The Kingdom of God is Within You_ What is Art_ graf Leo Tolstoy 1602 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Kingdom of God is
Within You; What is Art?
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Kingdom of God is Within You; What is Art?

Author: graf Leo Tolstoy

Translator: Aline Delano

Release date: August 7, 2013 [eBook #43409]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43409

Credits: Produced by David Edwards and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE KINGDOM
OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU; WHAT IS ART? ***

LYOF N. TOLSTOÏ
XIX
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
IS WITHIN YOU
WHAT IS ART?

COUNT TOLSTOÏ PLOWING
From the Painting by Repin

THE NOVELS AND OTHER WORKS OF

LYOF N. TOLSTOÏ

THE KINGDOM OF
GOD IS WITHIN YOU

——
WHAT IS ART?
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1902

Copyright, 1899,
By THOMAS V. CROWELL & CO.

INTRODUCTION
The present volume contains two contrasting treatises. The first is religious,
and shows in Count Tolstoï's earnest and eloquent manner the meaning of
Christ's words which he takes for his text,—"The Kingdom of God is within
you." The outward forms of religion, however helpful they may be to some
souls, are not essential; the superstitions with which Faith sometimes
clothes or masks herself may or may not be uplifting; but the foundation of
Christianity is the truth contained in Christ's words, his simple, plain,
undogmatic commands and prohibitions.
One word sums it all up, and that word is Love. If the world should take
love for its guiding star, it is evident that all the evils of the world would
cease,—wars, crimes, poverty, ambitions; the millennium would come!
Count Tolstoï shows how that blessed period may begin in every man. The
translation of this beautiful and inspiring book has been made by Mrs. Aline
Delano of Boston.
In answering the question, "What is Art?" Count Tolstoï analyzes and tests
the various definitions given by other writers. He shows up with merciless
severity what he considers the fallacy in the popular delusion that the fetish
of Art pardons bestiality, obscenity, and whatever conduces to stimulating
the passions. The work is strongly controversial, and attacks unsparingly
many of the popular notions of the day, as, for instance, that "Art is the
manifestation of some mysterious idea of God," or "the expression of man's
emotions by external signs," or the production of pleasing objects. He
believes that art has a loftier function, and he proceeds elaborately to argue
in favor of this universal activity, which should be to effect a union among
men so that they may have the same noble feelings and progress together
toward universal and individual well-being. "Art for art's sake" is
meaningless to him. It is interesting to notice that the most original and
independent of the French critics has recently taken practically the same
ground in a lecture, in which he asserts that it is the critic's business to test
art and literature, and that art has a most intimate relation with morality.

Much of the book is racy and amusing; much of it is abstruse, and requires
close attention. But whether one follows the author in his individual
opinions or not, it cannot be denied that the general tone of the treatise is
helpful and uplifting, and that it is based on sound common sense. Mr.
Aylmer Maude of England is the translator of this work, and has had the
benefit of Count Tolstoï's own suggestions in regard to certain points. As
the special preface explains, the translation accurately represents the
author's views, while the edition published in Russia was in many ways
garbled and distorted. The translators of both treatises have seized the
opportunity of carefully revising their work.

CONTENTS
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU
PAGE
Introductory 1
CHAPTER I
Doctrine of non-resistance to evil, from the origin of Christianity, has been, and still is,
professed by the minority of men 3
CHAPTER II
Opinions of believers and unbelievers in regard to non-resistance 30
CHAPTER III
Misconception of Christianity by non-believers 47
CHAPTER IV
Misconception of Christianity by scientists 79
CHAPTER V
Contradiction of our life and Christian consciousness 100
CHAPTER VI
Attitude of men of the present day toward war 122
CHAPTER VII
Significance of the military conscription 152
CHAPTER VIII
Certainty of the acceptance of the Christian doctrine of non-resistance to evil by violence by
the men of our world 171
CHAPTER IX
The acceptance of the Christian life-conception delivers men from the miseries of our pagan
life 194
CHAPTER X

Uselessness of violence for the destruction of evil—The moral advance of mankind is
accomplished, not only through the knowledge of truth, but also through the 218
establishment of public opinion

CHAPTER XI
Christian public opinion already arises in our society, and will inevitably destroy the system
of violence of our life—When this will come about 242
CHAPTER XII
Conclusion: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" 254

———
WHAT IS ART?
Translator's Preface 339
Author's Preface 341
CHAPTER I
Time and labor spent on art—Lives stunted in its service—Morality sacrificed to and anger
justified by art—The rehearsal of an opera described 345
CHAPTER II
Does art compensate for so much evil?—What is art?—Confusion of opinions—Is it "that
which produces beauty"?—The word "beauty" in Russian—Chaos in æsthetics 351
CHAPTER III
Summary of various æsthetic theories and definitions, from Baumgarten to to-day 360
CHAPTER IV
Definitions of art founded on beauty—Taste not definable—A clear definition needed to
enable us to recognize works of art 376
CHAPTER V
Definitions not founded on beauty—Tolstoï's definition—The extent and necessity of art—
How people in the past have distinguished good from bad in art 383
CHAPTER VI
How art for pleasure has come into esteem—Religions indicate what is considered good and
bad—Church Christianity—The Renaissance—Skepticism of the upper classes—They 389
confound beauty with goodness

CHAPTER VII
An æsthetic theory framed to suit this view of life 396

CHAPTER VIII
Who have adopted it?—Real art needful for all men—Our art too expensive, too
unintelligible, and too harmful for the masses—The theory of "the elect" in art 401
CHAPTER IX
Perversion of our art—It has lost its natural subject-matter—Has no flow of fresh feeling—
Transmits chiefly three base emotions 406
CHAPTER X
Loss of comprehensibility—Decadent art—Recent French art—Have we a right to say it is
bad and that what we like is good art?—The highest art has always been comprehensible 412
to normal people—What fails to infect normal people is not art

CHAPTER XI
Counterfeits of art produced by: Borrowing; Imitating; Striking; Interesting—Qualifications
needful for production of real works of art, and those sufficient for production of 436
counterfeits

CHAPTER XII
Causes of production of counterfeits—Professionalism—Criticism—Schools of art 446
CHAPTER XIII
Wagner's "Nibelung's Ring" a type of counterfeit art—Its success, and the reasons thereof 455
CHAPTER XIV
Truths fatal to preconceived views are not readily recognized—Proportion of works of art to
counterfeits—Perversion of taste and incapacity to recognize art—Examples 468
CHAPTER XV
The quality of art, considered apart from its subject-matter—The sign of art:
Infectiousness—Incomprehensible to those whose taste is perverted—Conditions of 476
infection: Individuality; Clearness; Sincerity

CHAPTER XVI
The quality of art, considered according to its subject-matter—The better the feeling
the better the art—The cultured crowd—The religious perception of our age—The new
ideals put fresh demands to art—Art unites—Religious art—Universal art—Both 479
coöperate to one result—The new appraisement of art—Bad art—Examples of art—How
to test a work claiming to be art

CHAPTER XVII
Results of absence of true art—Results of perversion of art: Labor and lives spent on what is
useless and harmful—The abnormal life of the rich—Perplexity of children and plain
folk—Confusion of right and wrong—Nietzsche and Redbeard—Superstition, Patriotism, 497
and Sensuality

CHAPTER XVIII
The purpose of human life is the brotherly union of man—Art must be guided by this
perception 507
CHAPTER XIX
The art of the future not a possession of a select minority, but a means toward perfection and
unity 510
CHAPTER XX
The connection between science and art—The mendacious sciences; the trivial sciences—
Science should deal with the great problems of human life, and serve as a basis for art 517
APPENDICES
Appendix I 528
Appendix II 530
Appendix III 537
Appendix IV 542

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS
WITHIN YOU

OR,

CHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTICAL DOCTRINE,
BUT AS A NEW-LIFE CONCEPTION

AUTHOR'S PREFACE
In this book I have endeavored to show that our modern Christianity has
been tried and found wanting, that the armed camp of Europe is not
Christian, but Pagan, as is latter-day religion, of which the present state of
affairs is the outcome. The book contains three principal ideas,—the first,
that Christianity is not only the worship of God and a doctrine of salvation,
but is, above all things, a new conception of life, which is changing the
whole fabric of human society; the second, that from the first appearance of
Christianity there entered into it two opposite currents,—the one
establishing the true and new conception of life, which it gave to humanity,
and the other perverting the true Christian doctrine and converting it into a
Pagan religion, and that this contradiction has attained in our days the
highest degree of tension which now expresses itself in universal
armaments, and on the Continent in general conscription; and the third, that
this contradiction, which is masked by hypocrisy, can only be solved by an
effort of sincerity on the part of every individual endeavoring to conform
the acts of his life,—independent of what are regarded as the exigencies of
family, society, and the State,—with those moral principles which he
considers to be true.

The above is an extract (slightly adapted) from an article on Count Tolstoï
which appeared in the London Daily Chronicle of 26th December,1893.
Sent by Miss Tatiana Tolstoï, on behalf of her father, to the publishers of
this edition of his work, it is inserted here as a Preface at the suggestion of
Count Tolstoï.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS
WITHIN YOU;

OR,

CHRISTIANITY NOT AS A MYSTICAL DOCTRINE,
BUT AS A NEW LIFE-CONCEPTION

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."—
John viii. 32.
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the
soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in
hell."—Matthew x. 28.
"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men."—I
Corinthians vii. 23.

INTRODUCTORY
In 1884 I wrote a book entitled "My Religion," wherein I formulated my
creed.
While affirming my faith in the doctrine taught by Christ, I could not refrain
from manifesting at the same time the reason why I look upon the
ecclesiastical doctrine commonly called Christianity as erroneous, and to
me incredible.
Among the many deviations of the latter from the doctrine of Christ, I
called attention to the principal one; namely—the evasion of the
commandment that forbids man to resist evil by violence, as a striking
example of the perversion of the doctrine of Christ by ecclesiastical
interpretation.
I knew but little, no more than other men, of what had been taught or
written on the subject of non-resistance in former times. I was familiar with
the opinions of the Fathers of the Church, Origen, Tertullian, and others;
and I also knew of the existence of certain sects called Mennonites,
Herrnhuters, and Quakers, all of which forbid Christians the use of arms,
and will not submit to conscription, but I never knew the arguments by
which these sects sought to maintain their views.
My book, as I had anticipated, was prohibited by the Russian censors, but
partly in consequence of my reputation as a writer, partly because it excited
curiosity, it had a circulation in manuscript, and while, on the one hand, it
called forth from those persons who sympathized with my ideas,
information concerning works written on the same subject, on the other, it
excited criticisms on the opinions therein maintained.
These two results, together with the historical events of recent years, made
many things clear to me, and led me to many new deductions and
conclusions which I now desire to set forth.
I shall speak in the first place of the information I received in regard to the
history of this matter of non-resistance to evil; and in the second place, of
the arguments upon the subject offered by religious critics, that is, by critics

who profess the religion of Christ, as well as those of secular critics, that is
to say, of men who make no such profession; and finally, the conclusions
which I drew from the arguments of both parties, as well as from the
historical events of later years.

CHAPTER I
DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL FROM THE
ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY, HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS,
PROFESSED BY THE MINORITY OF MEN
Concerning the book "My Religion"—Information called forth by this book—Letters of
Quakers—Professions of Garrison—Adin Ballou, his works and Catechism—"The Net of
Faith" of Helchitsky—Relations of men toward works that explain the teachings of Christ
—The book of Dymond "On War"—Assertion of Non-resistance by Musser—Relations
of government in 1818 toward those who refuse to join the military service—General
inimical attitude of governments and liberal men toward those who refused to take part in
the violence of governments and their conscious effort to conceal and ignore these
demonstrations of Christian Non-resistance.

Among the early responses called forth by my book were letters from
American Quakers. In these letters, while expressing their sympathy with
my ideas in regard to the unlawfulness of violence and war where
Christians are concerned, the Quakers made known to me many details in
relation to their sect, which for more than two hundred years has professed
the doctrine of Christ in the matter of non-resistance, and which never has,
nor does it now use weapons for self-defense. Together with the letters, the
Quakers sent me many of their pamphlets, periodicals, and books. From
these publications I learned that already, many years ago, they had
demonstrated the Christian's duty of keeping the commandment of non-
resistance to evil by violence, and the error of the church which
countenances wars and executions.
Having shown by a succession of arguments and texts that war—the
slaughter and mutilation of men—is inconsistent with a religion founded on
peace and good-will to men, the Quakers go on to assert that nothing is so
conducive to the defamation of Christ's truth in the eyes of the heathen, or
so successful in arresting the spread of Christianity throughout the world, as
the refusal to obey this commandment, made by men who call themselves
Christians, and by the sanction thus given to war and violence. The doctrine
of Christ, which has entered into the consciousness of men, not by force or
by the sword, as they say, but by non-resistance to evil, by humility,

meekness, and the love of peace, can only be propagated among men by the
example of peace, love, and concord given by its followers.
A Christian, according to the teaching of the Lord, should be guided in his
relations toward men only by the love of peace, and therefore there should
be no authority having power to compel a Christian to act in a manner
contrary to God's law, and contrary to his chief duty toward his fellow-men.
The requirements of the civil law, they say, may oblige men, who, to win
some worldly advantages, seek to conciliate that which is irreconcilable, to
violate the law of God; but for a Christian, who firmly believes that his
salvation depends upon following the teaching of Christ, this law can have
no meaning.
My acquaintance with the activity of the Quakers and with their
publications, with Fox, Paine, and particularly with a work published by
Dymond in 1827, proved to me not only that men have long since
recognized the impossibility of harmonizing Christianity and war, but that
this incompatibility has been proved so clearly and irrefragably, that one
can only wonder how it is possible for this incongruous union of
Christianity with violence—a doctrine which is still taught by the church—
to remain in force.
Besides the information obtained from the Quakers, I also received from
America about the same time advices on the subject from another and
hitherto unknown source. The son of William Lloyd Garrison, the famous
anti-slavery champion, wrote to me that, having read my book, wherein he
had found ideas similar to those expressed by his father in 1838, and taking
it for granted that I should be interested to know that fact, he sent me a book
written by Mr. Garrison some fifty years ago, entitled "Non-resistance."
This avowal of principle took place under the following circumstances:—In
1838, on the occasion of a meeting of the Society for the Promotion of
Peace, William Lloyd Garrison, while discussing means for the suppression
of war, arrived at the conclusion that the establishment of universal peace
can have no solid foundation save in the literal obedience to the
commandment of non-resistance by violence (Matthew v. 39), as
understood by the Quakers, with whom Garrison was on friendly terms.
Having arrived at this conclusion, he wrote, offering to the Society the

following proclamation, which at that time, in 1838, was signed by many of
its members:—
"Declaration of Sentiments adopted by the Peace Convention, held in Boston, September 18,
19, and 20, 1838:—

"Assembled in Convention, from various sections of the American
Union, for the promotion of Peace on earth and Good-will among men,
We, the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the cause which
we love, to the country in which we live, and to the world, to publish a
Declaration, expressive of the principles we cherish, the purposes we
aim to accomplish, and the measures we shall adopt to carry forward
the work of peaceful, universal reformation.
"We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government; neither
can we oppose any such government by a resort to physical force. We
recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one Judge and Ruler of
mankind. We are bound by the laws of a Kingdom which is not of this
world; the subjects of which are forbidden to fight; in which Mercy
and Truth are met together, and Righteousness and Peace have kissed
each other; which has no state lines, no national partitions, no
geographical boundaries; in which there is no distinction of rank or
division of caste, or inequality of sex; the officers of which are Peace,
its exactors Righteousness, its walls Salvation, and its gates Praise; and
which is destined to break in pieces and consume all other kingdoms.
Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind. We love the
land of our nativity only as we love all other lands. The interests,
rights, liberties of American citizens are no more dear to us than are
those of the whole human race. Hence, we can allow no appeal to
patriotism to revenge any national insult or injury; the Principle of
Peace, under whose stainless banner we rally, came not to destroy, but
to save, even the worst of enemies. He has left us an example, that we
should follow His steps. God commendeth his love toward us, in that
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
"We conceive that if a nation has no right to defend itself against
foreign enemies, or to punish its invaders, no individual possesses that
right in his own case. The unit cannot be of greater importance than the
aggregate. If one man may take life, to obtain or defend his rights, the

same license must necessarily be granted to communities, states, and
nations. If he may use a dagger or a pistol, they may employ cannon,
bombshells, land and naval forces. The means of self-preservation
must be in proportion to the magnitude of interests at stake, and the
number of lives exposed to destruction. But if a rapacious and
bloodthirsty soldiery, thronging these shores from abroad, with intent
to commit rapine and destroy life, may not be resisted by the people or
magistracy, then ought no resistance to be offered to domestic troubles
of the public peace or of private security. No obligation can rest upon
Americans to regard foreigners as more sacred in their persons than
themselves, or to give them a monopoly of wrong-doing with
impunity.
"The dogma, that all the governments of the world are approvingly
ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the United States, in
Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with His will, is not less absurd
than impious. It makes the impartial Author of human freedom and
equality unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed that the powers
that be, in any nation, are actuated by the spirit or guided by the
example of Christ, in the treatment of enemies; therefore, they cannot
be agreeable to the will of God; and therefore their overthrow, by a
spiritual regeneration of their subjects, is inevitable.
"We register our testimony not only against all wars, whether offensive
or defensive, but all preparations for war; against every naval ship,
every arsenal, every fortification; against the militia system and a
standing army; against all military chieftains and soldiers; against all
monuments commemorative of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies
won in battle, all celebrations in honor of military or naval exploits;
against all appropriations for the defense of a nation by force and
army, on the part of any legislative body; against every edict of
government requiring of its subjects military service. Hence we deem
it unlawful to bear arms, or to hold a military office.
"As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its
laws are enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet, we cannot hold
any office which imposes upon its incumbent the obligation to compel
men to do right, on pain of imprisonment or death. We therefore
voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative and judicial body,

and repudiate all human politics, worldly honors, and stations of
authority. If we cannot occupy a seat in the legislature or on the bench,
neither can we elect others to act as our substitutes in any such
capacity.
"It follows that we cannot sue any man at law, to compel him by force
to restore anything which he may have wrongfully taken from us or
others; but if he has seized our coat, we shall surrender up our cloak,
rather than subject him to punishment.
"We believe that the penal code of the old covenant, 'An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth,' has been abrogated by Jesus Christ; and
that under the new covenant, the forgiveness instead of the punishment
of enemies has been enjoined upon all His disciples, in all cases
whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, or set them upon a pillory,
or cast them into prison, or hang them upon gallows, is obviously not
to forgive, but to take retribution. 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,
saith the Lord.'
"The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that
physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration; that the sinful
disposition of men can be subdued only by love; that evil can be
exterminated from the earth only by goodness; that it is not safe to rely
upon an arm of flesh, upon man whose breath is in his nostrils, to
preserve us from harm; that there is great security in being gentle,
harmless, long-suffering, and abundant in mercy; that it is only the
meek who shall inherit the earth, for the violent who resort to the
sword are destined to perish with the sword. Hence, as a measure of
sound policy—of safety to property, life, and liberty—of public
quietude and private enjoyment—as well as on the ground of
allegiance to Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords, we cordially
adopt the non-resistance principle; being confident that it provides for
all possible consequences, will insure all things needful to us, is armed
with omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over every
assailing force.
"We advocate no jacobinical doctrine. The spirit of jacobinism is the
spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither fears God nor
regards man. We would be filled with the spirit of Jesus Christ. If we

abide by our principles, it is impossible for us to be disorderly, or plot
treason, or participate in any evil work; we shall submit to every
ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake; obey all the requirements of
government, except such as we deem contrary to the commands of the
gospel; and in no case resist the operation of law, except by meekly
submitting to the penalty of disobedience.
"But while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and
passive submission, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual sense, to
speak and act boldly in the cause of God; to assail iniquity in high
places and in low places; to apply our principles to all existing civil,
political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions; and to hasten the time
when the kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdoms of
our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever.
"It appears to us a self-evident truth, that, whatever the gospel is
designed to destroy at any period of the world, being contrary to it,
ought now to be abandoned. If, then, the time is predicted when
swords shall be beaten into plowshares, and spears into pruning-hooks,
and men shall not learn the art of war any more, it follows that all who
manufacture, sell, or wield those deadly weapons do thus array
themselves against the peaceful dominion of the Son of God on earth.
"Having thus briefly stated our principles and purposes, we proceed to
specify the measures we propose to adopt in carrying our object into
effect.
"We expect to prevail through the foolishness of preaching,—striving
to commend ourselves unto every man's conscience, in the sight of
God. From the press we shall promulgate our sentiments as widely as
practicable. We shall endeavor to secure the coöperation of all persons,
of whatever name or sect. The triumphant progress of the cause of
Temperance and of Abolition in our land, through the instrumentality
of benevolent and voluntary associations, encourages us to combine
our own means and efforts for the promotion of a still greater cause.
Hence, we shall employ lecturers, circulate tracts and publications,
form societies, and petition our state and national governments, in
relation to the subject of Universal Peace. It will be our leading object
to devise ways and means for effecting a radical change in the views,

feelings, and practices of society, respecting the sinfulness of war and
the treatment of enemies.
"In entering upon the great work before us, we are not unmindful that,
in its prosecution, we may be called to test our sincerity even as in a
fiery ordeal. It may subject us to insult, outrage, suffering, yea, even
death itself. We anticipate no small amount of misconception,
misrepresentation, calumny. Tumults may arise against us. The
ungodly and violent, the proud and pharisaical, the ambitious and
tyrannical, principalities and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high
places, may contrive to crush us. So they treated the Messiah, whose
example we are humbly striving to imitate. If we suffer with Him we
know that we shall reign with Him. We shall not be afraid of their
terror, neither be troubled. Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty, not
in man. Having withdrawn from human protection, what can sustain us
but that faith which overcomes the world? We shall not think it strange
concerning the fiery trial which is to try us, as though some strange
thing had happened unto us; but rejoice, inasmuch as we are partakers
of Christ's sufferings. Wherefore, we commit the keeping of our souls
to God, in well-doing, as unto a faithful Creator. For every one that
forsakes house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or
children, or lands, for Christ's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and
shall inherit everlasting life.
"Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the
sentiments contained in this declaration, however formidable may be
the opposition arrayed against them—in solemn testimony of our faith
in their divine origin—we hereby affix our signatures to it,
commending it to the reason and conscience of mankind, giving
ourselves no anxiety as to what may befall us, and resolving in the
strength of the Lord God calmly and meekly to abide the issue."

Later on, Garrison founded a Non-resistance Society and started a
periodical entitled The Non-resistant, wherein the full significance and
consequences of the doctrine were plainly set forth, as has been stated in the
proclamation. I gained, subsequently, further information concerning the
fate of this society and the periodical from a biography of William Lloyd
Garrison, written by his sons.

Neither the periodical nor the society enjoyed a long life. The majority of
Garrison's associates in the work of liberating the slaves, apprehensive lest
the too radical views expressed in the The Non-resistant might alienate men
from the practical business of the abolition of slavery, renounced the
doctrine of non-resistance as expressed in the declaration, and both
periodical and society passed out of existence.
One would suppose that this declaration of Garrison, formulating, as it did,
an important profession of faith in terms both energetic and eloquent, would
have made a deeper impression on men, and have become a subject for
universal consideration. On the contrary, not only is it unknown in Europe,
but even among those Americans who honor the memory of Garrison there
are but few who are familiar with this.
A similar fate befell another American champion of the same doctrine, Adin
Ballou, who died recently, and who for fifty years had preached in favor of
non-resistance to evil. How little is known in regard to the question of non-
resistance may be gathered from the fact that the younger Garrison (who
has written an excellent biography of his father in four large volumes), in
answer to my inquiry whether any society for the defense of the principles
of non-resistance was yet alive and possessed adherents, wrote me that, so
far as he knew, the society had dissolved and its members were no longer
interested, while at this very time Adin Ballou, who had shared Garrison's
labors, and who had devoted fifty years of his life to the teaching of the
doctrine of non-resistance, both by pen and by tongue, was still living in
Hopedale, Massachusetts. Afterward I received a letter from Wilson, a
disciple and co-worker of Ballou, and subsequently I entered into
correspondence with Ballou himself. I wrote to him, and he sent me his
works, from one of which I made the following extract:—"Jesus Christ is
my Lord and Master," says Ballou in one of his articles, written to show the
inconsistency of Christians who believe in the right of defensive and
offensive warfare. "I have covenanted to forsake all and follow Him,
through good and evil report, until death. But I am nevertheless a
Democratic Republican citizen of the United States, implicitly sworn to
bear true allegiance to my country, and to support its Constitution, if need
be, with my life. Jesus Christ requires me to do unto others as I would that
others should do unto me. The Constitution of the United States requires me
to do unto twenty-seven hundred thousand slaves" (they had slaves then;

now they could easily be replaced by workmen) "the very contrary of what
I would have them do unto me—viz., assist to keep in a grievous
bondage.... But I am quite easy. I vote on. I help govern on. I am willing to
hold any office I may be elected to under the Constitution. And I am still a
Christian. I profess on. I find difficulty in keeping covenant both with
Christ and the Constitution.
"Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil-doers by taking 'eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, blood and life for life.' My government requires the very reverse, and
depends, for its own self-preservation, on the halter, the musket, and the
sword, seasonably employed against its domestic and foreign enemies.
"In the maintenance and use of this expensive life-destroying apparatus we
can exemplify the virtues of forgiving our injuries, loving our enemies,
blessing them that curse us, and doing good to those that hate us. For this
reason we have regular Christian chaplains to pray for us and call down the
smiles of God on our holy murders.
"I see it all" (that is, the contradiction between profession and life), "and yet
I insist that I am as good a Christian as ever. I fellowship all; I vote on; I
help govern on; I profess on; and I glory in being at once a devoted
Christian and a no less devoted adherent to the existing government. I will
not give in to those miserable non-resistant notions. I will not throw away
my political influence, and leave unprincipled men to carry on government
alone.
"The Constitution says—'Congress shall have power to declare war, grant
letters of marque and reprisal,' and I agree to this, I indorse it. I swear to
help carry it through. I vote for men to hold office who are sworn to support
all this. What, then, am I less a Christian? Is not war a Christian service? Is
it not perfectly Christian to murder hundreds of thousands of fellow human
beings; to ravish defenseless females, sack and burn cities, and enact all the
other cruelties of war? Out upon these new-fangled scruples! This is the
very way to forgive injuries, and love our enemies! If we only do it all in
true love nothing can be more Christian than wholesale murder!"
In another pamphlet, entitled "How many does it take?" he says—"One man
must not kill. If he does, it is murder; two, ten, one hundred men, acting on
their responsibility, must not kill. If they do, it is still murder. But a state or
nation may kill as many as they please, and it is no murder. It is just,

necessary, commendable, and right. Only get people enough to agree to it,
and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how
many does it take? This is the question. Just so with theft, robbery, burglary,
and all other crimes. Man-stealing is a great crime in one man, or a very
few men only. But a whole nation can commit it, and the act becomes not
only innocent, but highly honorable."
The following is, in substance, a catechism of Ballou, compiled for the use
of his congregation:—
THE CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE.[1]
Q. Whence comes the word non-resistance?
A. From the utterance: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil."—
Matthew v. 39.
Q. What does this word denote?
A. It denotes a lofty Christian virtue, commanded by Christ.
Q. Are we to understand the word non-resistance in its broad sense, that is,
as meaning that one should offer no resistance to evil whatsoever?
A. No; it should be understood literally as Christ taught it—that is, not to
return evil for evil. Evil should be resisted by all lawful means, but not by
evil.
Q. From what does it appear that Christ gave that meaning to non-
resistance?
A. From the words which he used on that occasion. He said: "Ye have heard
that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say
unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law,
and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also."
Q. Whom did he mean by the words: "Ye have heard that it hath been said"?
A. The patriarchs and the prophets, and that which they spoke and which is
contained in the Old Testament, that the Jews generally call the Law and
Prophets.
Q. To what laws did Christ allude in the words: "Ye have heard"?

A. To those in which Noah, Moses, and other prophets grant the use of
personal violence against those who commit it, for the purpose of punishing
and destroying evil deeds.
Q. Mention such commandments.
A. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."—
Genesis ix. 6.
"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if
any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound,
stripe for stripe."—Exodus xxi. 12, 23, 24, 25.
"And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if a man
cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth."—Leviticus xxiv. 17, 19, 20.
"And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness
be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall
ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother. And thine
eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand
for hand, foot for foot."—Deuteronomy xix. 18, 19, 21.
These are the injunctions of which Jesus speaks.
Noah, Moses, and the prophets taught that he who murders, mutilates, or
tortures his neighbor doeth evil. In order to combat and destroy this evil, the
evil-doer must be chastised by death, mutilation, or some personal torture.
Transgressions are to be avenged by transgressions, murder by murder,
torture by torture, evil by evil. Thus taught Noah, Moses, and the prophets.
But Christ forbids all this. The gospel says: "I say unto you, resist ye not
evil, avenge not one transgression by another, but rather bear a repetition of
the offense from the evil-doer." That which has been allowed is now
forbidden. Having understood what resistance we have been taught, we
know exactly what Christ meant by non-resistance.
Q. Did the teaching of the Ancients admit of resisting transgression by
transgression?
A. Yes; but Christ forbade it. A Christian has no right in any case to take the
life of, or to offend against, the evil-doer.

Q. May he not kill or wound another in self-defense?
A. No.
Q. May he enter a complaint to the magistrates for the purpose of chastising
the offender?
A. No. For that which he does through others, he practically does himself.
Q. May he fight in the army against foreign or domestic enemies?
A. Certainly not. He can take no part in war, or in the preparation therefor.
He cannot make use of weapons. He cannot resist one transgression by
another, whether he is alone or in company, either personally or through
other agents.
Q. May he voluntarily select or drill soldiers for the government?
A. He cannot do this, if he wishes to be faithful to the law of Christ.
Q. May he voluntarily contribute money to assist a government which is
supported by military power, executions, and violence in general?
A. No; unless the money is to be used for some special purpose, justifiable
in itself, where the object and the means employed are good.
Q. May he pay taxes to such a government?
A. No; he should not pay taxes on his own accord, but he should not resist
the levying of a tax. A tax imposed by the government is levied
independently of the will of the citizens. It may not be resisted without
recourse to violence, and a Christian should not use violence; therefore he
must deliver his property to the forced damage caused by authorities.
Q. May a Christian vote at elections and take part in courts of law or in the
government?
A. No. To take a part in elections, courts of law, or in the administration of
government is the same thing as a participation in the violence of the
government.
Q. What is the chief significance of the doctrine of non-resistance?
A. To show that it is possible to extirpate evil from one's own heart, as well
as from that of one's neighbor. This doctrine forbids men to do that which

perpetuates and multiplies evil in this world. He who attacks another, and
does him an injury, excites a feeling of hatred, the worst of all evil. To
offend our neighbor because he has offended us, with ostensible motive of
self-defense, means but to repeat the evil act against him as well as against
ourselves,—it means to beget, or at least to let loose, or to encourage the
Evil Spirit whom we wish to expel. Satan cannot be driven out by Satan,
falsehood cannot be purged by falsehood, nor can evil be conquered by evil.
True non-resistance is the only real method of resisting evil. It crushes the
serpent's head. It destroys and exterminates all evil feeling.
Q. But admitting that the idea of the doctrine is correct, is it practicable?
A. As practicable as any virtue commanded by the law of God. Good deeds
cannot be performed under all circumstances without self-sacrifice,
privations, suffering, and, in extreme cases, without the loss of life itself.
But he who prizes life more than the fulfilment of God's will is already dead
to the only true life. Such a man, in trying to save his life, will lose it.
Furthermore, wherever non-resistance costs the sacrifice of one's life, or of
some essential advantage of life, resistance costs thousands of such
sacrifices.
Non-resistance preserves; resistance destroys.
It is much safer to act justly than unjustly; to endure an offense rather than
resist it by violence; safer even in regard to the present life. If all men
refused to resist evil, the world would be a happy one.
Q. But if only a few were to act thus, what would become of them?
A. Even if but one man were to act thus, and the others should agree to
crucify him, would it not be more glorious for him to die in the glory of
non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than live wearing the crown of
Cæsar, besprinkled with the blood of the murdered? But whether it be one
man or thousands of men who are firmly determined not to resist evil by
evil, still, whether in the midst of civilized or uncivilized neighbors, men
who do not rely on violence are safer than those who do. A robber, a
murderer, a villain, will be less likely to harm them if he finds them offering
no armed resistance. "All they that take the sword shall perish with the
sword," and he who seeks peace, who acts like a friend, who is inoffensive,

who forgives and forgets injuries, generally enjoys peace, or if he dies, he
dies a blessed death.
Hence, if all were to follow the commandment of non-resistance, there
would manifestly be neither offense nor evil-doing. If even the majority
were composed of such men they would establish the rule of love and good-
will even toward the offenders, by not resisting evil by evil nor using
violence. Even if such men formed a numerous minority, they would have
such an improving moral influence over society that every severe
punishment would be revoked, and violence and enmity would be replaced
by peace and good-will. If they formed but a small minority, they would
rarely experience anything worse than the contempt of the world, while the
world, without preserving it or feeling grateful therefor, would become
better and wiser from its latent influence. And if, in the most extreme cases,
certain members of the minority might be persecuted unto death, these men,
thus dying for the truth, would have left their doctrine already sanctified by
the blood of martyrdom.
Peace be with all ye who seek peace; and may the all-conquering love be
the imperishable inheritance of every soul who submits of its own accord to
the law of Christ.
Resist not evil by violence.—Adin Ballou.

For fifty years Ballou wrote and published books chiefly on the subject of
non-resistance. In these writings, remarkable for their eloquence and
simplicity of style, the question is considered in all its aspects. He proved it
to be the duty of every Christian who professes to believe that the Bible is a
revelation from God, to obey this commandment. He enumerates the
arguments against the commandment of non-resistance, drawn from the Old
as well as the New Testament, the expulsion from the Temple, among
others, and answers each one in turn. Setting the Bible aside, he points out
the practical good sense on which this principle is founded, sums up the
arguments against it, and refutes them. For instance, in one chapter of his
work he treats of non-resistance to evil in exceptional cases, and affirms
that granting the truth of the supposition that there are cases to which the

rule of non-resistance cannot be applied, that would prove that the rule in
general is inconsistent. Citing such exceptional cases, he proves that these
are the very occasions when the application of this rule is both wise and
necessary. The question has been viewed from every side, and no argument,
whether of opponent or sympathizer, has been neglected or left unanswered.
I mention this in order to call attention to the deep interest which works of
this class ought to excite in men who profess Christianity; and it would
seem therefore that Ballou's zeal should have been recognized, and the
ideas he expressed either accepted or disproved. But such was not the case.
The life-work of Garrison, the father, his founding the society of the Non-
resistant, and his declaration, convinced me, more even than my intercourse
with the Quakers, that the divergence of the Christianity of the State from
Christ's law of non-resistance by violence has been long since noticed and
pointed out, and men have labored and still do labor to counteract it. Thus
Ballou's earnestness has fortified my opinion. But the fate of Garrison, and
particularly that of Ballou, almost unknown, notwithstanding fifty years of
active and persistent work in one direction, has confirmed me in the belief
that there exists a certain inexpressed but fixed determination to oppose all
such attempts by a wall of silence.
In August of 1890 Ballou died, and his obituary appeared in the American
Religio-Philosophical Journal of August 23d.
From this obituary we learn that Ballou was the spiritual leader of a
community, that he had preached from 8000 to 9000 sermons, married 1000
couples, and written 500 articles, but in regard to the object of his life's
devotion not a word is said; the word "non-resistance" is never mentioned.
All the exhortations of the Quakers for 200 years, all the efforts of Garrison,
the father, the foundation of his society, his periodical, and his declarations,
as well as the life-work of Ballou, are the same as if they had never existed.
Another striking example of the obscurity into which a work written for the
purpose of explaining the principle of non-resistance, and to denounce those
who refuse to recognize this commandment, may fall, is the fate of a book
by the Czech Helchitsky, which has only recently been discovered, and
which up to the present time has never been printed.

Shortly after the publication of my book in German, I received a letter from
a professor of the Prague University, who wrote to tell me of a book which
had never been printed, a work written in the fifteenth century by the Czech
Helchitsky, and entitled "The Net of Faith." In this work, written four
centuries ago, Helchitsky, as the professor tells me, has expressed exactly
the same opinion in regard to true and false Christianity that I did in my
work entitled "My Religion." The professor wrote that the work of
Helchitsky was to appear in print for the first time in the Czech language in
one of the publications of the St. Petersburg Academy of Science. As I was
unable to obtain the book, I endeavored to ascertain all that was known of
Helchitsky himself, and this knowledge I gained from a German book sent
to me by the same professor in Prague. Besides that I learned something
from Pipin's "History of Czech Literature." Pipin says:—

"'The Net of Faith' is the doctrine of Christ, wherewith man is to be
raised from the gloomy depths of the social sea of iniquity. True faith
is to believe the words of God; but we are living in times when men
call the true faith heresy; hence it is upon our own reason that we must
rely to discover the truth if we possess it not. Darkness has concealed
it from men, and they no longer recognize the true law of Christ.
"As an illustration of the law, Helchitsky cites the original social
organization of Christian society, which is considered by the Church of
Rome of the present time as rank heresy.
"This primitive church was his own ideal of a social order founded
upon equality, liberty, and fraternity. Christianity, according to
Helchitsky, still preserves this foundation, and has but to return to its
pure teaching to render any other social order, whose existence
requires the authority of pope or king, quite superfluous. The law of
love will suffice for all....
"Historically, Helchitsky assigns the decadence of Christianity to the
time of Constantine the Great, whom the Pope Silvester received into
the Church in spite of his pagan life and morals. Constantine, in return,
rewarded the Pope by endowing him with riches and temporal power.
Since then these two forces have played into each other's hands,
seeking only outward glory. Doctors, men of learning, and the clergy,
caring only to maintain their influence over the world, excited the

nations one against the other, encouraging the crimes of murder and
rapine, and thus destroying Christianity, both in faith and practice.
Helchitsky totally denies the right of man to wage war or to exact the
penalty of death. According to him, every soldier, even if he be a
'knight,' is only a transgressor, a criminal, and a murderer."

All this, with the addition of some biographical details and extracts from the
correspondence of Helchitsky, is related in the German book.
Having thus become acquainted with the essence of Helchitsky's teachings,
I waited with still greater impatience the appearance of "The Net of Faith"
in the Academy's periodical. But one, two, three years passed, and the book
was not forthcoming. It was only in 1888 that I learned that the printing had
been suspended. I obtained the proof-sheets of what had been printed, and
read them. In many respects it was a wonderful book.
Its contents have been accurately summarized by Pipin. Helchitsky's
principal idea is that Christianity, in league with sovereignty during the
reign of Constantine the Great, and continuing to develop under these
conditions, became corrupted, and ceased to be Christianity. He called his
book "The Net of Faith" because he had chosen for his motto that verse
from the New Testament which speaks of the disciples as fishers of men. He
carries on the simile thus: "Through His disciples, Christ caught the world
in the net of His faith, but the larger fishes, breaking the net, escaped; then
others followed through these same holes made by the large fishes, and the
net was left almost empty." By the big fish he means the popes, emperors,
and sovereigns who, without giving up their authority, accepted
Christianity, not in its reality, but in its semblance.
Helchitsky teaches the same doctrine that is now taught by the non-resistant
Mennonites and Quakers, and in former times by the Bogomiles, the
Paulicians, and other sects. He teaches that Christianity, requiring, as it does
from its followers, humility, gentleness, a forgiving spirit, the turning of the
other cheek when one is struck, and the love of one's enemies, is not
compatible with that violence which is an essential element of authority. A
Christian, according to Helchitsky, should not only refuse to be a
commander or a soldier, but he should take no part in government, neither
should he become a tradesman, nor even a landowner. He might be an
artisan or a farmer. This book is among the few which have been saved

from the flame into which books denouncing official Christianity were
commonly cast. As all such so-called heretical works were usually burned
with their authors, very few of those which denounce official Christianity
have been preserved—and for this reason the book of which we speak has a
special interest.
But apart from its interest, concerning which there may be differences of
opinion, it is one of the most remarkable results of human thought, both on
account of its profundity and the wonderful power and beauty of its
language, not to mention its antiquity. And yet this book has remained
unprinted for centuries, and continues to be unknown except to a few
specialists. (See Note, end of Chapter.)
One would think that works like these of the Quakers, of Garrison, of
Ballou, and of Helchitsky,—which affirm and prove by the authority of the
Bible that the world misinterprets the teaching of Christ,—would arouse an
interest, would make a sensation, would give rise to discussions between
the clergy and their flocks.
One might suppose that works which deal with the very essence of the
Christian doctrine would be reviewed, and either acknowledged to be just,
or else refuted and condemned.
Not at all. Every one of these works suffers the same fate. Men of widely
differing opinions, believers, and, what is still more surprising, unbelieving
liberals, as though by common consent, preserve an obstinate silence in
regard to them. Thus every attempt to explain the true meaning of Christ's
doctrine goes for nothing.
And more astonishing still is the ignorance concerning two works whose
existence was made known to me after the publication of my own book.
One is a work by Dymond, "On War," printed for the first time in London in
1824, and the other by Daniel Musser, entitled "Non-resistance Asserted,"
was written in 1864.
The ignorance in regard to these books is amazing; the more so, that apart
from their merit, both treat, not so much of the theory as of its practical
application to life; of the relations of Christianity to military service, which
is particularly interesting in view of the system of conscription. It may be
asked, perhaps, what action is befitting for a subject who believes that war

is incompatible with religion when his government calls upon him for
military service?
One would take this to be a vital question, whose answer, in view of our
present system of conscription, becomes one of serious importance. All
men, or the majority of mankind, are Christians, and every male is required
to do military duty. How man, in his Christian character, is to meet this
demand, Dymond gives the following reply:—
"It is his duty, mildly and temperately, yet firmly, to refuse to serve.
"There are some persons who, without any determinate process of
reasoning, appear to conclude that responsibility for national measures
attaches solely to those who direct them; that it is the business of
governments to consider what is good for the community, and that, in these
cases, the duty of the subject is merged in the will of the sovereign.
Considerations like these are, I believe, often voluntarily permitted to
become opiates of the conscience. I have no part, it is said, in the councils
of the government, and am not, therefore, responsible for its crimes. We are,
indeed, not responsible for the crimes of our rulers, but we are responsible
for our own; and the crimes of our rulers are our own, if, whilst we believe
them to be crimes, we promote them by our coöperation....
"Those who suppose that obedience in all things is required, or that
responsibility in political affairs is transferred from the subject to the
sovereign, reduce themselves to a great dilemma. It is to say that we must
resign our conduct and our consciences to the will of others, and act
wickedly, or well, as their good or evil may preponderate, without merit for
virtue or responsibility for crime."
It is worthy of notice that the same is expressed in a maxim to soldiers,
which they are required to memorize. Dymond says that only a commander
answers for the consequences of his order. But this is unjust. A man cannot
remove the responsibility for his actions from himself. And this is evident
from the following: "If your superior orders you to kill your child, your
neighbor, your father, or your mother, will you obey? If you will not, there
is an end of the argument; for if you may reject his authority in one
instance, where is the limit to rejection? There is no rational limit but that
which is assigned by Christianity, and that is both rational and practicable....

"We think, then, that it is the business of every man who believes that war is
inconsistent with our religion, respectfully, but steadfastly, to refuse to
engage in it. Let such as these remember that an honorable and an awful
duty is laid upon them. It is upon their fidelity, so far as human agency is
concerned, that the cause of peace is suspended. Let them, then, be willing
to avow their opinions and to defend them. Neither let them be contented
with words, if more than words, if suffering also, is required. It is only by
the unyielding fidelity of virtue that corruption can be extirpated. If you
believe that Jesus Christ has prohibited slaughter, let not the opinions or the
commands of a world induce you to join in it. By this 'steady and
determinate pursuit of virtue,' the benediction which attaches to those who
hear the sayings of God, and do them, will rest upon you, and the time will
come when even the world will honor you as contributors to the work of
human reformation."
Musser's work, entitled "Non-resistance Asserted; or, Kingdom of Christ
and Kingdom of this World Separated," was published in 1864.
This book deals with the same question, drawing its illustrations from the
drafting of the United States citizens during the time of the Civil War. In
setting forth the reasons why men should have the right to decline military
service, his arguments are no less applicable to the present time. In his
Introduction the author says: "It is well known that there are great numbers
of people in the United States who profess to be conscientiously opposed to
war. They are mostly called non-resistants, or defenseless Christians, and
refuse to defend their country, or take up arms at the call of the government
and go forth to battle against its enemies. Hitherto this conscientious
scruple has been respected by the government in this country; and those
claiming it have been relieved or excused from this service.
"Since the commencement of the present civil war in the United States the
public mind has been unusually agitated on this subject. It is not
unreasonable that such persons as feel it to be their duty to go forth and
endure the hardships of camp life, and imperil health, life, and limb in
defense of their country and government, should feel some jealousy of
those who have, with themselves, long enjoyed the protection and benefits
of the government, and yet, in the hour of its need, refuse to share the
burden of its defense and protection. Neither is it strange that such a
position should be looked upon as most unreasonable and monstrous, and

those who hold it be regarded with some suspicion. "Many able speakers
and writers," says the author, "have raised their voices and pens to refute the
idea of non-resistance, as both unreasonable and unscriptural. This is not to
be wondered at, seeing that those who profess the principle and do not
possess it, or correctly understand it, act inconsistently, and thereby bring
the profession into disrepute and contempt. However much misapplication
or abuse of a principle may prejudice the minds of those who are
unacquainted with a subject, it is yet no argument against its truth."
The author at first proves it to be the duty of each Christian to obey the rule
of non-resistance. He says that the rule is perfectly explicit, and that it has
been given by Christ to all Christianity without any possibility of being
misinterpreted. "Judge for yourselves, whether it is right or wrong to obey
man more than you do the Lord," said both Peter and John; and in exactly
the same way every man who wishes to be a Christian should regard the
requirement of his nation to be a soldier, remembering that Christ has told
him, "Do not resist evil."
This, in the opinion of Musser, decides the question of principle. Another
point, as to the right of declining military duty while one enjoys the
advantages accruing through violence, the author considers in detail, and
arrives at the conclusion that should a Christian who follows the teaching of
Christ refuse to go to the war, he must also decline to take any position
under the government or any part in the elections, neither must he have
recourse to any officer of the law for his own personal advantage. Our
author goes on to consider the relation between the Old and New
Testaments, and the significance of government for non-Christians;
arguments against the doctrine of non-resistance are enumerated and
refuted. The author closes his book with the following words:—"Christians
need no governments: for they ought not to obey it in those matters wherein
Christ's teaching is set at naught, and still less should they take an active
part in it. Christ has chosen His disciples out of the world. They have no
promise of temporal good or happiness, but the contrary. Their promise is in
the world to come. The spirit which they possess renders them happy and
contented in any sphere of life. So long as the world tolerates them, they are
contented; but if it will not let them dwell in peace, they flee to another city
or place; and so they are true pilgrims and strangers on earth, having no

certain abiding place.... They are well contented that the dead may bury
their dead, if they are only permitted to follow Christ."
Without deciding upon the merits of this definition of a Christian's duty in
regard to war, which we find set down in these two works, we cannot fail to
see the urgent need for a decision in regard to the question itself.
There are men—hundreds of thousands of Quakers, Mennonites, our own
Duhobortzi, Molokani, men who belong to no sect whatsoever—who
believe that violence and therefore military service is incompatible with
Christianity; every year, for instance, we see in Russia a number of men
refusing to obey the conscription because of their religious opinions. And
how does the government deal with them? Does it release them? Oh, no!...
Does it use force, and in case of disobedience punish them? Not exactly....
In 1818, government managed the affair in this wise.
The following is an extract, hardly known to any one in Russia, from a
letter of Muraviev-Karsky, which was prohibited by the Russian censor:—

"Tiflis, October 2d, 1818.
"This morning the commander of the fortress told me that five
peasants belonging to the landowners of the government of Tambov
had been recently sent into the province of Grusia. These men were
intended to serve as soldiers, but they refused to obey. They were
flogged several times and made to run the gantlet, but they were ready
to give themselves up to the most cruel tortures, yea, even to death
itself, to escape military service. 'Let us go our way and harm us not;
we do no harm ourselves. All men are equal. The sovereign is a man
like one of us, why should we pay him taxes, and wherefore should we
risk our lives to kill in battle those who have never done us any harm?
Draw and quarter us, if you will, and we shall never change our minds;
we will never wear the uniform, nor mess at the soldier's table. Some
pitying soul may give us alms but from the government we neither
have had nor will have anything whatsoever.' Such are the words of
these peasants, who assure us that there are many men in Russia like
themselves. Four times they were brought before the Committee of
Ministers, and it was finally decided that a report be made to the Czar,
who ordered them to be sent to Grusia for discipline, and desired the

Commander-in-Chief to forward a monthly report of the progress
made in bringing these peasants to a proper frame of mind."

