nthat possibly be?\n\nAnd therefore you cannot but reflect on your position as\nlandowner, manufacturer, judge, emperor, president, minister,\npriest, and soldier, which is bound up with violence, deception,\nand murder, and recognize its unlawfulness.\n\nI do not say that if you are a landowner you are bound to give up\nyour lands immediately to the poor; if a capitalist or\nmanufacturer, your money to your workpeople; or that if you are\nTzar, minister, official, judge, or general, you are bound to\nrenounce immediately the advantages of your position; or if a\nsoldier, on whom all the system of violence is based, to refuse\nimmediately to obey in spite of all the dangers of\ninsubordination.\n\nIf you do so, you will be doing the best thing possible. But it\nmay happen, and it is most likely, that you will not have the\nstrength to do so. You have relations, a family, subordinates and\nsuperiors; you are under an influence so powerful that you cannot\nshake it off; but you can always recognize the truth and refuse to\ntell a lie about it. You need not declare that you are remaining\na landowner, manufacturer, merchant, artist, or writer because it\nis useful to mankind; that you are governor, prosecutor, or tzar,\nnot because it is agreeable to you, because you are used to it,\nbut for the public good; that you continue to be a soldier, not\nfrom fear of punishment, but because you consider the army\nnecessary to society. You can always avoid lying in this way to\nyourself and to others, and you ought to do so; because the one\naim of your life ought to be to purify yourself from falsehood and\nto confess the truth. And you need only do that and your\nsituation will change directly of itself.\n\nThere is one thing, and only one thing, in which it is granted to\nyou to be free in life, all else being beyond your power: that is\nto recognize and profess the truth.\n\nAnd yet simply from the fact that other men as misguided and as\npitiful creatures as yourself have made you soldier, tzar,\nlandowner, capitalist, priest, or general, you undertake to commit\nacts of violence obviously opposed to your reason and your heart,\nto base your existence on the misfortunes of others, and above\nall, instead of filling the one duty of your life, recognizing and\nprofessing the truth, you feign not to recognize it and disguise\nit from yourself and others.\n\nAnd what are the conditions in which you are doing this? You who\nmay die any instant, you sign sentences of death, you declare war,\nyou take part in it, you judge, you punish, you plunder the\nworking people, you live luxuriously in the midst of the poor, and\nteach weak men who have confidence in you that this must be so,\nthat the duty of men is to do this, and yet it may happen at the\nmoment when you are acting thus that a bacterium or a bull may\nattack you and you will fall and die, losing forever the chance of\nrepairing the harm you have done to others, and above all to\nyourself, in uselessly wasting a life which has been given you\nonly once in eternity, without having accomplished the only thing\nyou ought to have done.\n\nHowever commonplace and out of date it may seem to us, however\nconfused we may be by hypocrisy and by the hypnotic suggestion\nwhich results from it, nothing can destroy the certainty of this\nsimple and clearly defined truth. No external conditions can\nguarantee our life, which is attended with inevitable sufferings\nand infallibly terminated by death, and which consequently can\nhave no significance except in the constant accomplishment of what\nis demanded by the Power which has placed us in life with a sole\ncertain guide--the rational conscience.\n\nThat is why that Power cannot require of us what is irrational and\nimpossible: the organization of our temporary external life, the\nlife of society or of the state. That Power demands of us only\nwhat is reasonable, certain, and possible: to serve the kingdom of\nGod, that is, to contribute to the establishment of the greatest\npossible union between all living beings--a union possible only in\nthe truth; and to recognize and to profess the revealed truth,\nwhich is always in our power.\n\n\"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and\nall these things shall be added unto you.\" (Matt. vi. 33.)\n\nThe sole meaning of life is to serve humanity by contributing to\nthe establishment of the kingdom of God, which can only be done by\nthe recognition and profession of the truth by every man.\n\n\"The kingdom of God cometh not with outward show; neither shall\nthey say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is\nwithin you.\" (Luke xvii. 20, 21.)\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n[Transcribists note: This translation contains what seems to my\nearly 21st Century perception as mistakes, both in typography and\nin standardness of language. I have left issues of standard\nlanguage uncorrected, and have only fixed typographical errors\nin which the word was nearly unrecognizable, but clear from context.\n\nAn example: \"...those who have seized power AUD who keep it...\" was\nchanged to: \"...those who have seized power AND who keep it...\".\n\nAnother example: where he meant \"village\" the book has \"vilage\";\nI left such misspellings as is.\n\nIn some cases, missing punctuation in a series was corrected, where\nevery other member of the series is punctuated: 1. 2. 3 4.\nIf I had a doubt, nothing was changed.\n\nI indented paragraphs, for clarity, when Tolstoy quotes large blocks\nof text from other authors. However, often Tolsoy interspersed\nquoted material with his commentary [as when talking about the author\nFarrar]. I was not able to separate these for fear of editing the\nauthor.\n\nItalics were represented here, with the substitution of capital\nletters.\n\nTranslations for long passages of French follow in the footnotes.]\n--------------------------------------------------------------------","title":"\"The Kingdom of God Is Within You\": Christianity Not as a Mystic Religion but as a New Theory of Life","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":124007}