The final result of this discipline is not known, for the matter was kept a
profound secret, and the episode may never have been made public.
This was the conduct of the government seventy-five years ago in the
greater number of cases, always carefully hiding the truth from the people;
and it pursues the same policy at the present day, except in regard to the
German Mennonites, who live in the government of Kherson, and who in
lieu of military duty serve a corresponding term as foresters,—the justice of
their refusal to obey the conscription being recognized.
But they are the sole exception; all others who, from religious scruples,
refuse to perform military duty are treated in the manner just described.
At first the government employs all the methods of coercion now in use to
discipline and convert the rebels, while at the same time the most profound
secrecy envelops all these proceedings. I know of a process which was
begun in 1884 against a man who had declined to serve,—a long-drawn-out
trial which was guarded by the Ministry as a great secret.
The first step is usually to send the accused to the priests, and, be it said to
their shame, they always try to win over the insubordinate. But as the
influence exercised in the name of Christ is generally unsuccessful, the
delinquent is sent from the clergy to the gendarmes, who, finding in him no
political offense, send him back; whereupon he is despatched to the
scientists, the doctors, and thence into the insane hospital. While he is thus
sent to and fro, the delinquent, deprived of his liberty like a condemned
convict, is made to endure every kind of indignity and suffering. Four such
cases have come to my knowledge. The doctors generally release the man
from the insane hospital, and then every underhanded and crafty device is
employed to delay the accused, because his release might encourage others
to follow his example. He is not allowed to remain among the soldiers lest
they discover from him that conscription is not, as they are taught to
believe, in accordance with the law of God, but opposed to it. The most
satisfactory arrangement for a government would be either to execute the
delinquent, or beat him with rods until he died, as was done in former times.
But it is awkward to condemn a man to public execution because he is true

to the doctrine which we all profess to believe. Nor is it possible to take no
notice of a man when he refuses to obey. So the government either tortures
the man in order to compel him to deny Christ, or tries to rid itself of him
by some means which will hide both the man and the crime from the eyes
of the world, rather than resort to public execution. All sorts of cunning
manœuvers and tricks are employed to torment the man. He is either
banished to some remote province, or exasperated to disobedience and then
imprisoned, or sent to the reform battalion, where he may be subjected to
torture without publicity or restriction; or he is pronounced insane and
locked up in the insane asylum. For instance, one was exiled to Tashkent;
that is to say, a pretense was made of transferring him thither. Another was
sent to Omsk, a third was court-martialed for disobedience and imprisoned,
and a fourth was put into a house for the insane. The same thing is repeated
on every side. Not only the government, but the majority of liberal free-
thinkers, as though by preconcerted agreement, carefully avoid alluding to
what has been said, written, or done in this matter of denouncing the
inconsistency of violence, as embodied in its most shocking, crude, and
striking form, in the person of a soldier,—this readiness to commit murder,
—not only with the precepts of Christianity, but with the dictates of mere
humanity, which the world professes to obey.
Hence all the information that I have gathered concerning what has been
accomplished, and what is still going on in this work of explaining the
doctrine of Christ and the light in which it is regarded by the ruling powers
of Europe and America, has confirmed me in the conviction that a spirit
inimical to true Christianity dwells in these authorities, exhibited chiefly by
the conspiracy of silence with which they enshroud any manifestation of it.

NOTE

"The publication of this book ('The Net of Faith') was ended
[completed] by the Academy in the last months of the present year
(1893)."—Note received by the Publisher from Count Tolstoï while this
work was going to press.

CHAPTER II
OPINIONS OF BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS IN
REGARD TO NON-RESISTANCE
The fate of the book, "My Religion"—The evasive answers of religious critics to the questions
propounded in that book—1st answer, Violence does not contradict Christianity—2d
answer, Necessity of violence for the purpose of repressing evil-doers—3d answer,
Necessity of violence for the defense of one's neighbor—4th answer, The violation of the
commandment of Non-resistance regarded as a weakness—5th answer, Evasion of the
answer by a pretense that this matter has long since been decided—The cloak of church
authority, antiquity, the holiness of religious men, explain for many the contradictions
between violence and Christianity, in theory as well as in life—Usual attitude of the
clergy and authorities in regard to the profession of true Christianity—General character
of Russian secular writers—Foreign secular critics—Incorrectness of the opinions of the
former and the latter caused by a failure to understand the true meaning of the doctrine of
Christ.

All the criticisms of the statements contained in my own book have given
me a similar impression of a wish to ignore the subject.
As I had anticipated, no sooner was the book published than it was
prohibited, and should, according to law, have been burned. But instead of
being consumed by the flames, every copy was taken by the government
officials and circulated in large numbers, both in manuscript and in the
lithographed sheets, as well as in translations which were published abroad.
It was not long before criticisms began to appear, not only from the clergy,
but from the secular world, which the government, so far from forbidding,
took pains to encourage. Hence the very refutation of the book, the
existence of which they assumed to be unknown, was made the theme of
theological controversy.
These criticisms, both foreign and domestic, may be divided into two
classes, religious and secular; the former by persons who consider
themselves believers, and the latter by free-thinkers. I shall begin by
considering the former. In my book I accuse the clergy of inculcating
doctrines contrary to the commandments of Christ, plainly and clearly
expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, and particularly in regard to the

commandment of non-resistance to evil, thereby depriving the doctrine of
Christ of all its significance. Do the ministers of the gospel believe the
Sermon on the Mount, including the commandment of non-resistance, to be
of divine origin? Having felt themselves obliged to review my book, it
would seem as if they must first of all answer the principal charge, and
declare at once whether they do or do not consider the Sermon on the
Mount and the commandment of non-resistance obligatory upon a
Christian. Instead of making the usual reply, couched in words such as,
"Though one cannot deny, neither can one affirm, the more so as," etc., let
them give a categorical answer to my question: Did Christ practically
require his disciples to do that which he taught in the Sermon on the Mount,
and therefore may a Christian appeal to a legal tribunal, either for defense
or prosecution, and still remain a Christian? May he consistently take a part
in a government which is the instrument of violence? And that most
important question, which, since the introduction of the general
conscription, concerns us all: May a Christian remain a Christian and still
disobey the direct command of Christ; may he promise to conduct himself
in a manner directly opposed to the doctrine of Christ, by entering into
military service and putting himself in training to be a murderer?
The questions are put plainly and directly, and would seem to call for plain
and direct answers. But no; my book has been received just as all previous
denunciations have been, those denunciations of the clergy who have
deviated from the law of Christ, with which history abounds since the time
of Constantine the Great. Many words have been expended in noting the
errors of my interpretation of this or that passage of the Scriptures, of how
wrong I am in referring to the Trinity, the Redemption, and the Immortality
of the soul, but never a word of that vital question: How are we to reconcile
those lessons of forgiveness, humility, patience, and love toward all
mankind, our neighbors as well as our enemies, taught us by the Teacher,
which dwell in the heart of each of us, with the necessities caused by
military aggressions against our own countrymen as well as against
foreigners? All that deserves the name of a response to these questions may
be summed up under five headings. I have endeavored to bring together in
this book not only the criticisms upon my book, but everything that has ever
been written on this subject.

The first criticisms with which I deal come mostly from men of high
position, either in Church or State, who feel quite sure that no one will
venture to combat their assertions; should any one make the attempt, they
would never hear the arguments. These men, intoxicated for the most part
by their authority, have forgotten that there is a Christianity in whose name
they hold their places. They condemn as sectarian all that which is truly
Christ-like in Christianity, while on the other hand, every text in both Old
and New Testaments which can be wrested from its meaning so as to justify
an anti-Christian or pagan sentiment—upon these they establish the
foundation of Christianity. In order to confirm their statement that
Christianity is not opposed to violence, these men generally quote, with the
greatest assurance, equivocal passages from the Old and New Testaments,
interpreting them in the most anti-Christian spirit—the death of Ananias
and Sapphira, the execution of Simon the Sorcerer, etc. All of Christ's
words that can possibly be misinterpreted are quoted in vindication of
cruelty—the expulsion from the Temple, the words "... it shall be more
tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city" (Luke x. 12), and other
passages. According to these men, a Christian is not at all obliged to be
guided by the spirit of humility, forgiveness, and love of his enemies. It is
useless to try to refute such a doctrine, because men who affirm it refute
themselves, or rather they turn away from Christ Himself, to invent an ideal
and a form of religion all their own, forgetful of Him in whose name both
the Church and the offices they hold exist. If men but knew that the Church
preaches an unforgiving, murder-loving, and belligerent Christ, they would
not believe in that Church, and its doctrines would be defended by none.
The second method, somewhat more awkward, consists in affirming that
though Christ did, in point of fact, teach us to turn the other cheek, and to
share our cloak, and that these are indeed lofty moral laws, still ... the world
abounds in evil-doers, and if these wretches are not subdued by force, the
righteous will perish and the world will be destroyed. I met with this
argument for the first time in St. John Chrysostom, and have called
attention to its unfairness in my book entitled "My Religion."
This argument is groundless, because if we allow ourselves to look upon
our fellow-men as evil-doers, outcasts (Raka), we sap the very foundations
of the Christian doctrine, which teaches us that we, the children of the
Heavenly Father, are brothers, and equal one to the other. In the second

place, if the same Father had permitted us to use violence toward wrong-
doers, as there is no infallible rule for distinguishing the good from the evil,
every individual or every community might class its neighbors under the
head of evil-doers, which is practically the case at the present time. In the
third place, if it were possible to distinguish the righteous from the
unrighteous, even then it would not be expedient in a Christian community
to put to death, to cripple, or to imprison the evil-doers, as in such a
community there would be no one to execute these sentences, since every
man in his quality of Christian is forbidden to do violence to a malefactor.
The third mode of reply, more ingenious than the preceding ones, consists
in affirming that while to obey the commandment of non-resistance is every
Christian's duty, when the injury is a personal one, it ceases to be obligatory
when harm is done to one's neighbor, and that in such an emergency a
Christian is bound to break the commandment and use force against the
evil-doer. This assertion is purely arbitrary, and one finds no justification
for it throughout the whole body of the doctrine of Christ.
Such an interpretation is not only a narrow one, but actually amounts to a
direct negation. If every man has the right to employ violence whenever his
neighbor is threatened with danger, then the question becomes reduced to
this: How may one define what is called danger to one's neighbor? If,
however, my private judgment is to be arbiter in this matter, then any
violence which I might commit on any occasion whatever could be excused
by the declaration that my neighbor was in danger. Magicians have been
burned, aristocrats and Girondists put to death, because the men in power
considered them dangerous.
If this important condition, which destroys the significance of the
commandment, ever entered into the thought of Christ, it would have been
formulated somewhere. Not only is no such exception to the commandment
to be found throughout the Teacher's life and lessons, but there is on the
other hand a warning against an interpretation so false and misleading.
The error and the impracticability of such a definition is vividly illustrated
in the Bible story of Caiaphas, who made use of this very same
interpretation. He admitted that it was not well to put to death the innocent
Jesus, but at the same time he perceived the existence of a danger, not for

himself, but for all the people, and therefore declared it better for one man
to die, rather than that a whole nation should perish.
And we have a still more explicit proof of the fallacy of this interpretation
in the words addressed to Peter, when he tried to revenge by violence the
attack upon Jesus (Matthew xxvi. 51). Peter was defending not himself, but
his beloved and divine Master, and Christ distinctly forbade him, saying,
"For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew
xxvi. 52). One can never justify an act of violence against one's fellow-man
by claiming to have done it in defense of another who was enduring some
wrong, because in committing an act of violence, it is impossible to
compare the one wrong with the other, and to say which is the greater, that
which one is about to commit, or the wrong done against one's neighbor.
We release society from the presence of a criminal by putting him to death,
but we cannot possibly know that the former might not have so changed by
the morrow as to render the execution a useless cruelty. We imprison
another, we believe him a dangerous man; but no later than next day this
very man may have ceased to be dangerous, and his imprisonment has
become unnecessary. I see a robber, a man known to me, pursuing a girl; I
hold a gun in my hand; I wound or perhaps kill the robber, and save the girl.
The fact that I have either wounded or killed the robber remains, but I know
not what might have happened had I not done so. And what a vast amount
of harm must and does accrue from the assurance that a man feels of his
right to provide against a possible calamity. Ninety-nine parts of the world's
iniquity, from the Inquisition to the bomb-throwing of the present day, and
the execution of tens of thousands of political criminals, so called, result
from this very assurance.
The fourth and still more ingenious reply to this question of the Christian's
responsibility in regard to the commandment of Christ concerning non-
resistance to evil by violence, consists in asserting that this commandment
is not denied, but acknowledged, like all the others; it is only the special
significance attributed to it by sectarians that is denied. Our critics declare
that the views of Garrison, Ballou, and Dymond, as well as those professed
by the Quakers, the Shakers, the Mennonites, the Moravians, the
Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomiles, and Paulicians, are those of bigoted
sectarians. This commandment, they say, has the importance, no more and
no less, of all the others; and one who through weakness has transgressed

against any of the commandments, whether that of non-resistance or
another, does not for that cause cease to be a Christian, provided his creed
be true.
This is a very cunning and persuasive subterfuge, especially for those who
are willing to be deceived, reducing the direct negation of the
commandment to its accidental infraction. One has, however, but to
compare the attitude of the clergy toward this or any of the other
commandments which they do acknowledge, to be convinced that it is quite
different from their attitude toward this one.
The commandment against fornication they acknowledge without
reservation, and in no case will they ever admit that this sin is not an evil.
There are no circumstances mentioned by the clergy when the
commandment against fornication may be broken, and they always insist
that the occasions for this sin must be avoided. But in regard to non-
resistance it is a very different matter. Every clergyman believes that there
are circumstances wherein this commandment may be held in abeyance,
and they preach accordingly. So far from teaching their parishioners to
avoid the temptations to this sin, chief among which is the oath of
allegiance, they take the oath themselves. Clergymen have never been
known to advocate the breaking of any other commandment; but in regard
to the doctrine of non-resistance, they distinctly teach that this prohibition
must not be taken too literally, that so far from always obeying this
commandment, one should on occasion follow the opposite course—that is,
one should sit in judgment, should go to war, and should execute criminals.
Thus in most of the cases where non-resistance to evil by violence is in
question, the preachers will be found to advocate disobedience. Obedience
to this commandment, they say, is difficult, and can only be practicable in a
state of society whose members are perfect. But how is it to become less
difficult, when its infraction is not only condoned, but directly encouraged,
when legal tribunals, prisons, the implements of warfare, the cannon and
muskets, armies and battles, receive the blessing of the Church? Therefore
this reply is not true. Evidently the statement that this commandment is
acknowledged by the clergy to be of equal validity with the other
commandments cannot be true.
Clergymen do not really acknowledge it, yet, unwilling to admit this fact,
they try by evasion to conceal their non-acknowledgment.

Such is the fourth method of answering.
The fifth, more ingenious than its predecessor, is the popular one of all. It
consists in quietly evading reply, pretending that the question was solved
ages ago, in a cogent and satisfactory manner, and that it would be a waste
of words to reopen the subject. This method is employed by all the more
cultured authors, who, if they made answer at all, would feel themselves
bound to be logical. Realizing that the inconsistency between that doctrine
of Christ, of which we make a verbal profession, and the scheme of our
daily lives, is not to be solved by words, and that the more it is talked the
more glaring this inconsistency becomes, they evade it with more or less
circumspection, pretending that the question of union between Christianity
and the law of violence has either been already solved, or else that it cannot
be solved at all.[2]
Most of my clerical critics have made use of this method. I might quote
scores of criticisms of this class, wherein everything is discussed except the
vital principle of the book. As a characteristic specimen of these criticisms I
will quote from an article by that well-known and scholarly Englishman,
the writer and preacher, Canon Farrar, who, like so many other learned
theologians, is an expert in the art of silently ignoring and evading a
statement. The article appeared in an American magazine, The Forum, for
October, 1888.
After briefly but conscientiously setting forth the subject-matter of my
book, Farrar says:—"After repeated search the central principle of all
Christ's teaching seemed to him [Tolstoï] to be, 'Resist not evil' or 'him that
is evil.' He came to the conclusion that a coarse deceit had been palmed
upon the world when these words were held by civil society to be
compatible with war, courts of justice, capital punishment, divorce, oaths,
national prejudice, and indeed with most of the institutions of civil and
social life. He now believes that the Kingdom of God would come if all
men kept these five commandments, which he holds to be the pith of all
Christ's teaching—viz.: 1. Live in peace with all men. 2. Be pure. 3. Take
no oaths. 4. Never resist evil. 5. Renounce national distinctions.... Most of
the Bible does not seem to him to reflect the spirit of Christ at all, though it
has been brought into artificial and unwarrantable connection with it. Hence
he rejects the chief doctrines of the Church: that of the Atonement by blood,
that of the Trinity, that of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles

and the transmission to the priesthood by laying on of hands, that of the
need of the seven sacraments for salvation. He sets aside the authority of
Paul, of councils, of fathers, popes, or patriarchs, and believes himself to be
the immediate disciple of Christ alone.... But we are compelled to ask, Is
this interpretation of Christ a true one? Are all men bound, or is any man
bound, to act as this great writer has done?"
One might naturally expect that this vital question, which alone could
induce a man to write a dissertation on the book, would be answered either
by admitting that my interpretation of the doctrine of Christ is correct and
should be accepted, or declaring that it is erroneous, proving his point, and
offering a more correct interpretation of the words which I have
misconstrued. But no; Farrar merely expresses his belief that "though
actuated by the noblest sincerity, Count Tolstoï has been misled by partial
and one-sided interpretations of the meaning of the gospel and the mind and
will of Christ." In what this error consists he does not explain, but says: "To
enter into the proof of this is impossible in this article, for I have already
exceeded the space at my command." And concludes with equanimity:
"Meanwhile the reader who feels troubled lest it should be his duty also to
forsake all the conditions of his life, and to take up the position and work of
a common laborer, may rest for the present on the principle, 'Securus judicat
orbis terrarum.' With few and rare exceptions the whole of Christendom,
from the days of the Apostles down to our own, has come to the firm
conclusion that it was the object of Christ to lay down great eternal
principles, but not to disturb the bases and revolutionize the institutions as
well as all inevitable conditions. Were it my object to prove how untenable
is the doctrine of communism, based by Count Tolstoï upon the divine
paradoxes, which can be interpreted on only historical principles in
accordance with the whole method of the teaching of Jesus, it would require
an ampler canvas than I have here at my disposal." What a pity that he has
no space! And, wonderful to relate, no one for fifteen centuries ever had the
space to prove that the Christ whom we profess said one thing and meant
another. And of course they could prove it if they would! But it is not worth
while to prove what everybody knows to be true. It is enough to say:
"Securus judicat orbis terrarum."
The criticisms of all educated believers are very much alike, because
realizing as they must the danger of their position, they feel that their only

safeguard lies in the hope that by sheltering themselves behind the authority
and holiness of the Church, they may succeed in intimidating their readers,
or diverting them from any idea of reading the Bible for themselves or
using their own reason to solve this question. And this is a method that
succeeds. To whom would it ever occur, indeed, that all these assurances,
repeated with so much solemnity, century after century, by archdeacons,
bishops, and archbishops, synods and popes, are a base falsehood, a
calumny against the character of Christ, uttered for the purpose of assuring
to themselves the money they require to lead a life of ease at the expense of
others,—a falsehood and a calumny so palpable, particularly now, that the
only chance of perpetuating this falsehood lies in holding the people in awe
by their arrogance and audacity?
The very same thing has been going on of late years in the Bureau of
military conscription. A number of aged officials, decorated and self-
important, are at a table, a full-lengthed portrait of the Emperor with the
mirror of justice before them, and, while leisurely chatting with each other,
they write, call out the names, and give their orders. Here also, with a cross
upon his breast, his hair blowing over his stole, a genial and venerable-
looking priest dressed in a silk robe sits before a pulpit on which is placed a
golden cross and a Bible with gilt clasps.
Ivan Petrov is called. An untidy, poorly clad youth, with a frightened
expression, twitching muscles, and gleaming eyes that have a wandering
look, steps forward, and in a hesitating, broken voice almost whispers: "I ...
according to law ... as a Christian ... I ... I cannot...." "What is he
muttering?" asks the chairman, impatiently, squinting and making an effort
to hear, as he raises his head from the book. "Speak louder!" exclaims the
colonel with the glittering shoulder-straps. "As a Christian ... I ... I...." And
at last it becomes plain that the youth refuses to enter the military service
because he is a Christian. "Don't talk nonsense! Measure him! Doctor, be
kind enough to look at the measure. Will he do?" "He will do." "Holy
Father, let him take the oath."
Not only is there no uneasiness on the part of the officers, but no one pays
the least attention to the muttering of this frightened, pitiable youth. "They
always mutter, and we are in a hurry; we have still so many more to
receive."

The recruit tries to speak again. "This is against the law of Christ!" "Move
on! move on! We know what is lawful and what is not! Move on! Father,
make him understand! Next! Vassili Nikitin!"
Then the trembling youth is led away. Now which of all these men, the
soldiers, Vassili Nikitin, the new man on the list, or any other witness of the
scene,—which of these would ever dream that the unintelligible, broken
utterances of the youth, silenced forthwith by the magistrates, embodied the
real truth, while the loud, arrogant speeches of the officials, of the priest,
uttered with authority, were actually false?
The same impression is made not only by Farrar's essay, but by all those
grandiloquent sermons, reviews, and other publications which spring into
existence on every side wherever truth is found combating the arrogance of
falsehood. At once these orators and writers, subtle or bombastic, begin by
dwelling upon points closely allied to the vital question, while preserving
an artful silence on the question itself.
And this is the fifth and most efficacious method of accounting for the
inconsistent attitude of ecclesiastical Christianity, which, while professing
Christ, with its own life denies, and teaches others to deny, this doctrine in
the practice of daily life. They who employ the first method of justification
by boldly and distinctly affirming that Christ sanctioned violence, meaning
wars and murders, put themselves beyond the pale of Christ's teaching;
while they who defend themselves according to the second, third, and
fourth methods soon become entangled, and are easily convicted of
falsehood; but the fifth class, they who condescend not to reason, use their
dignity for a screen, and insist that all these questions were settled ages ago,
and need no reconsideration; they, apparently invulnerable, will maintain an
undisputed authority, and men will repose under the hypnotic suggestion of
Church and State, nor seek to throw off the yoke.
Such were the views of the clergy, of the professors of Christianity, in
regard to my book, nor could anything different have been expected: they
are in bonds to their inconsistent position, believers in the divinity of the
Teacher, and yet discrediting His plainest words,—an inconsistency which
they are bound to reconcile in some way. Hence it is not to be supposed that
they would give unbiased opinions in regard to the essential question of that
change which must take place in the life of one who makes a practical

application of the doctrine of Christ to the existing order. From secular
critics and free-thinkers, who acknowledge no obligation to the doctrine of
Christ, and who might be expected to judge them without prejudice, I had
prepared myself for criticisms such as these. I thought that the Liberals
would look upon Christ not only as the founder of a religion involving
personal salvation (as understood by the ecclesiastics and their followers),
but, to use their own expression, as upon a reformer who tears down the old
foundations to make way for new ones, and whose reformation is not even
yet complete.
To set forth that conception of Christ and his doctrine has been the object of
my book. But to my surprise not one out of the many criticisms, Russian or
foreign, that have appeared, has accepted my view, or even discussed it
from my standpoint, which is, that the teaching of Christ is a philosophical,
moral, and social doctrine. (I use the phraseology of the scientists.) The
Russian secular critics, conceiving the sum and substance of my book to be
a plea in favor of resistance to evil, and taking it for granted (probably for
the sake of argument) that the doctrine forbade any struggle whatsoever
against the wrong, made a virulent, and for several years, most successful
attack upon this doctrine, proving that the teaching of Christ must be false,
since it forbids any effort to overcome evil. Their refutations of this so-
called false doctrine had all the more chance of success, because the
censorship had prohibited, not only the book itself, but also all articles in its
defense, and consequently they knew beforehand that their arguments could
not be assailed.
It is worthy of note that here in Russia, where not a word against the Holy
Scriptures is allowed by the censor, for several years in succession the
distinct and unmistakable commandment of Christ (Matthew v. 39) was
criticized, distorted, condemned, and mocked at in all the leading
periodicals.
The Russian secular critics, apparently ignorant of all that had been said and
done in regard to non-resistance to evil, seemed to think that I had invented
the principle myself, and attacked it as if it were my idea, first distorting
and then refuting it with great ardor, bringing forward time-worn arguments
that had been analyzed and refuted over and over again, showing that the
oppressed and downtrodden should be defended by violence, and declaring
the doctrine of Christ concerning non-resistance to be immoral.

All the significance that the Russian critics saw in Christ's preaching was,
that it seemed expressly intended to hamper them in their struggles against
what they believe to be an evil in the present day. Thus it came about that
the principle of non-resistance to evil by violence was attacked from two
opposite camps; the Conservatives, because this principle interfered with
them in their efforts to suppress sedition, and as opposed to all persecution,
as well as to the punishment of death; the Revolutionists, because this
principle forbade them to resist the oppression of the Conservatives, or to
attempt their overthrow. The Conservatives were indignant that the doctrine
of non-resistance to evil by violence should thwart an energetic suppression
of revolutionary elements, which might imperil the welfare of a nation; the
Revolutionists in the like manner were indignant because this same doctrine
averted the downfall of the Conservatives, who, in their opinion, imperil the
welfare of the people. It is a circumstance worthy of notice that the
Revolutionists should attack the principle of non-resistance to evil by
violence; for of all the doctrines dreaded by despotism, and dangerous to its
existence, this is the chief one. Since the creation of the world the opposite
principle of resistance by violence has been the corner-stone of every
despotic institution, from the Inquisition to the fortress of Schlüsselburg.
Moreover, the Russian critics declared that the progress of civilization itself
would be checked were this commandment of non-resistance applied to
everyday life, by which they mean the civilization of Europe, which is,
according to them, the model for all mankind.
Such was the substance of Russian criticism.
Foreign critics start from the same premises, but their deductions differ
somewhat from those of the Russian critics; not only are they less captious
and more cultivated, but their modes of analysis are not the same.
In discussing my book, and more particularly the gospel doctrine as it is
expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, the foreign critics affirmed that the
latter could not really be called Christian doctrine (they believe that the
Christian doctrine is embodied in Catholicism or Protestantism), and that
the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount are only a series of the delightful
but unpractical visions of the "charmant docteur," as Renan says, suited to
the artless, half-civilized Galileans who lived 1800 years ago, or to the
Russian and semi-barbarous peasants, to Sutaev and Bondarev, and to the

Russian mystic Tolstoï, but which are by no means adapted to the lofty
plane of European culture. The foreign secular critics, in a courteous way,
in order not to wound my feelings, have endeavored to show that my belief
that mankind may be guided by so simple a doctrine as the Sermon on the
Mount arises partly from my limited knowledge of history and ignorance of
the many vain attempts to carry out in daily life the principles of the
Sermon on the Mount, which history tells us have always proved an utter
failure, and partly from my misconception of the significance of our
modern civilization, with its Krupp guns, its smokeless powder, its African
colonization, its Home Rule, its parliaments, journalism, strikes, and
constitutions, not to mention the Eiffel Tower,—on which the entire
population of Europe is at present reposing.
Thus wrote Vogüé, thus wrote Leroy-Beaulieu, Matthew Arnold, the
American writer Talmage, who is also a popular preacher, the free-thinker
Ingersoll, and others.
"The teaching of Christ is no longer practicable, because it does not suit our
industrial times," Ingersoll ingenuously remarks, and thereby he no doubt
gives utterance to the views which this cultured generation holds in regard
to the doctrine of Christ. The doctrine has no affinity with the industrialism
of the present age, as though industrialism were a sacred institution which
can suffer no change. A drunkard might thus reply to one who calls upon
him to be sober, that a man in liquor finds such advice absurd.
The arguments of all secular writers, Russian as well as foreign, however
varied in form or expression, are substantially alike; they all agree in
misapprehending the doctrine of Christ, with its outcome of non-resistance,
and in affirming that it is not expedient because it implies a need of a
change of life.
The doctrine of life is inexpedient, because if we lived up to it our lives
could not go on as they have done hitherto; in other words, if we were to
begin to live like righteous men, as Christ bids us, we must abandon the
wicked ways to which we have grown accustomed. So far from discussing
the question of non-resistance of evil by violence, the very mention of the
fact that the precepts of Christ include such a command is considered as
sufficient proof of the inexpediency of the whole doctrine.

And yet it would seem necessary to offer some solution of this question, as
it lies at the root of all that most interests us.
The question is how to settle these differences among men, when the very
action that is considered evil by one man is considered good by another. It
is no answer to say that I think an action evil although my adversary may
consider it a good one. There are but two ways of solving the difficulty. One
is to find a positive and indisputable standard of evil, and the other is to
obey the command, resist not evil by violence.
Men have tried to achieve the former from the earliest historical ages, and
we all know with what unsuccessful results.
The second solution—that is, the non-resistance of what we must consider
evil until we have found a universal standard: that solution has been
suggested by Christ himself.
It might be thought that the solution suggested by Christ was the wrong
one, and a better one might be substituted after the standard had been found
which is to define evil once and for all. One might not know of the
existence of such a question, as is the case with the barbarous races, but no
one can be permitted to pretend, like the learned critics of the Christian
doctrine, that no such question does exist, or that the recognition of the right
of certain individuals or groups of individuals, and still less of one's own
right, to define evil, and to resist it by violence, decides the question,
because we all know that such a recognition does not decide it at all, for
there are always persons who will refuse to admit that such a prerogative
can exist.
And yet this very acknowledgment, that anything that seems evil to us is
evil, or else an utter misconception of the question, affords a basis for the
conclusions of secular critics concerning the doctrine of Christ; hence not
only the utterances of the clerical, but also those of the secular critics in
regard to my book, have made it evident to me that most men totally fail to
comprehend either the doctrine of Christ, or the questions which it is
intended to decide.

CHAPTER III
MISCONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY BY NON-
BELIEVERS
The meaning of the Christian doctrine, which is clear for the minority, has become
unintelligible for the majority of men—The cause of it is the false conception of
Christianity and the misguided assurance of believers, as well as of unbelievers, that they
apprehend it—The apprehension of Christianity for believers is concealed by the Church
—The apprehension of Christianity—Its essence and its unlikeness to the pagan doctrines
—Misunderstood at first, it has grown clear to those who embrace it owing to its
correspondence with the truth—Contemporaneously with it arose the assertion that the
true meaning of the doctrine was understood, and had been confirmed by miraculous
transmission—The Council of Disciples according to the Acts—Authoritative and
miraculous assertion of the true conception of Christ's doctrine has found its logical
conclusion in the acknowledgment of the Credo and the Church—The Church could not
have been established by Christ—Definition of Churches according to the Catechism—
There are various Churches, ever antagonistic to one another—Where is heresy?—The
work of Mr. Arnold concerning heresies—Heresies are the sign of activity in the
Churches—Churches always divide mankind, and are ever inimical to Christianity—In
what the activity of the Russian Church consists—Matthew xxiv. 23—The Sermon on the
Mount, or the Credo—The Orthodox Church conceals from the people the true meaning
of Christianity—The same is done by other Churches—All the contemporary external
conditions are such that they destroy the doctrine of the Church, and therefore Churches
use all their efforts to defend it.

The knowledge which I obtained after the publication of my book in regard
to the views which the minority of mankind have held, and still hold,
concerning the doctrine of Christ in its simplicity and real significance, as
well as the criticisms of clerical and secular writers, who deny the
possibility of apprehending it in its actual meaning, have convinced me that
while the minority has not only always possessed a true conception of this
doctrine, and that this conception has grown steadily more and more clear,
for the majority, on the other hand, its sense has become more and more
vague, reaching at last such a degree of obscurity that men fail to
understand the simplest commands expressed in the Bible, even when
couched in the plainest possible language.
The inability that prevails at the present time to comprehend the doctrine of
Christ in its true, simple, and actual meaning, when its light has penetrated

into the remotest recesses of the human understanding, when, as Christ said,
they proclaim from the roofs that which He whispered in the ear; when this
doctrine penetrates every phase of human life, domestic, economical, civil,
politic, and international,—this failure to apprehend it would be
inexplicable, if one had not discovered the reasons for it.
One of the reasons is, that believers as well as unbelievers are perfectly sure
that they long ago understood the doctrine of Christ so completely,
unquestionably, and finally, that it can have no other meaning but the one
which they attribute to it. That is because the tradition of this false
conception has been handed down for ages,—and therefore its
misconception.
The most powerful stream of water cannot add one single drop to a vessel
that is already full.
One might succeed in explaining to the dullest of men the most difficult of
problems, if he had no previous conception in regard to them; but it is
impossible to explain to the cleverest man even the simplest matters, if he is
perfectly sure that he knows everything about it.
The Christian doctrine appears to men of the present times to be a doctrine
of that kind, known for ages, and never to be questioned in its most trivial
details, and which is susceptible of no other interpretation.
At the present time Christianity is conceived by those who profess the
doctrines of the Church as a supernatural, miraculous revelation of all that
is expressed in the Credo; while unbelievers look upon it as an affair of the
past, a manifestation of the demand of humanity for a belief in the
supernatural, as an historical fact, which has found its fullest expression in
Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, and which has for us no vital
meaning. For the believers the real significance of the doctrine is concealed
by the Church; for the unbelievers it is hidden by science.
Let us begin by considering the former.
Eighteen hundred years ago, in the pagan world of Rome, there appeared a
strange and novel doctrine, unlike any of its predecessors, which was
ascribed to the man Christ.
It was a doctrine wholly new in form as well as in substance, both for the
Hebrew world, from whose midst it had sprung, as well as for the Roman

world, in whose midst it was preached and promulgated.
Among the accurately defined religious precepts of the Jews, where,
according to Isaiah, there was precept upon precept, and among the highly
perfected Roman legislative assemblies, there appeared a doctrine that not
only repudiated all deities, all fear of them, all augury and all faith in it, but
also denied the necessity for any human institutions whatsoever. Instead of
the precepts and creeds of former times, this doctrine presented only an
image of interior perfection, truth, and love in the person of Christ, and the
attainment of this interior perfection possible for men, and, as a
consequence, of the outward perfection foretold by the prophets: the
coming of the Kingdom of God, when all enmity shall cease, when every
man will hear the word of the Lord and be united with another in brotherly
love, and when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together. Instead of
threats of punishment for the non-observance of the commandments of the
old laws, religious no less than secular, instead of tempting men by promise
of rewards to observe these laws, this doctrine attracted mankind only by
proclaiming itself to be the truth.
"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of
God, or whether I speak of myself."—John vii. 17.
"Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not
believe me?"—John viii. 46.
"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth...."—John
viii. 40.
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."—John
viii. 32.
God must be worshiped in truth. All the doctrine will be made plain by the
Spirit of Truth. Do as I command you, and you will know whether what I
say is the truth.
No evidence was brought to prove the doctrine, except the truth and its
harmony therewith. The whole substance consisted in learning the truth and
in following its guidance, drawing nearer and nearer to it in the affairs of
everyday life.
According to this doctrine, there is no mode of action that can justify a man
or make him righteous; as regards interior perfection we have only the

image of truth, in the person of Christ, to win our hearts, and outward
perfection is expressed by a realization of the Kingdom of God. In order to
fulfil the doctrine it needs but to take Christ for our model, and to advance
in the direction of interior perfection by the road which has been pointed
out to us, as well as in that of exterior perfection, which is the establishment
of the Kingdom of God. The degree of human happiness, whether it be
more or less, depends, according to this doctrine, not on the degree of
perfection at which it arrives, but on the comparative rate of progress
toward that perfection.
The advance toward perfection of Zacchæus the publican, of the adulteress,
of the thief on the cross, is, according to this doctrine, better than the
stagnation of the righteous Pharisee. The shepherd rejoices more over the
one sheep which was lost and is found than over the ninety and nine which
are in the fold. The prodigal returned, the piece of money which was lost
and is found, is more precious unto God than that which was never lost.
According to this doctrine, each state is but a step on the road toward the
unattainable interior and exterior perfection, and therefore it has no
significance in itself. The progress of this movement toward perfection is its
merit; the least cessation of this movement means the cessation of good
works.
"Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth," and "No man,
having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of
God." "Rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice,
because your names are written in heaven." "Be ye therefore perfect, even
as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." "Seek ye first the kingdom of
God and his righteousness."
The fulfilment of the doctrine lies in a continual progress toward the
attainment of a higher truth, and in the growing realization of that truth
within one's self, by means of an ever increasing love; as well as in a more
and more keen realization of the Kingdom of God in the world around us. It
is evident that the doctrine that appeared in the midst of the Hebrew and
pagan world could not be accepted by the majority of men, who lived a life
so totally unlike the one prescribed by this new doctrine; and even those
who did accept it could not comprehend its full meaning, because of its
contradiction of all former ideas.

It is only through a series of misapprehensions, errors, one-sided
explanations, corrected and supplemented by generations of men, that the
meaning of the Christian doctrine has become more and more plain. The
Christian world-conception and that of the Hebrew and pagan peoples
mutually acted and reacted upon each other, and the Christian principle
being the more vital, it penetrated deeper and deeper into the Hebrew and
pagan principles that had outlived their usefulness, and became more
clearly defined, freeing itself from the spurious admixtures imposed upon it.
Men understood its meaning better and better, and realized it more and
more unmistakably in life.
The older the world grew, the more lucid became its apprehension of
Christianity, as must always be the case with any doctrine relating to human
life.
Successive generations rectified the mistakes of the preceding ones and
approached nearer and nearer to the apprehension of its true meaning. Thus
it was from the very beginning of Christianity. And it was then that certain
men came to the front who affirmed that the only true interpretation was the
one which they themselves proclaimed, adducing the miracles as a proof
thereof.
This was the principal cause of its misapprehension in the first place, and of
its complete perversion in the second.
The doctrine of Christ was supposed to be transmitted to mankind not like
any other truth, but in a peculiar, supernatural manner; hence they propose
to prove its authority, not because it satisfies the demands of reason and of
human nature in general, but because of the miraculous character of its
transmission, which is supposed to be an incontrovertible proof of the
validity of its conception. This idea sprang from a misconception, and the
result was that it became impossible to understand it.
It originated at the very beginning, when the doctrine was so imperfectly
understood and often so erroneously construed; as, for example, in the
Gospels and the Acts. The less men understood it, the more mysterious it
appeared, and the greater need was there for visible proof of its authenticity.
The rule for doing unto others as you would wish them to do unto you,
called for no miraculous proof, neither did it require faith, because the

proposition is convincing in itself, both to reason and to human nature. But
the proposition that Christ was God needed miraculous testimony.
The more mystical grew the apprehension of Christ's teaching, the more the
miraculous element entered into it; and the more miraculous it became, the
farther it was from its original meaning; and the more complicated,
mystical, and remote from its original meaning it came to be, the more
necessary it was to declare its infallibility, and the less intelligible it
became.
From the very beginning of Christianity one could see from the Gospels, the
Acts, and the Epistles how the misapprehension of the doctrine called forth
the necessity of proofs—miraculous and beyond human intelligence.
It dated from the time mentioned in the Acts, when the disciples went up to
Jerusalem to consult with the elders in regard to the question that had arisen
as to whether the uncircumcised and those who abstained not from the meat
offered to idols should be baptized.
The very manner of asking the question showed that those who discussed it
misconceived the doctrine of Christ, who rejected all external rites, such as
the washing of the feet, purification, fasts, and the Sabbath. It is said
distinctly: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but those
things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they
defile the man." And therefore the question in regard to the baptism of those
not circumcised could only arise among men who, loving their Teacher and
with the intuitive perception of the grandeur of his doctrine, could not as yet
comprehend its exact meaning. And so it was.
And in proportion as the members of the assembly failed to comprehend the
doctrine, did they stand in need of an outward affirmation of their
incomplete conception. And in order to decide the question, whose very
proposal proves the misconception of the doctrine, it was that in this
assembly for the first time, according to the description given in the Acts,
were uttered those awful words, productive of so much harm, by which the
truth of certain propositions has been for the first time confirmed: "For it
seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us;" that is to say, it was a
declaration that the truth of what they said was witnessed by a miraculous
participation of the Holy Ghost, that is—of God.

But the assertion that the Holy Ghost—that is to say, God—had spoken
through the apostles, in its turn required proof. And therefore it became
necessary to declare that on the fiftieth day the Holy Ghost, in the shape of
fiery tongues, descended on those who had made this assertion. [In the
description the descent of the Holy Ghost precedes the council, but the Acts
were written much later than either.] But the descent of the Holy Ghost
must also be proved, though it would be difficult to say why a fiery tongue
hovering over a man's head should be a proof of the truth of what he says
any more than the miracles, the cures, the resurrections, the martyrdoms,
and all the rest of those persuasive miracles with which the Acts are filled,
and which serve rather to repel than to convince one of the truth of the
Christian dogmas. The results of these methods were such that the more
pains they took to confirm their statements, accumulating stories of
miracles, the more the doctrine itself deviated from its original meaning,
and the less intelligible it became.
Thus it was from the beginning of the Christian era, and thus it continued to
increase, until in its own time it has reached its logical consummation in the
dogma of transubstantiation, the infallibility of the Pope, the bishops, and
Scriptures, which is something utterly incomprehensible and nonsensical,
requiring a blind faith, not in God or Christ, nor even in the doctrine, but a
faith either in one person, as in Catholicism, or in many persons, as in
Orthodoxy, or in a book, as in Protestantism. The more widely spread
Christianity became, and the larger the number of uninstructed men it
received, the less it was understood, the more the infallibility of its
conceptions was insisted upon, and the more slender grew the possibility of
understanding its true meaning. Already, about the time of Constantine, the
entire conception of the doctrine amounted to the résumé formulated by the
temporal power,—the outcome of discussions that took place in the council,
—to the Credo, in which it is said: I believe in this and that, etc., and at the
end, "in the one holy, Apostolic and Œcumenical Church," that is, in the
infallibility of the persons who constitute it; so that it all amounted to this,
that a man believed not in God, nor in Christ, as they revealed themselves
to him, but in that which was believed by the Church.
But the Church is holy, and was founded by Christ. God could not allow
men to interpret His doctrine as they chose, and therefore He established the
Church. All these propositions are so unjust and unfounded, that one is

actually ashamed to refute them. In no place, and in no manner whatsoever,
save in the assertion of the Church, is it seen that either God or Christ can
ever have founded anything like the Church in its ecclesiastical sense. There
is a distinct and evident warning in the New Testament against the Church,
as an outside authority, in the passage which bids the disciples of Christ call
no man father or master. But nowhere is there a word in regard to the
establishment of what the ecclesiastics call the Church. The word "church"
is used in the New Testament twice, once in speaking of the assembly
which is to decide a dispute; the second time in connection with the obscure
words in regard to the rock, Peter, and the gates of hell. From these two
references, where the word is used only in the sense of an assembly, men
have derived the institution which we recognize at present under the same
of the Church.
But Christ could by no means have founded a church, that is, what we
understand by that word at the present time, because nothing like our
Church, as we know it in these days, with the sacraments, the hierarchy, and
above all the establishment of infallibility, was to be found either in the
words of Christ, or in the ideas of the men of those times.
Because men have called something which has been established since, by
the same word that Christ used in regard to another thing, by no means
gives them a right to assert that Christ founded only one true Church.
Moreover, if Christ had it in his mind to establish a church which was to be
the depository of the whole doctrine and faith, He would surely have
expressed this so plainly and clearly, and would have given, apart from all
stories of miracles which are repeated with every variety of superstition,
such signs as would leave no doubt as to its authenticity; yet this was not
the case, and now, as always, one finds different institutions, each one
calling itself the only true Church.
The Catholic catechism says: "L'Eglise est la société des fidèles établie par
N.-S. Jésus-Christ, répandue sur toute la terre et soumise à l'autorité de
pasteurs légitimes, principalement notre S.-P. le pape,"—meaning by
"pasteurs légitimes,"[3] a human institution made up of a number of men
bound together by a certain organization of which the Pope is the head.
The Orthodox catechism says: "Our Church is a society established on earth
by Jesus Christ, united by the divine doctrine and the sacraments under the

government and direction of a hierarchy established by the Lord,"—those
words, "established by the Lord," signifying a Greek hierarchy, composed
of certain men who are ordained to fill certain places.
The Lutheran catechism says: "Our Church is a holy Christian society of
believers under Christ, our Master, in which the Holy Ghost, by means of
the Bible and the sacraments, offers, communicates, and dispenses the
divine salvation,"—meaning by that, that the Catholic Church is in error,
and has fallen away from grace, and that the genuine tradition has been
preserved in Protestantism.
For Catholics the divine Church is identified with the Pope and the Roman
hierarchy. For the Orthodox it is identified with the institution of the
Eastern and Russian hierarchy.[4] For Lutherans the divine Church signifies
a congregation of men who acknowledge the Bible and the Lutheran
catechism.
When those who belong to any one of the existing churches speak of the
beginnings of Christianity, they generally use the word "church" in the
singular, as though there had never been but one church. This is quite
unfair. The Church, which as an institution declares itself to be the
depository of infallible truth, did not arise until there were already two.
While the faithful still agreed among themselves, the congregation was
united, and there was no occasion for calling itself a church. It was only
when it separated into two hostile parties that each party felt obliged to
assert its possession of the truth by claiming infallibility.
During the course of the controversies between the two parties, while each
one claimed infallibility for itself and declared its opponent heretical, arose
the idea of the one church.
We know that there was a church in the year 51, which granted the
admission of the uncircumcised, and we know it only because there was
another, the Jewish Church, which denied their right to membership.
If at the present time there is a Catholic Church which asserts its
infallibility, it is because there are other churches, namely, the Greek
Orthodox and the Lutheran, each one asserting its own infallibility, and thus
disowning all other churches. Hence the idea of one church is but the
product of the imagination, containing not a shadow of reality.

It is an historical fact that there have existed, and still continue to exist,
numerous bodies, each one of whom maintains itself to be the true Church
established by Christ, declaring at the same time that all the others who call
themselves churches are heretical and schismatic.
The catechisms of those churches which possess the greatest number of
communicants, the Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Lutheran, express this in
the plainest language.
The Catholic catechism says: "Quels sont ceux qui sont hors de l'Eglise?
Les infidèles, hérétiques, et schismatiques."[5] By schismatics it means the
so-called Orthodox, and by heretics the Lutherans; so that, according to the
Catholic catechism, the Church is composed only of Catholics.
In the so-called Orthodox catechism it says: "The name Church of Christ
means only the Orthodox Church, which has remained in perfect union with
the universal Church. As to the Roman Church and the Protestant creeds"
(they are not even called a church), "they cannot belong to the one true
Church, for they have separated themselves from it."
According to this definition the Catholics and the Protestants are outside of
the Church, and only the Orthodox are in it.
The Lutheran catechism says: "Die wahre Kirche wird darein erkannt, das
in ihr das Wort Gottes lauter und rein ohne Menschenzusetzung gelehrt und
die Sacramenten treu nach Christ Einsetzung gewartet werden."[6]
According to this definition, those who have added anything whatsoever to
the teaching of Christ and the apostles, as the Catholic and Greek Churches
have done, are outside the Church, and the Lutherans alone are in it.
The Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost dwells perpetually with their
hierarchy; the Orthodox assert that the same Holy Ghost resides also with
them; the Arians claim that the Holy Ghost manifests itself to them (and
they have the same right to assert this as have the prevailing religions of the
present day); all the denominations of Protestants—Lutherans, Reformed
Presbyterians, Methodists, Swedenborgians, and Mormons—assert that the
Holy Ghost manifests itself only with them.
If the Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost during the separation of the Arian
and Greek Churches withdrew from the separating churches and remained
in the one true Church, then the Protestants of any denomination

whatsoever may assert with as much right that during the separation of their
Church from the Catholic, the Holy Ghost left the Catholic Church and
entered into their own. And this is exactly what they do say. Every church
professes to derive its creed by an unbroken tradition from Christ and the
apostles. And certainly every Christian creed derived from Christ must have
reached the present generation through tradition of some sort. But this is no
proof that any one of these traditions embodies infallible truth, to the
exclusion of all others.
Every branch proceeds from the root without interruption; but the fact that
each one comes from one root, by no means proves it to be the only branch.
And so it is in regard to the churches. The proofs which each church offers
of its apostolic succession, and the miracles which are to prove its
authenticity, are the same in every case; consequently there is but one exact
definition of what is called a church (not the imaginary church which we
may desire, but the actual church which has really existed). The Church is a
body of men which lays claim to the exclusive possession of the truth. All
these various societies which were afterward transformed by State authority
into powerful organizations have really been the chief obstacles to the
diffusion of true Christianity. It could not be otherwise: for the principal
characteristic which distinguishes the doctrine of Christ from those of
earlier times is that the men who accepted it strove to understand and to
fulfil it more and more perfectly; whereas the doctrine of the Church
affirmed that it was already thoroughly understood and also fulfilled.
However strange this may seem to us, reared as we have been in the false
doctrine of the Church, as if it were a Christian institution, and taught to
despise heresy, it is nevertheless in that which men call heresy that true
progress, that is, true Christianity, was manifested, and it only ceased to be
such when these heresies were checked, and it was, so to speak, stamped
with the immutable imprint of the Church.
What, then, is heresy? Read all the theological works which treat of
heresies, of that subject which above all others calls for an exact definition,
for every theologian speaks of the true doctrine in the midst of the false
ones by which it is surrounded, and nowhere will you find even the shadow
of a definition of heresy.

As an instance of the complete absence of the definition of what is
understood by the word heresy, we will quote the opinion of a learned
Christian historian, E. de Pressensé in "Histoire du Dogme," with its
epigraph, "Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia" (Paris, 1869). This is what he says in
his preface (p. 4):—
"I know that they dispute our right to qualify thus" (that is, to pronounce
them heretical) "the tendencies which were so actively resisted by the early
Fathers. The very name of heresy seems an attack upon liberty of
conscience and thought. We cannot share these scruples, for they would
simply deprive Christianity of any individual character."
And having said that after Constantine the Church did in fact abuse its
authority to describe the dissenters as heretics and to persecute them, he
says, in speaking of the early ages of Christianity: "The Church is a free
association; there is an advantage to be gained in separating from it. The
controversy against error is based on feelings and ideas; no uniform body of
dogma has as yet been adopted; differences of secondary importance appear
in the East and West with perfect freedom; theology is not limited by
unalterable formulas. If amid these varying opinions a common
groundwork of faith is discerned, have we not the right to see in this, not a
definite system devised and formulated by the representatives of a school,
but faith itself in its most unerring instinct and spontaneous manifestation?
If this very unanimity which is revealed in the essential matters of faith is
found to be antagonistic to certain tendencies, have we not the right to infer
that these tendencies disagreed with the fundamental principles of
Christianity? Will not this supposition become a certainty if we recognize in
the doctrine rejected by the Church the characteristic features of one of the
religions of the past? If we admit that gnosticism or ebionitism are
legitimate forms of Christian thought, we must boldly declare that Christian
thought does not exist, nor does it possess any specific characteristic by
which it may be recognized. We should destroy it even while pretending to
enlarge its limits. In the time of Plato no one would have dared to advocate
a doctrine which would leave no room for the theory of ideas, and he would
have been subjected to the well-deserved ridicule of Greece, if he attempted
to make of Epicurus or of Zeno a disciple of the Academy. Let us then
admit that if there exists a religion or a doctrine called Christianity, it may
have its heresies."

The writer's argument amounts to this, that every opinion which does not
accord with the code of dogmas that we have professed at any given time, is
a heresy. At a certain time and in a certain place men make a certain
profession, but this profession can never be a fixed criterion of the truth. All
is summed up in the "Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia," and Christ is wherever we
are.
Every so-called heresy which claims that what it professes is the actual
truth, may likewise find in the history of the Church a consistent
explanation of the faith it professes, and apply all the arguments to its own
use. Pressensé simply calls his own creed Christian truth, precisely as every
heretical sect has done.
The primary definition of the word heresy (the word ἁίρεσις means a part)
is the name given by a society of men to any opinion contradicting any part
of the doctrine professed by the society. A more specific meaning is an
expression of an opinion which denies the truth of the creed, established
and maintained by the temporal power.
There is a remarkable, although little known, work entitled "Unpartheyische
Kirchen und Ketzer-Historie," 1729, by Gottfried Arnold, which treats of
this subject, and points out the illegality, the perversity, the lack of sense,
and the cruelty of employing the word heresy in the sense of refutation.
This book is an attempt to relate the history of Christianity in the form of a
history of heresies.
In his introduction the author asks a series of questions: (1) Of those who
make heretics (Von denen Ketzermachern selbst); (2) Of those who have
become heretics; (3) Of the subjects of heresy; (4) Of the ways of making
heretics; and (5) Of the aims and consequences of the making of heretics.
To each of these points he adds scores of other questions, giving the
answers from the works of well-known theologians, but principally leaving
it to the reader to draw his own deductions from the contents of the book.
As instances of questions which are to a certain extent their own answers I
will quote the following:—Concerning the 4th question, of the methods for
making heretics, he asks in one of the questions (the 7th): "Does not all
history tend to show us that the greatest makers of heretics, the adepts in the
art, were those very wiseacres from whom the Father concealed his secrets
—that is, the hypocrites, the Pharisees, and the Scribes, or utterly godless

and evil-minded men? (Question 20-21) And in the corrupted times of
Christianity did not the hypocrites and envious ones reject the very men,
talented and especially indorsed by the Lord, who would have been highly
esteemed in periods of pure Christianity? (21) And, on the other hand,
would not those men who during the decadence of Christianity rose above
all others, and set themselves up as teachers of the purest Christianity,
would not they, during the times of the apostles of Christ and his disciples,
have been considered as the shameful heretics and anti-Christians?" Among
other things, while expressing the idea that the verbal declaration of the
essence of faith which was required by the Church, the abjuration of which
was regarded as a heresy, could never cover all the ideas and beliefs of the
faithful, and that hence the requirement that faith shall be expressed by a
certain formula of words is the immediate cause of heresy, he says in the
21st question:—
"And supposing that holy acts and thoughts appear to a man so high and so
profound that he finds no adequate words wherewith to convey them,
should he be considered a heretic if he is unable to formulate his
conception? (33) And was not this the reason why there were no heresies in
the early times of Christianity, because Christians judged each other, not by
their words, but by their hearts and by their deeds, enjoying a perfect
freedom of expression, without the fear of being called heretic?" "Was it not
one of the convenient and easiest methods of the Church," he asks in the
31st question, "when the ecclesiastics wished to rid themselves of any one,
or ruin his reputation, to excite suspicion in regard to the doctrine he held,
and by investing him in the garment of heresy, condemn and cast him out?"
"Although it is true that among so-called heretics sins and errors have been
committed, it is no less true, as the numerous examples here quoted bear
testimony" (that is to say, in the history of the Church and of heresies), "that
there has never been a sincere and conscientious man of any importance
whose safety has not been endangered through the envy of the
ecclesiastics."
This was the interpretation of heresy almost 200 years ago, and the same
meaning is attached to it to-day, and so long as the idea of the Church shall
exist it will never change. Where the Church exists there must also exist the
idea of heresy. The Church is a body of men claiming possession of

indisputable truth. A heresy is the opinion of men who do not acknowledge
the truth of the Church to be indisputable.
Heresy is the manifestation of a movement in the Church; it is an attempt to
destroy the immutable assertion of the Church, the attempt of a living
apprehension of the doctrine. Each advance that has been made toward the
comprehension and the practice of the doctrine has been accomplished by
heretics: Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and Luther, Huss, Savonarola,
Helchitsky, and others were all heretics. It could not be otherwise.
A disciple of Christ, who possesses an ever growing sense of the doctrine
and of its progressive fulfilment as it advances toward perfection, cannot,
either for himself or others, affirm, simply because he is a disciple of Christ,
that he understands and practises the doctrine of Christ to its fullest extent;
still less could he affirm this in regard to any body of men. To whatsoever
state of comprehension and perfection he may have arrived, he must always
feel the inadequacy both of his conception and of its application, and must
ever strive for something more satisfactory. And therefore to claim for one's
self, or for any body of men whatsoever, the possession of a complete
apprehension and practice of the doctrine of Christ is in direct contradiction
to the spirit of Christ's doctrine itself.
However strange this statement may appear, every church, as a church, has
always been, and always must be, an institution not only foreign, but
absolutely hostile, to the doctrine of Christ. It is not without reason that
Voltaire called it "l'infâme"; it is not without reason that all so-called
Christian sects believe the Church to be the Scarlet Woman prophesied by
the Revelation; it is not without reason that the history of the Church is the
history of cruelties and horrors.
Churches in themselves are, as some persons believe, institutions based
upon a Christian principle, from which they have deviated to a certain
extent; but considered in the light of churches, of bodies of men claiming
infallibility, they are anti-Christian institutions. Between churches in the
ecclesiastical sense and Christianity, not only is there nothing in common
except the name, but they are two utterly contradictory and hostile
elements. One is pride, violence, self-assertion, inertia, and death. The other
is meekness, repentance, submission, activity, and life.

No man can serve these two masters at the same time; he must choose
either the one or the other.
The servants of the churches of every creed, especially in these modern
times, strive to represent themselves as the partisans of progress in
Christianity; they make concessions, they try to correct the abuses that have
crept into the Church, and protest that it is wrong to deny the principle of
the Christian Church on account of these abuses, because it is only through
the medium of the Church that unity can be obtained, and that the Church is
the only mediator between God and man. All this is untrue. So far from
fostering the spirit of unity, the churches have ever been the fruitful source
of human enmity, of hatred, wars, conflicts, inquisitions, Eves of St.
Bartholomew, and so on; neither do the churches act as the mediators
between God and man,—an office, moreover, quite unnecessary, and
directly forbidden by Christ himself, who has revealed his doctrine unto
each individual; it is but the dead formula, and not the living God, which
the churches offer to man, and which serves rather to increase than diminish
the distance between man and his Creator. The churches, which were
founded upon a misconception, and which preserve this misconception by
their immutability, must of necessity harass and persecute any new
conception, because they know, however they may try to conceal it, that
every advance along the road indicated by Christ is undermining their own
existence.
Whenever one reads or listens to the essays and sermons in which
ecclesiastical writers of modern times belonging to the various creeds
discuss the Christian truths and virtues, when one hears and reads these
artificial arguments, these exhortations, these professions of faith,
elaborated through centuries, that now and then sound sincere, one is almost
ready to doubt if the churches can be inimical to Christianity. "It cannot be
possible that men like John Chrysostom, Fénelon, Butler, and other
Christian preachers, could be inimical to it." One would like to say, "The
churches may have gone astray from Christianity, may have committed
errors, but they cannot have been hostile to it." But one must first see the
fruit before he can know the tree, as Christ has taught, and one sees that
their fruits were evil, that the result of their works has been the distortion of
Christianity; and one cannot help concluding that, however virtuous the
men may have been, the cause of the church in which these men served was

not Christian. The goodness and virtue of certain individuals who served the
churches were peculiar to themselves, and not to the cause which they
served. All these excellent men, like Francis of Assisi and Francis de Sales,
Tichon Zadònsky, Thomas à Kempis, and others, were good men, even
though they served a cause hostile to Christianity; and they would have
been still more charitable and more exemplary had they not yielded
obedience to false doctrines.
But why do we speak of, or sit in judgment on, the past, which may be
falsely represented, and is, in any event, but little known to us? The
churches, with their principles and their works, are not of the past; we have
them with us to-day, and can judge them by their works and by their
influence over men.
What, then, constitutes their power? How do they influence men? What is
their work in the Greek, the Catholic, and in all the Protestant
denominations? and what are the consequences of such work?
The work of our Russian so-called Orthodox Church is visible to all. It is a
factor of primary importance, which can neither be concealed nor disputed.
In what manner is the activity of the Russian Church displayed,—that vast
institution which labors with so much zeal, that institution which numbers
among its servants half a million of men, and costs the people tens of
millions?
The activity of the Church consists in forcing, by every means in its power,
upon the one hundred millions of Russian people, those antiquated, time-
worn beliefs which have lost all significance, and which were formerly
professed by foreigners, with whom we had nothing in common, beliefs in
which nearly every man has lost his faith, even in some cases those very
men whose duty it is to inculcate them.
The endeavor to force upon the people those formulas of the Byzantine
clergy, marvelous to them and senseless to us, concerning the Trinity, the
Virgin, the sacraments, grace, and so forth, embraces one province of the
activity of the Russian Church; another function is the encouragement given
to idolatry, in the literal sense of the word: the veneration of holy relics and
holy images, the sacrifices offered to them in the faith that they will hear
and grant prayers. I will pass over in silence what is written in the

ecclesiastical magazines by the clergy who possess a semblance of learning
and liberality, and will speak only of what is really done by the clergy
throughout the immense extent of Russia, among its one hundred millions
of inhabitants. What is it that is taught to the people with such unremitting
pains and endeavor, and with so much earnestness? What is required of
them for the sake of the so-called Christian religion?
I will start at the beginning, with the birth of the child. When a child is
born, we are taught that a prayer must be read over the mother and child, in
order to purify them, for without that prayer the mother remains unclean.
For that purpose, and facing the ikons of the saints, whom the common
people simply call gods, the priest takes the infant in his arms, reads the
exhortation, and by that means he is supposed to cleanse the mother. Then
the parents are instructed, nay, even ordered, under penalty of punishment
in the event of non-compliance, to christen the child—that is, to let the
priest immerse it three times in the water, while words unintelligible to all
present are read, and still less intelligible ceremonies are performed, such as
the application of oil to different parts of the body, the cutting of the hair,
the blowing and spitting of the sponsors at the imaginary devil. All this is
necessary to cleanse the child, and make a Christian of him. Then the
parents are told that the child must receive the holy sacrament—that is, he
is to swallow, in the form of bread and wine, a particle of the body of
Christ, by which means the child will receive the blessing of Christ, and so
on. Then they are told that as the child grows it must be taught to pray,
which means that he is to stand in front of boards upon which the faces of
Christ, the Virgin, and the saints are painted, bow his head and body, while
with his right hand, his fingers being folded in a peculiar manner, he
touches his forehead, his shoulders, and his stomach, and utters certain
Slavonic words, the commonest of which, those which all children learn,
are the following: "Mother of God, ... Virgin, rejoice," etc. Then the child is
taught that he must repeat this—that is, that he must make the sign of the
cross whenever he sees a church or an ikon. Furthermore, he is taught that
on a holiday (holidays are either the day on which Christ was born,
although no one knows when that took place, or the day of his circumcision,
or that on which the Virgin died, or when the cross or the ikon was brought,
or when some fanatic beheld a vision, etc.) he should array himself in his
best clothes, go to church, buy candles, and set them up before the ikons of
the saints, give to the priest memoranda bearing the names of the dead who

are to be prayed for, receive bread with triangular pieces cut out of it, pray
repeatedly for the health and welfare of the Czar and bishops, as well as for
himself and his own affairs, and then kiss the cross and the hand of the
priest.
Thus is he taught to pray; and besides this, he is also taught that he must
perform his devotions once a year. To perform one's devotions means to go
to church and tell one's sins to the priest, it being assumed that this recital of
one's sins to a stranger will have a purifying effect on a man; then he is to
swallow a spoonful of bread and wine, which will purify him still more.
Moreover, men are told that if a man and woman desire to have their sexual
relation sanctified they must come to church, put crowns of metal upon
their heads, swallow some wine, walk three times round a table,
accompanied by the sound of singing, and this will make their sexual
relation holy and entirely different from any others.
In daily life the observation of the following rules is enjoined: to eat no
meat nor drink no milk on certain days, to say Te Deums and Requiems on
certain other days, to invite the priest to one's house on holidays and present
him with money; to take from the church several times a year boards upon
which are painted the images of the saints, and to carry them on towels
through fields and houses. Before death a man must without fail receive a
spoonful of bread and wine; and if there be time to be anointed with oil, that
is still better, for it insures his welfare in the future life. After his death his
relatives are told that, in order to save his soul, it is well to place in his hand
a printed prayer; it is also a good thing to read a certain book over the dead,
and for his name to be mentioned in church at stated times.
This is what constitutes every man's religious obligation. But if any one
wishes to take a special care of his soul, this creed teaches that the greatest
amount of happiness may be secured in the next world by bequeathing
money for churches and monasteries, thereby obliging the saints to pray for
one. According to this faith it is also well to visit monasteries and kiss the
miraculous ikons and the relics.
These are believed to impart a peculiar holiness, strength, and grace; and to
be near these objects, as one must be in kissing them, placing tapers before
them, crawling under them, and repeating Te Deums before them, greatly
promotes salvation.

And this is the faith called Orthodox, this is the true faith, the one which,
under the garb of a Christian religion, has been energetically taught to the
people for many centuries, and is inculcated at the present time more
vigorously than ever.
Let it not be said that the Orthodox teachers look upon all this as an ancient
form of faith which it was not considered worth while to abolish, and that
the essence of the doctrine abides elsewhere. This is not the truth.
Throughout Russia, and lately with increased energy, the entire Russian
clergy teaches this faith, and this alone. Nothing else is taught. Men may
write about other doctrines and discuss them in the capitals, but among the
hundred million inhabitants this, and only this, is taught. The ecclesiastics
may discuss other doctrines, but only this is what is taught.
All this—the worship of relics and shrines—is included in theology and the
catechism; the people are carefully instructed in all this, theoretically and
practically, by every kind of solemnity, splendor, authority, and violence;
the people are compelled to believe in it all; they are hypnotized, and the
faith is jealously guarded against any attempt to deliver them from these
foolish superstitions.
As I said in my book, I have during the course of many years had frequent
opportunities to remark the ridicule and rude jests that have been applied to
Christ's words and doctrine, and the ecclesiastics not only failed to
condemn it, they even encouraged this scoffing; but let a man venture to say
one disrespectful word of the ugly idol called the Iverskaya,[7] sacrilegiously
carried around Moscow by intoxicated men, and a groan of indignation will
rise from these same Orthodox ecclesiastics. In fact, it is only an external
worship in the form of idolatry that is propagated. And let it not be said that
the one does not exclude the other, that "All therefore whatsoever they bid
you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they
say, and do not" (Matthew xxiii. 3). This is said concerning the Pharisees,
who fulfilled all the outward commands of the law, and therefore the words,
"whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do," refer to acts of
benevolence and charity; whereas the words, "do not ye after their works,
for they say and do not," refer to their observances of the rites and their
indifference to works of charity, and directly contradicts the clerical
interpretation of this passage, which explains it as a commandment which
has to do only with the rites. An external worship is hardly compatible with

the service of charity and truth; one is apt to exclude the other. It was so
with the Pharisees, and the same may be said of our professing Christians.
If a man is to be saved by redemption, the sacraments, and prayer, good
works are no longer of any value to him. It must be either the Sermon on
the Mount or the Credo. No man can believe in both, and the ecclesiastics
have chosen the latter. The Credo is taught and recited as a prayer in the
churches, while the Sermon on the Mount is excluded even from selections
from the Bible which are read in churches, so that the congregation never
hear it, except on the days when the entire Bible is read. It is inevitable; the
men who can believe that a cruel and unreasonable God had condemned
humanity to eternal death and sacrificed his own Son, and who had destined
a certain portion of mankind to everlasting torture, cannot believe in a God
of love. A man who believes in God, in the Christ who is coming in his
glory to judge and punish the dead and the living, cannot believe in a Christ
who commands us to turn the other cheek to the offender, who forbids us to
sit in judgment, and who bids us to forgive our enemies and to love them. A
man who believes in the inspiration of the Old Testament and in the
holiness of David, who on his deathbed ordered the murder of an old man
who had offended him, and whom he could not kill himself because he was
bound by an oath (1 Kings ii. 8,9), and many other horrors of a similar
character, in which the Old Testament abounds, cannot believe in the moral
law of Christ; a man who believes in the doctrine and sermons of the
Church, wherein the practice of war and the penalty of death are reconciled
with Christianity, cannot believe in the brotherhood of humanity.
But, above all, a man who believes in salvation through faith, in
redemption, and in the sacraments, cannot strive with all his might to live
up to the moral precepts of Christ. A man who has been taught by the
Church the sacrilegious doctrine that he is to be saved through a certain
medium, and not by his own efforts, will surely have recourse to that
medium; he will not trust to his own efforts, on which, he has been assured,
it is sinful to rely. Every Church, with its doctrines of redemption and
salvation, and above all, the Orthodox faith, with its idolatry, excludes the
doctrine of Christ. But it is said, "This has always been the faith of the
people, and that they will continue to hold it is proved by the whole history
of the Russian nation. It would be wrong to deprive them of their
traditions." Herein lies the fallacy. The people, it is true, did once upon a

time profess something like what is at present professed by the Church; but
besides this worship of images and relics, the people had always a profound
moral conception of Christianity never possessed by the Church, and only
met with in her noblest representatives; but the people, in the better class,
and in spite of the obstacles raised by the State and the Church, have long
since abandoned the cruder phase of belief, a fact that is proved by the
rationalistic sects that are beginning to spring up on every side, sects that
Russia is filled with at the present day, and against which the ecclesiastics
wage so hopeless a warfare. The people are beginning to recognize the
moral, vital side of Christianity more and more plainly. And now the
Church appears, failing to give them a moral support, but forcibly teaching
old-time paganism,—the Church, with its immutable formulas, endeavoring
to thrust men back into the gloom from which they are struggling so
earnestly to escape.
The ecclesiastics say: "We are teaching nothing new; it is the same faith
which the people already hold, only we teach it in a more perfect manner."
It is like binding a chicken and trying to put it back into the shell from
which it came. I have often been struck by the spectacle, which would be
simply absurd were not its results so terrible, of men traveling, so to speak,
in a circle, deceived and deceiving, but wholly unable to escape from the
charmed circle.
The first question, the first doubt, that enters the head of every Russian
when he begins to reason, is a suspicion of the miraculous ikons, and
principally of the relics: is it true that they are incorruptible, and that they
perform miracles? Hundreds and thousands of men ask these questions, and
are at a loss for an answer, especially since bishops and metropolitans and
other eminent persons kiss both the relics and the miraculous images. Ask
the bishops and other personages of importance why they do this, and they
will tell you that they do it in order to impress the masses, and the masses
do it because the bishops and other magnates do it.
The activity of the Russian Church, despite the veneer of modernity and the
scientific and spiritual standards which its members have begun to establish
by their essays, their religious reviews, and their sermons, consists not only
in encouraging the people in a coarse and grotesque idolatry, but in
strengthening and promulgating superstition and religious ignorance, and in

endeavoring to destroy the vital conception of Christianity that exists in the
people side by side with this idolatry.
I remember being once in a book-shop of the monastery of Optinæ Desert
while an old peasant was selecting spiritual reading for his educated
grandson. The monk was offering him a description of relics, of holy days,
of miraculous ikons, the Book of Psalms, and the like. I asked the old man
if he had a Bible. "No," he replied. "Give him a Russian Bible," I said to the
monk. "We don't sell that to them," said the monk. This, in short, is the
activity of our Church.
But the European or American reader may say, "That only happens in
barbaric Russia," and the remark will be correct, but only so far as it applies
to the government, which supports the Church to maintain in our land its
stupefying and demoralizing influence.
It is true that there is nowhere in Europe a government so despotic, or that
is in more perfect accord with the established Church. Therefore in Russia
the government authorities play an important part in demoralizing the
people; but it is not true that the Russian Church differs from other churches
in respect to its influence over the people.
Churches are everywhere alike, and if the Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran
have not at their beck so submissive a government as the Russian, we may
be sure that they would not fail to take advantage of it were it within their
reach.
The Church as a church, whether it be Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or
Presbyterian, or any denomination whatsoever, inasmuch as it is a church,
cannot help striving after the same object as the Russian Church—namely,
to conceal the true meaning of the doctrine of Christ, and to substitute a
meaning of its own, which imposes no obligations, which excludes the
possibility of understanding the true, living doctrine of Christ, and which
above all justifies the existence of a priesthood living at the expense of the
people.
Do we not find Catholicism with its prohibition against reading the Bible,
and with its demand for implicit obedience to the clergy and the infallible
Pope? Wherein does Catholicism differ in its preaching from the Russian
Church? The same external worship, the same relics, miracles, and statues,

miracle-performing Madonnas and processions; the same vague and
mystical utterances concerning Christianity in books and sermons, and all in
support of the grossest idolatry.
And is it not the same in the Anglican or in the Lutheran, or in any other
Protestant denomination with an established form of church?
The same demands that the congregation shall acknowledge a belief in
dogmas which were defined in the fourth century, and which have lost all
meaning for the men of our time; the same call for idol worship, if not of
relics or ikons, at least of the Sabbath and the letter of the Bible; the same
endeavor to conceal the real requirement of Christianity and the substitution
of exterior rites, and "cant," as the English so happily define the tendency
which finds such sway among them.
This activity is more noticeable in Protestantism, because that creed has not
even the excuse of antiquity. And is not the same thing going on in the
present "Revivalism," a regenerated Calvinism, which has given birth to the
Salvation Army? Inasmuch as the attitude of all ecclesiastical dogmas
toward the doctrine of Christ is very much the same, so are their methods of
a similar character.
The attitude they have taken obliges them to make every effort to conceal
the doctrine of that Christ in whose name they speak.
The disparity between ecclesiastical creeds and the doctrine of Christ is so
great that a special effort is required to keep mankind in ignorance. Indeed,
one needs but to consider the position of any adult, I do not say educated,
but one who has assimilated superficially the current notions concerning
geology, physics, chemistry, cosmography, and history, when for the first
time he actually reflects on the faith impressed upon him in his childhood,
and maintained by the Church, concerning the creation of the world in six
days, the appearance of light before the sun was created, the story of Noah's
ark and the animals preserved in it,—concerning Jesus and his divine origin
as the Son of God who created all things before time existed; that this God
came down to earth because of Adam's sin; that he rose from the dead,
ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; that he will
come in the clouds to judge the living and the dead, etc.

All these ideas evolved by the men of the fourth century, which had for
them a certain meaning, have none whatever for us. The present generation
may repeat these words, but it can never believe in them, because the
statements that God dwells in heaven, that the heavens opened and a voice
was heard to utter certain words, that Christ arose from the dead and
ascended into heaven, that he will come again from some place in the
clouds, etc., have no meaning for us.
It was possible for a man who believed that heaven was a substantial arch
of limited dimensions to believe or to disbelieve that God created it, that it
opened, and that Christ ascended thither,—but for us there is no sense in
such ideas. Men of our time can only affirm that it is one's duty to believe
all this,—which they do. But they cannot really believe in what has no
meaning in it for them.
But if all these utterances are supposed to have an allegorical signification
and are only intended as similes, then we know in the first place that all the
churchmen will not agree to this—on the contrary, the majority insist on
taking the Scriptures literally; and in the second place, that these
interpretations differ greatly, and are supported by no reliable authority.
And even if a man wished to believe the doctrine of the Church as it is
taught, the increase of culture, the reading of the Bible, and the intercourse
among the members of different churches, form a greater and more
insurmountable obstacle to belief.
Nowadays a man has but to buy the Bible for threepence, and to read the
simple, indisputable words of Christ to the Samaritan woman, that the
Father seeketh worshipers neither in Jerusalem nor in this or that mountain,
but worshipers in spirit and truth; or the words, that a Christian should pray
not like the heathen in the temples, nor at the corners of streets, but in the
secrecy of his closet; or, that a disciple of Christ may call no one father or
mother,—one has but to read these words to be indubitably convinced that
priests who call themselves teachers in opposition to the teaching of Christ,
and dispute among themselves, cannot be authorities, and that that which
they teach is not Christian.
But this is not enough. If the modern man were to go on believing in
miracles and never read the Bible, the fellowship with men of other creeds
and professions, which is so much a matter of course in these days, will

compel him to question the truth of his religion. It was natural enough for a
man who had never met a believer in a creed different from his own, to
think that his was the only faith; but an intelligent man has but to encounter
—and that is an everyday occurrence—good and bad men of all creeds,
who criticize each other's beliefs, in order to question the truth of his own
religion. Now, only a man either totally ignorant or indifferent to the
problems of life as dealt with by religion can remain in the faith of the
Church.
What shrewdness is needed, and what efforts must the churches make, in
order to go on, in the face of all these faith-destroying influences, building
temples, saying masses, preaching, instructing, converting, and above all
receiving for this the large compensations which all those priests, pastors,
stewards, superintendents, abbots, archdeacons, bishops, and archbishops
receive!
A special and supernatural effort is called for, and to this the Church
responds, exerting herself more and more. In Russia, besides many other
measures, they employ a simple, rude violence, by virtue of the power
invested in the Church. People who shrink from an outward observance of
faith and who do not conceal the fact are simply punished or deprived of
their civil rights; and to those who strictly comply with the rites, privileges
and rewards are granted.
So much for the Orthodoxy; but every church, without exception, makes the
most of the means at its disposal, and hypnotism is one of the chief agents.
Every art, from architecture to poetry, is enlisted, in order to move and
intoxicate the human soul. This hypnotic and mesmerizing influence is
markedly displayed in the activity of the Salvation Army, which employs
novel, and to us abnormal, methods, such, for instance, as drums, horns,
singing, banners, uniforms, processions, dancing, outbursts of tears, and
dramatic gestures.
Still, these methods are startling simply because of their novelty. Is not the
familiar form of worship in cathedrals, with their peculiar illumination, the
golden pomp, the candles, choirs, organs, bells, vestments, the weeping
preachers, etc., of a similar nature? And yet, however powerful may be the
influence of this hypnotism, it is by no means the chief or most harmful
form which the activity of the Church assumes. Its most malign activity is

that which is devoted to deceiving the children—those little ones of whom
Jesus has said, "Woe be unto him who tempts the least of these." From the
earliest awakening of a child's intelligence he is deceived and formally
taught that which his teachers no longer believe themselves, and this goes
on until the delusion becomes from habit a part of his nature. A child is
systematically deceived concerning the most important affair in life, and
when this deception has become so incorporated with his being that it is
difficult to uproot it, then the world of science and reality is opened to him
—a world that is wholly at variance with the faith which he has imbibed
from his teachers—and he is left to reconcile those contradictions as best he
may.
Given the problem of how to muddle a man so that he will be unable to
discriminate between two antagonistic conceptions that have been taught to
him since his childhood, one could never have devised anything more
effectual than the education of every young man in our so-called Christian
society.
Shocking as it is to contemplate the work of the churches among men, still,
if we consider their position, we shall see that they cannot act otherwise.
They are face to face with a dilemma: the Sermon on the Mount or the
Nicene creed; the one excludes the other. If a man sincerely believes the
Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene creed must inevitably lose all its meaning
for him, and the same would hold true as regards the Church and its
representatives; but if a man accepts the Nicene creed, that is to say, the
Church, or those who call themselves its representatives, then he will find
no use for the Sermon on the Mount. Hence it is incumbent on the churches
to make every effort to obscure the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount
and to endeavor to draw the people toward them. It is only due to their
intense activity in that direction that the influence of the churches has not
decreased. Let the Church but pause in this effort to influence the masses by
hypnotizing men and deceiving children for ever so short a time, and men
will comprehend the doctrine of Christ, and this comprehension will do
away with churches and their influence. Therefore the churches cease not
for one moment their compulsory activity through the hypnotism of adults
and the deception of children. And it is this activity of the churches that
gives people a false conception of Christ's doctrine, and prevents the
majority of men, the so-called believers, from understanding it.

CHAPTER IV
MISCONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY BY SCIENTISTS
The relation of scientists to religions in general—What are religions, and their significance to
human life—Three conceptions of life—The Christian doctrine is the expression of the
divine life-conception—The misconception of Christianity by scientists who study its
outward manifestations due to the fact that they consider it from the standpoint of the
social life-conception—Opinion resulting therefrom, that the teaching of Christ is
exaggerated and unpractical—The expression of the life-conception of the gospel—
Erroneous judgments of scientists concerning Christianity are based upon the assurance
that they possess an infallible criterion of knowledge—Hence arise two misapprehensions
in regard to the Christian doctrine—The first misapprehension concerning the
impracticability of the doctrine arises from the fact that the Christian doctrine presents a
conduct of life different from that of the social life-conception—Christianity offers not a
rule, but an ideal—Christ adds the consciousness of a divine power to that of an animal
power—Christianity seems to exclude the possibility of life only when the indication of
the ideal is taken for the rule—An ideal cannot be belittled—According to the doctrine of
Christ, life is movement—The ideal and the commandments—The second
misapprehension arises from the attempt to replace the love of God and His service by the
love and service of humanity—Scientists believe that Christianity and their doctrine
concerning the service of humanity are identical—The doctrine of love toward humanity
has for its foundation the social life-conception—The love for humanity which springs
logically from love for the individual has no meaning, because humanity is a fiction—
Christian love springing from the love of God has for its object not only humanity but the
whole world—Christianity teaches a life in accordance with its divine nature—It
indicates that the essence of a man's soul is love, and that its good is obtained from its
love of God, whom he feels to be within him through love.

Let us now turn our attention to another fallacious conception of
Christianity, which is antagonistic to its actual principles,—the scientific
conception.
The Christianity of the churchmen is something which they have evolved
for themselves, and which they believe to be the only true interpretation of
Christian doctrine.
The scientists take the professions of faith of the various churches for
Christianity, and assuming that these dogmas embody an exhaustive
definition of Christian doctrine, they affirm that Christianity has had its day.

One needs but to take into consideration the important part which all
religions, and especially Christianity, have played in the life of man, and the
significance which science attaches to them, to see at once how impossible
it would be to obtain any just apprehension of Christian doctrine through
these conceptions. As each individual must possess certain impressions in
regard to the meaning of his life, and, though often unconsciously, conform
his conduct thereunto, so mankind in the aggregate, or groups of men living
under the same conditions, must likewise possess a conception of the
meaning of their common life and its consequent activities. As an individual
passing from one period of life to another inevitably changes his ideas, the
point of view of a grown-up man differs from that of a child, so also
mankind in the aggregate—the nation—inevitably, and in conformity with
its age, changes its views of life and the activity that springs therefrom.
The difference in this respect between an individual and mankind in general
lies in the fact that while the individual, in forming his conception of the
significance and responsibilities of that new period of life upon which he is
about to enter, may avail himself of the advice of his predecessors who have
already passed that stage, mankind can have no such advantage, because it
is advancing along an unbeaten track and there is no one of whom it can ask
for the clue to the mystery of life, or how it shall demean itself under these
unfamiliar conditions to which no nation has ever yet been subjected.
The married man with a family of children will not continue to view life as
he did when he was a child; neither is it possible for mankind, with the
many changes that have taken place,—the density of the population, the
constant intercourse of nations, the perfected means of combating the forces
of nature, and the increase of knowledge generally,—to view the life of the
present day in the light of the past; hence it becomes necessary to evolve a
life-conception from which activities corresponding with a new system
which is to be established will naturally develop.
And this need is supplied by that peculiar capacity of the race for producing
men able to impart a new significance to human life,—a significance
developing a different set of activities.
The birth of the life-conception, which always takes place when mankind
enters upon new conditions and its subsequent activities, is what we call
religion.

Therefore, in the first place, religion is not, as science regards it, a
phenomenon which formerly traveled hand in hand with the development of
mankind, and which has since been left behind; on the contrary, it is a
phenomenon inherent to human existence itself, and never more distinctly
manifested than at the present day. In the second place, religion defines
future rather than past activities; therefore it is evident that an investigation
of the phenomena of the past can by no means touch the essence of religion.
The longing to typify the forces of nature is no more the essence of religion
than is the fear of those same forces, or the need of the miraculous and its
outward manifestations, as the scientists suppose. The essence of religion
lies in the power of man to foreknow and to point out the way in which
mankind must walk. It is a definition of a new life which will give birth to
new activities.
This faculty of foreknowledge concerning the destiny of humanity is more
or less common, no doubt, to all people; still from time to time a man
appears in whom the faculty has reached a higher development, and these
men have the power clearly and distinctly to formulate that which is
vaguely conceived by all men, thus instituting a new life-conception from
which is to flow an unwonted activity, whose results will endure for
centuries to come. Thus far there have been three of these life-conceptions;
two of them belong to a bygone era, while the third is of our own time and
is called Christianity. It is not that we have merged the various conceptions
of the significance of life into three arbitrary divisions, but that there really
have been but three distinct conceptions, by which the actions of mankind
have been influenced, and save through these we have no means of
comprehending life.
These three life-conceptions are—firstly, the individual or animal; secondly,
the social or pagan; and thirdly, the universal or divine.
According to the first of these, a man's life is his personality, and that only,
and his life's object is to gratify his desires. According to the second, his life
is not limited to his own personality; it includes the sum and continuity of
many personalities,—of the family, of the race, and of the State, and his
life's object is to gratify the will of the communities of individuals. And
according to the third, his life is confined neither to his personality nor to

that of the aggregate of individuals, but finds its significance in the eternal
source of all life,—in God Himself.
These three life-conceptions serve as the basis for the religions of every
age.
The savage sees life only through the medium of his own desires. He cares
for nothing but himself, and for him the highest good is the full satisfaction
of his own passions. The incentive of his life is personal enjoyment. His
religion consists of attempts to propitiate the gods in his favor, and of the
worship of imaginary deities, who exist only for their own personal ends.
A member of the pagan world recognizes life as something concerning
others besides himself; he sees it as concerning an aggregate of individuals,
—the family, the race, the nation, the State, and is ready to sacrifice himself
for the aggregate. The incentive of his life is glory. His religion consists in
honoring the chiefs of his race, his progenitors, his ancestors, his
sovereigns, and in the worship of those gods who are the exclusive patrons
of his family, his tribe, his race, and his State.[8]
The man who possesses the divine life-conception neither looks upon life as
centered in his own personality nor in that of mankind at large, whether
family, tribe, race, nation, or State; but rather does he conceive of it as
taking its rise in the eternal life of God, and to fulfil His will he is ready to
sacrifice his personal, family, and social well-being. Love is the impelling
motive of his life, and his religion is the worship, in deed and in truth, of the
beginning of all things,—of God Himself.
History is but the transcript of the gradual transition from the animal life-
conception of the individual to the social, and from the social to the divine.
The history of the ancients for thousands of centuries, culminating in that of
Rome, is the history of the evolution from the animal life-conception of the
individual to that of society and the State. From the advent of Christianity
and the fall of Imperial Rome we have the history of that change which is
still going on from the social to the divine life-conception.
The latter, together with the Christian doctrine which is based upon it, and
by which our lives are shaped, and our activities, both practical and
scientific, are quickened, is regarded by the pseudo-scientists, who judge it

only by its outward signs, as something outlived, which has lost all meaning
for us.
According to scientists this doctrine is embodied in the dogmas of the
Trinity, the Redemption, the miracles, the Church and its sacraments, etc.,
and is only one of the many religions which have arisen during the progress
of human history, and now, having played its part and outlived its time, is
vanishing before the dawn of science and true enlightenment.
The grossest of human errors spring in most cases from the fact that men
who stand on a low intellectual plane, when they encounter phenomena of a
higher order, instead of trying to rise to the higher plane from which these
phenomena may be fitly regarded, and making an effort to understand them,
judge them by their own low standard, and the less they know of what they
speak, the more bold and determined are their judgments.
Most scientists, who treat of the moral doctrine of Christ from the lower
standpoint of a social life-conception, regard it as nothing more than an
amalgam without cohesion of the asceticism of India with the doctrine of
the Stoics and Neo-Platonists, and of vague anti-social dreams, devoid of all
serious meaning in these latter days; they simply see its outward
manifestation in the form of dogmas in Catholicism, in Protestantism, and
in its struggle with the powers of the world. Interpreting the design of
Christianity from its outward aspects, they are like unto deaf men, who
judge of the meaning and excellence of music by the movements of the
musicians.
Hence it is that all such men, from Comte and Strauss to Spencer and
Renan, not understanding the purport of Christ's words, knowing nothing
whatever of their intention, ignorant of the question to which they serve as
an answer, and taking no pains to learn it,—such men, if they are inimical to
Christianity, utterly deny the sense of the doctrine; but if they are leniently
inclined, then, from the height of their superior wisdom, they amend it,
taking for granted that Christ would have said what they think He meant,
had He known how to express himself. They treat His doctrine just as men
of overweening self-conceit treat their inferiors, correcting them in their
speech: "You mean so and so." And the spirit of emendation is always such
as to reduce the doctrine of the higher, the divine life-conception, to that of
the lower and the social conception.

It is usually admitted that the moral teaching of Christianity is good but
exaggerated; that in order to make it perfect, its hyperboles, which are
incompatible with our present mode of life, should be discarded. "A
doctrine which requires so much that is impracticable is more hurtful than
one which demands of men only what is in proportion to their strength."
Thus declare the learned interpreters of Christianity, thus unwittingly
reiterating the assertion of those who misunderstood the Christian doctrine
long years ago, and crucified the Master.
The Hebrew law, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," the retributive
justice known to mankind thousands of years ago, seems far better suited to
the court of contemporary scientists than the law of love which Christ
preached 1800 years ago, and which was to replace this identical law of
justice.
It would seem that every action of those men who accepted the teaching of
Christ in its literal sense, and lived up to it, all the words and deeds of
sincere Christians, and all the agencies which, under the guise of socialism
and communism, are now transforming the world, are merely exaggeration,
not worth discussing. Nations which have lived under Christian influences,
and which are now represented by their advanced thinkers, the scientists,
have arrived at the conclusion that the Christian doctrine is a matter of
dogma; that its practical teaching has been a mistake and an exaggeration,
inimical to the just requirements of morality that are in accord with human
nature, and that the very doctrine which Christ repudiated, and for which he
substituted a dogma of his own, is far better suited to us. The scientist
considers the commandment of non-resistance to evil by violence an
exaggeration, and even an act of folly. It would be far better, in his opinion,
to reject it, never dreaming that it is not the doctrine of Christ which he is
controverting, but something which he assumes to be the doctrine in
question. He does not realize when he says that the commandment of non-
resistance in the doctrine of Christ is an exaggeration, that he is like one
who, teaching the theory of the circle, declares that the equality of the radii
is an exaggeration. It is just as if one who has no idea of the form of a circle
were to affirm that the law which requires that each point of its
circumference shall be equidistant from its center, is an exaggeration. As a
suggestion to reject or modify the proposition concerning the equality of the
radii of a circle signifies an ignorance in regard to the circle itself, so also

does the idea of rejecting or modifying, in the practical teaching of Christ,
the commandment of non-resistance to evil by violence signify a
misunderstanding of the doctrine.
And those who entertain these views do not really comprehend the doctrine.
They do not understand that it is the unfolding of a new conception of life,
corresponding to the new phase of existence upon which the world entered
1800 years ago, and a definition of the new activity to which it gave birth.
Either they do not believe that Christ said what He meant to say, or that
what is found in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere He said either
from His enthusiasm or lack of wisdom and simplicity of character.[9]

Matt. vi. 25-34.—25. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for
your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your
body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body
than raiment?
26. Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap,
nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye
not much better than they?
27. Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28. And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the
field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29. And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not
arrayed like one of these.
30. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is,
and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe
you, O ye of little faith?
31. Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What
shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32. (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and
all these things shall be added unto you.

34. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall
take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof.
Luke xii. 33-34.—33. Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide
yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that
faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
34. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Matt. xix. 21.—"Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and
thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."
Mark viii. 34.—"Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself,
and take up his cross, and follow me."
John iv. 34.—"My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to
finish his work."
Luke xxii. 42.—"Not my will, but thine, be done."
Not what I wish, but what Thou wishest, and not as I wish, but as Thou
wishest. Life consists in doing not your own will, but the will of God.

All these doctrines are regarded by men who adhere to the lower life-
conception as expressions of enthusiastic exaltation, with no special
reference to daily life. And yet these doctrines are no less the natural
outcome of the Christian life-conception than is the idea of giving one's
labor for the common good, or of sacrificing one's life to defend one's
country, the outcome of the social life-conception.
As the believer in the social life-conception says to the savage: "Rouse
yourself! Consider what you are doing! The life that man lives for himself
alone cannot be the true one, for life is fleeting and full of woe. It is the life
of the community at large, the race, the family, the State, that endures:
therefore a man must sacrifice his personality for the life of the family and
the State;" Christianity in like manner says unto him who believes in a
social life-conception of the community: "Repent, μετανοετα, that is, arouse
yourself, consider your ways, else shall you perish. Know you that this
bodily, animal life is born to-day and dies to-morrow; nothing can assure its
permanence, no outward expedients, no system whatsoever can give it
stability. Consider your ways and learn that the life you live is not the real

life, that neither family, social, nor State life will save you from perdition.
An honest rational life is possible for man provided that he be, not a
participant of the life of the family or life of the State, but a partaker of the
source of all life—that of the Father Himself; then his life is united to the
life of the Father." Such is beyond a doubt the meaning of the Christian
conception of life, clearly set forth in every maxim of the New Testament.
One may not share such a conception of life, one may deny it, or prove it to
be inaccurate and fallacious; but no man can possibly judge a doctrine
without having first made himself familiar with the life-conception which
forms its basis; and still more impossible is it to judge a lofty subject from a
low standpoint, to pronounce upon the belfry from a knowledge of the
foundation. Yet this is precisely what is done by contemporary scientists.
And this is because they are laboring under an error similar to that of the
clergy, in believing that they possess such infallible methods of studying
their subject that, if they but bring their so-called scientific methods to bear
upon the subject under consideration, there can be no doubt as to the
accuracy of their conclusion.
The possession of a guide to knowledge, which they believe to be infallible,
is really the chief obstacle to the comprehension of the Christian doctrine
among unbelievers and so-called scientists, by whose opinions the great
majority of unbelievers, the so-called educated classes, are guided. All the
errors of the scientists concerning Christianity, and especially two strange
misapprehensions that avail more than anything else to blind men to its real
signification, arise therefrom.
One of these misapprehensions is that the doctrine of a Christian life not
being practical, it remains optional with the individual whether he take it for
his guide or no; and if he chooses to do so, it may then be modified to suit
the exigencies of our social life. The second misapprehension is that the
Christian doctrine of love of God, and therefore of the service due to Him,
is a mystical requirement, neither clearly expressed nor offering any well-
defined object of love: consequently the more definite and intelligible
doctrine of love of man and of the service of humanity may be substituted
for it.
The first misapprehension which relates to the impracticability of the
Christian doctrine arises from the fact that men who believe in the social

life-conception, not comprehending the rule obeyed by men who hold the
Christian doctrine, and mistaking the Christian standard of perfection for
the guiding principle of life, believe and declare that it is impossible to
follow the teaching of Christ, because implicit obedience to this doctrine
would end by destroying life. "If man were to fulfil the precepts of Christ,
he would destroy his life; and if all the world were to fulfil them, the human
race would soon become extinct. If you were to take no thought for the
morrow, neither of what ye shall eat or drink, nor what ye shall put on; if
one may not resist evil by violence or defend one's life, nor even give up
one's life for his friend; if one is to preserve absolute chastity, mankind
could not long exist;" so they believe and affirm.
And they are right, if one takes the incentives to perfection offered by the
teaching of Christ as laws which each man must obey, just as, for instance,
in the social order every man must pay his taxes, and some must serve in
the courts of law, and so on.
The misapprehension consists in overlooking the fact that the doctrine of
Christ, and the doctrine formulated by a lower life-conception, guide men in
very different ways. The doctrines of the social life-conception guide men
in fulfilling the requirements of the law. The doctrine of Christ guides men
by manifesting the infinite perfection of the Heavenly Father, to which it is
natural for every man to aspire, whatever may be his shortcomings.
The misconception of those who judge the Christian doctrine by the
standard of the state or civil doctrine is this,—that they imagine that the
perfection of which Christ speaks may be attained in this life, and ask
themselves just as they would ask concerning some law of the State, what
will happen when all this shall be fulfilled? This hypothesis is fallacious,
because the perfection indicated by Christianity is infinite and can never be
attained; and Christ promulgates his doctrine, knowing that although
absolute perfection will never be attained, yet the aspiration toward it will
ever contribute to the welfare of mankind, that this welfare may by this
means be everlastingly increased.
Christ is not teaching angels, but men who live and move in an animal life,
and whose impulses are of an animal nature. And to this animal impulse
Christ, so to speak, adds another force by communicating to man a sense of
the divine perfection, guiding the current of life between these two forces.

To take it for granted that human life is to follow the direction indicated by
Christ would be like expecting the boatman, who, crossing a swift river,
steers almost directly against the current, to float in that direction.
Christ recognizes the fact that a parallelogram has two sides, and that a
man's life is controlled by two indestructible forces: his animal nature and
his consciousness of a filial relationship to God. Disregarding the factor of
the animal life, which never looses its hold, and is beyond man's control,
Christ speaks of the divine consciousness, urging man to its fuller
recognition, its complete emancipation from all that fetters it, and to its
utmost development.
Man's true life, according to the precepts of Christ, is only to be found in
this emancipation and in the growth of the divine consciousness. According
to the old dispensation, a true life meant the fulfilment of the precepts of the
law; but according to Christ, it means the closest approach to the divine
perfection which has been manifested to every man, and which every man
recognizes,—a closer and closer union of his will to the will of God; a
union which every man is striving to attain, and which would utterly
destroy the life we now lead.
God's perfection is the asymptote of human life, toward which it is forever
aspiring and drawing nearer, although it can only reach its goal in the
infinite.
It is only when men mistake the suggestion of an ideal for a rule of conduct
that the Christian doctrine seems at odds with life. Indeed, the reverse is
true, for it is by the doctrine of Christ, and that alone, that a true life is
rendered possible. "It is a mistake to require too much," men usually say,
when discussing the demands of the Christian religion. "One ought not to
be required to take no thought for the morrow, as the Bible teaches, but of
course one should not be over-anxious; one cannot give all that he possesses
to the poor, still he should bestow a certain portion of his goods in charity;
one ought not to remain unmarried, but let him avoid a dissolute life; one
need not renounce his wife and children, although one must not idolize
them."
These arguments are equivalent to telling a man who is crossing a swift
river and steering his boat against the current, that no one can cross a river

by steering against the current, but that he must direct his boat in a straight
line toward the point he wishes to reach.
The doctrine of Christ differs from former doctrines in that it influences
men, not by outward observances, but by the interior consciousness that
divine perfection may be attained.
It is this illimitable and divine perfection that absorbs the soul of man, not
restricted laws of justice and philanthropy. It needs but the aspiration
toward this divine perfection to impel the course of human life from the
animal to the divine, so far as may be humanly possible.
In order to land at any given point one must steer beyond it. To lower the
standard of an ideal means not only to lessen the chances of attaining
perfection, but to destroy the ideal itself. The ideal that influences mankind
is not an ingenious invention; it is something that dwells in the soul of each
individual. It is this ideal of utter and infinite perfection that excites men
and urges them to action. A possible degree of perfection would have no
appeal to the souls of men.
It is because the doctrine of Christ requires illimitable perfection, that is to
say, the blending of the divine essence, which is in each man's soul, with the
will of God, the union of the Son with the Father, that it has authority. It is
only the emancipation of the Son of God, who dwells with each one of us,
from the animal element within us, and the drawing near to the Father, that
can, in the Christian sense of the word, be called life.
The presence of the animal element in man is not enough of itself to
constitute human life. Neither is a spiritual life, which is guided only by the
will of God, a human life. A true human life is composed of an animal and
of a spiritual life united to the will of God, and the nearer this component
life approaches to the life of God, the more it has life.
According to the Christian doctrine, life is a condition of progress toward
the perfection of God; hence no one condition can be either higher or lower
than another, because each is in itself a certain stage in human progress
toward the unattainable perfection, and therefore of equal importance with
all the others. Any spiritual quickening, according to this doctrine, is simply
an accelerated movement toward perfection. Therefore the impulse of
Zacchæus the publican, of the adulteress, and the thief on the cross, show

forth a higher order of life than does the passive righteousness of the
Pharisee. This doctrine, therefore, can never be enforced by obligatory laws.
The man who, from a lower plane, lives up to the doctrine he professes,
ever advancing toward perfection, leads a higher life than one who may
perhaps stand on a superior plane of morality, but who is making no
progress toward perfection.
Thus the stray lamb is dearer to the Father than those which are in the fold;
the prodigal returned, the coin that was lost and is found again, more highly
prized than those that never were lost.
Since the fulfilment of this doctrine is an impulse from self toward God, it
is evident that there can be no fixed laws for its movement. It may spring
from any degree of perfection or of imperfection; the fulfilment of rules and
fulfilment of the doctrine are by no means synonymous; there could be no
rules or obligatory laws for its fulfilment.
The difference between social laws and the doctrine of Christ is the natural
result of the radical dissimilarity between the doctrine of Christ and those
earlier doctrines which had their source in a social life-conception. The
latter are for the most part positive, enjoining certain acts, by the
performance of which men are to be justified and made righteous, whereas
the Christian precepts (the precept of love is not a commandment in the
strict sense of the word, but the expression of the very essence of the
doctrine), the five commandments of the Sermon on the Mount, are all
negative, only meant to show men who have reached a certain degree of
development what they must avoid. These commandments are, so to speak,
mile-stones on the infinite road to perfection, toward which humanity is
struggling; they mark the degrees of perfection which it is possible for it to
attain at a certain period of its development.
In the Sermon on the Mount Christ expressed the eternal ideal to which
mankind instinctively aspires, showing at the same time the point of
perfection to which human nature in its present stage may attain.
The ideal is to bear no malice, excite no ill-will, and to love all men. The
commandment which forbids us to offend our neighbor is one which a man
who is striving to attain this ideal must not do less than obey. And this is the
first commandment.

The ideal is perfect chastity in thought, no less than in deed; and the
commandment which enjoins purity in married life, forbidding adultery, is
one which every man who is striving to attain this ideal must not do less
than obey. And this is the second commandment.
The ideal is to take no thought for the morrow, to live in the present, and the
commandment, the fulfilment of which is the point beneath which we must
not fall, is against taking oath or making promises for the future. Such is the
third commandment.
The ideal—to use no violence whatsoever—shows us that we must return
good for evil, endure injuries with patience, and give up the cloak to him
who has taken the coat. Such is the fourth commandment.
The ideal is to love your enemies, to do good to them that despitefully use
you. In order to keep the spirit of this commandment one must at least
refrain from injuring one's enemies, one must speak kindly of them, and
treat all one's fellow-creatures with equal consideration. Such is the fifth
commandment.
All these commandments are reminders of that which we, in our striving for
perfection, must and can avoid; reminders, too, that we must labor now to
acquire by degrees habits of self-restraint, until such habits become second
nature. But these commandments, far from exhausting the doctrine, do not
by any means cover it. They are but stepping-stones on the way to
perfection, and must necessarily be followed by higher and still higher ones,
as men pursue the course toward perfection.
That is why a Christian doctrine would make higher demands than those
embodied in the commandments, and not in the least decrease its demands,
as they who judge the Christian doctrine from a social life-conception seem
to think.
This is one of the mistakes of the scientists in regard to the significance of
Christ's doctrine. And the substitution of the love of humanity for the love
and service of God is another, and it springs from the same source.
In the Christian doctrine of loving and of serving God, and (as the natural
consequence of such love and service) of loving and serving one's neighbor,
there seems to the scientific mind a certain mysticism, something at once
confused and arbitrary; and, believing that the doctrine of love for humanity

rests on a firmer basis and is altogether more intelligible, they utterly reject
the requirement of love and service of God.
The theory of a scientist is that a virtuous life, a life with a purpose, must be
useful to the world at large; and in a life of this kind they discover the
solution of the Christian doctrine, to which they reduce Christianity itself.
Assuming their own doctrine to be identical with that of Christianity, they
seek and believe that they find in the latter an affirmation of their own
views.
This is a fallacy. The Christian doctrine, and the doctrine of the Positivists,
and of all advocates of the universal brotherhood of man, founded on the
utility of such a brotherhood, have nothing in common, and especially do
they differ in that the doctrine of Christianity has a solid and a clearly
defined foundation in the human soul, whereas love of humanity is but a
theoretical conclusion reached through analogy.
The doctrine of the love of humanity has for its basis the social life-
conception.
The essence of the social life-conception consists in replacing the sense of
individual life by that of the life of the group. In its first steps, this is a
simple and natural progression, as from the family to the tribe; from the
family to the race is more difficult, and requires special education,—which
has arrived at its utmost limits when the State has been reached.
It is natural for every man to love himself, and he needs no incentive
thereto; to love his tribe, which lends both support and protection; to love
his wife, the delight and comfort of his daily life; the children, who are his
consolation and his future hope; his parents, who gave him life and
cherished him,—all this, although not so intense as love of self, is natural
and common to mankind.
To love one's race, one's people, for their own sake, although not so
instinctive, is also common. To love one's ancestors, one's kinsfolk, through
pride, is also natural and frequent; and a man may feel love for his fellow-
countrymen, who speak the same language and profess the same faith as
himself, although the emotion is less strong than love of self or love of
family. But love for a nation, Turkey, for instance, or Germany, England,
Austria, Russia, is almost impossible, and notwithstanding the training

given in that direction, it is only a fictitious semblance; it has no real
existence. At this aggregate ceases man's power of transfusing his innermost
consciousness; for such a fiction he can feel no direct sentiment. And yet
the Positivists and all the preachers of the scientific fraternity, not taking
into consideration the fact that this feeling is weakened in proportion to the
expansion of its object, continue to theorize on the same lines. They say: "If
it were to the advantage of an individual to transfuse his consciousness into
the family, and thence into the nation and the State, it follows that it will be
to his further advantage to transfuse his consciousness into the universal
entity, mankind, that all men may live for humanity, as they have lived for
the family and for the State."
And theoretically they are right.
After having transferred the consciousness and love for the individual to the
family, and from the family to the race, the nation, and the State, it would
be perfectly logical for men, in order to escape the strife and disasters that
result from the division of mankind into nations and states, to transfer their
love to humanity at large. This would appear to be the logical outcome, and
it has been offered as a theory by those who forget that love is an innate
sentiment, which can never be inspired by preaching; that it must have a
real object, and that the entity which men call humanity is not a real object,
but a fiction.
A family, a race, even a State, are no inventions of men; these things have
formed themselves like a hive of bees, or a colony of ants, and possess an
actual existence. The man who loves his family, after a human fashion,
knows whom he is loving—Ann, Maria, John, or Peter. The man who loves
his ancestors, and is proud of them, knows that he loves the Guelphs, for
instance, or the Ghibellines; the man who loves his country knows that he
loves France from the Rhine to the Pyrenees, that he loves its capital, Paris,
and all its history. But the man who loves humanity, what is it that he loves?
There is a State, there is a people, there is the abstract conception of man.
But humanity as a concrete conception is impossible.
Humanity? Where is its limit? Where does it end and where does it begin?
Does it exclude the savage, the idiot, the inebriate, the insane? If one were
to draw a line of demarcation so as to exclude the lower representatives of
the human race, where ought it to be drawn? Ought it to exclude the Negro,

as they do in the United States, or the Hindoos, as some Englishmen do, or
the Jews, as does another nation? But if we include all humanity without
exception, why should we restrict ourselves to men? Why should we
exclude the higher animals, some of whom are superior to the lowest
representatives of the human race?
We do not know humanity in the concrete, nor can we fix its limits.
Humanity is a fiction, and therefore it cannot be loved. Indeed, it would be
advantageous if men could love humanity as they love the family. It would
be very useful, as the communists say, to substitute a community of
interests for individual competition, or the universal for the personal; in a
word, to make the whole world a mutual benefit society,—only that there
are no motives to bring about such a result. The Positivists, communists,
and all the exponents of the scientific fraternity exhort us to extend the love
which men feel for themselves, their families, their fellow-countrymen,
over humanity at large, forgetting that the love of which they speak is a
personal love, which may be kindled for the family, and even extend to
include one's native country, but which expires altogether when it is
appealed to in behalf of an artificial state, such as Austria, England, or
Turkey; and when claimed for that mystical object, humanity in general,
one cannot even grasp the idea.
"A man loves himself, his physical personality, he loves his family, he even
loves his country. Why should he not also love mankind? It would seem
such a happy consummation! And it so happens that Christianity inculcates
the same precept." These are the opinions of the Positivist, the communist,
and the socialist fraternities.
It would indeed be fortunate, but it is impossible, because love founded on a
personal and social life-conception can go no further than the love of
country.
The flaw in the argument arises from the fact that the social life-conception,
the basis of family love and of patriotism, is itself an individual love, and
such a love, in its transference from a person to a family, a race, a nation,
and a State, gradually loses its efficiency, and in the State has reached its
final limit, and can go no further.
The necessity for widening the sphere of love is not to be denied, and yet it
is the very attempt to satisfy this requirement that destroys its possibility,

and proves the inadequacy of personal human love.
And here it is that the advocates of the Positivist, communist, and socialist
brotherhood offer as a prop to the humanitarianism that has proved its
inefficiency, a Christian love, not in its essence, but only in its results; in
other words, not the love of God, but the love of man.
But there can be no such love; it has no raison d'étre. Christian love comes
only from a Christian life-conception, whose sole manifestation is the love
and service of God.
By a natural sequence in the extension of love from the individual to the
family, and thence to the race, the nation, and the State, the social life-
conception has brought men not to the consciousness of love for humanity,
—which is illimitable—the unification of every living creature,—but to a
condition which evokes no feeling in man, to a contradiction for which it
provides no reconciliation.
It is only the Christian doctrine which, by lending to human life a new
significance, is able to solve the difficulty. Christianity presents the love of
self and the love of the family, as well as patriotism and the love of
humanity, but it is not to be restricted to humanity alone; it is to be given to
every living creature; it recognizes the possibility of an indefinite expansion
of the kingdom of love, but its object is not to be found outside itself, in the
aggregate of individuals, neither in the family, nor in the race, nor in the
State, nor in mankind, nor all the wide world, but in itself, in its personality,
—a divine personality, whose essence is the very love which needed a
wider sphere.
The distinction between the Christian doctrine and those which preceded it
may be thus defined. The social doctrine says: Curb thy nature (meaning the
animal nature alone); subject it to the visible law of the family, of society,
and of the State. Christianity says: Live up to thy nature (meaning the
divine nature); make it subject to nothing; neither to thine own animal
nature, nor to that of another, and then thou shalt attain what thou seekest
by subjecting thine outward personality to visible laws. The Christian
doctrine restores to man his original consciousness of self, not the animal
self, but the godlike self, the spark of divinity, as the son of God, like unto
the Father, but clothed in a human form. This consciousness of one's self as
a son of God, whose essence is love, satisfies at once all those demands

made by the man who professes the social life-conception for a broader
sphere of love. Again, in the social life-conception the enlargement of the
domain of love was a necessity for the salvation of the individual; it was
attached to certain objects, to one's self, to one's family, to society, and to
humanity. With the Christian world-conception love is not a necessity,
neither is it attached to any special object; it is the inherent quality of a
man's soul; he loves because he cannot help loving.
The Christian doctrine teaches to man that the essence of his soul is love;
that his well-being may be traced, not to the fact that he loves this object or
that one, but to the fact that he loves the principle of all things—God,
whom he recognizes in himself through love, and will by the love of God
love all men and all things.
This is the essential difference between the Christian doctrine and that of
the Positivists, and all other non-Christian theorists of a universal
brotherhood.
Such are the two chief misapprehensions in regard to the Christian doctrine,
and from those most of the false arguments on the subject have originated.
One is, that the doctrine of Christ, like the doctrines which preceded it,
promulgates rules which men must obey, and that these rules are
impracticable. The other, that the whole meaning of Christianity is
contained in the doctrine of a coöperative union of mankind, in one family,
to attain which, leaving aside the question of love of God, one should obey
only the rule of love of one's fellow-men.
Finally, the mistake of scientists, in supposing that the doctrine of the
supernatural contains the essence of Christianity, that its life-teaching is not
practicable, together with the general misapprehensions that result from
such a misconception, further explains why men of our time have so
misunderstood Christianity.

CHAPTER V
CONTRADICTION OF OUR LIFE AND CHRISTIAN
CONSCIOUSNESS
Men consider that they may accept Christianity without changing their life—The pagan life-
conception no longer corresponds to the present age of humanity, which the Christian
life-conception alone can satisfy—The Christian life-conception is still misunderstood by
men, but our life itself necessitates its acceptance—The requirements of a new life-
conception always seem unintelligible, mystical, and supernatural—Such, for the
majority of men, seem the requirements of the Christian life-conception—The acceptance
of a Christian life-conception will inevitably be accomplished both through spiritual and
material agencies—The fact that men, conscious of a higher life-conception, continue to
entertain the lower forms of life, causes contradiction and suffering, which embitter life
and require its alteration—Contradictions of our life—The economical contradiction, and
the suffering it causes to the working-men and to the rich—The contradiction of State,
and the sufferings that arise from obedience to State laws—The international
contradiction, and its acknowledgment by contemporary writers: Komarvosky, Ferri,
Booth, Passy, Lawson, Wilson, Bartlett, Defourny, Moneta—The military contradiction
the extreme.

Many causes have contributed toward the misunderstanding of the teaching
of Christ. One of these is that men assumed to understand the doctrine,
when, like the faithful of the Church, they accepted the statement that it had
been transmitted in a supernatural manner; or, like the scientists, after
having investigated certain of its outward manifestations. Another reason
may be found in the conviction that it is impracticable, and that it may be
replaced by the doctrine of love of humanity. But the principal reason of all
such misconceptions is that men look upon the doctrine of Christ as one that
may be accepted or rejected without any special change in one's life.
Men, attached by habit to the existing order, shrink from attempting to
change it, hence they agree to consider this doctrine as a mass of revelations
and laws that may be accepted without making any change in one's life:
whereas the doctrine of Christ is not a doctrine of rules for man to obey, but
unfolds a new life-conception, meant as a guide for men who are now
entering upon a new period, one entirely different from the past.

The life of humanity continues its course and has its stages, like the life of
an individual; each age has its own life-conception, which a man must
adopt whether he will or no. Those who do not adopt it consciously, adopt it
unconsciously. The same change that takes place in the views of the
individual, as life goes on, occurs also in the existence of nations and of
humanity in general.
If a father were to conduct his affairs like a child, his life would certainly
become so unbearable that he would cast about for a different plan of life,
and would eagerly grasp at one better suited to his years.
And the human race is at the present time passing through a similar
experience, in its transition from a pagan to a Christian life-conception. A
man of the society of the present day finds that the pagan life-conception is
no longer suited to the times, hence he is induced to submit to the
requirements of the Christian religion, whose truths, however
misunderstood and falsely interpreted they may be, are yet familiar to his
ears, and seem to offer the only practical solution of the contradictions that
beset his path. If the demands of the Christian doctrine seem unintelligible,
peculiar, and dangerous to a man who has hitherto held the social life-
conception, the demands of the latter seemed none the less so to a savage of
a previous age, who neither fully apprehended them, nor was able to foresee
their consequences.
The savage reasoned thus: "It would be folly for me to sacrifice my peace
or my life to defend an incomprehensible, intangible, and uncertain ideal,
family, race, country, and, above all, it would be dangerous to deliver
myself into the hands of an unknown power." But there came a time in the
life of the savage when, on the one hand, he had begun, although vaguely,
to understand the meaning of social life, as well as that of its chief
incentive,—social approval or condemnation: glory,—while, on the other
hand, the sufferings of his personal life had become so severe that it was no
longer possible for him to go on believing in the truth of his former life-
conception; whereupon he accepted the social and State doctrine and
submitted to its laws.
And he who holds the social life-conception is now undergoing a similar
experience.

"It is madness"—thus reasons the man holding such views—"to sacrifice
one's interests or those of one's family and of one's country, in order to fulfil
the requirements of a law that would compel one to renounce the most
natural and praiseworthy feelings toward one's self, one's family, and one's
country, and, above all, the guarantee of protection afforded by the State."
But there comes a time when, on the one hand, a vague awakening
consciousness stirs the soul, the consciousness of the higher law, love of
God and one's neighbor, and the sufferings a man endures from the
contradictions of life, compel him to renounce the social life-conception
and to adopt the new Christian life-conception which is offered him. And
this time has now arrived.
To us, who underwent the transition from the individual to the social life-
conception thousands of years ago, this transition appears to have been both
natural and inevitable, just as the present transition, through which we have
been passing these last 1800 years, seems arbitrary, unnatural, and
overwhelming. But it seems so for the simple reason that the former change
is a thing of the past, and has fixed in us certain habits, whereas we are still
practically accomplishing the present transition, and have to accomplish it
consciously.
It was centuries, indeed thousands of years, before the social life-
conception was adopted by all mankind; it passed through various phases,
and we ourselves possess it through heredity, education, and unconscious
habit; hence it seems natural to us. But 5000 years ago it seemed as strange
and unnatural to men as the Christian doctrine in its true meaning seems to
them now.
The universal brotherhood of man, the equality of races, the abolition of
property, the anomalous doctrine of non-resistance, all these requirements
of the Christian religion seem to us impossibilities. But in olden times,
thousands of years ago, not only the requirements of the State, but even
those of the family, as, for instance, the obligation of parents to feed their
children, of children to support their aged parents, and that of conjugal
fidelity, seemed equally impossible. And still more unreasonable seemed
the demands of the State, requiring citizens to submit to established
authority, to pay taxes, to perform military duty in defense of their country,
etc. We find no difficulty in comprehending these requirements now; they

seem perfectly simple and natural, with nothing mystical or alarming in
their aspect; but five or even three thousand years ago, such demands
seemed intolerable.
Thus the social life-conception served as a foundation for religion, for at the
time when it was first manifested to men it seemed to them to be utterly
incomprehensible, mystical, and supernatural. Now that we have passed
that phase of human life, we can understand the reasons for the aggregation
of men into families, communities, and states. But in the early ages the
demand for these aggregations was made in the name of the supernatural,
and its fulfilment assured by the same authority.
The patriarchal religion deified the family, the race, the people. State
religions deified the sovereigns and the State. Even at the present day the
uneducated masses, the Russian peasants, for instance, who call the Czar a
God upon earth, obey the laws from religious instinct, not because their
reason counsels them to do so, nor because they have the least idea of a
State.
And to those men of our own times who hold the social life-conception, the
Christian doctrine seems to be a supernatural religion, whereas in reality
there is nothing mystical or supernatural about it; it is only a doctrine
concerning human life, corresponding with the degree of development
which man has attained, and one which he cannot refuse to accept.
The time will come, and it is already near at hand, when the Christian
foundations of life—equality, brotherly love, community of goods, non-
resistance of evil by violence—will seem as natural and simple as the
foundations of family, social, and State life appear to us at the present time.
There can be no retrogression for humanity. Men have outgrown the lower
life-conception of the family and the State, and must press forward to
embrace the next higher conception, as they have already begun to do.
This movement is accomplished in two ways: consciously, by moral causes;
unconsciously, by material ones. It rarely happens that a man changes his
mode of life at the dictates of reason; however conscious he may be of the
new design and purpose revealed to him by his reason, he goes on in the old
fashion until his life has become intolerably inconsistent, and therefore
distressing. Likewise, the larger portion of mankind, after learning through

its religious teachers a new conception of life and its objects, to which it has
yet to adjust itself, will for a long time pursue its wonted course, and only
make the change in the end because its former life has become impossible.
In spite of the necessity for a change of life, acknowledged and proclaimed
by our religious guides and admitted by the wisest men, in spite of the
religious respect entertained for these guides, the majority of men continue
to be influenced in life, now additionally complicated, by their former
views. It is as if the father of a family, knowing well enough how to conduct
himself properly, should through force of habit or thoughtlessness continue
to live as if he were still a child.
At this very moment we are experiencing one of these transitions.
Humanity has outgrown its social, its civic age, and has entered upon a new
epoch. It knows the doctrine that must underlie the foundations of life in
this new epoch; but, yielding to inertia, it still clings to its former habits.
From this inconsistency between the theory of life and its practice follow a
series of contradictions and sufferings that embitter man's life and compel
him to make a change.
One needs but to compare the practice of life with its theory to be horrified
at the extraordinary contradictions between the conditions of life and our
inner consciousness.
Man's whole life is a continual contradiction of what he knows to be his
duty. This contradiction prevails in every department of life, in the
economical, the political, and the international. As though his intelligence
were forgotten and his faith temporarily eclipsed,—for he must have faith,
else would his life have no permanence,—he acts in direct opposition to the
dictates of his conscience and his common sense.
In our economical and international relations we are guided by the
fundamental principles of bygone ages,—principles quite contradictory to
our mental attitude and the conditions of our present life.
It was right for a man who believed in the divine origin of slavery, and in its
necessity, to live in the relation of a master to his slaves. But is such a life
possible in these days? A man of antiquity might believe himself justified in
taking advantage of his fellow-man, oppressing him for generations, merely
because he believed in diversity of origin, noble or base, descent from Ham

or Japheth. Not only have the greatest philosophers of ancient times, the
teachers of mankind, Plato and Aristotle, justified the existence of slavery
and adduced proofs of its legality, but no longer than three centuries ago
those who described an ideal state of society could not picture it without
slaves.
In ancient times, and even in the Middle Ages, it was honestly thought that
men were not born equal, that the men worthy of respect were only
Persians, only Greeks, only Romans, or only Frenchmen; but no one
believes it now. And the enthusiastic advocates of the principles of
aristocracy and patriotism at this present day cannot believe in their own
statements.
We all know, and cannot help knowing, even if we had never heard it
defined and never attempted to define it ourselves, that we all possess an
inherent conviction deep in our hearts of the truth of that fundamental
doctrine of Christianity, that we are all children of one Father, yea, every
one of us, wheresoever we may live, whatsoever language we may speak;
that we are all brothers, subject only to the law of love implanted in our
hearts by our common Father.
Whatever may be the habits of thought or the degree of education of a man
of our time, whether he be an educated liberal, whatsoever his shade of
opinion, a philosopher, whatsoever may be his system, a scientist, an
economist of any of the various schools, an uneducated adherent of any
religious faith,—every man in these days knows that in the matter of life
and worldly goods all men have equal rights; that no man is either better or
worse than his fellow-men, but that all men are born free and equal. Every
man has an instinctive assurance of this fact, and yet he sees his fellow-
beings divided into two classes, the one in poverty and distress, which
labors and is oppressed, the other idle, tyrannical, luxurious; and not only
does he see all this, but, whether voluntarily or otherwise, he falls in line
with one or the other of these divisions,—a course repugnant to his reason.
Hence he must suffer both from his sense of the incongruity and his own
share in it.
Whether he be master or slave, a man in these days is forever haunted by
this distressing inconsistency between his ideal and the actual fact, nor can
he fail to perceive the suffering that springs therefrom.

The masses—that is to say, the majority of mankind, who suffer and toil,
their lives dull and uninteresting, never enlivened by a ray of brightness,
enduring numberless privations—are those who recognize most clearly the
sharp contrasts between what is and what ought to be, between the
professions of mankind and their actions.
They know that they work like slaves, that they are perishing in want and in
darkness, that they may minister to the pleasures of the minority. And it is
this very consciousness that enhances its bitterness; indeed, it constitutes
the essence of their suffering.
A slave in old times knew that he was a slave by birth, whereas the
working-man of our day, while he feels himself to be a slave, knows that he
ought not to be one, and suffers the tortures of Tantalus from his unsatisfied
yearning for that which not only could be granted him, but which is really
his due. The sufferings of the working-classes that spring from the
contradictions of their fate are magnified tenfold by the envy and hatred
which are the natural fruits of the sense of these contradictions.
A working-man in our period, even though his work may be less fatiguing
than the labor of the ancient slave, and even were he to succeed in obtaining
the eight-hour system and twelve-and-sixpence a day, still has the worst of
it, because he manufactures objects which he will never use or enjoy;—he
is not working for himself; he works in order to gratify the luxurious and
idle, to increase the wealth of the capitalist, the mill-owner, or
manufacturer. He knows that all this goes on in a world where men
acknowledge certain propositions such as the economic principle that labor
is wealth, that it is an act of injustice to employ another man's labor for
one's own benefit, that an illegal act is punishable by law, in a world,
moreover, where the doctrine of Christ is professed,—that doctrine which
teaches us that all men are brothers, and that it is the duty of a man to serve
his neighbor and to take no unfair advantage of him.
He realizes all this, and must suffer keenly from the shocking contradiction
between the world as it should be and the world as it is. "According to what
I am told and what I hear men profess," says a working-man to himself, "I
ought to be a free man equal to any other man, and loved; I am a slave,
hated and despised." Then he in his turn is filled with hatred, and seeks to

escape from his position, to overthrow the enemy that oppresses him, and to
get the upper hand himself.
They say: "It is wrong for a workman to wish himself in the place of a
capitalist, or for a poor man to envy the rich." But this is false. If this were a
world where God had ordained masters and slaves, rich and poor, it would
be wrong for the working-man or the poor man to wish himself in the place
of the rich: but this is not so; he wishes it in a world which professes the
doctrine of the gospel, whose first principle is embodied in the relation of
the son to the Father, and consequently of fraternity and equality. And
however reluctant men may be to acknowledge it, they cannot deny that one
of the first conditions of Christian life is love, expressed, not in words, but
in deeds.
The man of education suffers even more from these inconsistencies. If he
has any faith whatever he believes, perhaps, in fraternity,—at least in the
sentiment humanity; and if not in the sentiment humanity, then in justice;
and if not in justice, then surely in science; and he cannot help knowing all
the while that the conditions of his life are opposed to every principle of
Christianity, humanity, justice, and science.
He knows that the habits of life in which he has been bred, and whose
abandonment would cause him much discomfort, can only be supported by
the weary and often suicidal labor of the down-trodden working-class—that
is, by the open infraction of those principles of Christianity, humanity,
justice, and even of science (political science), in which he professes to
believe. He affirms his faith in the principles of fraternity, humanity, justice,
and political science, and yet the oppression of the working-class is an
indispensable factor in his daily life, and he constantly employs it to attain
his own ends in spite of his principles; and he not only lives in this manner,
but he devotes all his energies to maintain a system which is directly
opposed to all his beliefs.
We are brothers: but every morning my brother or my sister performs for
me the most menial offices. We are brothers: but I must have my morning
cigar, my sugar, my mirror, or what not,—objects whose manufacture has
often cost my brothers and sisters their health, yet I do not for that reason
forbear to use these things; on the contrary, I even demand them. We are
brothers: and yet I support myself by working in some bank, commercial

house, or shop, and am always trying to raise the price of the necessities of
life for my brothers and sisters. We are brothers: I receive a salary for
judging, convicting, and punishing the thief or the prostitute, whose
existence is the natural outcome of my own system of life, and I fully
realize that I should neither condemn nor punish. We are all brothers: yet I
make my living by collecting taxes from the poor, that the rich may live in
luxury and idleness. We are brothers: and yet I receive a salary for
preaching a pseudo-Christian doctrine, in which I do not myself believe,
thus hindering men from discovering the true one; I receive a salary as
priest or bishop for deceiving people in a matter which is of vital
importance to them. We are brothers: but I make my brother pay for all my
services, whether I write books for him, educate him, or prescribe for him
as a physician. We are all brothers: but I receive a salary for fitting myself
to be a murderer, for learning the art of war, or for manufacturing arms and
ammunition and building fortresses.
The whole existence of our upper classes is utterly contradictory, and the
more sensitive a man's nature the more painful is the incongruity.
A man with a sensitive conscience can enjoy no peace of mind in such a
life. Even supposing that he succeeds in stifling the reproaches of his
conscience, he is still unable to conquer his fears.
Those men and women of the dominant classes who have hardened
themselves, and have succeeded in stifling their consciences, must still
suffer through their fear of the hatred they inspire. They are quite well
aware of its existence among the laboring classes; they know that it can
never die; they know, too, that the working-men realize the deceits practised
upon them, and the abuses that they endure; that they have started
organizations to throw off the yoke, and to take vengeance on their
oppressors. The happiness of the upper classes is poisoned by fear of the
impending calamity, foreshadowed by the unions, the strikes, and First of
May demonstrations. Recognizing the calamity that threatens them, their
fear turns to defiance and hatred. They know that if they relax for one
moment in this conflict with the oppressed, they are lost, because their
slaves, already embittered, grow more and more so with every day's
oppression. The oppressors, though they may see it, cannot cease to
oppress. They realize that they themselves are doomed from the moment
they abate one jot of their severity. So they go on in their career of

oppression, notwithstanding their affectation of interest in the welfare of the
working-men, the eight-hour system, the laws restricting the labor of
women and children, the pensions, and the rewards. All this is mere
pretense, or at best the natural anxiety of the master to keep his slave in
good condition; but the slave remains a slave all the while, and the master,
who cannot live without the slave, is less willing than ever to set him free.
The governing classes find themselves in regard to the working-men very
much in the position of one who has overthrown his opponent, and who
holds him down, not so much because he does not choose to let him escape,
but because he knows that should he for one moment lose his hold on him,
he would lose his own life, for the vanquished man is infuriated, and holds
a knife in his hand.
Hence our wealthy classes, whether their consciences be tender or
hardened, cannot enjoy the advantages they have wrung from the poor, as
did the ancients, who were convinced of the justice of their position. All the
pleasures of life are poisoned either by remorse or fear.
Such is the economic inconsistency. Still more striking is that of the civil
power.
A man is trained first of all in habits of obedience to state laws. At the
present time every act of our lives is under the supervision of the State, and
in accordance with its dictates a man marries and is divorced, rears his
children, and in some countries accepts the religion it prescribes. What is
this law, then, that determines the life of mankind? Do men believe in it?
Do they consider it true? Not at all. In most cases they recognize its
injustice, they despise it, and yet they obey it. It was fit that the ancients
should obey their law. It was chiefly religious, and they sincerely believed it
to be the only true law, to which all men owed obedience. Is that the case
with us? We cannot refuse to acknowledge that the law of our State is not
the eternal law, but only one of the many laws of many states, all equally
imperfect, and frequently wholly false and unjust,—a law that has been
openly discussed in all its aspects by the public press. It was fit that the
Hebrew should obey his laws, since he never doubted that the finger of God
Himself had traced them; or for the Roman, who believed that he received
them from the nymph Egeria; or even for those peoples who believed that
the rulers who made the laws were anointed of God, or that legislative
assemblies have both the will and the ability to devise laws as good as

possible. But we know that laws are the offspring of party conflicts, false
dealing, and the greed of gain, that they are not, and can never be, the
depository of true justice; and therefore it is impossible for people of the
present day to believe that obedience to civil or state laws can ever satisfy
the rational demands of human nature. Men have long since realized that
there is no sense in obeying a law whose honesty is more than doubtful, and
therefore they must suffer when, though privately denying its prerogative,
they still conform to it. When a man's whole life is held in bondage by laws
whose injustice, cruelty, and artificiality he plainly discerns, and yet is
compelled to obey these laws under penalty of punishment, he must suffer;
it cannot be otherwise.
We recognize the disadvantages of custom-houses and import duties, but we
are yet obliged to pay them; we see the folly of supporting the court and its
numerous officials, we admit the harmful influence of church preaching,
and still we are compelled to support both; we also admit the cruel and
iniquitous punishments inflicted by the courts, and yet we play our part in
them; we acknowledge that the distribution of land is wrong and immoral,
but we have to submit to it; and despite the fact that we deny the necessity
for armies or warfare, we are made to bear the heavy burden of supporting
armies and waging war.
These contradictions, however, are but trifling in comparison with the one
which confronts us in the problem of our international relations, and which
cries aloud for solution, since both human reason and human life are at
stake, and this is the antagonism between the Christian faith and war.
We, Christian nations, whose spiritual life is one and the same, who
welcome the birth of every wholesome and profitable thought with joy and
pride, from whatsoever quarter of the globe it may spring, regardless of race
or creed; we, who love not only the philanthropists, the poets, the
philosophers, and the scientists of other lands; we, who take as much pride
in the heroism of a Father Damien as if it was our own; we, who love the
French, the Germans, the Americans, and the English, not only esteeming
their qualities, but ready to meet them with cordial friendship; we, who not
only would be shocked to consider war with them in the light of an exploit,
—when we picture to ourselves the possibility that at some future day a
difference may arise between us that can only be reconciled by murder, and

that any one of us may be called upon to play his part in an inevitable
tragedy,—we shudder at the thought.
It was well enough for a Hebrew, a Greek, or a Roman to maintain the
independence of his country by murder, and even to subdue other nations by
the same means, because he firmly believed himself a member of the one
favored people beloved by God, and that all the others were Philistines and
barbarians. Also, in the times of the Middle Ages men might well have held
these opinions, and even they who lived toward the end of the last century
and at the beginning of this. But we, whatever provocation may be offered
us, we cannot possibly believe as they did; and this difficulty is so painful
for us in these times that it has become impossible to live without trying to
solve it.
"We live in a time replete with contradictions," writes Count Komarovsky,
the Professor of International Law, in his learned treatise. "Everywhere the
tone of the public press seems to indicate a general desire for peace, and
shows the need of it for all nations. And the representatives of the
government, in their private as well as in their public capacity, in
parliamentary speeches and diplomatic negotiations, express themselves in
the same temper. Nevertheless, the governments increase the military force
year after year, impose new taxes, negotiate loans, and will leave as a
legacy to future generations the responsibilities of the present mistaken
policy. How are the word and the deed at variance!
"By way of justification the governments claim that all their armaments and
the consequent outlay are simply defensive in their character, but to the
uninitiated the question naturally suggests itself: Whence is to come the
attack if all the great powers are devoting themselves to a defensive policy?
It certainly looks as if each one of them lived in hourly expectation of
attack from his neighbor, and the consequence is a strife between the
different governments to surpass each other in strength. The very existence
of this spirit of rivalry favors the chances of war: the nations, no longer able
to support the increased armament, will sooner or later prefer open war to
the tension in which they live and the ruin which menaces them, so that the
slightest pretext will avail to kindle in Europe the conflagration of a general
war. It is a mistake to suppose that such a crisis will heal the political and
economic ills under which we groan. The experience of late wars shows us
that each one served only to exacerbate the animosity of the nations against

each other, to increase the unbearable burden of military despotism, and has
involved the political and economic situation of Europe in a more
melancholy and pitiable plight than ever."
"Contemporary Europe keeps under arms nine millions of men," says
Enrico Ferri, "and a reserve force of fifteen millions, at a cost of four
milliards of francs a year. By increasing its armament it paralyzes more and
more the springs of social and individual welfare, and may be compared to
a man who, in order to obtain weapons, condemns himself to anæmia,
thereby depriving himself of the strength to use the weapons he is
accumulating, whose weight will eventually overpower him."
The same idea has been expressed by Charles Booth, in his address
delivered in London, July 26, 1887, before the Association for the Reform
and Codification of National Laws. Having mentioned the same numbers,—
over nine millions in active service and fifteen millions in reserve, and the
enormous sums required to support these armies and armaments,—he says,
in substance: "These numbers represent but a small part of the actual
expenditure, because outside of the expenses enumerated in the budgets of
the nations we must take into consideration the great losses to society from
the removal of so many able-bodied men, lost to industry in all its branches,
and moreover, the interest on the enormous sums spent in military
preparations, which yield no returns. As might be expected, the constantly
increasing national debts are the inevitable result of these outlays in
preparation for war. By far the greater proportion of the debt of Europe has
been contracted for munitions of war. The sum total is four milliards of
pounds, or forty milliards of roubles, and these debts are increasing every
year."
Komarovsky, whom we lately quoted, says elsewhere: "We are living in
hard times. Everywhere we hear complaints of the stagnation of commerce
and industry, and of the wretched economical situation. They tell us of the
hard conditions of life among the laboring classes and the general
impoverishment of the people. But regardless of this, governments,
determined to maintain their independence, go to the utmost limits of folly.
Additional taxes are levied on every side, and the financial oppression of
the people knows no bounds. If we glance at the budgets of European states
for the last hundred years, we shall be struck with their constantly

increasing figures. How can we explain this abnormal condition that sooner
or later threatens to overwhelm us with inevitable bankruptcy?
"Most assuredly it is caused by the expense of maintaining armies, which
absorbs one-third, or even one-half, of the budget of all European nations.
The saddest part of it, however, is that there is no end to this increase of
budgets and consequent impoverishment of the masses. What is socialism
but a protest against the abnormal situation in which the majority of
mankind of our continent finds itself?"
"We are being ruined," says Frédéric Passy, in a paper read before the last
Peace Congress in London (1890), "to enable us to take part in the senseless
wars of the future, or to pay the interest of debts left us by the criminal and
insane wars and contests of the past. We shall perish with hunger, to have
success in murder."
Going on to speak of the opinion of France in regard to this matter, he says:
"We believe that now, a hundred years after the proclamation formulating
the belief in the rights of men and citizens, the time has come to declare the
rights of nations and to repudiate once and for all time those undertakings
of fraud and violence, which, under the name of conquests, are actually
crimes against humanity, and which, however much the pride of nations or
the ambition of monarchs may seek to justify them, serve only to enervate
the conquerors."
"I am always very much surprised at the way religion is carried on in this
country," says Sir Wilfred Lawson before the same Congress. "You send a
boy to the Sunday-school, and you tell him: 'My dear boy, you must love
your enemies; if any boy strikes you, don't strike him again; try to reform
him by loving him.' Well, the boy goes to the Sunday-school till he is
fourteen or fifteen years of age, and then his friends say, 'Put him in the
army.' What has he to do in the army? Why, not love his enemies, but
whenever he sees an enemy, to run him through the body with a bayonet is
the nature of all religious teaching in this country. I do not think that that is
a very good way of carrying out the precepts of religion. I think if it is a
good thing for the boy to love his enemy, it is a good thing for the man to
love his enemy."...
And later!

"In Europe great Christian nations keep among them 28,000,000 of armed
men to settle quarrels by killing one another, instead of by arguing. This is
what the Christian nations of the world are doing at this moment. It is a
very expensive way also; for in a publication which I saw—I believe it was
correct—it was made out that since the year 1812 these nations had spent
the almost incredible amount of 1,500,000,000 of money in preparing and
settling their quarrels by killing one another. Now it seems to me that with
that state of things one of two positions must be accepted,—either that
Christianity is a failure, or that those who profess to expound Christianity
have failed in expounding it properly."
"So long as our men-of-war are not disarmed and our army not disbanded,
we have no right to be called a Christian nation," said Mr. F. L. Wilson.
In a conversation in regard to the duty of Christian ministers in the matter
of preaching against war, Mr. G. D. Bartlett remarked, among other things:
—
"If I understand the Scriptures, I say that men are only playing with
Christianity when they ignore this question.... I have lived a long life, I have
heard many sermons, and I can say without any exaggeration that I never
heard universal peace recommended from the pulpit half a dozen times in
my life.... Some twenty years ago I happened to stand in a drawing-room
where there were forty or fifty people, and I dared to make the proposition
that war was incompatible with Christianity. They looked upon me as an
arrant fanatic. The idea that we could get on without war was regarded as
unmitigated weakness and folly."
A Catholic priest, the Abbé Defourny, has spoken in a similar spirit. "One of
the first commandments of the eternal law, engraved in every man's
conscience," says the Abbé Defourny, "forbids a man to take his neighbor's
life or shed his blood" (without sufficient cause, being forced to it by stress
of circumstance). "This is a commandment more deeply engraved in the
human heart than all the others.... But as soon as it becomes a question of
war, that is, a question of the wholesale shedding of human blood, men in
these days do not wait for a sufficient cause. Those who are active in war
forget to ask themselves if there is any justification for the numerous
manslaughters that take place, whether they are just or unjust, legal or
illegal, innocent or criminal, or whether they break the principal law that

forbids us to commit murder" (without just cause). "Their conscience is
silent.... War has ceased to be a matter connected with morality. The soldier,
amid all the fatigues and dangers he undergoes, knows no joy but conquest,
no sorrow but defeat. Don't tell me that they serve the country. A great
genius has long ago answered this statement in words that have since
become a proverb: 'Take away justice, and what is then a nation but a great
band of robbers? And is not a band of robbers in itself a small state? They,
too, have their laws. They, too, fight for booty, and even honor.'
"The aim of this organization" (it was a question of establishing
international tribunals) "is to influence the European nations until they
cease to be nations of thieves, and their armies bands of robbers. Yes, our
armies are nothing less than a rabble of slaves belonging to one or two
monarchs and their ministers, who, as we all know, rule them tyrannically
and without any responsibility other than nominal, as we know.
"It is the characteristic of a slave that he is a tool in the hands of his master.
Such are the soldiers, officers, and generals, who at the beck of their
sovereign go forth to slay or to be slain. There is a military slavery, and it is
the worst of all slaveries, particularly now, when by means of conscription
it forges chains for the necks of all the free and strong men of the nation, in
order to use them as instruments of murder, to make them executioners and
butchers of human flesh, since that is the sole reason why they are drafted
and drilled....
"Two or three potentates in their cabinets make treaties, without protocols,
without publicity, and therefore without responsibility, sending men to the
slaughter.
"'Protests against increased armaments began before our time,' said Signor
E. G. Moneta. Listen to Montesquieu: 'France' (for France we might now
substitute Europe) 'is perishing from an overgrown army. A new disease is
spreading throughout Europe. It has affected kings, and obliges them to
maintain an incredible number of troops. It is like a rash, and therefore
contagious; for no sooner does one nation increase its troops than all the
others follow suit. Nothing can result from this condition of affairs but
general calamity.
"'Each government maintains as many troops as it would require if its
people were threatened with destruction, and this state of tension is called

peace. Europe is in truth ruined. If private individuals were reduced to such
straits as these, the richest man among them would be practically destitute.
The wealth of the world and its commerce are in our hands, and yet we are
poor.'
"This was written almost 150 years ago. It seems like a picture of the
present. One thing alone has changed—the form of government. In the time
of Montesquieu it was said that the reason for the maintenance of large
armies might be found in the unlimited power of kings, who carried on war
in the hope of increasing their private property and their glory.
"Then it was said: 'Ah! if the people could but choose representatives who
would have a right to refuse the governments when they called for soldiers
and money—there would be an end of a military policy.' Now, almost
everywhere in Europe there are representative governments, and still the
military expenditure in preparation for war has increased in frightful
proportion.
"It looks as though the folly of the rulers had passed into the ruling classes.
Now they no longer fight because one king has been rude to another king's
mistress, as in the time of Louis XIV., but by exaggerating the importance
of national dignity and patriotism,—emotions which are natural and
honorable in themselves,—and exciting the public opinion of one country
against the other, until they have arrived at such a pitch of sensitiveness that
it is enough to say, for instance (even were the report to prove false), one
country has refused to receive the ambassador of another, to precipitate the
most frightful and disastrous war. Europe maintains under arms at the
present time more soldiers than were in the field during the great wars of
Napoleon. Every citizen on our continent, with a few exceptions, is forced
to spend several years in the barracks. Fortresses, arsenals, men-of-war are
built, new firearms are invented, which in a short time are replaced by
others, because science, which should always be devoted to the promotion
of human welfare, contributes, it must be regretfully acknowledged, to
human destruction, inventing ever new means of killing greater numbers of
men in the shortest possible time.
"In these stupendous preparations for slaughter, and in the maintenance of
these vast numbers of troops, hundreds of millions are yearly expended—
sums that would suffice to educate the masses, and to carry on the most

important works of public improvement, thereby contributing toward a
perfect solution of the social problem.
"Therefore, notwithstanding all our scientific victories, Europe finds herself
in this respect not one whit better off than she was in the most barbarous
times of the Middle Ages. Every one laments a state of things which is
neither war nor peace, and longs to be delivered from it. The heads of
governments emphatically affirm that they desire peace, and eagerly
emulate each other in their pacific utterances, but almost immediately
thereafter they propose to the legislative assemblies measures for increasing
the armament, asserting that they take these precautions for the preservation
of peace.
"But this is not the sort of peace we care for, and the nations are not
deceived by it. True peace has for its foundation mutual confidence,
whereas these appalling armaments show, if not a declared hostility, at least
a secret distrust among the different nations. What should we say of a man
who, wishing to show his friendly feelings to his neighbor, should invite
him to consider a certain scheme, holding a loaded pistol while he unfolds it
before him?
"It is this monstrous contradiction between the assurances of peace and the
military policy of the governments, that good citizens wish to put an end to,
at any cost."
One is amazed to learn that there are 60,000 suicides reported in Europe,
not including Turkey and Russia, every year, and these are all well-
substantiated cases; but it would be far more remarkable if the number were
less. Any man in these times who investigates the antagonism between his
convictions and his actions, finds himself in a desperate plight. Setting aside
the many other contradictions between actual life and conviction which
abound in the life of a man of the present day, to view the military situation
in Europe in the light of its profession of Christianity is enough to make a
man doubt the existence of human reason, and drive him to escape from a
barbarous and insane world by putting an end to his own life. This
inconsistency, which is the very quintessence of all the others, is so
shocking, that one can only go on living and taking any part in it, by dint of
trying not to think about it,—to forget it all.

What can it mean? We are Christians, who not only profess to love one
another, but are actually leading one common life; our pulses beat in
harmony; we meet each other in love and sympathy, deriving support and
counsel from our mutual intercourse. Were it not for this sympathy life
would have no meaning. But at any moment some demented ruler may utter
a few rash words, to which another gives reply, and lo! I am ordered to
march at the risk of my life, to slay those who have never injured me, whom
I really love. And it is no remote contingency, but an inevitable climax for
which we are all preparing ourselves.
Fully to realize this is enough to drive one to madness and to suicide, and
this is but too common an occurrence, especially among soldiers.
A moment's reflection shows us why this seems an inevitable conclusion.
It explains the frightful intensity with which men plunge into all kinds of
dissipation,—wine, tobacco, cards, newspaper reading, travel, all manner of
shows and pleasures. They pursue all these amusements in deadly earnest,
as if they were serious avocations, as indeed they are. If men possessed
none of these distractions, half of them would kill themselves out of hand,
for to live a life that is made up of contradictions is simply unbearable, and
such is the life that most of us lead at the present day. We are living in direct
contradiction to our inmost convictions. This contradiction is evident both
in economic and in political relations; it is manifested most unmistakably in
the inconsistency of the acknowledgment of the Christian law of brotherly
love and military conscription, which obliges men to hold themselves in
readiness to take each other's lives,—in short, every man to be at once a
Christian and a gladiator.

CHAPTER VI
ATTITUDE OF MEN OF THE PRESENT DAY TOWARD
WAR
Men do not endeavor to destroy the contradiction between life and consciousness by a change
of life, but educated men use all their power to stifle the demands of consciousness and to
justify their lives, and thus degrade society to a condition worse than pagan, to a state of
primeval savagery—Uncertainty of the attitude of our leading men toward war, universal
armament, and general military conscription—Those who regard war as an accidental
political phenomenon easily to be remedied by external measures—The Peace Congress
—Article in the Revue des Revues—Proposition of Maxime du Camp—Significance of
Courts of Arbitration and Disarmament—Relations of governments to these, and the
business they pursue—Those who regard war as a cruel inevitable phenomenon—
Maupassant—Rod—Those who regard it as indispensable, even useful—Camille Doucet,
Claretie, Zola, Vogüé.

The contradictions of life and of consciousness may be solved in two ways:
by change of life, or by change of consciousness; and it would seem as if
there could be no hesitation in a choice between the two.
When a man acknowledges a deed to be evil he may refrain from the deed
itself, but he can never cease to regard it as evil. Indeed, the whole world
might cease from evil-doing, and yet have no power to transform, or even to
check for a season, the progress of knowledge in regard to that which is
evil, and which ought not to exist. One would think that the alternative of a
change of life to accord with consciousness might be settled without
question, and that it would therefore seem unavoidable for the Christian
world of the present day to abandon those pagan forms which it condemns,
and regulate its life by the Christian precepts which it acknowledges.
Such would be the result were it not for the principle of inertia (a principle
no less unalterable in human life than in the world of matter), which finds
its expression in the psychological law defined in the gospel by the words:
"Men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John
iii. 19). Most persons, in conformity to this principle, do not use their
reason in order to ascertain the truth, but rather to persuade themselves that

they possess it, and that their daily life, which is pleasant for them, is in
harmony with the precepts of truth.
Slavery conflicted with all the moral principles taught by Plato and
Aristotle, and yet neither of them perceived this, because the disavowal of
slavery must have destroyed that life by which they lived. And the same
thing is repeated in our times.
The division of mankind into two classes, the existence of political and
military injustice, is opposed to all those moral principles which our society
professes, and yet the most progressive and cultivated men of the age seem
not to perceive this.
Almost every educated man at the present day is striving unconsciously to
preserve the old-time conception of society, which justifies his attitude, and
to conceal from others and from himself its inconsistencies, chief among
which is the necessity of adopting the Christian ideal, which is subversive
of the very structure of our social existence. It is this antiquated social
system, in which they no longer believe, because it is really a thing of the
past, that men are trying to uphold.
Contemporary literature, philosophical, political, and artistic,—all
contemporary literature affords a striking proof of the truth of my statement.
What wealth of imagination, what form and color, what erudition and art,
but what a lack of serious purpose, what reluctance to face any exact
thought! Ambiguity of expression, indirect allusion, witticisms, vague
reflection, but no straightforward or candid dealing with the subject they
treat of, namely, life.
Indeed, our writers treat of obscenities and improprieties; in the guise of
refined paradox they convey suggestions which thrust men back to primeval
savagery, to the lowest dregs, not only of pagan life, but animal life, which
we outlived 5000 years ago. Delivering themselves from the Christian life-
conception, which for some simply interferes with the accustomed current
of their lives, while for others it interferes with certain advantages, men
must of necessity return to the pagan life-conception and to the doctrines to
which it gave rise. Not only are patriotism and the rights of the aristocracy
preached at the present time as they used to be 2000 years ago, but also the
coarsest epicureanism and sensuality, with this difference only,—that the
teachers of old believed in the doctrines they taught, whereas those of the

present day neither do nor can possess any faith in what they utter, because
there is no longer any sense in it. When the ground is shifting under our
feet, we cannot stand still, we must either recede or advance. It sounds
exaggerated to say that the enlightened men of our time, the advanced
thinkers, are speciously degrading society, plunging it into a condition
worse than pagan,—into a state of primeval barbarism.
In no other matter has this tendency of the leading men of our time been so
plainly shown as in their attitude toward that phenomenon in which at
present all the inconsistency of social life is concentrated,—toward war,
universal armament, and military conscription.
The equivocal, if not unscrupulous, attitude of the educated men of our time
toward this question is a striking one. It may be stated from three points of
view. Some regard this phenomenon as an accidental state of affairs, which
has sprung from the peculiar political situation of Europe, and believe it to
be susceptible of adjustment by diplomatic and international mediation,
without injury to the structure of nations. Others look upon it as something
appalling and cruel, fatal yet unavoidable,—like disease or death. Still
others, in cold blood, calmly pronounce war to be an indispensable,
salutary, and therefore desirable event.
Men may differ in their views in regard to this matter, but all discuss it as
something with which the will of the individuals who are to take part in it
has nothing whatever to do; therefore they do not even admit the natural
question which presents itself to most men; viz., "Is it my duty to take part
in it?" In the opinion of these judges there is no reason in such a question,
and every man, whatever may be his personal prejudices in regard to war,
must submit in this matter to the demands of the ruling powers.
The attitude of those in the first category, who expect deliverance from war
by means of diplomatic and international mediation, is well defined in the
results of the London Peace Congress, and in an article, together with letters
concerning war from prominent writers, which may be found in the Revue
des Revues (No. 8, 1891).
These are the results of the Congress.
Having collected from all parts of the globe the opinions of scientists, both
written and oral, the Congress, opening with a Te Deum in the cathedral,

and closing with a dinner and speeches, listened for five days to numerous
addresses, and arrived at the following conclusions:—
Resolution I. The Congress affirms its belief that the brotherhood of man
involves as a necessary consequence a brotherhood of nations, in which, the
true interests of all are acknowledged to be identical. The Congress is
convinced that the true basis for an enduring peace will be found in the
application by nations of this great principle in all their relations one to
another.
II. The Congress recognizes the important influence which Christianity
exercises upon the moral and political progress of mankind, and earnestly
urges upon ministers of the gospel and other teachers of religion and
morality the duty of setting forth these principles of Peace and Good-will,
which occupy such a central place in the teaching of Jesus Christ, of
philosophers and of moralists, and it recommends that the third Sunday in
December in each year be set apart for that purpose.
III. The Congress expresses its opinion that all teachers of history should
call the attention of the young to the grave evils inflicted on mankind in all
ages by war, and to the fact that such war has been waged, as a rule, for
most inadequate causes.
IV. The Congress protests against the use of military drill in connection
with the physical exercises of schools, and suggests the formation of
brigades for saving life rather than any of quasi-military character; and it
urges the desirability of impressing on the Board of Examiners, who
formulate the questions for examination, the propriety of guiding the minds
of children into the principles of Peace.
V. The Congress holds that the doctrine of the universal rights of man
requires that aboriginal and weaker races shall be guarded from injustice
and fraud when brought into contact with civilized peoples, alike as to their
territories, their liberties, and their property, and that they shall be shielded
from the vices which are so prevalent among the so-called advanced races
of men. It further expresses its conviction that there should be concert of
action among the nations for the accomplishment of these ends. The
Congress desires to express its hearty appreciation of the conclusions
arrived at by the late Anti-Slavery Conference, held in Brussels, for the
amelioration of the condition of the peoples of Africa.

VI. The Congress believes that the warlike prejudices and traditions which
are still fostered in the various nationalities, and the misrepresentations by
leaders of public opinion in legislative assemblies, or through the press, are
not infrequently indirect causes of war. The Congress is therefore of opinion
that these ends should be counteracted by the publication of accurate
statements and information that would tend to the removal of
misunderstanding amongst nations, and recommends to the Inter-
Parliamentary Committee the importance of considering the question of
starting an international newspaper, which should have such a purpose as
one of its primary objects.
VII. The Congress proposes to the Inter-Parliamentary Conference that the
utmost support should be given to every project for the unification of
weights and measures, of coinage, tariffs, postal and telegraphic
arrangements, means of transport, etc., which would assist in constituting a
commercial, industrial, and scientific union of the peoples.
VIII. In view of the vast moral and social influence of woman, the Congress
urges upon every woman throughout the world to sustain, as wife, mother,
sister, or citizen, the things that make for peace, as otherwise she incurs
grave responsibilities for the continuance of the systems of war and
militarism, which not only desolate but corrupt the home-life of the nation.
To concentrate and to practically apply this influence, the Congress
recommends that women should unite themselves with societies for the
promotion of international peace.
IX. This Congress expresses the hope that the Financial Reform Association
and other similar societies in Europe and America should unite in
convoking at an early date a conference to consider the best means of
establishing equitable commercial relations between States by the reduction
of import duties as a step toward Free Trade. The Congress feels that it can
affirm that the whole of Europe desires Peace, and is impatiently waiting
for the moment when it shall see the end of those crushing armaments
which, under the plea of defense, become in their turn a danger, by keeping
alive mutual distrust, and are, at the same time, the cause of the general
economic disturbance which stands in the way of settling in a satisfactory
manner the problems of labor and poverty, which should take precedence of
all others.

X. This Congress, recognizing that a general disarmament would be the best
guarantee of Peace, and would lead to the solution, in the general interest,
of those questions which now must divide States, expresses the wish that a
Congress of Representatives of all the States of Europe may be assembled
as soon as possible to consider the means of effecting a gradual general
disarmament, which already seems feasible.
XI. This Congress, considering that the timidity of a single Power or other
cause might delay indefinitely the convocation of the above-mentioned
Congress, is of the opinion that the Government which should first dismiss
any considerable number of soldiers would confer a signal benefit on
Europe and mankind, because it would oblige other Governments, urged on
by public opinion, to follow its example, and by the moral force of this
accomplished fact would have increased rather than diminished the
conditions of its national defense.
XII. This Congress, considering the question of disarmament, as well as the
Peace question generally, depends upon public opinion, recommends the
Peace Societies here represented, and all friends of Peace, to carry on an
active propaganda among the people, especially at the time of
Parliamentary elections, in order that the electors should give their votes to
those candidates who have included in their programme Peace,
Disarmament, and Arbitration.
XIII. This Congress congratulates the friends of Peace on the resolution
adopted by the International American Conference (with the exception of
the representatives of Chili and Mexico) at Washington in April last, by
which it was recommended that arbitration should be obligatory in all
controversies concerning diplomatic and consular privileges, boundaries,
territories, indemnities, right of navigation, and the validity, construction,
and enforcement of treaties, and in all other causes, whatever their origin,
nature, or occasion, except only those which, in the judgment of any of the
nations involved in the controversy, may imperil its independence.
XIV. This Congress respectfully recommends this resolution to the
statesmen of Europe, and expresses the ardent desire that treaties in similar
terms be speedily entered into between the other nations of the world.
XV. This Congress expresses its satisfaction at the adoption by the Spanish
Senate, on June 18th last, of a project of law authorizing the Government to

negotiate general or special treaties of arbitration for the settlement of all
disputes, except those relating to the independence and internal government
of the States affected; also at the adoption of resolutions to a like effect by
the Norwegian Storthing on March 6th last, and by the Italian Chamber on
July 11th.
XVI. That a committee of five be appointed to prepare and address
communications, in the name of the Congress, to the principal religious,
political, economical, labor, and peace organizations in civilized countries,
requesting them to send petitions to the governmental authorities of their
respective countries, praying that measures be taken for the formation of
suitable tribunals for the adjudication of international questions, so as to
avoid the resort to war.
XVII. Seeing (1) that the object pursued by all Peace Societies is the
establishment of juridical order between nations:
(2) That neutralization by international treaties constitutes a step toward this
juridical state, and lessens the number of districts in which war can be
carried on:
This Congress recommends a larger extension of the rule of neutralization,
and expresses the wish:—
(1) That all treaties which at present assure to certain States the benefit of
neutrality remain in force, or, if necessary, be amended in a manner to
render the neutrality more effective, either by extending neutralization to
the whole of the State, of which a part only may be neutralized, or by
ordering the demolition of fortresses, which constitute rather a peril than a
guarantee for neutrality.
(2) That new treaties, provided that they are in harmony with the wishes of
the populations concerned, be concluded for establishing the neutralization
of other States.
XVIII. The Committee Section proposes:—
(1) That the next Congress be held immediately before or immediately after
the next session of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, and at the same
places.

(2) That the question of an international Peace Emblem be postponed sine
die.
(3) The adoption of the following resolutions:—
(a) Resolved, that we express our satisfaction at the formal and official
overtures of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,
addressed to the highest representatives of each church organization in
Christendom, inviting the same to unite with itself in a general conference,
the object of which shall be to promote the substitution of international
arbitration for war.
(b) That this Congress, assembled in London from the 14th to the 19th July,
desires to express its profound reverence for the memory of Aurelio Salfi,
the great Italian jurist, a member of the Committee of the International
League of Peace and Liberty.
(4) That the memorial to the various heads of the civilized States adopted
by this Congress, and signed by the President, should, so far as practicable,
be presented to each Power by an influential deputation.
(5) That the Organization Committee be empowered to make the needful
verbal emendations in the papers and resolutions presented.
(6) That the following resolutions be adopted:—
(a) A resolution of thanks to the Presidents of the various sittings of the
Congress.
(b) A resolution of thanks to the chairman, the secretary, and the members
of the Bureau of this Congress.
(c) A resolution of thanks to the conveners and members of the sectional
committees.
(d) A resolution of thanks to Rev. Canon Scott Holland, Rev. Dr. Reuan
Thomas, and Rev. J. Morgan Gibbon, for their pulpit addresses before the
Congress, and that they be requested to furnish copies of the same for
publication; and also Stamford Hall Congregational Church for the use of
those buildings for public services.
(e) A letter of thanks to Her Majesty for permission to visit Windsor Castle.

(f) And also a resolution of thanks to the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress,
to Mr. Passmore Edwards, and other friends who have extended their
hospitality to the members of the Congress.
XIX. This Congress places on record a heartfelt expression of gratitude to
Almighty God for the remarkable harmony and concord which have
characterized the meetings of the Assembly, in which so many men and
women of varied nations, creeds, tongues, and races have gathered in
closest coöperation; and in the conclusion of the labors of this Congress, it
expresses its firm and unshaken belief in the ultimate triumph of the cause
of Peace, and of the principles which have been advocated at these
meetings.

The fundamental idea of the Congress is—firstly, that it is necessary to
disseminate by all means among all men the belief that war is not
advantageous for mankind, and that peace is a great benefit; and secondly,
to influence governments, impressing upon them the advantages and
necessity of disarmament.
To accomplish the first end, the Congress advises teachers of history,
women, and ministers of the gospel, to teach people, every third Sunday of
December, the evils of war and the benefits of peace; to accomplish the
second, the Congress addresses itself to governments, suggesting to them
disarmament and arbitration.
To preach the evils of war and the benefits of peace! But the evils of war are
so well known to men, that from the earliest ages the most welcome
greeting was always: "Peace be unto you!"
Not only Christians but all pagans were fully aware of the benefits of peace
and of the evils of war thousands of years ago, so that the advice to the
ministers of the gospel to preach against the evils of war and to advocate
the benefits of peace every third Sunday in December is quite superfluous.
A real Christian cannot do otherwise than preach thus, constantly, as long as
he lives. But if there are those who are called Christians, or Christian
preachers, who do not do this, there must be a cause for it, and so long as

this cause exists no advice will avail. Still less effective will be the advice
to governments to disband armies and have recourse to International Courts
of Arbitration. Governments know very well all the difficulties and burdens
of conscription and of maintaining armies, and if in the face of such
difficulties and burdens they still continue to do so, it is evident that they
have no means of doing otherwise, and the advice of a Congress could in no
way bring about a change. But scientists will not admit this, and still hope
to find some combination of influences by means of which those
governments which make war may be induced to restrain themselves.
"Is it possible to avoid war?" writes a scientist in the Revue des Revues (No.
8 of 1891). "All agree in recognizing the fact that if war should ever break
out in Europe, its consequences would be similar to those of the great
invasions. It would imperil the very existence of nations; it would be
bloody, atrocious, desperate. This consideration, and the consideration of
the terrible nature of the engines of destruction at the command of modern
science, retards its declaration and temporarily maintains the present
system,—a system which might be continued indefinitely, if it were not for
the enormous expenses that burden the European nations and threaten to
culminate in disasters fully equal to those occasioned by war.
"Impressed with these thoughts, men of all nationalities have sought for
means to arrest, or at least to diminish, the shocking consequences of the
carnage that threatens us.
"Such are the questions which are to be debated by the next Congress of
Universal Peace to be held in Rome, which have already been discussed in
a recently published pamphlet on Disarmament.
"Unfortunately, it is quite certain that with the present organization of the
greater number of the European states, isolated one from the other and
controlled by different interests, the absolute cessation of war is an illusion
which it would be folly to cherish. Still, the adoption of somewhat wiser
rules and regulations in regard to these international duels would at least
tend to limit their horrors. It is equally Utopian to build one's hope on
projects of disarmament, whose execution, owing to considerations of a
national character, which exist in the minds of all our readers, is practically
impossible." (This probably means that France cannot disarm until she has
retaliated.) "Public opinion is not prepared to accept them, and,

furthermore, the international relations make it impossible to adopt them.
Disarmament demanded by one nation of another, under conditions
imperiling its security, would be equivalent to a declaration of war.
"Still, we must admit that an exchange of opinions between the nations
interested may to a certain extent aid in establishing an international
understanding, and also contribute to lessen the military expenses that now
crush European nations, to the great detriment of the solution of social
questions, the necessity of the solution of which is realized by each nation
individually, under the penalty of being confronted by a civil war, due to the
efforts made to prevent a foreign one.
"One may at least hope for a decrease of the enormous expenses necessary
for the present military organization, which is maintained for the purpose of
invading a foreign territory in twenty-four hours, or of a decisive battle a
week after the declaration of war."
It ought not to be possible for one nation to attack another and take
possession of its territory within twenty-four hours. This practical sentiment
was expressed by Maxime du Camp, and is the conclusion of his study of
the subject.
Maxime du Camp offers the following propositions:—
"1st. A Diplomatic Congress, to assemble every year.
"2d. No war to be declared until two months after the incident which gave
rise to it." (Here the difficulty lies in determining the nature of the incident
that kindled the war—that is, every declaration of war is caused by several
circumstances, and it would be necessary to determine from which one the
two months are to be reckoned.)
"3d. No war shall be declared until the vote of the people shall have been
taken.
"4th. Hostilities must not begin until a month after the declaration of war."
"No war shall be declared ..." etc. But who is to prevent hostilities
beginning? Who will compel men to do this or that? Who will compel
governments to wait a certain stated time? Other nations. But all the other
nations are in the very same position, requiring to be restrained and kept
within bounds, in other words, coerced. And who will coerce them? And

how is it to be done? By public opinion. But if public opinion has sufficient
influence to force a nation to postpone its action until a stated time, this
public opinion can prevent it from waging war at any time.
But, it is said, there might be a balance of power, which would oblige
nations to restrain themselves. This very experiment has been and is still
being tried; this was the object of the Holy Alliance, the League of Peace,
etc.
But all would agree to this, it is said. If all would agree to this, then wars
would cease, and there would be no need of Courts of Appeal or of
Arbitration.
"A Court of Arbitration would take the place of war. Disputes would be
decided by a Board of Arbitrators, like that which pronounced on the
Alabama claims. The Pope has been requested to decide the question
concerning the Caroline Islands: Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, and
Holland have declared that they prefer the decision of a Court of Arbitration
to war."
I believe Monaco has expressed a similar wish. It is a pity that Germany,
Russia, Austria, and France have thus far shown no sign of imitating their
example.
It is astonishing how easily men can deceive themselves when they feel
inclined.
The governments will agree to allow their disputes to be decided by a Board
of Arbitration and to dismiss their armies. The trouble between Russia and
Poland, England and Ireland, Austria and the Czechs, Turkey and the Slavs,
France and Germany, will be settled by mutual consent. This is very much
like suggesting to merchants and bankers that they shall sell at cost price,
and devote their services gratuitously to the distribution of property.
Of course the essence of commerce and banking consists in buying cheap
and selling dear, and therefore the suggestion to sell at cost price and the
consequent overthrow of money amounts to a proposal of self-destruction.
The same is true in regard to governments.
The suggestion to governments to desist from violence, and to adjust all
differences by arbitration, would be to recommend a suicidal policy, and no

government would ever agree to that. Learned men found societies (there
are more than one hundred of them), they assemble in Congresses (like
those held in London and Paris and the one which is to be held in Rome),
they read essays, hold banquets, make speeches, edit journals devoted to the
subject, and by all these means they endeavor to prove that the strain upon
nations who are obliged to support millions of soldiers has become so
severe that something must be done about it; that this armament is opposed
to the character, the aims, and the wishes of the populations; but they seem
to think that if they consume a good deal of paper, and devote a good deal
of eloquence to the subject, that they may succeed in conciliating opposing
parties and conflicting interests, and at last effect the suppression of war.
When I was a child I was told that if I wished to catch a bird I must put salt
on its tail. I took a handful and went in pursuit of the birds, but I saw at
once that if I could sprinkle salt on their tails I could catch them, and that
what I had been told was only a joke. Those who read essays and works on
Courts of Arbitration and the disarmament of nations must feel very much
the same.
If it were possible to sprinkle salt on a bird's tail it would be tantamount to
saying that the bird could not fly, and therefore it would be no effort to
catch it. If a bird has wings and does not wish to be caught, it will not allow
any salt to be put on its tail, for it is the nature of a bird to fly. Likewise it is
the nature of a government not to be ruled, but to rule its subjects. And a
government rightly is named such only when it is able to rule its subjects,
and not be ruled by them. This, therefore, is its constant aim, and it will
never voluntarily resign its power. And as it derives its power from the
army it will never give up the army, nor will it ever renounce that for which
the army is designed,—war.
The misapprehension springs from the fact that the learned jurists,
deceiving themselves as well as others, depict in their books an ideal of
government,—not as it really is, an assembly of men who oppress their
fellow-citizens, but in accordance with the scientific postulate, as a body of
men who act as the representatives of the rest of the nation. They have gone
on repeating this to others so long that they have ended by believing it
themselves, and they really seem to think that justice is one of the duties of
governments. History, however, shows us that governments, as seen from
the reign of Cæsar to those of the two Napoleons and Prince Bismarck, are

in their very essence a violation of justice; a man or a body of men having
at command an army of trained soldiers, deluded creatures who are ready
for any violence, and through whose agency they govern the State, will
have no keen sense of the obligation of justice. Therefore governments will
never consent to diminish the number of those well-trained and submissive
servants, who constitute their power and influence.
Such is the attitude of certain scientists toward that self-contradiction under
which the world groans, and such are their expedients for its relief. Tell
these scientists that the question deals only with the personal relations of
each individual toward the moral and religious question, and then ask them
what they think of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of taking part in the
general conscription, and their sole reply will be a shrug of the shoulders;
they will not even deign to give a thought to your question. Their way of
solving the difficulty is to make speeches, write books, choose their
presidents, vice-presidents, and secretaries; assembled in a body, to hold
forth in one city or another. They think that the result of their efforts will be
to induce governments to cease to recruit soldiers, on whom all their power
depends; they expect that their appeals will be heard, and that armies will
be disbanded, leaving governments defenseless, not only in the presence of
neighbors, but of their subjects; that they, like highwaymen who, having
bound their defenseless victims in order to rob them, no sooner hear the
outcries of pain than they loosen the rope that causes it, and let their
prisoners go free.
And there really are men who believe in this, who spend their time in
promoting Leagues of Peace, in delivering addresses, and in writing books;
and of course the governments sympathize with it all, pretending that they
approve of it; just as they pretend to support temperance, while they
actually derive the larger part of their income from intemperance; just as
they pretend to maintain liberty of the constitution, when it is the absence of
liberty to which they owe their power; just as they pretend to care for the
improvement of the laboring classes, while on oppression of the workman
rest the very foundations of the State; just as they pretend to uphold
Christianity, when Christianity is subversive of every government.
In order to accomplish these ends they have long since instituted laws in
regard to intemperance that can never avail to destroy it; educational
projects that not only do not prevent the spread of ignorance, but do

everything to increase it; decrees in the name of liberty that are no restraint
upon despotism; measures for the benefit of the working-man which will
never liberate him from slavery; they have established a Christianity which
serves to prop the government rather than destroy it. And now another
interest is added to their cares,—the promotion of peace. Governments, or
rather those rulers who are going about at present with their ministers of
state, making up their minds on such radical questions as, for instance,
whether the slaughter of millions shall begin this year or next,—they are
quite well assured that discussions on peace are not going to prevent them
from sending millions of men to slaughter whenever they see fit to do so.
They like to hear these discussions, they encourage them, and even take
part themselves.
It does no harm to the government; on the contrary, it is useful, by way of
diverting observation from that radical question: When a man is drafted,
ought he or ought he not to fulfil his military duty?
Thanks to all these unions and congresses, peace will presently be
established; meanwhile put on your uniforms, and be prepared to worry and
harass each other for our benefit, say the governments. And the scientists,
the essayists, and the promoters of congresses take the same view.
This is one way of looking at it, and so advantageous for the State that all
prudent governments encourage it.

The way another class has of regarding it is more tragic. They declare that
although it is the fate of humanity to be forever striving after love and
peace, it is nevertheless abnormal and inconsistent. Those who affirm this
are mostly the sensitive men of genius, who see and realize all the horror,
folly, and cruelty of war, but by some strange turn of mind never look about
them for any means of escape, but who seem to take a morbid delight in
realizing to the utmost the desperate condition of mankind. The view of the
famous French writer, Maupassant, on the subject of war, affords a
noteworthy example of this kind. Gazing from his yacht upon a drill and
target-practice of French soldiers, the following thoughts arise in his mind:
—

"I have but to think of the word 'war' and a paralyzing sense of horror
creeps over me, as though I were listening to stories of witchcraft, or
tales of the Inquisition, or of things abominable, monstrous, unnatural,
of ages past.
"When people talk of cannibals we smile contemptuously with a sense
of superiority to such savages. But who are the savages, the true
savages? Those who fight that they may drive off the conquered, or
those who fight for the pure pleasure of killing? Those sharp-shooters
running over yonder are destined to be killed like a flock of sheep who
are driven by the butcher to the slaughter-house. Those men will fall
on some battlefield with a sabre-cut in the head, or with a ball through
the heart. Yet they are young men, who might have done useful work.
Their fathers are old and poor; their mothers, who have idolized them
for twenty years as only mothers can idolize, will learn after six
months, or perhaps a year, that the son, the baby, the grown-up child
on whom so much love and pains were lavished, who was reared at
such an expense, has been torn by a bullet, trampled under foot, or
crushed by a cavalry charge, and finally flung like a dead dog into
some ditch. Why must her boy, her beautiful, her only boy, the hope
and pride of her life, why must he be killed? She knows not; she can
but ask why.
"War!... The fighting!... The murdering!... The slaughter of men!... And
to-day, with all our wisdom, civilization, with the advancement of
science, the degree of philosophy to which the human spirit has
attained, we have schools where the art of murder, of aiming with
deadly accuracy and killing large numbers of men at a distance, is
actually taught, killing poor, harmless devils who have families to
support, killing them without even the pretext of the law.
"It is stupefying that the people do not rise up in arms against the
governments. What difference is there between monarchies and
republics? It is stupefying that society does not revolt as a unit at the
very sound of the word war.
"Alas! we shall never be free from oppression of the hateful, hideous
customs, the criminal prejudices, and the ferocious impulses of our

barbarous ancestors, for we are beasts; and beasts we shall remain,
moved by our instincts and susceptible of no improvement.
"Any one but Victor Hugo would have been banished when he uttered
his sublime cry of freedom and truth:—
"'To-day force is called violence, and the nations condemn it; they
inveigh against war. Civilization, listening to the appeal of humanity,
undertakes the case and prepares the accusation against the victors and
the generals. The nations begin to understand that the magnitude of a
crime cannot lessen its wickedness; that if it be criminal to kill one
man, the killing of numbers cannot be regarded in the light of
extenuation; that if it be shameful to steal, it cannot be glorious to lead
an invading army.
"'Let us proclaim these absolute truths, let us dishonor the name of
war!'
"But the wrath and indignation of the poet are all in vain," continues
Maupassant. "War is more honored than ever.
"A clever expert in this business, a genius in the art of murder, Von
Moltke, once made to a peace-delegate the following astonishing
reply:—
"'War is sacred; it is a divine institution; it fosters every lofty and noble
sentiment in the human heart: honor, self-sacrifice, virtue, courage, and
saves men, so to speak, from settling into the most shocking
materialism.'
"Assembling in herds by the hundred thousand, marching night and
day without rest, with no time for thought or for study, never to read,
learning nothing, of no use whatsoever to any living being, rotting with
filth, sleeping in the mud, living like a wild beast in a perennial state of
stupidity, plundering cities, burning villages, ruining whole nations;
then to encounter another mountain of human flesh, rush upon it, cause
rivers of blood to flow, and strew the fields with the dead and the
dying, all stained with the muddy and reddened soil, to have one's
limbs severed, one's brain scattered as wanton waste, and to perish in
the corner of a field while one's aged parents, one's wife and children,

are dying of hunger at home,—this is what it means to be saved from
falling into the grossest materialism!
"Soldiers are the scourge of the world. We struggle against nature,
ignorance, all kinds of obstacles, in the effort to make our wretched
lives more endurable. There are men, scientists and philanthropists,
who devote their whole lives to benefit their fellow-men, seeking to
improve their condition. They pursue their efforts tirelessly, adding
discovery to discovery, expanding the human intelligence, enriching
science, opening new fields of knowledge, day by day increasing the
well-being, comfort, and vigor of their country.
"Then war comes upon the scene, and in six months all the results of
twenty years of patient labor and of human genius are gone forever,
crushed by victorious generals.
"And this is what they mean when they speak of man's rescue from
materialism!
"We have seen war. We have seen men maddened; returned to the
condition of the brutes, we have seen them kill in wanton sport, out of
terror, or for mere bravado and show. Where right exists no longer, and
law is dead, where all sense of justice has been lost, we have seen
innocent men shot down on the highway, because they were timid and
thus excited suspicion. We have seen dogs chained to their masters'
doors killed by way of target-practice, we have seen cows lying in a
field fired at by the mitrailleuses, just for the fun of shooting at
something.
"And this is what they call saving men from the most shocking
materialism!
"To invade a country, to kill the man who defends his home because he
wears a blouse and does not wear a kepi, to burn the dwellings of
starving wretches, to ruin or plunder a man's household goods, to drink
the wine found in the cellars, to violate the women found in the streets,
consume millions of francs in powder, and to leave misery and cholera
in their track.
"This is what they mean by saving men from the most shocking
materialism!

"What have military men ever done to prove that they possess the
smallest degree of intelligence? Nothing whatever. What have they
invented? The cannon and the musket; nothing more.
"Has not the inventor of the wheelbarrow, by the simple and practical
contrivance of a wheel and a couple of boards, accomplished more
than the inventor of modern fortification?
"What has Greece bequeathed to the world? Its literature and its
marbles. Was she great because she conquered, or because she
produced? Was it the Persian invasion that saved Greece from
succumbing to the most shocking materialism?
"Did the invasions of the Barbarians save and regenerate Rome?
"Did Napoleon I. continue the great intellectual movement started by
the philosophers at the end of the last century?
"Very well, then; can it be a matter of surprise, since governments
usurp the rights of life and death over the people, that the people from
time to time assume the right of life and death over their governments?
"They defend themselves, and they have the right. No man has an
inalienable right to govern others. It is allowable only when it
promotes the welfare of the governed. It is as much the duty of those
who govern to avoid war as it is that of a captain of a ship to avoid
shipwreck.
"When a captain has lost his ship he is indicted, and if he is found to
have been careless or even incompetent, he is convicted. As soon as
war has been declared why should not the people sit in judgment upon
the act of the government?
"If they could once be made to understand the power that would be
theirs, if they were the judges of the rulers who lead them on to slay
their fellow-men, if they refused to allow themselves to be needlessly
slaughtered, if they were to turn their weapons against the very men
who have put them into their hands—that day would see the last of
war.... But never will that day arrive."—"Sur l'Eau."

The author perceives the full horror of war, realizes that the government is
its author, that government forces men to go slay, or be slain, when there is

no need for it; he realizes that the men who make up the armies might turn
their weapons against the government and demand a reckoning. Still the
author does not believe that this will ever happen, or that there is any
possible deliverance from the existing condition of affairs.
He grants that the result of war is shocking, but he believes it to be
inevitable; assuming that the never ceasing requisition of soldiers on the
part of government is as inevitable as death, then wars must follow as a
matter of course.
These are the words of a writer of talent, endowed with a faculty of vividly
realizing his subject, which is the essence of the poetic gift. He shows us all
the cruel contradictions between creed and deed; but since he fails to offer a
solution, it is evident that he feels that such a contradiction must exist, and
regards it as a contribution to the romantic tragedy of life. Another and an
equally gifted writer, Edouard Rod, paints with colors still more vivid the
cruelty and folly of the present situation, but he, like Maupassant, feels the
influence of the dramatic element, and neither suggests a remedy nor
anticipates any change.

"Why do we toil? Why do we plan and hope to execute? And how can
one even love one's neighbor in these troublous times, when the
morrow is nothing but a menace?... Everything that we have begun,
our ripening schemes, our plans for work, the little good that we might
accomplish, will it not all be swept away by the storm that is
gathering?... Everywhere the soil quakes beneath our feet, and
threatening clouds hang low on the horizon. Ah! if we had nothing
more to fear than the bugbear of the Revolution!... Unable to conceive
a society worse than our own, I am more inclined to distrust than to
fear the one that may replace it, and if I should suffer in consequence
of the change, I should console myself with the reflection that the
executioners of the present were victims of the past, and the hope of a
change for the better would make me endure the worst. But it is not
this remote danger which alarms me. I see another close at hand and
far more cruel, since it is both unjustifiable and irrational, and nothing
good can come out of it. Day by day the chances of war are weighed,
and day by day they become more pitiless.

"The human mind refuses to believe in the catastrophe which even
now looms up before us, and which the close of this century must
surely witness, a catastrophe which will put an end to all the progress
of our age, and yet we must try to realize it. Science has devoted all
her energy these twenty years to the invention of destructive weapons,
and soon a few cannon-balls will suffice to destroy an army;[10] not the
few thousands of wretched mercenaries, whose life-blood has been
bought and paid for, but whole nations are about to exterminate each
other; during conscription their time is stolen from them in order to
steal their lives with more certainty. By way of stimulating a thirst for
blood mutual animosities are excited, and gentle, kind-hearted men
allow themselves to be deluded, and it will not be long before they
attack each other with all the ferocity of wild beasts; multitudes of
peace-loving citizens will obey a foolish command, God only knows
on what pretext,—some stupid frontier quarrel, perhaps, or it may be
some colonial mercantile interest.... They will go like a flock of sheep
to the slaughter, yet knowing where they go, conscious that they are
leaving their wives and their children to suffer hunger; anxious, but
unable to resist the enticement of those plausible and treacherous
words that have been trumpeted into their ears. Unresistingly they go;
although they form a mass and a force, they fail to realize the extent of
their power, and that if they were all agreed they might establish the
reign of reason and fraternity, instead of lending themselves to the
barbarous trickeries of diplomacy.
"So self-deceived are they that bloodshed takes on the aspect of duty,
and they implore the blessing of God upon their sanguinary hopes. As
they march, they trample underfoot the harvests which they themselves
have planted, burning the cities which they have helped to build, with
songs, shouts of enthusiasm, and music. And their sons will raise a
statue to those who have slain them by the most approved methods....
The fate of a whole generation hangs on the hour when some saturnine
politician shall make the sign, and the nations will rush upon each
other. We know that the noblest among us will be cut down, and that
our affairs will go to destruction. We know this, we tremble in anger,
yet are powerless. We have been caught in a snare of bureaucracy and
waste paper from which we can only escape by measures too energetic
for us. We belong to the laws which we have made for our protection,

and which oppress us. We are nothing more than the creatures of that
antinomic abstraction, the State, which makes of each individual a
slave in the name of all, each individual of which all, taken separately,
would desire the exact contrary of what he will be made to do.
"And if it were but the sacrifice of a single generation! But many other
interests are involved.
"Paid orators, demagogues, taking advantage of the passions of the
masses and of the simple-minded who are dazzled by high-sounding
phrases, have so embittered national hatreds that to-morrow's war will
decide the fate of a race: one of the component parts of the modern
world is threatened; the vanquished nation will morally disappear; it
matters not which chances to be the victim, a power will disappear (as
though there had ever been one too many for the good). A new Europe
will then be established on a basis so unjust, so brutal, so bloodstained,
that it cannot fail to be worse than that of to-day,—more iniquitous,
more barbarous, and more aggressive....
"Thus a fearful depression hangs over us. We are like men dashing up
and down a narrow passageway, with muskets pointed at us from all
the roofs. We work like sailors executing their last manœuver after the
ship has begun to sink. Our pleasures are those of the prisoner to
whom a choice dish is offered a quarter of an hour before his
execution. Anxiety paralyzes our thought, and the utmost we can do is
to wonder, as we con the vague utterances of ministers, or construe the
meaning of the words of monarchs, or turn over those ascribed to the
diplomatists, retailed at random by the newspapers, never sure of their
information, whether all this is to happen to-morrow or the day after,
whether it is this year or next that we are all to be killed. In truth, one
might seek in vain throughout the pages of history for an epoch more
unsettled or more pregnant with anxiety."—"Le Sens de la Vie."

He shows us that the power is really in the hands of those who allow
themselves to be destroyed, in the hands of separate individuals who
compose the mass; that the root of all evil is the State. It would seem as if
the contradiction between one's faith and one's actual life had reached its
utmost limit, and that the solution could not be far to seek.

But the author is of a different opinion. All that he sees in this is the tragedy
of human life, and having given us a detailed description of the horror of
this state of things, he perceives no reason why human life should not be
spent in the midst of this horror. Such are the views of the second class of
writers, who consider only the fatalistic and tragic side of war.
There is still another view, and this is the one held by men who have lost all
conscience, and are consequently dead to common sense and human
feeling.
To this class belong Moltke, whose opinions are quoted by Maupassant, and
nearly all military men who have been taught to believe this cruel
superstition, who are supported by it, and who naturally regard war not only
as an inevitable evil, but as a necessary and even profitable occupation. And
there are civilians too, scientists, men of refinement and education, who
hold very much the same views.
The famous academician Doucet, in reply to a query of the editor of the
Revue des Revues in regard to his opinions on war, replies as follows in the
number containing letters concerning war:[11]—

"Dear Sir,—When you ask of the least belligerent of all the
academicians if he is a partizan of war, his reply is already given.
Unfortunately you yourself classify the peaceful contemplations which
inspire your fellow-countrymen at the present hour as idle visions.
"Ever since I was born I have always heard good men protesting
against this shocking custom of international carnage. All recognize
this evil and lament it. But where is its remedy?
"The effort to suppress duelling has often been made. It seems to be so
easy. Far from it. All that has been accomplished toward achieving this
noble purpose amounts to nothing, nor will it ever amount to more.
Against war and duelling the congresses of the two hemispheres vote
in vain. Superior to all arbitrations, conventions, and legislations will
ever remain human honor, which has always demanded the duel, and
national interests, which have always called for war. Nevertheless, I
wish with all my heart that the Universal Peace Congress may succeed
at last in its difficult and honorable task.—Accept the assurance, etc.,
"Camille Doucet."

It amounts to this, that honor obliges men to fight, that it is for the interest
of nations that they should attack and destroy one another, and that all
endeavors to abolish war can but excite a smile.
Jules Claretie expresses himself in similar terms:—

"Dear Sir,—A sensible man can have but one opinion on the question
of war and peace. Humanity was created to live—to live for the
purpose of perfecting its existence by peaceful labor. The mutual
relations of cordiality which are promoted and preached by the
Universal Congress of Peace may be but a dream perhaps, yet certainly
is the most delightful of dreams. The vision of the land of promise is
ever before the eyes, and upon the soil of the future the harvest will
ripen, secure from the plowing of the projectile, or the crushing of
cannon-wheels. But, alas!... Since philosophers and philanthropists are
not the rulers of mankind, it is fit that our soldiers should guard our
frontiers and our homes, and their weapons, skilfully wielded, are
perhaps the surest guarantees of the peace we love so well. Peace is
given only to the strong and the courageous.—Accept the assurances
of, etc.,
"Jules Claretie."

The substance of this is, that there is no harm in talking about what no one
intends to do, and what ought not in any event to be done. When fighting is
in order, there is no alternative but to fight.
Émile Zola, the most popular novelist in Europe, gives utterance to his
views on the subject of war in the following terms:—

"I look upon war as a fatal necessity which seems to us indispensable
because of its close connection with human nature and all creation.
Would that it might be postponed as long as possible! Nevertheless a
time will come when we shall be forced to fight. At this moment I am
regarding the subject from the universal standpoint, and am not hinting
at our unfriendly relations with Germany, which are but a trifling
incident in the world's history. I affirm that war is useful and necessary,
since it is one of the conditions of human existence. The fighting
instinct is to be found not only among the different tribes and peoples,

but in domestic and private life as well. It is one of the chief elements
of progress, and every advancing step taken by mankind up to the
present time has been accompanied by bloodshed.
"Men have talked, and still do talk, of disarmament; and yet
disarmament is utterly impossible, for even though it were possible,
we should be compelled to renounce it. It is only an armed nation that
can be powerful and great. I believe that a general disarmament would
be followed by a moral degradation, assuming the form of a
widespread effeminacy which would impede the progress of humanity.
Warlike nations have always been vigorous. The military art has
contributed to the development of other arts. History shows us this. In
Athens and Rome, for instance, commerce, industry, and literature
reached their highest development when these cities ruled the world by
the force of arms. And nearer to our own time we found an example in
the reign of Louis XIV. The wars of the great king, so far from
impeding the advance of arts and sciences, seemed rather to promote
and to favor their progress."

War is useful!
But chief among the advocates of these views, and the most talented of all
the writers of this tendency, is the academician Vogüé, who, in an article on
the military section of the Exhibition of 1889, writes as follows:—

"On the Esplanade des Invalides, the center of exotic and colonial
structures, a building of a more severe order stands out from the midst
of the picturesque bazaar; these various fragments of our terrestrial
globe adjoin the palace of war. A magnificent theme and antithesis for
humanitarian rhetoric which never loses a chance to lament a
juxtaposition of this kind, and to utter its 'this will kill that' [ceci tuera
cela[12]]; that the confederacy of nations brought about by science and
labor will overpower the military instinct. Let it cherish this vision of a
golden age, caressing it with fond hopes. We have no objection; but
should it ever be realized, it would very soon become an age of
corruption. History teaches us that the former has been accomplished
by the means of the latter, that blood is necessary to hasten and to seal
the confederacy of nations. In our own time the natural sciences have

strengthened the mysterious law which revealed itself to Joseph de
Maistre through the inspiration of his genius and meditation on
primordial dogmas; he saw how the world would redeem its hereditary
fall by offering a sacrifice. Science shows us that the world is made
better by struggle and violent selection; this affirmation of the same
law, with varied utterance, comes from two sources. It is by no means
a pleasant one. The laws of the world, however, are not established for
our pleasure, but for our perfection. Let us then enter this necessary
and indispensable palace of war, and we shall have the opportunity to
observe how our most inveterate instinct, losing nothing of its power,
is transformed in its adaptation to the various demands of historical
moments."

This idea, namely, that the proof of the necessity of war may be found in the
writings of De Maistre and of Darwin, two great thinkers, as he calls them,
pleases Vogüé so much that he repeats it.
"Sir," he writes to the editor of the Revue des Revues, "you ask my opinion
in regard to the possible success of the Universal Peace Congress. I believe,
with Darwin, that vehement struggle is the law governing all being, and I
believe, with Joseph de Maistre, that it is a divine law,—two different
modes of characterizing the same principle. If, contrary to all expectations,
a certain fraction of humanity—for example, all the civilized West—should
succeed in arresting the issue of this law, the more primitive races would
execute it against us; in these races the voice of nature would prevail over
human intellect. And they would succeed, because the certainty of peace—I
do not say peace, but the absolute certainty of peace—would in less than
half a century produce a corruption and a decadence in men more
destructive than the worst of wars. I believe that one should act in regard to
war—that criminal law of humanity—as in regard to all criminal laws:
modify it, or endeavor to make its execution as rare as possible, and use
every means in our power to render it superfluous. But experience of all
history teaches us that it cannot be suppressed, so long as there shall be
found on earth two men, bread, money, and a woman between them. I
should be very glad if the Congress could prove to me the contrary; but I
doubt if it can disprove history, and the law of God and of nature.—Accept
my assurance, etc.,

"E. M. de Vogüé."
This may be summed up as follows: History and nature, God and man,
show us that so long as there are two men left on earth, and the stakes are
bread, money, and woman, just so long there will be war. That is, that no
amount of civilization will ever destroy that abnormal concept of life which
makes it impossible for men to divide bread, money (of all absurdities), and
woman without a fight. It is odd that people meet in congresses and hold
forth as to the best method of catching birds by putting salt on their tails,
although they must know that this can never be done! It is astonishing that
men like Rod, Maupassant, and others, clearly realizing all the horrors of
war, and all the contradictions that ensue from men not doing what they
ought to do, and what it would be to their advantage to do, who bemoan the
tragedy of life, and yet fail to see that this tragic element would vanish as
soon as men ceased to discuss a subject which should not be discussed, and
ceased to do that which is both painful and repulsive for them to do!
One may wonder at them; but men who, like Vogüé and others, believe in
the law of evolution, and look upon war as not only unavoidable, but even
useful, and therefore desirable,—such men are fairly shocking, horrible in
their moral aberration. The former at least declare that they hate evil and
love good, but the latter believe there is neither good nor evil.
All this discussion of the possibility of establishing peace instead of
continual warfare is but the mischievous sentimentalism of idle talkers.
There is a law of evolution which seems to prove that I must live and do
wrong. What, then, can I do? I am an educated man,—I am familiar with
the doctrine of evolution; hence it follows that I shall work evil. "Entrons au
palais de la guerre." There is a law of evolution, and therefore there can be
no real evil; and one must live one's life and leave the rest to the law of
evolution. This is the last expression of refined civilization; it is with this
idea that the educated classes at the present day deaden their conscience.
The desire of these classes to preserve their favorite theories and the life
that they have built up on them can go no further. They lie, and by their
specious arguments deceive themselves as well as others, obscuring and
deadening their intuitive perceptions.
Rather than adapt their lives to their consciousness, they try by every means
to befog and to silence it. But the light shines in the darkness, and even now

it begins to dawn.

CHAPTER VII
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MILITARY CONSCRIPTION
General military conscription is not a political accident, but the extreme limit of contradiction
contained in the social life-conception—Rise of power in society—The basis of power is
personal violence—The organization of armed men, an army, is required by power to
enable it to accomplish violence—The rise of power in society, that is, of violence,
destroys by degrees the social life-conception—Attitude of power toward the masses, that
is to say, the oppressed—Governments endeavor to make workmen believe in the
necessity of State violence for their preservation from external foes—But the army is
needed principally to defend government from its own subjects, the oppressed working-
men—Address of Caprivi—All the privileges of the ruling classes are assured by
violence—Increase of armies leads to a general military conscription—General military
conscription destroys all the advantages of social life which it is the duty of the State to
guard—General military conscription is the extreme limit of obedience, as it demands in
the name of the State the abnegation of all that may be dear to man—Is the State needed?
—The sacrifices which it requires from citizens through the general military conscription
have no longer any basis—Hence it is more advantageous for man to rebel against the
demands of the State than to submit to them.

The efforts which the educated men of the upper classes are making to
silence the growing consciousness that the present system of life must be
changed, are constantly on the increase, while life itself, continuing to
develop and to become more complex without changing its direction, as it
increases the incongruities and suffering of human existence, brings men to
the extreme limit of this contradiction. An example of this uttermost limit is
found in the general military conscription.
It is usually supposed that this conscription, together with the increasing
armaments and the consequent increase of the taxes and national debts of
all countries, are the accidental results of a certain crisis in European affairs,
which might be obviated by certain political combinations, without change
of the interior life.
This is utterly erroneous. The general conscription is nothing but an internal
contradiction which has crept into the social life-conception, and which has
only become evident because it has arrived at its utmost limits at a period
when men have attained a certain degree of material development.

The social life-conception transfers the significance of life from the
individual to mankind in general, through the unbroken continuity of the
family, the tribe, and the State.
According to the social life-conception it is supposed that as the
significance of life is comprised in the sum total of mankind, each
individual will of his own accord sacrifice his interests to those of the
whole. This in fact has always been the case with certain aggregates, like
the family or the tribe.
In consequence of custom, transmitted by education and confirmed by
religious suggestion, and without compulsion, the individual merges his
interests in those of the group, and sacrifices himself for the benefit of the
whole.
But the more complex became societies, the larger they grew,—conquest
especially contributing to unite men in social organizations,—the more
individuals would be found striving to attain their ends at the expense of
their fellow-men; and thus the necessity for subjugation by power, or, in
other words, by violence, became more and more frequent.
The advocates of the social life-conception usually attempt to combine the
idea of authority, otherwise violence, with that of moral influence; but such
a union is utterly impossible.
The result of moral influence upon man is to change his desires, so that he
willingly complies with what is required of him. A man who yields to moral
influence takes pleasure in conforming his actions to its laws; whereas
authority, as the word is commonly understood, is a means of coercion, by
which a man is forced to act in opposition to his wishes. A man who
submits to authority does not do as he pleases, he yields to compulsion, and
in order to force a man to do something for which he has an aversion, the
threat of physical violence, or violence itself, must be employed: he may be
deprived of his liberty, flogged, mutilated, or he may be threatened with
these punishments. And this is what constitutes power both in the past and
in the present.
Despite the unremitting efforts of rulers to conceal these facts, and to
attribute a different significance to authority, it simply means the rope and
chain wherewith a man is bound and dragged, the lash wherewith he is

flogged, the knife or ax wherewith his limbs, nose, ears, and head are
hewed off. Authority is either the menace or the perpetration of these acts.
This was the practice in the times of Nero and Genghis Khan, and is still in
force even in the most liberal governments, like the republics of France and
America. If men submit to authority, it is only because they fear that if they
were to resist, they would be subjected to violence. All the requisitions of
the State, such as the payment of taxes and the fulfilment of public duties,
the submission to penalties in the form of exile, fines, etc., to which men
seem to yield voluntarily, are always enforced by the physical threat or the
reality of physical punishment.
Physical violence is the basis of authority.
It is the military organization that makes it possible to inflict physical
violence, that organization wherein the entire armed force acts as one man,
obeying a single will. This assemblage of armed men, submitting to one
will, forms what is called an army. The army has ever been and still is the
basis of an authority, vested in the commanding generals; and the most
engrossing interest of every sovereign, from the Roman Cæsars to the
Russian and German emperors, has always been to protect and flatter the
army, for they realize that when the army is on their side, power is also in
their hands.
It is the drilling and the increase of the troops required for the maintenance
of authority which has brought into the social life-conception an element of
dissolution.
The aim of authority, and its consequent justification, is to restrain those
men who are endeavoring, by methods which are detrimental to those of
mankind in general, to promote their own interests. But whether authority
has been acquired by force of arms, or by hereditary succession, or by
election, men who have gained authority are in no way different from their
fellow-men; they are just like all others, not inclined to waive their own
interests in favor of the many, but, since they hold power in their hands, are
more likely to make the interests of the many give way to their own.
Whatever measures may have been devised by way of restraining those in
authority who might seek their own ends at the expense of the public, or to
vest authority in the hands of infallible men, no satisfactory results have as
yet been attained.

Attributing divine right to kings, hereditary succession, election;
congresses, parliaments, and senates;—none of these have ever yet proved
effectual. Everybody knows that no expedient has ever succeeded either in
committing authority into the hands of infallible men, or of preventing its
abuses. On the contrary, we know that men who have the authority, be they
emperors, ministers of State, chiefs of police, or even policemen, always are
more liable, because of their position, to become immoral,—that is, to put
their own private interests before those of the public,—than men who do
not possess such an authority; and this is inevitable.
The social life-conception could be justified only while all men voluntarily
sacrificed their private interests to those of the public in general; but no
sooner did men appear who refused to sacrifice their interests, than
authority, in other words, violence, was required to restrain these men. Thus
there entered into the social life-conception, and the organization based on
it, a principle containing within itself the germs of dissolution,—the
principle of authority, or the tyranny of the few over the many. In order that
the authority held by certain men might fulfil its object, which is to restrain
those who are trying to further their own interests to the detriment of
society in general, it would be necessary to have it in the hands of infallible
men, as is supposed to be the case in China, or as it was believed to be in
the Middle Ages, and is even at the present time by those who have faith in
consecration by unction. It is only under such conditions that the social
organization can be justified.
But as no such conditions exist, and, furthermore, as men who are in
authority, from the very fact of its possession, must ever be far from being
saints, the social organization that is based upon authority cannot possibly
have any justification.
If there ever was a time when a low standard of morality, and the general
tendency of men toward violence, called for an authority possessing the
power to restrict this violence, an authority whose existence may have been
an advantage,—that is, when the violence of the State was less than the
violence of individuals toward each other,—we cannot help seeing now that
this prerogative of the State, when violence no longer exists, cannot go on
forever. Morals improved in proportion to the gradual decrease of
individual violence, while the prerogative of authority lost ground in
measure as it became corrupted by the possession of unbridled power.

The entire history of the last 2000 years will have been told when we have
described this change in the relations between the moral development of
man and the demoralization of governments. In its simplest form it runs
thus: men lived together in tribes, in families, and in races, and were at
enmity one with another; they employed violence, they spread desolation,
they murdered one another. Thus devastation was on a scale both great and
small: man fought with man, tribe with tribe, family with family, race with
race, nation with nation. The larger and more powerful communities
absorbed the weaker ones; and the greater and more vigorous became the
aggregation of men, the more seldom did one hear of acts of violence
within these communities, and the more secure the continuity of their
existence appeared.
When the members of a tribe or a family unite together to form one
community, they are naturally less hostile to each other, and the tribes and
families are not so likely to die out; while among the citizens of a State
subjected to one authority the contentions seem even less frequent, and
hence is the life of the State on a basis still more assured.
These fusions into larger and larger aggregates took place, not because men
realized that it would be to their advantage, as is illustrated by the fable that
tells of the falling of the Varegs in Russia, but are due rather to natural
growth on the one hand, and struggle and conquest on the other.
When conquest was achieved, the authority of the conqueror put an end to
internal strife, and the social life-conception was justified. But this
justification is only temporary. Internal feuds cease only when the pressure
of authority is brought to bear with greater weight upon individuals
formerly inimical to one another. The violence of the internal struggle, not
annihilated by authority, is the offspring of authority itself. Authority is in
the hands of men who, like all the rest, are ever ready to sacrifice the
common weal if their own personal interests are at stake; with the sole
difference that these men, encountering no resistance from the oppressed,
are wholly subject to the corrupting influence of authority itself.
Therefore it is that the evil principle of violence relegated to authority is
ever increasing, and the evil becomes in time worse than that which it is
supposed to control: whereas, in the individual members of society, the

inclination to violence is always diminishing, and the violence of authority
becomes less and less necessary.
As its power increases in measure of its duration, State authority, though it
may eradicate internal violence, introduces into life other and new forms of
violence, always increasing in intensity. And though the violence of
authority in the State is less striking than that of individual members of
society toward each other, its principal manifestation being not that of strife,
but of oppression, it exists none the less, and in the highest degree.
It cannot be otherwise; for not only does the possession of authority corrupt
men, but, either from design or unconsciously, rulers are always striving to
reduce their subjects to the lowest degree of weakness,—for the more
feeble the subject, the less the effort required to subdue him.
Therefore violence employed against the oppressed is pushed to its utmost
limit, just stopping short of killing the hen that lays the golden egg. But if
the hen has ceased to lay, like the American Indians, the Fiji Islanders, or
the Negroes, then it is killed, despite the sincere protests of the
philanthropists against that mode of procedure.
The most conclusive proof of this assertion, at the present time, is the
position of the working-men, who are in truth simply vanquished men.
Despite all the pretended efforts of the upper classes to lighten their
position, all the working-men of the world are subjected to an immutable
iron rule, which prescribes that they shall have scarcely enough to live
upon, in order that their necessities may urge them to unremitting toil, the
fruits of which are to be enjoyed by their masters, in other words, their
conquerors.
It has always been the case that, after the long continuance and growth of
power, the advantages accruing to those who have submitted to it have
failed, while the disadvantages have multiplied.
Thus it is and thus it always has been, under whatsoever form of
government the nation may have lived; only that where despotism prevails
authority is confined to a limited number of oppressors, and violence takes
on a ruder form, while in the constitutional monarchies, and in the republics
of France and America, authority is distributed among a greater number of
oppressors, and its manifestations are less rude; but the result, in which the

disadvantages of dominion are greater than the advantages, and the method
—reduction of the oppressed to the lowest possible degree of abjection, for
the benefit of the oppressors, remain ever the same.
Such has been the position of all the oppressed, but until lately they have
been unaware of the fact, and for the most part have innocently believed
that governments were instituted for their benefit, to preserve them from
destruction, and that to permit the idea that men might live without
governments would be a thought sacrilegious beyond expression; it would
be the doctrine of anarchy, with all its attendant horrors.
Men believed, as in something so thoroughly proved that it needed no
further testimony, that as all nations had hitherto developed into the State
form, this was to remain the indispensable condition for the development of
mankind forever.
And so it has gone on for hundreds, nay, thousands of years, and the
governments, that is to say, their representatives, have endeavored, and still
go on endeavoring, to preserve this delusion among the people.
As it was during the time of the Roman emperors, so it is now. Although the
idea of the uselessness, and even of the detriment, of power enters more and
more into the consciousness of men, it might endure forever, if
governments did not think it necessary to increase the armies in order to
support their authority.
It is the popular belief that governments increase armies as a means of
defense against other nations, forgetting that troops are principally needed
by governments to protect them against their own enslaved subjects.
This has always been necessary, and has grown more so with the spread of
education, the increase of intercourse among different nationalities; and at
the present time, in view of the communist, socialist, anarchist, and labor
movements, it is a more urgent necessity than ever. Governments realize
this fact, and increase their principal means of defense,—the disciplined
army.[13]
It was but recently that in the German Reichstag, in giving the reason why
more money was needed to increase the pay of the subaltern officers, the
German Chancellor answered candidly that trusty subaltern officers are
needed in order to fight against socialism. Caprivi put into words what

every one knows, although it has been carefully concealed from the people.
The reason why the Swiss and Scottish Guards were hired to protect the
popes and the French kings, and why the Russian regiments are so carefully
shuffled, is in order that those which are posted in the interior may be
recruited by men from the borders, and those on the borders by men from
the interior. The meaning of Caprivi's reply, translated into simple, everyday
language, means that money is needed, not to repel a foreign enemy, but to
bribe the subaltern officers to hold themselves in readiness to act against the
oppressed working-men.
Caprivi incidentally expressed what every man knows—or if he does not
know it he feels it—namely, that the existing system of life is such as it is,
not because it is natural for it to be so, or that the people are content to have
it so, but because violence on the part of governments, the army, with its
bribed subaltern officers, its captains and generals, sustains it.
If a working-man has no land, if he is not allowed to enjoy the natural right
possessed by every man, to draw from the soil the means of subsistence for
himself and his family, it is not so because the people oppose it, but because
the right to grant or to withhold this privilege from working-men is given to
certain individuals—namely, to the landed proprietors. And this unnatural
order of things is maintained by the troops. If the enormous wealth earned
and saved by working-men is not regarded as common property, but as
something to be enjoyed by the chosen few; if certain men are invested with
the power of levying taxes on labor, and with the right of using that money
for whatsoever purposes they deem necessary; if the strikes of the working-
men are suppressed, and the trusts of the capitalists are encouraged; if
certain men are allowed to choose in the matter of religious and civil
education and the instruction of children; if to certain others the right is
given to frame laws which all men must obey, and if they are to enjoy the
control of human life and property,—all this is not because the people wish
it, or because it has come about in the course of nature, but because the
governments will have it so for their own advantage and that of the ruling
classes; and all this is accomplished by means of physical violence.
If every man is not yet aware of this, he will find it out whenever attempts
are made to change the present order of things.

And therefore all the governments and the ruling classes stand in need of
troops above all things, in order to maintain a system of life which, far from
having developed from the needs of the people, is often detrimental to
them, and is only advantageous for the government and the ruling classes.
Every government requires troops to enforce obedience, that it may profit
by the labor of its subjects. But no government exists alone: side by side
with it stands the government of the adjacent country, which is also
profiting by the enforced labor of its subjects, and ever ready to pounce
upon its neighbor and take possession of the goods which it has won from
the labor of its own subjects. Hence it is that every government needs an
army, not only for home use, but to guard its plunder from foreign
depredations. Thus each government finds itself obliged to outdo its
neighbor in the increase of its army, and, as Montesquieu said one hundred
and fifty years ago, the expansion of armies is a veritable contagion.
One State makes additions to its army in order to overawe its own subjects;
its neighbor takes alarm, and straightway follows the example.
Armies have reached the millions which they now number not only from
the fear of foreign invasion; the increase was first caused by the necessity
for putting down all attempts at rebellion on the part of the subjects of the
State. The causes for the expansion of armies are contemporary, the one
depending on the other; armies are needed against internal attempts at
revolt, as well as for external defense. The one depends upon the other. The
despotism of governments increases exactly in proportion to the increase of
their strength and their internal successes, and their foreign aggression with
the increase of internal despotism.
European governments try to outdo one another, ever increasing their
armaments, and compelled at last to adopt the expedient of a general
conscription as a means of enrolling the greatest number of troops at the
smallest possible expense.
Germany was the first to whom this plan suggested itself. And no sooner
was it done by one nation than all the others were forced to do likewise.
Thus all the citizens took up arms to assist in upholding the wrongs that
were committed against them; in fact, they became their own oppressors.

General military conscription was the inevitable and logical consummation
at which it was but natural to arrive; at the same time it is the last
expression of the innate contradiction of the social life-conception which
sprang into existence when violence was required for its support.
General military conscription made this contradiction a conspicuous fact.
Indeed, the very significance of the social life-conception consists in this,—
that a man, realizing the cruelty of the struggle of individuals among
themselves, and the peril that the individual incurs, seeks protection by
transferring his private interests to a social community; whereas the result
of the system of conscription is that men, after having made every sacrifice
to escape from the cruel struggle and uncertainties of life, are once more
called upon to undergo all the dangers they had hoped to escape, and
moreover, the community—the State for which the individuals gave up
their previous advantages—is now exposed to the same risk of destruction
from which the individual himself formerly suffered. Governments should
have set men free from the cruelty of the personal struggle, and given them
confidence in the inviolable structure of State life; but instead of doing this
they impose on individuals a repetition of the same dangers, with this
difference, that in the place of struggle between individuals of the same
group, it is a case of struggle between groups.
The establishment of a general military conscription is like the work of a
man who props a crumbling house. The walls have settled, sloping inward
—he braces them; the ceiling begins to hang down—he supports that; and
when the boards between give way, other braces are supplied. At last it
reaches the point when, although the braces hold the house together, they
actually make it uninhabitable.
The same may be said of the general conscription system. The general
military conscription nullifies all those advantages of social life which it is
expected to protect.
The advantages of social life are those guarantees which it offers for the
protection of property and labor, as well as coöperation for the purposes of
mutual advantage; the general military conscription destroys all this.
The taxes collected from the people for purposes of war absorb the greater
part of the productions of their labor, which the army ought to protect.

When men are taken from the ordinary avocations of daily life, labor is
practically destroyed. Where war is ever threatening to break forth, it does
not seem worth while to improve social conditions.
If a man had formerly been told that unless he submitted to the civil
authority he would run the risk of being assaulted by wicked men, that he
would be in danger from domestic as well as from foreign foes, against
whom he would be forced to defend himself, that he might be murdered,
and therefore he would find it for his advantage to suffer certain privations
if by that means he succeeded in escaping all these perils, he might have
believed this, especially as the sacrifices required by the State promised him
the hope of a peaceful existence within the well-established community in
whose name he had made them. But now, when these sacrifices are not only
multiplied, but the promised advantages are not realized, it is quite natural
for men to think that their subjection to authority is utterly useless.
But the fatal significance of the general conscription, as the manifestation
of that contradiction which dwells in the social life-conception, lies not in
this. Wherever military conscription exists, every citizen who becomes a
soldier likewise becomes a supporter of the State system, and a participant
in whatsoever the State may do, at the same time that he does not
acknowledge its validity; and this may be called its chief manifestation.
Governments declare that armies are principally required for external
defense; but this is untrue. They are, in the first place, needed to overawe
their own subjects, and every man who yields to military conscription
becomes an involuntary participator in all the oppressive acts of
government toward its subjects. It is necessary to remember what goes on in
every State in the name of order and the welfare of the community, all the
while enforced by military authority, to be convinced that every man who
fulfils military duty becomes a participant in acts of the State of which he
cannot approve. Every dynastic and political feud, all the executions
resulting from such feuds, the crushing of rebellions, the use of the military
in dispersing mobs, in putting down strikes, all extortionate taxation, the
injustice of land ownership and the limitations of freedom of labor,—all this
is done, if not directly by the troops, then by the police supported by the
troops. He who performs his military duty becomes a participant in all these
acts, about which he often feels more than dubious, and which are in most
cases directly opposed to his conscience. Men do not wish to leave the land

which they have tilled for generations; they do not wish to disperse on the
bidding of the government; they do not wish to pay the taxes which are
extorted from them; neither do they willingly submit to laws which they
have not helped to make; they do not wish to give up their nationality. And
I, if I am performing military duty, must come forward and strike these men
down. I cannot take part in such proceedings without asking myself if they
be right. And ought I to coöperate in carrying them out?
General military conscription is the last step in the process of coercion
required by governments for the support of the whole structure; for subjects
it is the extreme limit of obedience. It is the keystone of the arch that
supports the walls, the abstraction of which would destroy the whole fabric.
The time has come when the ever growing abuses of governments, and their
mutual contests, have required from all their subjects not only material but
moral sacrifices, till each man pauses and asks himself, Can I make these
sacrifices? And for whose sake am I to make them? These sacrifices are
demanded in the name of the State. In the name of the State I am asked to
give up all that makes life dear to a man,—peace, family, safety, and
personal dignity. What, then, is this State in whose name such appalling
sacrifices are demanded? And of what use is it?
We are told that the State is necessary, in the first place, because were it not
for that no man would be safe from violence and the attacks of wicked men;
in the second place, without the State we should be like savages, possessing
neither religion, morals, education, instruction, commerce, means of
communication, nor any other social institutions; and, in the third place,
because without the State we should be subject to the invasion of the
neighboring nations.
"Were it not for the State," we are told, "we should be subjected to violence
and to the attacks of evil men in our own land."
But who are these evil men from whose violence and attacks the
government and the army saves us? If such men existed three or four
centuries ago, when men prided themselves on their military skill and
strength of arm, when a man proved his valor by killing his fellow-men, we
find none such at the present time: men of our time neither use nor carry
weapons, and, believing in the precepts of humanity and pity for their
neighbors, they are as desirous for peace and a quiet life as we are

ourselves. Hence this extraordinary class of marauders, against whom the
State might defend us, no longer exists. But if, when they speak of the men
from whose attacks the government defends us, we understand that they
mean the criminal classes, in that case we know that they are not
extraordinary beings, like beasts of prey among sheep, but are men very
much like ourselves, who are naturally just as reluctant to commit crimes as
those against whom they commit them. We know now that threats and
punishments are powerless to decrease the numbers of such men, but that
their numbers may be decreased by change of environment and by moral
influence. Hence the theory of the necessity of State violence in order to
protect mankind against evil-doers, if it had any foundation three or four
centuries ago, has none whatever at the present time. One might say quite
the reverse nowadays, for the activity of governments, with their antiquated
and merciless methods of punishment, their galleys, prisons, gallows, and
guillotines, so far below the general plane of morality, tends rather to lower
the standard of morals than to elevate it, and therefore rather to increase
than to lessen the number of criminals.
It is said that "without the State there would be no institutions, educational,
moral, religious, or international; there would be no means of
communication. Were it not for the State, we should be without
organizations necessary to all of us."
An argument like this could only have had a basis several centuries ago. If
there ever was a time when men had so little international communication,
and were so unused to intercourse or interchange of thought that they could
not come to an agreement on matters of general interest—commercial,
industrial, or economical—without the assistance of the State, such is not
the case at present. The widely diffused means of communication and
transmission of thought have achieved this result,—that when the modern
man desires to found societies, assemblies, corporations, congresses,
scientific, economical, or political institutions, not only can he easily
dispense with the assistance of governments, but in the majority of cases
governments are more of a hindrance than a help in the pursuit of such
objects.
Since the end of the last century almost every progressive movement on the
part of mankind has been not only discouraged, but invariably hampered, by
governments. Such was the case with the abolition of corporal punishment,

torture, and slavery; with the establishment of freedom of the press and
liberty of meeting. Furthermore, State authorities and governments
nowadays not only do not coöperate, but they directly hinder the activity by
means of which men work out new forms of life. The solution of labor and
land questions, of political and religious problems, is not only
unencouraged, but distinctly opposed, by the government authority.
"If there were no State and government authority, nations would be
subjugated by their neighbors."
It is not worth while to answer this last argument. It refutes itself.
We are told that the government and its armies are necessary for our
defense against the neighboring States which might subject us. But all the
governments say this of one another; and yet we know that every European
nation professes the same principles of liberty and fraternity, and therefore
needs no defense against its neighbor. But if one speaks of defense against
barbarians, then one per cent of the troops under arms at the present time
would suffice. It is not only that the increase of armed force fails to protect
us from danger of attack from our neighbors, it actually provokes the very
attack which it deprecates.
Hence no man who reflects on the significance of the State, in whose name
he is required to sacrifice his peace, his safety, and his life, can escape the
conviction that there is no longer any reasonable ground for such sacrifices.
Even regarding the subject theoretically, a man must realize that the
sacrifices demanded by the State are without sufficient reason; and when he
considers the matter from a practical point of view, weighing all the
different conditions in which he has been placed by the State, every man
must see that so far as he himself is concerned, the fulfilment of the
requirements of the State and his own subjection to military conscription is
indubitably and in every case less advantageous for him than if he refused
to comply with it. If the majority of people prefer obedience to
insubordination, it is not because they have given the subject dispassionate
consideration, weighing the advantages and disadvantages, but because they
are, so to speak, under the influence of hypnotic suggestion. Men submit to
demands like this without using their reason or making the least effort of
the will. It requires independent reasoning, as well as effort, to refuse
submission,—effort which some men are incapable of making. But

supposing we exclude the moral significance of submission and non-
submission, and consider only their advantages, then non-submission will
always prove more advantageous than submission. Whoever I may be,
whether I belong to the well-to-do—the oppressing class—or to the
oppressed laboring class, in either case the disadvantages of non-
submission are less numerous than the disadvantages of submission, and the
advantages of non-submission greater than those of submission.
If I belong to the oppressive, which is the smallest class, and refuse to
submit to the demands of the government, I shall be tried as one who
refuses to fulfil his obligations,—I shall be tried, and in case my trial
terminates favorably, I shall either be declared not guilty, or I may be dealt
with as they treat the Mennonites in Russia—that is, be compelled to serve
my term of military service by performing some non-military work; if, on
the contrary, an unfavorable verdict is rendered, I shall be condemned to
exile or imprisonment for two or three years (I am speaking of cases in
Russia); or possibly my term of imprisonment may be longer. And I may
even be condemned to suffer the penalty of death, although that is not at all
probable. Such are the disadvantages of non-submission.
The disadvantages of submission are as follows:—If I am fortunate I shall
not be sent to murder men, neither shall I run the risk myself of being
disabled or killed; they will simply make a military slave of me. I shall be
arrayed in the garments of a clown; my superior officers, from the corporal
to the field-marshal, will order me about. At their word of command I shall
be put through a series of gymnastic contortions, and after being detained
from one to five years I shall be released, but still obliged for ten years
longer to hold myself in readiness at any moment I may be summoned to
execute the orders these people give me. And if I am less fortunate I shall
be sent to the wars, still in the same condition of slavery, and there I shall
be forced to slay fellow-men of other countries who never did me any harm.
Or I may be sent to a place where I may be mutilated or killed; perhaps find
myself, as at Sevastopol, sent to certain death; these things happen in every
war. Worse than all things else, I may be sent to fight against my fellow-
countrymen, and compelled to kill my own brethren for some matter
dynastic or governmental, and to me of foreign interest. Such are the
comparative disadvantages.

The comparative advantages of submission and non-submission are as
follows:—For him who has submitted the advantages are these: after he has
subjected himself to all the degradations and committed all the cruel deeds
required of him, he may, provided he be not killed, receive some scarlet or
golden bauble to decorate his clown's attire; or if he be especially favored,
hundreds of thousands of just such brutal men like himself may be put
under his command, and he be called field-marshal, and receive large sums
of money.
By refusing to submit he will possess the advantages of preserving his
manly dignity, of winning the respect of good men, and, above all, he will
enjoy the assurance that he is doing God's business, and therefore an
unquestionable benefit to mankind.
Such are the advantages and disadvantages, on either side, for the
oppressor, a member of the wealthy class. For a man of the working-class—
a poor man—the advantages and disadvantages are about the same, if we
include one important addition to the disadvantages. The special
disadvantage for a man of the working-class who has not refused to perform
military service is that, when he enters the service, his participation and his
tacit consent go toward confirming the oppression in which he finds
himself.
But the question concerning the State, whether its continued existence is a
necessity, or whether it would be wiser to abolish it, cannot be decided by
discussion on its usefulness for the men who are required to support it by
taking part in the military service, and still less by weighing the
comparative advantages and disadvantages of submission or non-
submission for the individual himself. It is decided irrevocably and without
appeal by the religious consciousness, by the conscience of each individual,
to whom no sooner does military conscription become a question than it is
followed by that of the necessity or non-necessity of the State.

CHAPTER VIII
CERTAINTY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE TO EVIL BY
VIOLENCE BY THE MEN OF OUR WORLD
Christianity is not a legislation but a new life-conception; hence it was not obligatory, nor has
it been accepted by all men in its full meaning, but only by a few; the rest have accepted
it in a corrupted form—Moreover, Christianity is a prophecy of the disappearance of the
pagan life, and therefore of the necessity of accepting the Christian doctrine—Non-
resistance of evil by violence is one of the principles of the Christian doctrine which must
inevitably be accepted by men at the present day—Two methods of solving every
struggle—The first method consists in believing the general definitions of evil to be
binding upon all, and to resist this evil by violence—The second, the Christian method,
consists in not resisting evil by violence—Although the failure of the first method was
recognized in the first centuries of Christianity, it is still employed; but as humanity
advanced it has become more evident that there is not, nor can there be, a general
definition of evil—Now this has become evident to all, and if the violence which is
destined to combat evil exists, it is not because it is considered necessary, but because
men do not know how to dispense with it—The difficulty of dispensing with it is due to
the skilfulness and complexity of political violence—This violence is supported by four
methods: by threats, bribes, hypnotism, and the employment of military force—
Deliverance from State violence cannot be accomplished by overthrowing the State—
Through experience of the misery of pagan life men are compelled to acknowledge the
doctrine of Christ, with its non-resistance to evil,—a doctrine which they have hitherto
ignored—To this same necessity of acknowledging the Christian doctrine we are brought
by the consciousness of its truth—This consciousness is in utter contradiction to our life,
and is especially evident in regard to general military conscription; but, in consequence of
habit and the four methods of State violence, men do not see this inconsistency of
Christianity with the duties of a soldier—Men do not see it even when the authorities
themselves show them plainly all the immorality of the duties of a soldier—The call of
the general conscription is the extreme trial for every man,—the command to choose
between the Christian doctrine of non-resistance or servile submission to the existing
organization of the State—Men generally submit to the demands of the State
organization, renouncing all that is sacred, as though there were no other issue—For men
of the pagan life-conception, indeed, no other issue does exist; they are compelled to
acknowledge it, regardless of all the dreadful calamities of war—Society composed of
such men must inevitably perish, and no social changes can save it—The pagan life has
reached its last limits; it works its own destruction.

It is frequently said that if Christianity be a truth, it would have been
accepted by all men on its first appearance, and would straightway have

changed and improved the lives of men. One might as well say that if the
seed is alive it must instantly sprout and produce its flower or its fruit.
The Christian doctrine is not a law which, being introduced by violence,
can forthwith change the life of mankind. Christianity is a life-conception
more lofty and excellent than the ancient; and such a new conception of life
cannot be enforced; it must be adopted voluntarily, and by two processes,
the spiritual or interior process, and the experimental or external process.
Some men there are—but the smaller proportion—who instantly, and as
though by prophetic intuition, divine the truth, surrender themselves to its
influence, and live up to its precepts; others—and they are the majority—
are brought to the knowledge of the truth, and the necessity for its adoption,
by a long series of errors, by experience and suffering.
It is to this necessity of adopting the doctrine by the external process of
experience that Christendom has at last arrived.
Now and then one wonders why the mistaken presentment of Christianity,
which even at the present time prevents men from accepting it in its true
significance, could have been necessary. And yet the very errors, having
brought men to their present position, have been the medium through which
it has become possible for the majority to accept Christianity in its true
meaning.
If instead of that corrupted form of Christianity which was given to the
people, it had been offered to them in its purity, the greater portion of
mankind would have refused it, like the Asiatic peoples to whom it is yet
unknown. But having once accepted it in its corrupted form, the nations
embracing it were subjected to its slow but sure influence, and by a long
succession of errors, and the suffering that ensued therefrom, have now
been brought to the necessity of adopting it in its true meaning.
The erroneous presentation of Christianity, and its acceptance by the
majority of mankind, with all its errors, was then a necessity, just as the
seed, if it is to sprout, must for a time be buried in the soil.
The Christian doctrine is the doctrine of truth as well as of prophecy.
Eighteen hundred years ago the Christian doctrine revealed to men the true
conduct of life, and at the same time foretold the result of disobeying its
injunctions and of continuing to pursue their former course, guided only by

the precepts which were taught before the dawn of Christianity; and it also
showed them what life may become if they accept the Christian doctrine
and obey its dictates.
Having taught in the Sermon on the Mount those precepts by which men
should order their daily lives, Christ said: "Therefore whosoever heareth
these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man,
which built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended, and the floods
came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it
was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine,
and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his
house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the
winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of
it" (Matthew vii. 24-27).
And thus, after eighteen centuries, the prophecy has been fulfilled. As the
result of the abandonment of Christ's teachings, having disregarded the
principle of non-resistance to evil, men have unwittingly fallen into the
condition of imminent peril foretold by Christ to those who refused to
follow His precepts.
Men often think that the question of resistance or non-resistance to evil by
violence is an artificial question, which may be evaded. And yet this is the
question that life presents to mankind in general, and to each thinking man
in particular, and it is one that must be solved. In social life, ever since
Christianity was first preached, this question has been like the doubt that
confronts the traveler when he comes to a place where the road which he
has followed divides, and he knows not which branch to choose. He must
pursue his way, and he can no longer go on without pausing to deliberate,
because there are now two roads from which to choose, whereas before
there was but one; he must make up his mind which he will take.
In like manner, since the doctrine of Christ has been made known to men,
they can no longer say, I will go on living as I did before, without deciding
the question of resistance or non-resistance to evil by violence. One must
decide at the beginning of every fresh struggle whether one ought or ought
not to resist by violence that which one believes to be evil.
The question of resistance or non-resistance of evil by violence arose with
the first contest among men, for every contest is simply the resistance by

violence of something which each combatant believes to be an evil. But
before the time of Christ men did not understand that resistance by violence
of whatever the individual believed to be evil—only the same action which
seems evil to one man may seem good to another—is simply one mode of
settling the difficulty, and that the other method consists in not resisting evil
by violence.
Before the appearance of the doctrine of Christ men believed that there
could be but one way of deciding the contest, that of resisting evil by
violence, and acted accordingly, while each combatant strove to persuade
himself and others that what he regarded as evil was in fact the actual and
absolute evil. For this purpose, dating from the oldest times, men began to
invent certain definitions of evil which should be obligatory for all, and for
the purpose of establishing definitions which should be thus binding, were
issued, either certain laws supposed to have been received in a supernatural
manner, or commands of individuals or of bodies of men to whom an
infallible wisdom was ascribed. Men used violence against their fellow-men
and assured themselves and others that they were but using such violence
against an evil acknowledged by all.
This was the custom from the most ancient times, particularly among men
who had usurped authority, and men have been long in seeing its
baselessness.
But the longer mankind existed the more complex grew its mutual relations,
and the more evident it became that to resist by violence everything that is
considered evil is unwise; that the struggle is not diminished thereby, and
that no human wisdom can ever define an infallible standard of evil.
When Christianity first appeared in the Roman Empire it had already
become evident to most men that whatever Nero or Caligula called evil, and
sought to overcome by violence, was not necessarily an evil for the rest of
mankind. Even then men had already begun to realize that the human laws
for which a divine origin was claimed were really written by men; that men
cannot be infallible, no matter with what external authority they may be
invested; and that fallible men will not become infallible because they meet
together and call themselves a Senate, or any other similar name. Even then
this had been perceived and understood by many. And it was then that
Christ preached His doctrine, which not only embodied the principle of

non-resistance, but which revealed a new conception of life, of which the
application to social life would lead to the suppression of strife among men,
not by obliging one class to yield to whatsoever authority shall ordain, but
by forbidding all men, and especially those in power, to employ violence
against others.
The doctrine was at that time embraced by a very limited number of
disciples, while the majority of men, particularly those who were in
authority, although they nominally accepted Christianity, continued to
follow the practice of resisting by violence whatever they regarded as evil.
So it was during the times of the Roman and Byzantine emperors, and so it
went on in later times.
The inconsistency of an authoritative definition of evil and its resistance by
violence, already apparent in the first centuries of Christianity, had grown
still more evident at the time of the dissolution of the Roman Empire and its
subdivision into numerous independent states hostile to one another and
torn by internal dissensions.
But men were not yet ready to accept the law of Christ, and the former
method of defining an evil to be resisted by the establishment of laws,
enforced by coercion and binding upon all men, continued to be employed.
The arbiter, whose office it was to decide upon the nature of the evil to be
resisted by violence, was alternately the Emperor, the Pope, the elected
body, or the nation at large. But both within and without the State men were
always to be found who refused to hold themselves bound, either by those
laws which were supposed to be the expression of the divine will, or by the
human laws which claimed to manifest the will of the people;—men whose
views on the subject of evil were quite at variance with those of the existing
authorities, men who resisted the authorities, employing the same methods
of violence that had been directed against themselves.
Men invested with religious authority would condemn as evil a matter
which to men and institutions invested with a temporal authority
commended itself as desirable, and vice versa, and more and more furious
grew the struggle. And the oftener men had recourse to violence in settling
the difficulty, the more evident it became that it was ill chosen, because
there is not, nor can there ever be, a standard authority of evil to which all
mankind would agree.

Thus matters went on for eighteen centuries, and at last arrived at their
present condition, which is, that no man can dispute the fact that an
infallible definition of evil will never be made. We have reached the point
when men have ceased not only to believe in the possibility of finding a
universal definition which all men will admit, but they have even ceased to
believe in the necessity of such a definition. We have reached the point
when men in authority no longer seek to prove that that which they consider
evil is evil, but candidly acknowledge that they consider that to be evil
which does not please them, and those who are subject to authority obey,
not because they believe that the definitions of evil made by authority are
just, but only because they have no power to resist. The annexation of Nice
to France, Lorraine to Germany, the Czechs to Austria, the partition of
Poland, the subjection of Ireland and India to the English rule, the waging
of war against China, the slaughter of Africans, the expulsion of the
Chinese, the persecution of the Jews in Russia, or the derivation of profits
by landowners from land which they do not cultivate, and by capitalists
from the results of labor performed by others,—none of all this is done
because it is virtuous, or because it will benefit mankind and is essentially
opposed to evil, but because those who hold authority will have it so. The
result at the present time is this: certain men use violence, no longer in the
name of resistance to evil, but from caprice, or because it is for their
advantage; while certain other men submit to violence, not because they
believe, like those of former ages, that violence is used to defend them from
evil, but simply because they cannot escape it.
If a Roman, or a man of the Middle Ages, or a Russian, such a man as I can
remember fifty years ago, believed implicitly that the existing violence of
authority was needed to save him from evil,—that taxes, duties, serfdom,
prisons, the lash, the knout, galleys, executions, military conscription, and
wars were unavoidable,—it would be difficult to find a man at the present
time who believes that all the violences committed saves a single man from
evil; on the contrary, not one could be found who had not a distinct
assurance that most of the violations to which he is subjected, and in which
he himself participates, are in themselves a great and unprofitable calamity.
There is hardly a man to be found at the present time who fails to realize all
the uselessness and absurdity of collecting taxes from the laboring classes
for the purpose of enriching idle officials; or the folly of punishing weak

and immoral men by exile or imprisonment, where, supported as they are,
and living in idleness, they become still weaker and more depraved; or,
again, the unspeakable folly and cruelty of those preparations for war,
which can neither be explained nor justified, and which ruin and imperil the
safety of nations. Nevertheless these violations continue, and the very men
who realize and even suffer from their uselessness, absurdity, and cruelty,
contribute to their encouragement.
If fifty years ago it was possible that the wealthy man of leisure and the
illiterate laborer should both believe that their positions, the one a continual
holiday, the other a life of incessant labor, were ordained by God—in these
days, not only throughout Europe, and even in Russia, owing to the activity
of the people, the growth of education, and the art of printing, it is hardly
possible to find a man, either rich or poor, who in one way or another would
not question the justice of such an order of things. Not only do the rich
realize that the possession of wealth is in itself a fault, for which they strive
to atone by donations to science and art, as formerly they redeemed their
sins by endowing churches; but even the majority of the laboring class now
understand that the existing order is false, and should be altered, if not
abolished. Men who profess religion, of whom we have millions in Russia,
the so-called sectarians, acknowledge, because they interpret the gospel
doctrine correctly, that this order of things is false and should be destroyed.
The working-men consider it false because of the socialistic, communistic,
or anarchical theories that have already found way into their ranks. In these
days the principle of violence is maintained, not because it is considered
necessary, but simply because it has been so long in existence, and is so
thoroughly organized by those who profit by it—that is to say, by the
governments and ruling classes—that those who are in their power find it
impossible to escape.
Nowadays every government, the despotic as well as the most liberal, has
become what Herzen has so cleverly termed a Genghis Khan with a
telegraphic equipment, that is, with an organization of violence, having for
basis nothing less than the most brutal tyranny, and converting all the means
invented by science for the inter-communication and peaceful activities of
free and equal men to its own tyrannous and oppressive ends.
The existing governments and the ruling classes no longer care to present
even the semblance of justice, but rely, thanks to scientific progress, on an

organization so ingenious that it is able to inclose all men within a circle of
violence through which it is impossible to break. This circle is made up of
four expedients, each connected with and supporting the other like the rings
of a chain.
The first and the oldest expedient is intimidation. It consists in representing
the actual organization of the State, whether it be that of a liberal republic
or of an arbitrary despotism, as something sacred and immutable, which
therefore punishes by the most cruel penalties any attempt at revolution.
This expedient has been put into practice recently wherever a government
exists: in Russia against the so-called nihilists, in America against the
anarchists, in France against the imperialists, monarchists, communists, and
anarchists. Railroads, telegraphs, telephones, photography, the improved
method of disposing of criminals by imprisoning them in solitary
confinement for the remainder of their lives in cells, where, hidden from
human view, they die forgotten, as well as numerous other modern
inventions upon which governments have the prior claim, give them such
power, that if once the authority fell into certain hands, and the regular and
secret police, administrative officials, and all kinds of procureurs, jailers,
and executioners labored zealously to support it, there would be no
possibility whatsoever of overthrowing the government, however cruel or
senseless it might be.
The second expedient is bribery. This consists in taking the property of the
laboring classes by means of taxation and distributing it among the officials,
who, in consideration of this, are bound to maintain and increase the
bondage of the people. The bribed officials, from the prime ministers to the
lowest scribes, form one unbroken chain of individuals, united by a
common interest, supported by the labor of the people, fulfilling the will of
the government with a submission proportionate to their gains, never
hesitating to use any means in any department of business to promote the
action of that governmental violence on which their well-being rests.
The third expedient I can call by no other name than hypnotism. It consists
in retarding the spiritual development of men, and, by means of various
suggestions, influencing them to cling to the theory of life which mankind
has already left behind, and upon which rests the foundation of
governmental authority. We have at the present time a hypnotizing system,
organized in a most complex manner, beginning in childhood and continued

until the hour of death. This hypnotism begins during the early years of a
man's life in a system of compulsory education. Children receive in school
the same ideas in regard to the universe which their ancestors entertained,
and which are in direct contradiction to contemporary knowledge. In
countries where a State religion exists, children are taught the senseless and
sacrilegious utterances of church catechisms, with the duty of obedience to
authorities; in the republics they are taught the absurd superstition of
patriotism, and the same obligation of obedience to the government. In
maturer years this hypnotizing process is continued by the encouragement
of religious and patriotic superstition. Religious superstition is encouraged
by the erection of churches built from money collected from the people, by
holidays, processions, painting, architecture, music, by incense that
stupefies the brain, and, above all, by the maintenance of the so-called
clergy, whose duty consists in befogging the minds of men and keeping
them in a continual state of imbecility, what with the solemnity of their
services, their sermons, their intervention with the private lives of men in
time of marriage, birth, and death. The patriotic superstition is encouraged
by the governments and the ruling classes by instituting national festivals,
spectacles, and holidays, by erecting monuments with money collected
from the people, which will influence men to believe in the exclusive
importance and greatness of their own State or country and its rulers, and
encourage a feeling of hostility and even of hatred toward other nations.
Furthermore, autocratic governments directly forbid the printing and
circulation of books and the delivery of speeches that might enlighten men;
and those teachers who have the power to rouse the people from its torpor
are either banished or imprisoned. And every government, without
exception, conceals from the masses all that would tend to set them free,
and encourages all that would demoralize them,—all those writings, for
instance, that tend to confirm them in the crudeness of their religious and
patriotic superstition; all kinds of sensual pleasures, shows, circuses,
theaters; and all means for producing physical stupor, especially those, like
tobacco or brandy, which are among the principal sources of national
income. Even prostitution is encouraged; it is not only recognized, but
organized by the majority of governments. Such is the third expedient.
The fourth expedient consists in this: certain individuals are selected from
among the mass of enslaved and stupefied beings, and these, after having
been subjected to a still more vigorous process of brutalization, are made

the passive instruments of the cruelties and brutalities indispensable to the
government. This state of brutality and imbecility is produced by taking
men in their youth, before they have yet had time to gain any clear
conception of morality; and then, having removed them from all the natural
conditions of human life, from home, family, birthplace, and the possibility
of intelligent labor, by shutting them up together in barracks, where, dressed
in a peculiar uniform, to the accompaniment of shouts, drums, music, and
the display of glittering gewgaws, they are daily forced to perform certain
prescribed evolutions. By these methods they are reduced to that hypnotic
condition when they cease to be men and become imbecile and docile
machines in the hands of the hypnotizer. These physically strong young
men thus hypnotized (and at the present time, with the general conscription
system, all young men answer to this description), supplied with murderous
weapons, ever obedient to the authority of the government, and ready at its
command to commit any violence whatsoever, constitute the fourth and the
principal means for subjugating men. So the circle of violence is completed.
Intimidation, bribery, and hypnotism force men to become soldiers; soldiers
give power and make it possible to execute and to rob mankind (with the
aid of bribed officials), as well as to hypnotize and to recruit men who are
in their turn to become soldiers.
The circle is complete, and there is no possibility of escape from it.
If some men believe that deliverance from violence, or even a certain
abatement of its energy, may be the result of its overthrow by the oppressed,
who will then replace it by a system which will require no such violence
and subjugation, and if, so believing, they attempt to bring this about, they
only deceive themselves and others. So far from improving the position,
these attempts will only render things worse.
The activity of such men only strengthens the despotism of governments by
giving the latter a convenient pretext for increasing their defenses. For even
when, following a train of circumstances highly demoralizing to the
government,—take the case of France in 1870, for example,—a government
is overthrown by violence and the authority passes into other hands, this
new authority is by no means likely to be less oppressive than the former.
On the contrary, obliged to defend itself from its exasperated and

overthrown enemies, it will be even more cruel and despotic than its
predecessor, as has ever been the case in periods of revolution.
If socialists and communists believe that the possession of individual
capital is a pernicious influence in society, and anarchists regard
government itself as an evil, there are, on the other hand, monarchists,
conservatives, and capitalists who look upon the social and communal state
as an evil order of society, no less than anarchy itself; and all these parties
have nothing better to offer by way of reconciling mankind than violence.
Thus, whichever party gains the upper hand, it will be forced, in order to
introduce and maintain its own system, not only to avail itself of all former
methods of violence, but to invent new ones as well. It simply means a
change of slavery with new victims and a new organization; but the
violence will remain,—nay, increase,—because human hatred, intensified
by the struggle, will devise new means for reducing the conquered to
subjection. This has always been the result of every revolution and violent
overthrow of government. Each struggle serves but to increase the power of
those in authority at the time to enslave their fellow-men.
One domain of human activity, and only one, has hitherto escaped the
encroachments of the governments—the domain of the family, the
economical domain of private life and domestic labor. But now even this
domain, in consequence of the struggle of socialists and communists, is
gradually passing into the hands of the governments, so that labor and
recreation, the dwellings, clothes, and food of the people will by degrees, if
the desires of the reformers are accomplished, be determined and regulated
by the government.
The long experiment of Christian life by nation after nation, during eighteen
centuries, has inevitably brought men to the necessity of deciding whether
the doctrine of Christ is to be accepted or refused, and of deciding, too, the
question of social life dependent thereupon,—the resistance or non-
resistance of evil by violence. But there is this difference,—that formerly
men could either accept or reject the decision given by Christianity, whereas
now it has become imperative, because it affords the sole means of
deliverance from that condition of slavery in which, as in a net, men find
themselves entangled.
Nor is it alone this sad plight that brings them to this necessity.

Parallel with the negative proof of the falsehood of the pagan order of
things there has been positive proof of the truth of the Christian doctrine.
Indeed, in the course of the eighteen centuries, the best men in all
Christendom, through an inner spiritual medium, having recognized the
truths of the doctrine, have borne witness of it, regardless of threats,
privations, miseries, and torture. These nobler men, by their martyrdom,
have sealed the truth of the doctrine.
Christianity penetrated into human consciousness, not alone by the method
of negative proof, that, namely, it had become impossible to go on with the
pagan life; but by its simplifying process, by its explanation of, and its
deliverance from, superstition, and by its consequent spread among all
classes of society.
Eighteen centuries of the profession of Christianity have not passed in vain
for those who accepted it, even if it were but in outward form. These
eighteen centuries have made men realize all the miseries of the pagan state,
even though they have continued to lead a pagan existence, out of harmony
with an age of humanity; and at the bottom of their hearts they believe now
(and herein lies the only reason for living at all) that salvation from such an
existence can be found in the fulfilment of the Christian doctrine in its true
sense. As to when and where this salvation is to be accomplished, opinions
differ, according to the intellectual development of men and the prejudices
among which they live; but every educated man recognizes that our
salvation is to be found in the fulfilment of the Christian doctrine. Certain
believers, those who consider the Christian doctrine divine, affirm that this
salvation will be accomplished when all men believe in Christ and the time
of the second advent approaches; others, who also have faith in the divinity
of Christ's doctrine, believe that this salvation will come through the
churches, which, having got all men within the fold, will implant in their
hearts those Christian virtues which will transform their lives. Others,
again, who do not accept the divinity of Christ, believe that the salvation of
men will be accomplished by means of a slow, continuous progress, during
which the groundwork of pagan life will be gradually replaced by the
groundwork of liberty, equality, and fraternity—that is, by the basis of
Christianity. Still others there are who preach a new social organization, and
who believe that this salvation will be brought about when, by means of a
violent revolution, men are forced to a community of goods, to the abolition

of governments, to collective rather than individual labor—that is, by the
realization of one of the aspects of Christianity. Thus, after one fashion or
another, all men of our epoch not only renounce the existing order of life as
no longer suited to the times, but acknowledge, often without realizing it,
and regarding themselves as enemies of Christianity, that our salvation lies
only in the adaptation to life of a whole or a part of the Christian doctrine in
its true sense.
For the majority of men Christianity, as its Teacher has expressed it, could
not be comprehended at once, but was to grow, like unto a huge tree, from
the tiniest seed. "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed,
... which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the
greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree." And thus it has grown and
continues to grow, if not in manifestation, then in human consciousness.
It is no longer reserved for the minority of men, who have always
understood Christianity by its veritable truth; but it is acknowledged by the
great majority, who, if we are to judge by their social life, are far removed
from it.
Look at the private life of individuals, listen to their estimation of human
actions as they pronounce judgment on each other; listen not only to public
sermons and orations, but to the precepts which parents and teachers offer
to their charges, and you will see that, however far removed from the
practice of Christian truths may be the political or social existence of men
who are in bonds to violence, yet Christian virtues are admired and exalted
by all; while, on the contrary, the anti-Christian vices are unhesitatingly
condemned as harmful to all mankind. Those who sacrifice their lives in the
service of humanity are looked upon as the better men; while those who
take advantage of the misfortune of their neighbors to further their own
selfish interests are universally condemned.
There may still be men who, insensible to Christian ideals, have set up for
themselves other ideals, such as power, courage, or wealth; but these ideals
are passing away; they are not accepted by all, nor by the men of the better
class. Indeed, the Christian ideals are the only ones which are recognized as
obligatory for all.
The position of our Christian world, looked at from without, with its cruelty
and slavery, is indeed appalling. But if we consider it from the standpoint of

human consciousness, it presents a very different aspect. All the evil of our
life seems to exist only because it always has existed from all ages, and the
men whose actions are evil have had neither the time nor the experience to
overcome their evil habits, although all are willing to abandon them. Evil
seems to exist by reason of some cause apparently independent of the
consciousness of men.
Strange and contradictory as it may seem, modern men hate the very order
of things which they themselves support.
I believe it is Max Müller who describes the astonishment of an Indian
converted to Christianity, who, having apprehended the essence of the
Christian doctrine, came to Europe and beheld the life of Christians. He
could not recover from his astonishment in the presence of the reality, so
different from the state of things he had expected to find among Christian
nations.
If we are not surprised at the contradiction between our convictions and our
actions, it is only because the influences which obscure this contradiction
act upon us. We have but to look at our life from the standpoint of the
Indian, who understood Christianity in its true significance, without any
concessions or adaptations, and to behold the barbarous cruelties with
which our life is filled, in order to be horrified at the contradictions in the
midst of which we live, without noticing them.
One has but to remember the preparations for war, the cartridge-boxes, the
silver-plated bullets, the torpedoes, and—the Red Cross; the establishment
of prisons for solitary confinement, experiments with electrocution, and—
the care for the welfare of the prisoners; the philanthropic activity of the
rich, and—their daily life, which brings about the existence of the poor,
whom they seek to benefit. And these contradictions arise, not, as it might
seem, because men pretend to be Christians while they are actually
heathens, but because they lack something, or because there is some power
which prevents them from being what they really desire to be, and what
they even conscientiously believe themselves to be. It is not that modern
men merely pretend to hate oppression, the inequality of class distinctions,
and all kinds of cruelty, whether practised against their fellow-men or
against animals. They are sincere in their hatred of these abuses; but they
do not know how to abolish them, or they lack the courage to alter their

own mode of life, which depends upon all this, and which seems to them so
important.
Ask, indeed, any individual if he considers it praiseworthy or even
honorable for a man to fill a position for which he receives a salary so high
as to be out of all proportion to the amount of his labor, as, for instance, that
of collecting from the people, often from beggars, taxes which are to be
devoted to the purchase of cannon, torpedoes, and other instruments for
murdering the men with whom we wish to live in peace, and who wish to
live in peace with us; or, to receive a salary for spending his life either in
perfecting these instruments of murder, or in the military exercises by
which men are trained for slaughter? Ask whether it be praiseworthy or
compatible with the dignity of man, or becoming to a Christian, to
undertake, also for money, to arrest some unfortunate man, some illiterate
drunkard, for some petty theft not to be compared with the magnitude of
our own appropriation, or for manslaughter not conducted by our advanced
methods; and for such offenses to throw people into prison, or put them to
death? Ask whether it be laudable and becoming in a man and a Christian,
also for money, to teach the people foolish and injurious superstitions
instead of the doctrine of Christ? Whether, again, it be laudable and worthy
of a man to wrench from his neighbor, in order to gratify his own caprice,
the very necessaries of life, as the great landowners do; or to exact from his
fellow-man an excessive and exhausting toil for the purpose of increasing
his own wealth, as the mill-owners and manufacturers do; or to take
advantage of human necessities to build up colossal fortunes, as the
merchants do?
Every individual would reply not, especially if the question regarded his
neighbor. And at the same time the very man who acknowledges all the
ignominy of such deeds, when the case is presented to him, will often, of
his own accord, and for no advantage of a salary, but moved by childish
vanity, the desire to possess a trinket of enamel, a decoration, a stripe,
voluntarily enter the military service, or become an examining magistrate, a
justice of the peace, a minister of state, an uriadnik, a bishop, accepting an
office whose duties will oblige him to do things, the shame and ignominy of
which he cannot help realizing.
Many of these men will, I am sure, defend themselves on the ground of the
lawfulness and necessity of their position; they will argue that the

authorities are of God, that the functions of State are indispensable for the
good of mankind, that Christianity is not opposed to wealth, that the rich
youth was bidden to give up his goods only if he wished to be perfect, that
the present distribution of wealth and commerce is beneficial to all men,
and that it is right and lawful. But however much they may try to deceive
themselves and others, they all know that what they do is opposed to the
highest interests of life, and at the bottom of their hearts, when they listen
only to their consciences, they are ashamed and pained to think of what
they are doing, especially when the baseness of their deeds has been pointed
out to them. A man in modern life, whether he does or does not profess to
believe in the divinity of Christ, must know that to be instrumental either as
a czar, minister, governor, or policeman, as in selling a poor family's last
cow to pay taxes to the treasury, the money of which is devoted to the
purchase of cannon or to pay the salaries or pensions of idle and luxurious
officials, is to do more harm than good; or to be a party to the imprisonment
of the father of a family, for whose demoralization we are ourselves
responsible, and to bring his family to beggary; or to take part in piratical
and murderous warfare; or to teach absurd superstitions of idol-worship
instead of the doctrine of Christ; or to impound a stray cow belonging to a
man who has no land; or to deduct the value of an accidentally injured
article from the wages of a mechanic; or to sell something to a poor man for
double its value, only because he is in dire necessity;—the men of our
modern life cannot but know that all such deeds are wrong, shameful, and
that they ought not to commit them. They do all know it. They know that
they are doing wrong, and would abstain from it, had they but the strength
to oppose those forces which blind them to the criminality of their actions
while drawing them on to do wrong.
But there is nothing that demonstrates so vividly the degree of contradiction
to which human life has attained as the system that embodies both the
method and the expression of violence,—the general conscription system. It
is only because a general armament and military conscription have come
imperceptibly and by slow degrees, and that governments employ for their
support all the means of intimidation at their disposal,—bribery,
bewilderment, and violence,—that we do not realize the glaring
contradiction between this state of affairs and those Christian feelings and
ideas with which all modern men are penetrated.

This contradiction has become so common that we fail to see the shocking
imbecility and immorality of the actions, not only of those men who, of
their own accord, choose the profession of murder as something honorable,
but of those unfortunates who consent to serve in the army, and of those
who, in countries where military conscription has not yet been introduced,
give of their own free will the fruits of their labor to be used for the
payment of mercenaries and for the organization for murder. All these men
are either Christians or men professing humanitarianism and liberalism,
who know that they participate in the most imbecile, aimless, and cruel
murders; yet still they go on committing them. But this is not all. In
Germany, where the system of general military conscription originated,
Caprivi has revealed something that has always been carefully hidden: that
the men who run the risk of being killed are not only foreigners, but are
quite as likely to be fellow-countrymen,—working-men,—from which class
most of the soldiers are obtained. Nevertheless, this admission neither
opened men's eyes nor shocked their sensibilities. They continue just as
they did before, to go like sheep, and submit to anything that is demanded
of them. And this is not all. The German Emperor has recently explained
with minute precision the character and vocation of a soldier, having
distinguished, thanked, and rewarded a private for killing a defenseless
prisoner who attempted to escape. In thanking and rewarding a man for an
act which is looked upon even by men of the lowest type of morality as
base and cowardly, Wilhelm pointed out that the principal duty of a soldier,
and one most highly prized by the authorities, is that of an executioner,—
not like the professional executioners who put to death condemned
prisoners only, but an executioner of the innocent men whom his superiors
order him to kill.
Yet more. In 1891 this same Wilhelm, the enfant terrible of State authority,
who expresses what other men only venture to think, in a talk with certain
soldiers, uttered publicly the following words, which were repeated the next
day in thousands of papers:—
"Recruits! You have given me the oath of allegiance before the altar and the
servant of the Lord. You are still too young to comprehend the true meaning
of what has been said here, but first of all take care ever to follow the orders
and instructions that are given to you. You have taken the oath of allegiance

to me; this means, children of my guards, that you are now my soldiers, that
you have given yourselves up to me, body and soul.
"But one enemy exists for you—my enemy. With the present socialistic
intrigues it may happen that I shall command you to shoot your own
relatives, your brothers, even your parents (from which may God preserve
us!), and then you are in duty bound to obey my orders unhesitatingly."
This man expresses what is known, but carefully concealed, by all wise
rulers. He says outright that the men who serve in the army serve himand
his advantage, and should be ready for that purpose to kill their brothers and
fathers.
Roughly but distinctly he lays bare all the horror of the crime for which
men who become soldiers prepare themselves,—all that abyss of self-
abasement into which they fling themselves when they promise obedience.
Like a bold hypnotizer, he tests the depth of the slumber; he applies red-hot
iron to the sleeper's body; it smokes and shrivels, but the sleeper does not
awaken.
Poor, sick, miserable man, intoxicated with power, who by these words
insults all that is sacred to men of modern civilization! And we, Christians,
liberals, men of culture, so far from feeling indignant at this insult, pass it
over in silence. Men are put to the final test in its rudest form; but they
hardly observe that a test is in question, that a choice is put before them. It
seems to them as if there were no choice, but only the one necessity of
slavish submission. It would seem as if these insane words, offensive to all
that a civilized human being holds sacred, ought to rouse indignation,—but
nothing of the kind happens. Year after year every young man in Europe is
subjected to the same test, and with very few exceptions they all forswear
what is and should be sacred to every man; all manifest a readiness to kill
their brothers and even their fathers, at the order of the first misguided man
who wears a red and gold livery, asking only when and whom they are to be
ordered to kill—for they are ready to do it.
Even by savages certain objects are held sacred, for whose sake they are
ready to suffer rather than submit. But what is sacred for the man of the
modern world? He is told: Be my slave, in a bondage where you may have
to murder your own father; and he, oftentimes a man of learning, who has
studied all the sciences in the university, submissively offers his neck to the

halter. He is dressed in a clown's garments, ordered to leap, to make
contortions, to salute, to kill—and he submissively obeys; and when at last
allowed to return to his former life, he continues to hold forth on the dignity
of man, freedom, equality, and brotherhood.
"But what is to be done?" we often hear men ask in perplexity. "If every
man were to refuse, it would be a different matter; but, as it is, I should
suffer alone without benefiting any one." And they are right; for a man who
holds the social life-conception cannot refuse. Life has no significance for
him except as it concerns his personal welfare; it is for his advantage to
submit, therefore he does so.
To whatever torture or injury he may be subjected he will submit, because
he can do nothing alone; he lacks the foundation which alone would enable
him to resist violence, and those who are in authority over him will never
give him the chance of uniting with others.
It has often been said that the invention of the terrible military instruments
of murder will put an end to war, and that war will exhaust itself. This is not
true. As it is possible to increase the means for killing men, so it is possible
to increase the means for subjecting those who hold the social life-
conception. Let them be exterminated by thousands and millions, let them
be torn to pieces, men will still continue like stupid cattle to go to the
slaughter, some because they are driven thither under the lash, others that
they may win the decorations and ribbons which fill their hearts with pride.
And it is with material like this that the public leaders—conservatives,
liberals, socialists, anarchists—discuss the ways and means of organizing
an intelligent and moral society, with men who have been so thoroughly
confused and bewildered that they will promise to murder their own
parents. What kind of intelligence and morality can there be in a society
organized from material like this? Just as it is impossible to build a house
from bent and rotten timber, however manipulated, so also is it impossible
with such materials to organize an intelligent and moral society. They can
only be governed like a drove of cattle, by the shouts and lash of the
herdsman. And so, indeed, they are governed.
Again, while on the one hand we find men, Christians in name, professing
the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, on the other hand we see
these same men ready, in the name of liberty, to yield the most abject and

slavish obedience; in the name of equality, to approve of the most rigid and
senseless subdivision of men into classes; and in the name of fraternity,
ready to slay their own brothers.[14]
The contradiction of the moral consciousness, and hence the misery of life,
has reached its utmost limit, beyond which it can go no further. Life, based
on principles of violence, has culminated in the negation of the basis on
which it was founded. The organization, on principles of violence, of a
society whose object was to insure the happiness of the individual and the
family, and the social welfare of humanity, has brought men to such a pass
that these benefits are practically annulled.
The first part of the prophecy in regard to those men and their descendants
who adopted this doctrine has been fulfilled, and now their descendants are
forced to realize the justice of its second part.

CHAPTER IX
THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE-
CONCEPTION DELIVERS MEN FROM THE MISERIES
OF OUR PAGAN LIFE
The external life of Christian nations remains pagan, but they are already penetrated by the
Christian life-conception—The issue from this contradiction is in the acceptance of the
Christian life-conception—In it alone is every man free, and it alone frees him from all
human authority—This deliverance is brought about, not by a change of external
conditions, but only by a change in the conception of one's life—The Christian life-
conception demands the renunciation of violence, and, in delivering the man who accepts
it, it frees the world from all external authority—The issue from the present apparently
hopeless position consists in every man accepting the Christian life-conception and living
accordingly—But men consider this method too slow, and see their salvation in change of
the material conditions of life made with the aid of the authority of the State—This
method will have no issue, because men themselves cause the evil from which they suffer
—This is especially evident in regard to the submissive acceptance of military duty, for it
is more advantageous for a man to refuse than accept—Human freedom will be brought
about only through the liberation of each individual man, and already there are signs of
this liberation, which threatens to destroy State organization—The repudiation of the un-
Christian demands of governments undermines their authority and makes men free—
Therefore instances of such refusals are feared by governments more than conspiracies or
violence—Instances, in Russia, of refusals to take the oath of allegiance, to pay taxes, to
accept passports or positions in the police, to take part in courts of law, or to be drafted as
soldiers—Similar instances in other countries—Governments know not how to dispose of
men who refuse to obey their requirements because of the Christian doctrine—These men
destroy without a struggle the foundations of governments from the inside—To punish
them would mean for governments to deny Christianity themselves, and to contribute to
the diffusion of that consciousness from which such refusals spring—Hence the position
of governments is a desperate one, and men who preach the uselessness of personal
deliverance only arrest the destruction of the existing system of government founded on
violence.

The Christian nations of the present day are in a position no less cruel than
that of pagan times. In many respects, especially in the matter of
oppression, their position has grown worse.
A contrast like that of modern and ancient times may be seen in the
vegetation of the last days of autumn as compared with that of the early
days of spring. In the autumn the outward decay and death correspond to
the interior process, which is the suspension of life; in the spring the

apparent lifelessness is in direct contradiction to the real vitality within, and
the approaching transition to new forms of life.
And thus it is as regards the apparent resemblance between pagan life and
that of the present day. It exists only in appearance. The inner lives of men
in the times of paganism were quite unlike those of the men of our days.
In the former the external aspect of cruelty and slavery corresponded with
the inner consciousness of men, a conformity which only increased as time
went on; in the latter the external condition of cruelty and slavery is in utter
contradiction to the Christian consciousness of men, a contradiction which
grows more and more striking every year.
The misery and suffering resulting therefrom seem so useless. It is like
prolonged suffering in child-labor. Everything is ready for the coming life,
and yet no life appears.
Apparently the situation is without deliverance. It would indeed be so were
it not that to men, and therefore to the world, there has been vouchsafed the
capacity for a loftier conception of life, which has the power to set free, and
at once, from all fetters, however firmly riveted.
And this is the Christian life-conception presented to men 1800 years ago.
A man has but to assimilate this life-conception and he will be set free, as a
matter of course, from the fetters that now restrain him, and feel free as a
bird who spreads his wings and flies over the wall that has kept him a
prisoner.
They talk of setting the Christian Church free from the State, of granting
freedom to or withholding it from Christians. Such thoughts and
expressions are strangely misleading. Liberty can neither be granted to nor
withheld from a Christian or Christians.
But if there is a question of granting or withholding liberty, then evidently it
is not the true Christians who are meant, but only men who call themselves
by that name. A Christian cannot help being free, because in the pursuit and
attainment of his object no one can either hinder or retard him.
A man has but to understand his life as Christianity teaches him to
understand it; that is, he must realize that it does not belong to himself, nor
to his family, nor to the State, but to Him who sent him into the world; he

must therefore know that it is his duty to live, not in accordance with the
law of his own personality, nor of that of his family or State, but to fulfil the
infinite law of Him who gave him life, in order to feel himself so entirely
free from all human authority that he will cease to regard it as a possible
obstacle.
A man needs but to realize that the object of his life is the fulfilment of
God's law; then the preëminence of that law, claiming as it does his entire
allegiance, will of necessity invalidate the authority and restrictions of all
human laws.
The Christian who contemplates that law of love implanted in every human
soul, and quickened by Christ, the only guide for all mankind, is set free
from human authority.
A Christian may suffer from external violence, may be deprived of his
personal freedom, may be a slave to his passions,—the man who commits
sin is the slave of the sin,—but he cannot be controlled or coerced by
threats into committing an act contrary to his consciousness. He cannot be
forced to this, because the privations and sufferings that are so powerful an
influence over men who hold the social life-conception have no influence
whatever over him. The privations and sufferings that destroy the material
welfare which is the object of the social life-conception produce no effect
upon the welfare of the Christian's life, which rests on the consciousness
that he is doing God's will—nay, they may even serve to promote that
welfare when they are visited upon him for fulfilling that will.
A Christian, therefore, who submits to the inner, the divine law, is not only
unable to execute the biddings of the outward law when they are at variance
with his consciousness of God's law of love, as in the case of the demands
made upon him by the government; but he cannot acknowledge the
obligation of obeying any individual whomsoever, cannot acknowledge
himself to be what is called a subject. For a Christian to promise to subject
himself to any government whatsoever—a subjection which may be
considered the foundation of State life—is a direct negation of Christianity;
since an individual who promises beforehand to obey implicitly every law
that men may enact, by that promise utters an emphatic denial of
Christianity, whose very essence is obedience in all contingencies to the law
which he feels to be within him—the law of love.

With the pagan life-conception it was possible to promise to obey the will
of temporal authorities without violating the laws of God, which were
supposed to consist in carrying out such customs as circumcision, the
observance of the Sabbath, the utterance of prayer at certain periods,
abstinence from certain kinds of food, etc. The one did not contradict the
other. But Christianity differs from paganism inasmuch as its requirements
are not of an external or negative character; on the contrary, they are such as
reverse man's former relations toward his fellow-men, and may call for acts
on his part which could not be anticipated, and consequently are not
defined. Hence it is that a Christian can neither promise to obey nor to
disobey the will of another, ignorant as he must be of the nature of its
requirements; not only must he refuse to obey human laws, but he cannot
promise to do or abstain from doing anything definite at any given time,
because he can never tell at what hour or in what manner the Christian law
of love, on which his life-conception is based, will demand his coöperation.
A Christian, promising in advance to obey unconditionally the laws of men,
admits by that promise that the inner law of God does not constitute for him
the sole law of his life.
When a Christian promises to obey the commands or laws of men, he is like
a craftsman who, having hired himself out to one master, promises at the
same time to execute the orders of other persons. No man can serve two
masters.
A Christian is freed from human authority by acknowledging the supremacy
of one authority alone, that of God, whose law, revealed to him through
Christ, he recognizes within himself, and obeys,—that and no other.
And this deliverance is accomplished neither by means of a struggle, nor by
the destruction of previous customs of life, but only through a change in his
life-conception. The deliverance proceeds, in the first place, from the
Christian's acknowledgment of the law of love, as revealed to him by his
Teacher, which suffices to determine the relations of men, and according to
which every act of violence seems superfluous and unlawful. Secondly,
because those privations and miseries, or the anticipations of such, which
influence a man who holds the social life-conception and reduces him to
obedience, seem to him no more than the inevitable consequences of
existence, which he would never dream of opposing by violence, but bears
patiently, as he would bear disease, hunger, or any other misery; which,

indeed, have no possible influence over his actions. The Christian's only
guide must be the divine indwelling element, subject neither to restriction
nor to control.
A Christian lives in accordance with the words spoken by the Master: "He
shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till
he send forth judgment unto victory."[15]
A Christian enters into no dispute with his neighbor, he neither attacks nor
uses violence; on the contrary, he suffers violence himself without
resistance, and by his very attitude toward evil not only sets himself free,
but helps to free the world at large from all outward authority.
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."[16] If there
were any doubt of the truth of Christianity there could be no more
indubitable proof of its authenticity than the complete freedom, recognizing
no fetters, which a man feels as soon as he assimilates the Christian life-
conception.
Human beings in their present condition may be likened to bees in the act of
swarming, as we see them clinging in a mass to a single bough. Their
position is a temporary one, and must inevitably be changed. They must rise
and find themselves a new abode. Every bee knows this, and is eager to
shift its own position, as well as that of the others, but not one of them will
do so until the whole swarm rises. The swarm cannot rise, because one bee
clings to the other and prevents it from separating itself from the swarm,
and so they all continue to hang. It might seem as if there were no
deliverance from this position, precisely as it seems to men of the world
who have become entangled in the social net. Indeed, there would be no
outlet for the bees if each one were not a living creature possessed of a pair
of wings. Neither would there be any issue for men if each one were not a
living individual, being gifted with a capacity for assimilating the Christian
life-conception.
If among these bees who are able to fly not one could be found willing to
start, the swarm would never change its position. And it is the same among
men. If the man who has assimilated the Christian life-conception waits for
others before he proceeds to live in accordance with it, mankind will never
change its attitude. And as all that is needed to change a solid mass of bees

into a flying swarm is for one bee to spread its wings and fly away, when
the second, the third, the tenth, and the hundredth will follow suit; so all
that is needed to break through the magic circle of social life, deliverance
from which seems so hopeless, is, that one man should view life from a
Christian standpoint and begin to frame his own life accordingly,
whereupon others will follow in his footsteps.
But men think that the deliverance of mankind by this method is too slow a
process, and that a simultaneous deliverance might be effected by some
other method. Just as if bees, when the swarm was ready to rise, were to
decide that it would be too long a process if they waited for each bee to
spread its wings and rise separately, and that some means must be devised
whereby the swarm may rise all at once, whenever it pleases. But that is
impossible. Not until the first, second, third, and hundredth bee has
unfolded its wings and flown away can the swarm take flight and find for
itself a new home. Not until each individual man adopts the Christian life-
conception, and begins to live in conformity with its precepts, will the
contradictions of human life be solved, and new forms of life become
established.
One of the most striking events of our time is the propaganda of slavery
which is spread among the masses, not only by the government, to whom it
is of use, but by those exponents of socialistic theories who consider
themselves the champions of freedom.
These men preach that the amelioration in the conditions of life, the
reconciliation between actuality and consciousness, will not be brought
about by the personal efforts of individual men, but that it will evolve itself
out of a certain forced reorganization of society by some unknown
influence. Their theory is that men should not proceed of their own accord
to the place where they wish to go, but that they should have a platform
built under their feet, upon which they may be carried to the spot they
desire to reach. Hence they must not move as far as their strength will
permit, but all their efforts must be directed toward building this imaginary
platform without stirring from their position.
There is a theory in economics preached in these days of which the essential
principle is this: the worse the condition of affairs, the better the prospect;
the greater the accumulation of capital and oppression of the working-man

resulting therefrom, the nearer the day of deliverance; and therefore any
effort on the part of the individual to free himself from the oppression of
capital is useless. In regard to the government it is declared that the greater
its authority, which, according to this theory, should include the domain of
private life, hitherto uninvaded, the better it will be, and hence one should
solicit the interference of governments with private life. In regard to
international politics, it is declared that the increase of armies and modes of
extermination will lead to the necessity of a general disarmament through
the agency of congresses, arbitration, etc. And the most surprising part of all
is that human lethargy is so profound that men credit these theories,
although the whole structure of life, and every stage in human progress,
demonstrate their fallacy.
Men suffer from oppression, and by way of deliverance certain expedients
are suggested for the improvement of their condition, these means of relief
to be administered by authority, to which they continue to submit. This will
naturally tend to augment authority and to increase the consequent
oppression of government.
Of all the errors of humanity there is none that so retards its progress as
this. Men will do anything in the world to achieve their purpose save the
one simple deed, which it is every man's duty to perform. Men will invent
the most ingenious devices for changing the position which is burdensome
to them, but never dream of the simple remedy of abstaining from the acts
which cause it.
I was told of an incident which happened to an intrepid stanovoy, who, on
arriving in a village where the peasants had revolted, and whither troops
had been sent, undertook, like the Emperor Nicholas I., to quell the
disturbance by his personal influence. He ordered several loads of rods to
be brought, and having gathered all the peasants into the barn, he entered
himself, shut himself in with them, and so terrified them by his shouts and
threats that in compliance with his commands they began to flog each other.
And so they went on flogging one another until some fool revolted, and,
shouting to his comrades, bade them leave off. It was not until then that the
flogging ceased, and the stanovoy escaped from the barn.
It is this very advice of the fool that men who believe in the necessity of
civil government seem unable to follow. They are unable to stop punishing

themselves, and setting an absurd example for others to imitate. Such is the
consummation of merely human wisdom.
Is it possible, indeed, to imagine a more striking imitation of those men
flogging one another than the meekness with which the men of these days
fulfil those social duties that lead them into bondage, especially the military
conscription? It is clear that men enslave themselves; they suffer from this
slavery, and yet they believe it inevitable; they also believe that it will not
affect the ultimate emancipation of mankind, which they declare the final
outcome, in spite of the fact that slavery is ever increasing.
The man of modern times, whoever he may be (I do not mean a true
Christian), educated or ignorant, a believer or an unbeliever, rich or poor,
married or single, does his work, takes his pleasures, and dreads all
restrictions and privations, all enmity and suffering. Thus he is living,
peaceably. Suddenly men come to him and say: "First, promise on your oath
that you will obey us like a slave in all that we command; believe that
whatever we tell you is unquestionably true, and submit to all that we shall
call laws. Or, secondly, give us a share in the product of your labor, that we
may use it to keep you in bondage, and prevent you from revolting against
our commands. Or, thirdly, choose, or be chosen among, the so-called
officials of the government, knowing that the government will go on quite
regardless of the foolish speeches which you, or others like you, may utter;
that it will be carried on in accordance with our wishes and the wishes of
those who control the army. Or, fourthly, come to the law-courts, and take
part in all the senseless cruelties which we commit against men, who are
erring and depraved men, and who have become so through our fault,—in
the form of imprisonment, exile, solitary confinement, and execution. Or,
lastly, although you may be on the most friendly terms with men who
belong to other nations, you must be ready at a moment's notice, whenever
the command is issued, to look upon such of them as we shall indicate as
your enemies, and either personally or by substitute contribute to the ruin,
robbery, and murder of these men, of old men, women, and children—even,
if we require it, of your fellow-countrymen and your parents."
One would think that in these days there could be but one reply from any
man in his senses.

"Why must I do all this? Why must I promise to obey all the orders of
Salisbury to-day, those of Gladstone to-morrow; Boulanger to-day, and to-
morrow the orders of an assembly composed of men like Boulanger; Peter
III. to-day, Catharine to-morrow, and the next day Pugatchov; to-day the
insane King of Bavaria, to-morrow the Emperor William? Why should I
promise this to men whom I know to be wicked or foolish, or men whom I
know nothing at all about? Why should I, in the form of taxes, hand over to
them the fruits of my labor, knowing that this money will be used to bribe
officials, to support prisons, churches, and armies, to pay for the execution
of evil acts destined for my oppression? In other words, why should I apply
the rod to my own back? Why should I go on wasting my time, averting my
eyes, helping to give a semblance of legality to the acts of wrong-doers,
play a part in elections, and pretend to participate in the government, when I
know perfectly well that the country is ruled by those who control the
army? Why should I go into the courts and be a party to the infliction of
tortures and executions upon my erring fellow-beings, knowing, if I am a
Christian, that the law of love has been substituted for the law of
vengeance, and if I am an educated man, that punishment, so far from
reforming its victims, serves only to demoralize them? Why should I, in
person or in substitute, go and kill and despoil, and expose myself to the
dangers of war, simply because the key of the temple of Jerusalem happens
to be in the keeping of one bishop rather than in that of another; because
Bulgaria is to be ruled by one German prince instead of another; or because
the privileges of the seal fishery are reserved for the English to the
exclusion of the American merchants. Why should I regard as my enemies
the inhabitants of a neighboring country, with whom up to the present day I
have lived, and still wish to live, in peace and amity,—why should I go
myself, or pay for soldiers, to murder and ruin them?
"And, above all, why should I contribute, whether in person or by paying
for military service, to the enslavement and destruction of my brothers and
parents? Why should I scourge myself? All this is of no use to me; on the
contrary, it does me harm. It is altogether degrading, immoral, mean, and
contemptible. Why, then, should I do all this? If I am told that I shall be
made to suffer in any event, I reply that in the first place, there can be no
possible suffering greater than that which would befall me were I to execute
your commands. And in the second place, it is perfectly evident to me that
if we refuse to scourge ourselves, no one else will do it for us. Governments

are but sovereigns, statesmen, officials, who can no more force me against
my will, than the stanovoy could force the peasants; I should be brought
before the court, or thrown into prison, or executed, not by the sovereign, or
the high officials, but by men in the same position as myself; and as it
would be equally injurious and disagreeable for them to be scourged as for
me, I should probably open their eyes, and they would not only refrain from
injuring me, but would doubtless follow my example. And in the third
place, though I were made to suffer for this, it would still be better for me to
be exiled or imprisoned, doing battle in the cause of common sense and
truth, which must eventually triumph, if not to-day, then to-morrow, or
before many days, than to suffer in the cause of folly and evil. It would
rather be to my advantage to risk being exiled, imprisoned, or even
executed, than remain, through my own fault, a life-long slave of evil men,
to be ruined by an invading enemy, or mutilated like an idiot, or killed
while defending a cannon, a useless territory, or a senseless piece of cloth
called a flag. I have no inclination to scourge myself, it would be of no use.
You may do it yourselves if you choose—I refuse."
It would seem as though not only the religious and moral element in human
nature, but ordinary common sense and wise counsel, would influence
every man of the present day thus to make reply, and to suit the action to the
word. But no. Men who hold the social life-conception consider such a
course not only useless, but even prejudicial to the object in view,—the
deliverance of mankind from slavery. They advise us to go on, like the
peasants, punishing one another, comforting ourselves with the reflection
that our chatter in parliaments and assemblies, our trade unions, our First of
May demonstrations, our conspiracies and covert threats to the governments
that scourge us, must result in our final deliverance, even though we go on
strengthening our fetters. Nothing so hampers human liberty as this
wonderful delusion. Instead of making individual efforts to achieve
freedom, every man for himself devoting all his energies to that object,
through the attainment of a new life-conception, men are looking for a
universal scheme of deliverance, and are in the meanwhile sinking deeper
and deeper into slavery. It is as if a man were to declare that in order to
obtain heat one must merely place every lump of coal in a certain position,
never minding whether it kindled or not. And yet that the liberation of
mankind can only be accomplished by means of the deliverance of the
individual grows more and more evident.

The liberation of individuals from the dominion of the State, in the name of
the Christian life-conception, which was formerly an exceptional
occurrence and one that attracted but little attention, has attained in these
days a menacing significance for the authority of State.
If in the days of ancient Rome it happened that a Christian, professing his
faith, refused to take a part in sacrifices, or in the worship of the emperors
or the gods, or in the Middle Ages refused to worship ikons or to
acknowledge the temporal authority of the Pope, such refusals were the
exception; a man might be obliged to confess to his faith, but he might
perhaps live all his life without being forced to do so. But now all men,
without exception, are subjected to trial of faith. Every man of modern
times is obliged, either to participate in the cruelties of pagan life, or to
repudiate them. And secondly, in those days any refusal to bow before the
gods, the ikons, or the Pope was of no consequence to the State. Whether
those who bowed before the gods, the ikons, or the Pope were many or few,
the State lost none of its power. Whereas at the present time every refusal to
execute the un-Christian demands of the government undermines the
authority of the State, because the authority of the State rests on the
fulfilment of these anti-Christian requirements.
Temporal authority, in order to maintain itself, has been forced by the
conditions of life to demand from its subjects certain actions which it is
impossible for men who profess true Christianity to perform. Therefore at
the present time every man who professes it helps to undermine the
authority of the government, and will eventually pave the way for the
liberation of mankind.
Of what apparent importance are such acts as the refusal of a score or two
of fools, as they are called,—men who decline to take the oath of
allegiance, to pay taxes, or to take part in courts of law, or to serve in the
army? Such men are tried and condemned, and life remains unchanged.
These occurrences may seem unimportant, and yet these are precisely the
factors that undermine the authority of the government more than any
others, and thus prepare the way for the liberation of mankind. These are
the bees who are the first to separate themselves from the swarm, and, still
hovering near, they wait for the whole swarm to rise and follow them. The
governments are aware of this, and look upon such occurrences with more

apprehension than upon all the socialists, anarchists, and communists, with
their conspiracies and their dynamite bombs.
A new régime is inaugurated. Each subject, according to custom, is required
to take the oath of allegiance to the new government. A proclamation is
issued, and all are bidden to assemble in the cathedral to take the oath.
Suddenly one man in Perm, another in Tula, a third in Moscow, a fourth in
Kaluga, refuse to take the oath and (without preconcerted action) justify
their refusal by the same argument,—that the Christian law forbids the oath;
but, even were the oath not forbidden, they could not, according to the spirit
of this law, promise to perform such evil deeds as the oath requires,—such
as reporting those antagonistic to the interests of the government, defending
that government by armed force, or attacking its enemies. They are
summoned to appear before the Stanovoys, spravniks, priests, governors;
they are reasoned with, coaxed, threatened, and punished; yet they adhere to
their determination, and refuse to take the oath. They are asked, "Is it true
that you never took the oath?"
"It is."
"And what was done to you?"
"Nothing."
Every subject is required to pay his taxes, and the taxes are paid. But one
man in Charkov, another in Iver, and a third in Samara, refuse to comply,
and, as by one accord, each man alleges the same reason. One of them says
that he will pay after he has learned the object for which his money is to be
used. "If it is to be used for charity, he will give of his own free will, and
even more than is demanded of him. But if it is to be applied to evil
purposes, he will give nothing of his own free will, because, according to
the law of Christ, which he obeys, he can take no part in doing evil." And
the others who refuse to pay taxes, except on compulsion, express the same
idea, perhaps in other words. Those who have property are forced to pay,
and those who have none are simply let alone.
"Then you have not paid your tax?"
"No."
"And what was done to you?"

"Nothing."
The passport system is instituted. Every man who leaves his home must
apply for one, and pay a tax for it. Suddenly, in different places, are to be
found those who declare that passports should not be used, that a man
should not acknowledge his dependence upon the State, which is supported
by violence; and these men take no passports, consequently they pay no tax
for them. And again, there are no means of coercing them to comply with
the demand. They are imprisoned, but when after a time they find
themselves at liberty again, they go on living without passports.
Every peasant is expected to perform police duty as sotsky or dessiatsky,[17]
etc.; but some peasant in Charkov refuses to fulfil this duty, because, as he
says in explanation of his refusal, the law of Christ, which he professes,
forbids him to arrest, imprison, or transport his fellow-men. Another
peasant in Iver or in Tambov makes the same statement. The peasants are
threatened, beaten, and imprisoned, but they adhere to their resolution, and
refuse to perform actions contrary to their religious belief. And they cease
to be elected sotsky, and are gradually left in peace.
It is the duty of every citizen to serve on the jury. All at once men of widely
different classes,—carriage-makers, professors, merchants, peasants,
nobles,—as if moved by a single impulse, refuse to fulfil this duty, not for
reasons valid in the eyes of the law, but because the tribunal itself is, in their
opinion, illegal and un-Christian, and ought not to exist. These men are
fined, and false reasons are ascribed for their refusal, the true ones
meanwhile remaining hidden from the public. The same treatment is
employed in regard to those who, for similar reasons, refuse to appear as
witnesses in courts of law. These, too, are finally left undisturbed.
Every man at the age of twenty-one must draw lots. Suddenly there is found
a man in Moscow, another in Iver, another in Charkov, and still another in
Kiev, who, as it were by agreement, go to the department and declare that
they will neither take the oath of allegiance nor serve in the army, because
they are Christians. Here are the details of an affair which was among the
earlier cases,—of late these refusals have begun to multiply,—a case with
which I am myself familiar,[18] which is but one example among many.
In the City Hall of Moscow a young man of average education gives his
reasons for refusing to comply. His words are not heeded, and he is bidden

to repeat the words of the oath with the other men. He still persists in his
refusal, and quotes a certain passage in the Bible that forbids men to take an
oath. No attention is paid to his arguments, and again he is ordered to take
the oath, which he declines to do. Whereupon it is taken for granted that he
is a sectarian, and therefore misunderstands Christianity; in other words,
that he differs from the priests paid by the State. He is then sent under guard
to the priests that they may convince him, which they endeavor to do; but
the arguments uttered in the name of Christ, by which they strive to
persuade him to deny Christ, evidently have no effect on the young man. So
they declare him incorrigible, and send him back to the army. Still he
openly refuses to take the oath and to fulfil his military duties.
It is a case not anticipated by the law. A refusal to comply with the demands
of the government cannot be overlooked, neither can this case be called one
of ordinary insubordination. After conferring, the military authorities decide
that, in order to rid themselves of this objectionable youth, the better way
will be to consider him as a rebel and forward him under military escort to
the Department of the Secret Police. The police officials and the gendarmes
question the young man, but his replies will not serve to classify his offense
under the heading of any crime that comes within their jurisdiction; they
cannot either accuse him of revolutionary motives, or of conspiracy,
because he declares that he has no desire to destroy anything whatsoever;
on the contrary, he opposes all violence. He says that he has nothing to
conceal; he desires only an opportunity for saying and doing all things in
the most open manner. And as it resulted with the clergy, so also with the
gendarmes, who, though rarely embarrassed as to how to put the law in
operation, can find no pretext for an accusation against the young man, and
send him back to the ranks. Once more there is a conference, and his
superiors decide that, although he has not taken the oath of allegiance, he is
to be regarded as a soldier. He is put into uniform, his name is entered on
the lists, and he is sent under convoy to his post. Here his immediate
superiors once more order him to perform his military duty, and still he
refuses to obey, and in the presence of the other soldiers he states his
reasons, saying that, as a Christian, he cannot of his own free will prepare
himself to commit murder, which was forbidden even by the law of Moses.
All this takes place in a provincial city. The occurrence excites the interest
and the sympathy, not only of outsiders, but even of the officers, and

therefore there is hesitation about employing the usual punishment for
contumacy. However, for the sake of appearances, he is thrown into jail,
and a request is sent to the higher military authorities for further
instructions in the case. From an official standpoint this refusal to take part
in a military organization, in which the Czar himself serves, and which is
blessed by the Church, must be regarded as insanity, and therefore the
message is received from St. Petersburg that the young man is probably
insane, and that before any violent measures are used against him he must
be sent to the insane hospital. Thither he is sent in the hope that he will
remain there, as happened some ten years ago in the case of a young man
from Iver, who also refused to serve, and who was tortured in the hospital
until at last he was subdued. But in the present instance even this measure
fails to relieve the military authorities from this troublesome young man.
The doctors examine him, become interested in him, and, discovering no
symptoms of insanity, they return him to his post. He is received, and
pretending that his refusal and its causes are forgotten, he is once more
invited to join the drill, and again he refuses, in the presence of other
soldiers, stating his reasons for his refusal. The affair attracts more and
more notice from soldiers as well as from civilians. Again the question is
referred to St. Petersburg, and thence comes the order to transfer the young
man to the frontier, where the troops are in active service, and where, if he
refuses to obey orders, he may be shot without exciting attention, as there
are but few Russians and Christians in that far-away territory, the majority
being foreigners and Mohammedans. This is done. The young man is
ordered to join the Trans-Caspian troops, and with other criminals he is
delivered into the hands of commanders noted for their severity and
determination.
Meanwhile, during all these transportations from place to place, the young
man has suffered from harsh treatment, from cold, hunger, and filth, and his
life has been made miserable. Yet all these trials do not weaken his
resolution. In the Trans-Caspian province, where he is once more ordered to
serve as a sentry under arms, he refuses to obey. He consents to stand where
he is sent, beside the hayricks, but declines to take a weapon in his hand,
declaring that on no account will he use violence against any one
whomsoever. All this occurs in the presence of the soldiers. Such
contumacy cannot go unpunished; consequently he is court-martialed for an
infringement of military discipline, convicted, and sentenced to two years'

confinement in a military prison. And once again, with the criminals, he is
sent by étape to the Caucasus and then thrown into prison, his fate being
left to the discretionary power of the jailer. There he is tortured for a year
and a half, but still his resolution to avoid the use of weapons remains
unchanged, and he continues to explain to every one whom he meets the
reasons for his refusal. Toward the end of the second year, before his term
has really expired, he is set at liberty; and although not in accordance with
the law, they are so anxious to rid themselves of him, that his imprisonment
is accepted as an equivalent of further active service.
And in various parts of Russia others are found who, as if by a concerted
plan, imitate his example, and in every case the action of the government is
undecided, vacillating, and underhanded. Some of these men are confined
in the insane hospitals, some are appointed military clerks and sent to serve
in Siberia, some are made foresters, others are thrown into prison, others are
fined. At the present time several of these men are imprisoned, not for their
substantial offense, denying the legality of the acts of the government, but
for disobeying the particular orders of their superiors. For instance, an
officer of the reserve recently failed to give information of the place of his
residence, and declined to serve further in the army; he was fined thirty
roubles for disobeying the orders of the authorities,—and this he declined to
pay, except under compulsion. Several peasants and soldiers who refused to
take part in a drill and to use weapons were put under arrest for
disobedience and contention.
Such instances of a refusal to comply with the demands of the State when
opposed to Christianity, especially refusals to perform military service,
occur not only in Russia, but everywhere. I know that in Servia, men from
the so-called sect of Nazarenes steadily refuse to enter the army, and the
Austrian government has for several years made futile attempts to convert
them by means of imprisonment. In 1885 there were 130 refusals of this
kind. I know that in Switzerland, in 1890, there were men in confinement in
the castle of Chillon for refusing to perform military duty whose
determination was not to be influenced by punishment. Such refusals have
occurred in Sweden; the men there also were imprisoned, and the
government carefully concealed the affairs from the people. Similar
instances occurred in Prussia. I know of one subaltern officer in the guards
who, in 1891, in Berlin, announced to his superiors that he, as a Christian,

could not continue his military service, and in spite of all remonstrances and
threats he adhered to his resolution. In the south of France a community of
men called the Hinschist has recently been established (my information is
derived from the Peace Herald of July, 1891), who, as professing the
Christian doctrine, refuse to perform military duty. At first they were told
off to serve in hospitals, but now, with the increase of the sect, they are
punished for insubordination, while they still refuse to bear arms.
Socialists, communists, and anarchists, with their bombs and their
revolutions, are far less dangerous to governments than these men, who
from different places proclaim their refusals, all based upon the same
doctrine, familiar to all. Every government knows how to defend itself from
revolutionists; it holds the means in its own hands, and therefore does not
fear these external foes. But what can a government do to protect itself from
men who declaim against all authority as useless, superfluous, and
injurious, offering, however, no opposition to authority, merely rejecting its
offices, dispensing with its services, and therefore refusing to participate in
it?
The revolutionists say: "State organization is bad, either for one reason or
for another; it should be destroyed, and replaced by such and such a
system." But a Christian says: "I know nothing of State organization,
whether it be good or bad, and it is for this very reason that I do not wish to
support it. And I cannot undertake submission, because such submission is
contrary to my conscience."
All the institutions of the State are opposed to the conscience of a Christian:
the oath of allegiance, taxation, courts of law, armies; while the whole
authority of government is dependent upon them. Revolutionary foes
struggle against the government, but Christianity enters not into this
contest; internally, it destroys the principles on which government is based.
With the Russian people, in whose midst, particularly since the time of
Peter I., the protest of Christianity against the State has never ceased; in the
midst of this people, where the conditions of life are such that whole
communes emigrate to Turkey, China, and uninhabited portions of the
globe, who, so far from needing the government, always consider it an
unnecessary burden, and only endure it as a calamity, whether it be Russian,
Chinese, or Turkish,—the cases of isolated individuals who, from Christian

motives, have liberated themselves from the control of government have
grown more and more frequent in these latter days. Such manifestations are
particularly dreaded by the government at the present time, because the men
who protest often belong not to the so-called lower, the uneducated classes,
but are men of average and even superior education, and because these men
explain their refusals, not by some mystical belief peculiar to the individual,
as in olden times, nor do they complicate them with superstition and
fanaticism, like the sects of the Self-burners or Bieguni, but assign as the
reason for their refusals the simplest, most obvious of truths, patent to and
admitted by all the world.
Thus men refuse to pay taxes of their own free will, because the money is
used to promote violence; in other words, to pay the wages of the violators
in the army, for building prisons and fortresses, or for manufacturing
cannon,—in all of which, as Christians, they consider it wrong and immoral
to take a part.
They refuse to take the oath of allegiance, for were they to promise to obey
the authorities,—that is, men who use violence,—they must contradict the
sense of the Christian doctrine.
They refuse to swear in court, because an oath is distinctly forbidden by the
gospel.
They decline police duties, because in that office they would be compelled
to use violence against their brethren and to distress them, and a Christian
cannot do this.
They refuse to take part in courts of law, because they look upon every
tribunal as a vehicle for the law of vengeance, and therefore incompatible
with the Christian law of forgiveness and love.
They decline to have anything to do with military preparations, or to enter
the ranks of the army, because they neither can nor will be executioners, nor
prepare themselves for such an office.
And the reasons alleged for these refusals are of such a nature that, however
arbitrary the governments may be, they cannot punish openly those who
refuse.
Were the governments to punish men for such refusals, they would be
forced to abjure forever both justice and virtue, those principles by which,

as they assure us, all their authority is supported.
What are governments to do with these men? Of course they have the
power to execute, to imprison, and to condemn to transportation and penal
servitude all enemies who attempt to overthrow them by violence; they can
obtain by bribery half the men they need, and have at their command
millions of armed soldiers, who are ready to put to death all the enemies of
authority. But what can be done with men who wish neither to destroy nor
to establish anything, whose sole desire is to avoid in their own private lives
any act that may be opposed to the Christian law, and who consequently
refuse to perform duties which are regarded by the government as the most
natural and obligatory of all?
If they were revolutionists, preaching violence and practising it, it would be
an easy matter to oppose them. Some might be bribed, some deceived,
others intimidated, and those who could neither be bought, deceived, nor
intimidated would be manifestly criminals, enemies of society who, as such,
could be executed or beaten to death; and the people would approve the acts
of the government. If they were fanatics belonging to some particular sect,
one might, in view of the superstitions inherent in their doctrine, refute at
the same time what truth their arguments contained. But what is to be done
with men who neither preach rebellion nor any special dogmas, who wish to
live in peace with all mankind, who refuse to take the oath of allegiance or
to pay taxes, or to take part in tribunals, to perform military service, and the
various duties of a similar nature, on which the whole organization of the
State is founded? What is to be done with them? They cannot be bribed.
The very risk they are willing to take shows their integrity. Neither can they
be deceived when these things are represented as the commands of God,
because their refusal is based on the indubitable law of God, by which the
very men who are trying to coerce them to disobey this law profess to hold
themselves bound. It is vain to hope to intimidate them by threats, because
the very suffering and privations which they endure for righteousness' sake
serve but to strengthen their devotion to their faith, whose law distinctly
commands them first of all to obey God, to fear not them that kill the body,
but to fear those who can kill both body and soul. Neither can they be
executed or imprisoned for life. Their past lives, their thoughts and actions,
their friends, speak for them; every one knows them to be gentle, kindly,
and harmless men, and it is impossible to represent them in the light of

criminals whose suppression is needed for the salvation of society.
Moreover, the execution of men acknowledged by all to be virtuous would
arouse defenders who would endeavor to explain the causes for their
disobedience. And when all men are made to recognize the reasons why
these Christians refuse to obey the demands of the State, they cannot fail to
acknowledge the same obligation, and to admit that all men should long
since have refused obedience.
Confronted with these insubordinations, governments find themselves in a
desperate plight. They realize that the prophecies of Christianity are about
to be fulfilled, that it is loosening the fetters of them that are in bonds and
setting men free; they realize that such freedom will inevitably destroy
those who have held mankind in bondage. Governments realize this; they
know that their hours are counted, that they are helpless to resist. All that
they are able to do is to retard the hour of dissolution. And this they try to
do; but their position is still a desperate one.
It is like the predicament of a conqueror who wishes to preserve the town
set on fire by the inhabitants. No sooner does he put the fire out in one place
than two other fires break out; when he separates the burning portion from
the main body of a large building the flames burst out at both extremities.
These outbreaks are not, as yet, of frequent occurrence, but the spark has
been kindled, and the fire will burn steadily until all is consumed.
The position of governments in the presence of men who profess
Christianity is so precarious that very little is needed to shake to pieces their
power, built up through so many centuries, and apparently so solid in
structure. And it is now that the sociologist comes forward, preaching that it
is useless, and even hurtful and immoral, for the individual to emancipate
himself alone.
Let us suppose that men have been working for a long time to divert the
course of a river; they have at last succeeded in digging a canal, and all that
remains now is to make an opening and let the water flow through it into
the canal; suppose now certain other men arrive upon the scene and suggest
that, instead of letting the water flow into the canal, it would be much better
to erect over the river some form of machinery, by means of which the
water would be poured from one side to the other.

But things have gone too far. Governments are aware of their weakness and
helplessness, and men of the Christian faith are awakening from their
torpor, beginning already to realize their power.
"I am come to send fire on the earth," said Christ.
And this is the fire that begins to burn.

CHAPTER X
USELESSNESS OF VIOLENCE FOR THE DESTRUCTION
OF EVIL. THE MORAL ADVANCE OF MANKIND IS
ACCOMPLISHED, NOT ONLY THROUGH THE
KNOWLEDGE OF TRUTH, BUT ALSO THROUGH THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC OPINION
Christianity destroys the State—Which is more necessary, Christianity or the State?—There
are men who defend the necessity of the State, and others who, on the same grounds,
deny this necessity—Neither can be proved by abstract reasoning—The question decides
the character of a man's consciousness, which either allows or forbids him to participate
in the organization of the State—Realization of the uselessness and immorality of taking
part in the organization of the State, which is contradictory to Christian doctrine, decides
this question for each one, regardless of the destiny of the State—Argument of the
defenders of the State, as a form of social life indispensable for the defense of the good
from the wicked, until all nations, and all members of each nation, shall have become
Christians—The more wicked are always those in power—History is but a recital of the
usurpation of power by the bad over the good—The acknowledgment by authority of the
necessity of struggle with evil by violence is equivalent to self-destruction—The
annihilation of violence is not only possible, but is going on before our eyes—However,
it is not destroyed by State violence, but through those men who, obtaining power by
violence, and recognizing its vanity and futility, benefit by experience and become
incapable of using violence—This is the process through which individual men, as well
as whole nations, have passed—It is in that way that Christianity penetrates into the
consciousness of men, and not only is this accomplished despite the violence used by
authority, but through its agency, and therefore the abolition of authority is not only
without danger, but it goes on continually as life itself—Objection of the defenders of the
State system that the diffusion of Christianity is improbable—Diffusion of Christian truth
interdicting violence accomplished not only slowly and gradually, by the internal method,
by individual recognition of the truth, by prophetic intuition, by the realizing of the
emptiness of power and abandonment of it by individual men, but accomplished also by
the external method, by which large numbers of men, inferior in intellectual development,
at once, in view of their confidence in the others, adopt the new truth—The diffusion of
truth at a certain stage creates a public opinion, which compels the majority of men who
have previously opposed it to recognize the new truth at once—Therefore a universal
renunciation of violence may very soon come to pass; namely, when a Christian public
opinion shall be established—The conviction of the necessity of violence prevents the
establishment of Christian public opinion—Violence compels men to discredit the moral
force which can alone exalt them—Neither nations nor individual men have been
conquered by violence, but by public opinion, which no violence can resist—It is possible
to conquer savage men and nations only by the diffusion of Christian public opinion
among them, whereas the Christian nations, in order to conquer them, do everything in

their power to destroy the establishment of a Christian public opinion—These
unsuccessful experiments cannot be cited as a proof of the impossibility of conquering
men by Christianity—Violence which corrupts public opinion only prevents the social
organization from becoming what it should be, and with the abolition of violence
Christian public opinion will be established—Whatever may take place when violence
has been abolished, the unknown future can be no worse than the present, and therefore
one need not fear it—To penetrate to the unknown and move toward it is the essence of
life.

Christianity, faithfully interpreted, saps the foundations of the civil law, and
this was always understood from the very outset. It was for this that Christ
was crucified; and until men felt the necessity for justifying the
establishment of the Christian state, they always accepted that
interpretation. The cleverly constructed theories intended to reconcile the
doctrines of Christianity with that of the State date back to the time when
rulers of nations adopted a nominal external Christianity. But in these times
it is impossible for a sincere and earnest man not to perceive the
incompatibility of the Christian doctrine of love, meekness of spirit, and
forgiveness of injuries, with the despotism, the violence, and the wars of the
State. The profession of true Christianity not only forbids the recognition of
the State, but strikes at its very foundations.
But if it be true that Christianity is incompatible with the State, one
naturally asks which is the better adapted to promote the well-being of
mankind, the system prescribed by the State, or the precepts of Christianity?
There are those who affirm that the State organization is the more
indispensable; they declare that its overthrow would check all human
progress, that no development is possible save through the channels of civil
government, and that all those evils which we find prevailing among
nations who live under State laws are not the result of the organization,
which permits progress and the attainment of the highest degree of
civilization.
They who hold these views quote, in support of their position, certain
historical, philosophical, and even religious arguments, which seem to them
irrefutable. But there are others who entertain views diametrically opposed
to these. For instance, they say that the fact of the world having existed at
one time without a government, might be taken to prove the State to be only
a temporary condition; that the time was sure to come when men would
require a change, which time had now arrived. To support their theory, these

men in turn adduce historical, philosophical, and religious arguments which
seem to them irrefutable.
Volumes may be and have been written in defense of the former position,
and of late years a great deal has been written, and ably written too, from
the opposite standpoint.
It can neither be proved on the one hand, as the partizans of the State claim,
that its destruction would be followed by a general upheaval, by robberies
and murders, and by the nullification of all social laws, and the return of
man to a condition of barbarism; nor on the other, as the enemies of the
State affirm, that man has grown so virtuous and well disposed that,
preferring peace to enmity, he will no longer rob and murder his neighbor;
that he is quite able, without State assistance, to establish a community, and
conduct his own affairs; and that the State itself, while assuming an air of
protection, is really exerting a demoralizing influence. It is impossible to
prove either one or the other by abstract arguments. And naturally neither
point can be proved by experience, as it is a question first of all of getting
the requisite experience.
Whether or not the time has arrived for abolishing the State is a question
which could not be answered were it not that we possess other means that
will assist us to settle it beyond dispute.
It needs no one to tell the young birds when it is time to burst the shell; they
know very well when there is no longer room for them in the eggs, and
begin of their own accord to break the shell and leave it behind. So it is with
this question of a change in human affairs. Has the time come for men to
cast aside the customs of the State and establish a new order? When a man's
inner consciousness has so developed that he feels himself hampered by the
requirements of the State, and can no longer submit to the restraint,
realizing at the same time that he has ceased to need its protecting care, the
question whether or no men have matured sufficiently to enable them to
dispense with the State is disposed of without reference to former
arguments. A man who has outgrown the State can no more be coerced into
submission to its laws than can the fledgling be made to reënter its shell.
"The State may have been necessary at one time, and for aught that I know
it may even now serve the purposes you mention," says the man who holds
the Christian life-conception. "I can only say that I have no need of it, nor

can I conform to its requirements. You must decide for yourself whether it
be advantageous or no. I shall not attempt to generalize on the subject with
the expectation of proving my point. I only recognize what I need and what
I don't need; what I can, and what I cannot do. I know, as far as I am myself
concerned, that I do not need to separate from the men of other nations, and
therefore I can neither recognize an exclusive affiliation to this or that one,
nor acknowledge myself the subject of any one government. I need none of
the institutions established by the State, and therefore I am not willing to
surrender the fruits of my labor in the form of taxes to support institutions
which I believe to be not only unnecessary but positively injurious. I know
that I need neither magistrates, nor tribunals founded on and supported by
violence, and therefore I can have nothing to do with them; I know that I
feel no inclination to attack other nations and put their citizens to death,
neither do I wish to defend myself against them by force of arms, and
therefore I can take no part in wars nor in preparations for wars. Doubtless
there are men who believe that all these things are an indispensable part of
human life,—I cannot argue with them,—but I know that for me they have
no meaning, and that I will have nothing to do with them.
"And this is not a matter of personal selection, but because I must obey the
commands of Him who has sent me into the world, and has given me an
unmistakable law by which I am to be guided through life."
Whatever arguments may be advanced to prove that harm and probably
disaster will accrue from abolishing the authority of the State, the man who
has already outgrown the State ideal cannot possibly be bound by it. And
whatever arguments may be adduced to prove its necessity, he can never
return to it. He is like the young bird who can never return to its outgrown
shell.
"But granting this to be true," say the partizans of the existing order, "we
cannot dispense with the supremacy of the State until all men are
Christians, because even among those who claim the title there are many
who are very far from being Christians—evil-doers, who seek their own
gratification at the expense of their fellow-men, and if the governments
were overthrown, so far from improving the condition of the people, it
would greatly add to their miseries. The subversion of the State would be a
misfortune, not only where the minority are true Christians, but even
supposing the whole people to be so; while the neighboring nations are still

non-Christian, these latter would make their lives a martyrdom by rapine
and murder and all manner of violence. It would serve only to provide the
vicious and unprincipled with an opportunity to oppress the innocent.
Therefore the State should not be abolished until all the wicked have ceased
from troubling, which will not happen just at present. Hence, however
much certain individual Christians may wish to escape from the authority of
the State, the greater good of the greater number demands its preservation."
So say the defenders of the State principle. "If it were not," they say, "for
State authority there would be no protection against the malice and injustice
of the oppressor; that authority alone makes it possible to restrain the
wicked."
But in uttering these sentiments the partizans of the existing order take it for
granted that they have proved the truth of what they assert. When they
declare that the evil-doers would ride roughshod over the defenseless and
the innocent were it not for the authority of the State, they imply that the
governing power is vested at the present time in a body of virtuous men,
who control all the wrong-doers. But this is a proposition which must be
proved. It could only be a correct statement if we happened to resemble the
inhabitants of China, where it is popularly believed, although the belief is
not justified by fact, that the good are always in authority, because should it
become known that the rulers are no better than those over whom they rule,
it is the duty of the citizens to overthrow the government. But although this
is supposed to be one of the customs of China, it is not, nor would it be
possible for it to be so, since, in order to overthrow a criminal government,
one needs the power as well as the right. Even in China this is a mere
supposition, and in our own Christian land we have never so much as
dreamed of it. As far as we are concerned, there is no reason to believe that
power is in the hands of the virtuous and high-minded, rather than in those
of men who took it by violence and have held it for themselves and their
descendants. For surely it would be impossible for a high-minded man to
usurp authority by violence and to continue to hold it.
In order to gain possession of power, and to retain it, one must have a love
for it, and the love of power is incompatible with goodness; it accords with
the opposite qualities of pride, duplicity, and cruelty.
Both the origin and the maintenance of power depend upon the exaltation of
the individual, and the degradation of the people by means of hypocrisy and

fraud, by prisons, fortresses, and murders. "If State authority were to be
abolished, then would the more wicked people dominate over the less
wicked," say the upholders of State organization. But if the Egyptians
conquered the Hebrews, and the Persians the Egyptians, and the
Macedonians the Persians, and the Romans the Greeks, and the barbarians
the Romans, is it really possible that the conquerors are always better than
the conquered? And so with political changes in the State; is the power
always transferred to the better men? When Louis XVI. was deposed, and
control passed into the hands of Robespierre, and when, later, he was in turn
succeeded by Napoleon, was it the better or the worse man who held the
power? Again, were they of Versailles or the communists the better men?
Charles the First or Cromwell? When Peter III. reigned, or, after his murder,
when Catharine ruled over one part of Russia, and Pugatchov over the other
—who then was good and who was wicked?
All those in authority affirm that their office is required in order that the
unprincipled may be hindered from oppressing the innocent, implying
thereby that they themselves, being virtuous, are protecting other virtuous
men from the malice of the evil-doer. To possess power and to do violence
are synonymous terms; to do violence means doing something to which the
victim of violence objects, and which the aggressor would resent were it
directed against himself. Therefore the possession of power really means
doing unto others what we should not like if it were done to ourselves,—
that is, harm.
Obedience signifies that a man holds patience to be better than violence,
and to choose patience rather than violence means to be good, or, at least,
not so wicked as those who do unto others what they would not wish to
have done to themselves.
Therefore all the probabilities are that those in authority were in past times,
as they are in present, worse men than those they ruled over. Doubtless
there are wicked men among those who submit to authority, but it is
impossible that the better men should rule over the worse.
This might be thought in pagan times, when the definition of goodness was
inaccurate; but with the clear and exact conception of the qualities of good
and evil presented by Christianity before us we cannot imagine it. If in the
pagan world they who were more or less good, and they who were more or

less bad, might not be easily distinguished, the characteristics of goodness
and wickedness have been so clearly defined by the Christian conception
that it is impossible to mistake them. According to the doctrine of Christ,
the good are those who submit and are long-suffering, who do not resist evil
by violence, who forgive injuries, and love their enemies; the wicked are
the vainglorious, who tyrannize, who are arrogant and violent with others.
Therefore, if we are guided by the doctrine of Christ, we shall have no
difficulty in deciding where to seek the good and the wicked among rulers
and subjects. It is even absurd to speak of Christians as sovereigns or rulers.
The non-Christians—that is, those to whom life is but a matter of temporal
welfare—must always rule over the Christians, for whom life means self-
denial and disregard of temporal things.
And thus it has always been, and it has been manifested more and more
plainly as the Christian doctrine has become more clearly defined and
widespread.
The farther true Christianity extended, the firmer the hold it gained on the
consciousness of men, the less possible it became for Christians to belong
to the dominant class, and the easier for non-Christians to gain the
ascendancy.
"To abolish the supremacy of the State before all men have become true
Christians would only afford the wicked a chance to tyrannize over the
good and maltreat them with impunity," say the upholders of the existing
order.
It has always been the same from the beginning of the world until this
present time, and it always will be. The wicked always rule over the good
and do violence to them. Cain did violence to Abel, the astute Jacob
betrayed the trusting Esau, and was himself deceived by Laban; Caiaphas
and Pilate sat in judgment on Christ; the Roman emperors ruled over
Seneca, Epictetus, and other high-minded Romans of those times; Ivan IV.
with his Opritchniks, the tipsy syphilitic Peter with his clowns, the
prostitute Catharine with her lovers, ruled over the industrious, God-fearing
Russian people of those times, and trampled upon them. William rules the
Germans, Stambulov the Bulgarians, and the Russian officials rule over the
Russian people; the Germans ruled over the Italians, and now they rule over
the Hungarians and the Slavs. The Turks ruled over the Greeks and now

rule over the Slavs, the English over the Hindoos, the Mongolians over the
Chinese.
So we see that whether the tyranny of the State is or is not to be abolished,
the position of the innocent, who are oppressed by the tyrants, will not be
materially affected thereby.
Men are not to be frightened by being told that the wicked will oppress the
good, because that is the natural course, and will never change.
The whole of pagan history is a mere narrative of events wherein the
wicked have got the upper hand, and, once in power, by craft and cruelty
have kept their hold upon men, announcing themselves meanwhile as the
guardians of justice and the defenders of the innocent against the oppressor.
All revolutions are but the result of the appropriation of power by the
wicked and their rule over the good. When the rulers say that if their power
were to be destroyed the evil-doers would tyrannize over the innocent, what
they really mean is that the tyrants in power are reluctant to yield to those
other tyrants who would fain wrest from them their authority. When they
protest that this authority of theirs, which is actually violence, is necessary
to defend the people against the possible tyranny of others,[19] they are
simply denouncing themselves. The reason why violence is dangerous is
that, whenever it is employed, all the arguments which the perpetrators
advanced in their own defense may be used against them with even greater
force. They talk of the violence done in the past, and more frequently of
future and imaginary violence, while they themselves are the real offenders.
"You say that men committed robbery and murder in former times, and
profess anxiety lest all men be robbed or murdered unless protected by your
authority. This may or may not be true, but the fact that you allow
thousands of men to perish in prisons by enforced labor, in fortresses, and
in exile, that your military requisitions ruin millions of families and imperil,
morally and physically, millions of men, this is not a supposititious but an
actual violence, which, according to your own reasoning, should be resisted
by violence. And therefore, by your own admission, the wicked ones,
against whom one should use violence, are yourselves." Thus should the
oppressed reply to their oppressors. And such are the language, the
thoughts, and the actions of non-Christians. Wherever the oppressed are
more wicked than the oppressor, they attack and overthrow them whenever

they are able; or else—and this is more frequently the case—they enter the
ranks of the oppressors and take part in their tyranny.
Thus the dangers of which the defenders of State rights make a bugbear—
that if authority were overthrown the wicked would prevail over the good—
potentially exist at all times. The destruction of State violence, in fact, never
can, for this very reason, lead to any real increase of violence on the part of
the wicked over the good.
If State violence disappeared, it is not unlikely that other acts of violence
would be committed; but the sum of violence can never be increased simply
because the power passes from the hands of one into those of another.
"State violence can never be abolished until all the wicked disappear," say
the advocates of the existing order, by which they imply that there must
always be violence, because there will always be wicked people. This could
only prove true, supposing the oppressors to be really beneficent, and
supposing the true deliverance of mankind from evil must be accomplished
by violence. Then, of course, violence could never cease. But as, on the
contrary, violence never really overcomes evil, and since there is another
way altogether to overcome it, the assertion that violence will never cease is
untrue. Violence is diminishing, and clearly tending to disappear; though
not, as is claimed by the defenders of the existing order, in consequence of
the amelioration of those who live under an oppressive government (their
condition really gets worse), but because the consciousness of mankind is
becoming more clear. Hence even the wicked men who are in power are
growing less and less wicked, and will at last become so good that they will
be incapable of committing deeds of violence.
The reason why humanity marches forward is not because the inferior men,
having gained possession of power, reform their subjects by arbitrary
methods, as is claimed both by Conservatives and Revolutionists, but is due
above all to the fact that mankind in general is steadily, and with an ever
increasing appreciation, adopting the Christian life-conception. There is a
phenomenon observable in human life in a manner analogous to that of
boiling. Those who profess the social life-conception are always ambitious
to rule, and struggle to attain power. In this struggle the most gross and
cruel, the least Christian elements of society, bubble up, as it were, and rise,
by reason of their violence, into the ruling or upper classes of society. But

then is fulfilled what Christ prophesied: "Woe unto you that are rich! Woe
unto you that are full! Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of
you!" (Luke vi. 24-26). The men who have attained power, and glory, and
riches, and who have realized all their cherished aims, live to discover that
all is vanity, and gladly return to their former estate. Charles V., Ivan the
Terrible, Alexander I., having realized the evils of power and its futility,
renounced it because they recognized it as a calamity, having lost all
pleasure in the deeds of violence which they formerly enjoyed.
But it is not alone kings like Charles V. and Alexander I. who arrive at this
disgust of power, but every man who has attained the object of his
ambition. Not only the statesman, the general, the millionaire, the merchant,
but every official who has gained the position for which he has longed this
half score of years, every well-to-do peasant who has saved one or two
hundred roubles, finds at last the same disillusion.
Not only individuals, but entire nations, mankind as a whole, have passed
through this experience.
The attractions of power and all it brings—riches, honors, luxury—seem to
men really worth struggling for only until they are won; for no sooner does
a man hold them within his grasp than they manifest their own emptiness
and gradually lose their charm, like clouds, lovely and picturesque in
outline seen from afar, but no sooner is one enveloped in them than all their
beauty vanishes.
Men who have obtained riches and power, those who have struggled for
them, but more particularly those who have inherited them, cease to be
greedy for power or cruel in its acquisition.
Having learned by experience, sometimes in one generation, sometimes in
several, how utterly worthless are the fruits of violence, men abandon those
vices acquired by the passion for riches and power, and growing more
humane, they lose their positions, being crowded out by others who are less
Christian and more wicked; whereupon they fall back into a stratum, which,
though lower in the social scale, is higher in that of morality, thus
increasing the mean level of Christian consciousness. But straightway, the
worse, the rougher, and less Christian elements rise to the surface, and
being subject to the same experience as their predecessors, after one or two
generations these men, too, recognize the hollowness of violent ambitions,

and, being penetrated with the spirit of Christianity, fall back into the ranks
of the oppressed. These are in turn replaced by new oppressors, less
despotic than the former, but rougher than those whom they oppress. So that
although the authority is to all outward seeming unchanged, yet the number
of those who have been driven by the exigencies of life to adopt the
Christian life-conception increases with every change of rulers. They may
be more harsh, more cruel, and less Christian than their subjects; but always
men less and less violent replace their predecessors in authority.
Violence chooses its instruments from among the worst elements of society;
men who gradually become leavened, and, softened and changed for the
better, are returned into society.
Such is the process by means of which Christianity takes fuller possession
of men day by day. Christianity enters into the consciousness of men in
spite of the violence of power, and even owing to that violence.
The argument of the defenders of the State, that if power were abolished the
wicked would tyrannize over the good, not only fails to prove that the
domination of the wicked is a new thing to be dreaded,—as it exists already,
—but proves, on the contrary, that the tyranny of the State, which allows
the wicked to govern the good, is itself the real evil which we ought to
eradicate, and which is constantly decreasing by the very nature of things.
"But if State violence is not to cease until the rulers have become so far
Christianized that they will renounce it of their own accord and no others
will be found to take their places,—if these things are coming to pass," say
the defenders of the existing order, "when is it to happen? If 1800 years
have passed, and still so many long to rule, it is wholly improbable that we
shall soon behold this change, if it ever takes place at all.
"Even though there may be at present, as there always have been, certain
individuals who would not rule if they could, who do not choose to benefit
themselves in that way, still the number of those who do prefer to rule
rather than to be ruled is so great that it is difficult to imagine a time when
the number will be exhausted.
"In order to accomplish the conversion of all men, to induce each one to
exchange the pagan for the Christian life-conception, voluntarily resigning
riches and power, there being none left to profit by these, it would be

necessary that not only all the rude, half-barbarous people, unfitted either to
accept Christianity or follow its precepts, who are always to be found in
every Christian community, should become Christians, but that all savage
and non-Christian nations, which are still numerous, should also become
Christian.
"Therefore were one to admit that the Christianizing process may at some
future time embrace all humanity, we must still take into consideration the
degree of progress that has been made in 1800 years, and realize that this
can only happen after many centuries. Hence we need not for the present
trouble ourselves about the overthrow of authority; all we have to do is to
look to it that it is in the best hands."
Thus reply the partizans of the existing system. And this reasoning would
be perfectly consistent, provided that the transition of men from one life-
conception to another were only to be effected by the process of individual
conversion; that is to say, that each man, through his personal experience,
should realize the vanity of power, and apprehend Christian truth. This
process is constantly going on, and in that way, one by one, men are
converted to Christianity.
But men do not become converted to Christianity merely in this way; there
is an exterior influence brought to bear which accelerates the process. The
progression of mankind from one system of life to another is accomplished
not only gradually, as the sand glides through the hour-glass, grain by grain,
until all has run out, but rather as water which enters an immersed vessel, at
first slowly, at one side, then, borne down by its weight, suddenly plunges,
and at once fills completely.
And this is what happens in human communities during a change in their
life-conception, which is equivalent to the change from one organization to
another. It is only at first that men by degrees, one by one, accept the new
truth and obey its dictates; but after it has been to a certain extent
disseminated, it is accepted, not through intuition, and not by degrees, but
generally and at once, and almost involuntarily.
And therefore the argument of the advocates of the present system, that but
a minority have embraced Christianity during the last 1800 years, and that
another 1800 years must pass away before the rest of mankind will accept
it, is erroneous. For one must take into consideration another mode, in

addition to the intuitive of assimilating new truth, and of making the
transition from one mode of life to another. This other mode is this: men
assimilate a truth not alone because they may have come to realize it
through prophetic insight or through individual experience, but the truth
having been spread abroad, those who dwell on a lower plane of
intelligence accept it at once, because of their confidence in those who have
received it and incorporated it in their lives.
Every new truth that changes the manner of life and causes humanity to
move onward is at first accepted by a very limited number, who grasp it by
knowledge of it. The rest of mankind, accepting on faith the former truth
upon which the existing system has been founded, is always opposed to the
spread of the new truth.
But as, in the first place, mankind is not stationary, but is ever progressing,
growing more and more familiar with truth and approaching nearer to it in
everyday life: and secondly, as all men progress according to their
opportunities, age, education, nationality, beginning with those who are
more, and ending with those who are less, capable of receiving new truth—
the men nearest those who have perceived the truth intuitively pass, one by
one, and with gradually diminishing intervals, over to the side of the new
truth. So, as the number of men who acknowledge it increases, the truth
itself becomes more clearly manifested. The feeling of confidence in the
new truth increases in proportion to the numbers who have accepted it. For,
owing to the growing intelligibility of the truth itself, it becomes easier for
men to grasp it, especially for those lower intellectually, until finally the
greater number readily adopt it, and help to found a new régime.
The men who go over to the new truth, once it has gained a certain hold, go
over en masse, of one accord, much as ballast is rapidly put into a ship to
maintain its equilibrium. If not ballasted, the vessel would not be
sufficiently immersed, and would change its position every moment. This
ballast, which at first may seem superfluous and a hindrance to the progress
of the ship, is indispensable to its equipoise and motion.
Thus it is with the masses when, under the influence of some new idea that
has won social approval, they abandon one system to adopt another, not
singly, but in a body. It is the inertia of this mass which impedes the rapid
and frequent transition from one system of life, not ratified by wisdom, to

another; and which for a long time arrests the progress of every truth
destined to become a part of human consciousness.
It is erroneous, then, to argue that because only a small percentage of the
human race has in these eighteen centuries adopted the Christian doctrine,
that many, many times eighteen centuries must elapse before the whole
world will accept it,—a period of time so remote that we who are now
living can have no interest in it. It is unfair, because those men who stand
on a lower plane of development, whom the partizans of the existing order
represent as hindrances to the realization of the Christian system of life, are
those men who always go over in a body to a truth accepted by those above
them.
And therefore that change in the life of mankind, when the powerful will
give up their power without finding any to assume it in their stead, will
come to pass when the Christian life-conception, rendered familiar,
conquers, not merely men one by one, but masses at a time.
"But even if it were true," the advocates of the existing order may say, "that
public opinion has the power to convert the inert non-Christian mass of
men, as well as the corrupt and gross who are to be found in every Christian
community, how shall we know that a Christian mode of life is born, and
that State violence will be rendered useless?
"After renouncing the despotism by which the existing order has been
maintained, in order to trust to the vague and indefinite force of public
opinion, we risk permitting those savages, those existing among us, as well
as those outside, to commit robbery, murder, and other outrages upon
Christians.
"If even with the help of authority we have a hard struggle against the anti-
Christian elements ever ready to overpower us, and destroy all the progress
made by civilization, how then could public opinion prove an efficient
substitute for the use of force, and avail for our protection? To rely upon
public opinion alone would be as foolhardy as to let loose all the wild
beasts of a menagerie, because they seem inoffensive when in their cages
and held in awe by red-hot irons.
"Those men entrusted with authority, or born to rule over others by the
divine will of God, have no right to imperil all the results of civilization,

simply to make an experiment, and learn whether public opinion can or
cannot be substituted for the safeguard of authority."
Alphonse Karr, a French writer, forgotten to-day, once said, in trying to
prove the impossibility of abolishing the death penalty: "Que Messieurs les
assassins commencent par nous donner l'exemple." And I have often heard
this witticism quoted by persons who really believed they were using a
convincing and intellectual argument against the suppression of the penalty
of death. Nevertheless, there could be no better argument against the
violence of government.
"Let the assassins begin by showing us an example," say the defenders of
government authority. The assassins say the same, but with more justice.
They say: "Let those who have set themselves up as teachers and guides
show us an example by the suppression of legal assassination, and we will
imitate it." And this they say, not by way of a jest, but in all seriousness, for
such is in reality the situation.
"We cannot cease to use violence while we are surrounded by those who
commit violence."
There is no more insuperable barrier at the present time to the progress of
humanity, and to the establishment of a system that shall be in harmony
with its present conception of life, than this erroneous argument.
Those holding positions of authority are fully convinced that men are to be
influenced and controlled by force alone, and therefore to preserve the
existing system they do not hesitate to employ it. And yet this very system
is supported, not by violence, but by public opinion, the action of which is
compromised by violence. The action of violence actually weakens and
destroys that which it wishes to support.
At best, violence, if not employed as a vehicle for the ambition of those in
high places, condemns in the inflexible form a law which public opinion
has most probably long ago repudiated and condemned; but there is this
difference, that while public opinion rejects and condemns all acts that are
opposed to the moral law, the law supported by force repudiates and
condemns only a certain limited number of acts, seeming thus to justify all
acts of a like order which have not been included in its formula.

From the time of Moses public opinion has regarded covetousness, lust, and
cruelty as crimes, and condemned them as such. It condemns and repudiates
every form that covetousness may assume, not only the acquisition of
another man's property by violence, fraud, or cunning, but the cruel abuse
of wealth as well. It condemns all kinds of lust, let it be impudicity with a
mistress, a slave, a divorced wife, or with one's wife; it condemns all
cruelty,—blows, bad usage, murder,—all cruelty, not only toward human
beings, but toward animals. Whereas, the law, based upon violence, attacks
only certain forms of covetousness, such as theft and fraud, and certain
forms of lust and cruelty, such as conjugal infidelity, assault, and murder;
and thus it seems to condone those manifestations of covetousness, lust, and
cruelty which do not fall within its narrow limits.
But violence not only demoralizes public opinion, it excites in the minds of
men a pernicious conviction that they move onward, not through the
impulsion of a spiritual power, which would help them to comprehend and
realize the truth by bringing them nearer to that moral force which is the
source of every progressive movement of mankind,—but, by means of
violence,—by the very factor that not only impedes our progress toward
truth, but withdraws us from it. This is a fatal error, inasmuch as it inspires
in man a contempt for the fundamental principle of his life,—spiritual
activity,—and leads him to transfer all his strength and energy to the
practice of external violence.
It is as though men would try to put a locomotive in motion by turning its
wheels with their hands, not knowing that the expansion of steam was the
real motive-power, and that the action of the wheels was but the effect, and
not the cause. If by their hands and their levers they move the wheels, it is
but the semblance of motion, and, if anything, injures the wheels and makes
them useless.
The same mistake is made by those who expect to move the world by
violence.
Men affirm that the Christian life cannot be established save by violence,
because there are still uncivilized nations outside of the Christian world, in
Africa and Asia (some regard even the Chinese as a menace of our
civilization), and because, according to the new theory of heredity, there
exist in society congenital criminals, savage and irredeemably vicious.

But the savages whom we find in our own community, as well as those
beyond its pale, with whom we threaten ourselves and others, have never
yielded to violence, and are not yielding to it now. One people never
conquered another by violence alone. If the victors stood on a lower plane
of civilization than the conquered, they always adopted the habits and
customs of the latter, never attempting to force their own methods of life
upon them. It is by the influence of public opinion, not by violence, that
nations are reduced to submission.
When a people have accepted a new religion, have become Christians, or
turned Mohammedans, it has come to pass, not because it was made
obligatory by those in power (violence often produced quite the opposite
result), but because they were influenced by public opinion. Nations
constrained by violence to accept the religion of the conqueror have never
really done so.
The same may be said in regard to the savage elements found in all
communities: neither severity nor clemency in the matter of punishments,
nor modifications in the prison system, nor augmenting of the police force,
have either diminished or increased the aggregate of crimes, which will
only decrease through an evolution in our manner of life. No severities have
ever succeeded in suppressing the vendetta, or the custom of dueling in
certain countries. However many of his fellows may be put to death for
thieving, the Tcherkess continues to steal out of vainglory. No girl will
marry a Tcherkess who has not proved his daring by stealing a horse, or at
least a sheep. When men no longer fight duels, and the Tcherkess cease to
steal, it will not be from fear of punishment (the danger of capital
punishment adds to the prestige of daring), but because public manners will
have undergone a change. The same may be said of all other crimes.
Violence can never suppress that which is countenanced by general custom.
If public opinion would but frown upon violence, it would destroy all its
power.
What would happen if violence were not employed against hostile nations
and the criminal element in society we do not know. But that the use of
violence subdues neither we do know through long experience.
And how can we expect to subdue by violence nations whose education,
traditions, and even religious training all tend to glorify resistence to the

conqueror, and love of liberty as the loftiest of virtues? And how is it
possible to extirpate crime by violence in the midst of communities where
the same act, regarded by the government as criminal, is transformed into
an heroic exploit by public opinion?
Nations and races may be destroyed by violence—it has been done. They
cannot be subdued.
The power transcending all others which has influenced individuals and
nations since time began, that power which is the convergence of the
invisible, intangible, spiritual forces of all humanity, is public opinion.
Violence serves but to enervate this influence, disintegrating it, and
substituting for it one not only useless, but pernicious to the welfare of
humanity.
In order to win over all those outside the Christian fold, all the Zulus, the
Manchurians, the Chinese, whom many consider uncivilized, and the
uncivilized among ourselves, there is only one way. This is by the diffusion
of a Christian mode of thought, which is only to be accomplished by a
Christian life, Christian deeds, a Christian example. But instead of
employing this one way of winning those who have remained outside the
fold of Christianity, men of our epoch have done just the opposite.
In order to convert uncivilized nations who do us no harm, whom we have
no motive for oppressing, we ought, above all, to leave them in peace, and
act upon them only by our showing them an example of the Christian
virtues of patience, meekness, temperance, purity, and brotherly love.
Instead of this we begin by seizing their territory, and establishing among
them new marts for our commerce, with the sole view of furthering our own
interests—we, in fact, rob them; we sell them wine, tobacco, and opium,
and thereby demoralize them; we establish our own customs among them,
we teach them violence and all its lessons; we teach them the animal law of
strife, that lowest depth of human degradation, and do all that we can to
conceal the Christian virtues we possess. Then, having sent them a score of
missionaries, who gabble an absurd clerical jargon, we quote the results of
our attempt to convert the heathen as an indubitable proof that the truths of
Christianity are not adaptable to everyday life.

And as for those whom we call criminals, who live in our midst, all that has
just been said applies equally to them. There is only one way to convert
them, and that is by means of a public opinion founded on true Christianity,
accompanied by the example of a sincere Christian life. And by way of
preaching this Christian gospel and confirming it by Christian example, we
imprison, we execute, guillotine, hang; we encourage the masses in
idolatrous religions calculated to stultify them; the government authorizes
the sale of brain-destroying poisons—wine, tobacco, opium; prostitution is
legalized; we bestow land upon those who need it not; surrounded by
misery, we display in our entertainments an unbridled extravagance; we
render impossible in such ways any semblance of a Christian life, and do
our best to destroy Christian ideas already established; and then, after doing
all we can to demoralize men, we take and confine them like wild beasts in
places from which they cannot escape, and where they will become more
brutal than ever; or we murder the men we have demoralized, and then use
them as an example to illustrate and prove our argument that people are
only to be controlled by violence.
Even so does the ignorant physician act, who, having placed his patient in
the most unsanitary conditions, or having administered to him poisonous
drugs, afterward contends that his patient has succumbed to the disease,
when had he been left to himself he would have recovered long ago.
Violence, which men regard as an instrument for the support of Christian
life, on the contrary, prevents the social system from reaching its full and
perfect development. The social system is such as it is, not because of
violence, but in spite of it.
Therefore the defenders of the existing social system are self-deceived
when they say that, since violence barely holds the evil and un-Christian
elements of society in awe, its subversion, and the substitution of the moral
influence of public opinion, would leave us helpless in face of them. They
are wrong, because violence does not protect mankind; but it deprives men
of the only possible chance of an effectual defense by the establishment and
propagation of the Christian principle of life.
"But how can one discard the visible and tangible protection of the
policeman with his baton, and trust to invisible, intangible public opinion?
And, moreover, is not its very existence problematical? We are all familiar

with the actual state of things; whether it be good or bad we know its faults,
and are accustomed to them; we know how to conduct ourselves, how to act
in the present conditions; but what will happen when we renounce the
present organization, and confide ourselves to something invisible,
intangible, and utterly unfamiliar?"
Men dread the uncertainty into which they would plunge if they were to
renounce the familiar order of things. Certainly were our situation an
assured and stable one, it would be well to dread the uncertainties of
change. But so far from enjoying an assured position, we know that we are
on the verge of a catastrophe.
If we are to give way to fear, then let it be before something that is really
fearful, and not before something that we imagine may be so.
In fearing to make an effort to escape from conditions that are fatal to us,
only because the future is obscure and unknown, we are like the passengers
of a sinking ship who crowd into the cabin and refuse to leave it, because
they have not the courage to enter the boat that would carry them to the
shore; or like sheep who, in fear of the fire that has broken out in the
farmyard, huddle together in a corner and will not go out through the open
gate.
How can we, who stand on the threshold of a shocking and devastating
social war, before which, as those who are preparing for it tell us, the
horrors of 1793 will pale, talk seriously about the danger threatened by the
natives of Dahomey, the Zulus, and others who live far away, and who have
no intention of attacking us; or about the few thousands of malefactors,
thieves, and murderers—men whom we have helped to demoralize, and
whose numbers are not decreased by all our courts, prisons, and executions?
Moreover, this anxiety lest the visible protection of the police be
overthrown, is chiefly confined to the inhabitants of cities—that is, to those
who live under abnormal and artificial conditions. Those who live normally
in the midst of nature, dealing with its forces, require no such protection;
they realize how little avails violence to protect us from the real danger that
surrounds us. There is something morbid in this fear, which arises chiefly
from the false conditions in which most of us have grown up and continue
to live.

A doctor to the insane related how, one day in summer, when he was about
to leave the asylum, the patients accompanied him as far as the gate that led
into the street.
"Come with me into town!" he proposed to them.
The patients agreed, and a little band followed him. But the farther they
went through the streets where they met their sane fellow-men moving
freely to and fro, the more timid they grew, and pressed more closely
around the doctor. At last they begged to be taken back to the asylum, to
their old but accustomed mode of insane life, to their keepers and their
rough ways, to strait jackets and solitary confinement.
And thus it is with those whom Christianity is waiting to set free, to whom
it offers the untrammeled rational life of the future, the coming century;
they huddle together and cling to their insane customs, to their factories,
courts, and prisons, their executioners, and their warfare.
They ask: "What security will there be for us when the existing order has
been swept away? What kind of laws are to take the place of those under
which we are now living? Not until we know exactly how our life is to be
ordered will we take a single step toward making a change." It is as if a
discoverer were to insist upon a detailed description of the region he is
about to explore. If the individual man, while passing from one period of
his life to another, could read the future and know just what his whole life
were to be, he would have no reason for living. And so it is with the career
of humanity. If, upon entering a new period, a program detailing the
incidents of its future existence were possible, humanity would stagnate.
We cannot know the conditions of the new order of things, because we have
to work them out for ourselves. The meaning of life is to search out that
which is hidden, and then to conform our activity to our new knowledge.
This is the life of the individual as it is the life of humanity.

CHAPTER XI
CHRISTIAN PUBLIC OPINION ALREADY ARISES IN OUR
SOCIETY, AND WILL INEVITABLY DESTROY THE
SYSTEM OF VIOLENCE OF OUR LIFE. WHEN THIS
WILL COME ABOUT
The condition and organization of our society is shocking; it is upheld by public opinion, but
can be abolished by it—Men's views in regard to violence have already changed; the
number of men ready to serve the governments decreases, and functionaries of
government themselves begin to be ashamed of their position, to the point of often not
fulfilling their duties—These facts, signs of the birth of a public opinion, which, in
becoming more and more general, will lead finally to the impossibility of finding men
willing to serve governments—It becomes more and more clear that such positions are no
longer needed—Men begin to realize the uselessness of all the institutions of violence;
and if this is realized by a few men, it will later be understood by all—The time when the
deliverance will be accomplished is unknown, but it depends on men themselves; it
depends on how much each man is willing to live by the light that is within him.

The position of the Christian nations, with their prisons, their gallows, their
factories, their accumulations of capital, taxes, churches, taverns, and public
brothels, their increasing armaments, and their millions of besotted men,
ready, like dogs, to spring at a word from the master, would be shocking
indeed if it were the result of violence; but such a state of things is, before
all, the result of public opinion; and what has been established by public
opinion not only may be, but will be, overthrown by it.
Millions and millions of money, tens of millions of disciplined soldiers,
marvelous weapons of destruction, an infinitely perfected organization,
legions of men charged to delude and hypnotize the people,—this is all
under the control of men who believe that this organization is advantageous
for them, who know that without it they would disappear, and who therefore
devote all their energy to its maintenance. What an indomitable array of
power it seems! And yet we have but to realize whither we are fatally
tending, for men to become as much ashamed of acts of violence, and to
profit by them, as they are ashamed now of dishonesty, theft, beggary,
cowardice; and the whole complicated and apparently omnipotent system

will die at once without any struggle. To accomplish this transformation it is
not necessary that any new ideas should find their way into the human
consciousness, but only that the mist which now veils the true significance
of violence should lift, in order that the growing Christian public opinion
and methods may conquer the methods of the pagan world. And this is
gradually coming to pass. We do not observe it, as we do not observe the
movement of things when we are turning, and everything around us is
turning as well.
It is true that the social organization seems for the most part as much under
the influence of violence as it seemed a thousand years ago, and in respect
of armaments and war seems even more; but the Christian view of life is
already having its effect. The withered tree, to all appearance, stands as
firmly as ever; it seems even firmer, because it has grown harder, but it is
already rotten at the heart and preparing to fall. It is the same with the
present mode of life based upon violence. The outward position of man
appears the same. There are the same oppressors, the same oppressed, but
the feeling of both classes in regard to their respective positions has
undergone a change. The oppressors, that is, those who take part in the
government, and those who are benefited by oppression, the wealthy
classes, do not constitute, as formerly, the élite of society, nor does their
condition suggest that ideal of human prosperity and greatness to which
formerly all the oppressed aspired. Now, it often happens that the
oppressors renounce of their own accord the advantages of their position,
choosing the position of the oppressed, and endeavor, by the simplicity of
their mode of life, to resemble them.
Not to speak of those offices and positions generally considered
contemptible, such as that of the spy, the detective, the usurer, or the keeper
of a tavern, a great many of the positions held by the oppressors, and
formerly considered honorable, such as those of police officers, courtiers,
judges, administrative functionaries, ecclesiastical or military, masters on a
large scale, and bankers, are not only considered little enviable, but are
already avoided by estimable men. Already there are men who choose to
renounce such once envied positions, preferring others which, although less
advantageous, are not associated with violence.
It is not merely such as these who renounce their privileges; men
influenced, not by religious motives, as was the case in former ages, but by

growing public opinion, refuse to accept fortunes fallen to them by
inheritance, because they believe that a man ought to possess only the fruits
of his own labor.
High-minded youths, not as yet depraved by life, when about to choose a
career, prefer the professions of doctors, engineers, teachers, artists, writers,
or even of farmers, who live by their daily toil, to the positions of judges,
administrators, priests, soldiers in the pay of government; they decline even
the position of living on their income.
Most of the monuments at the present day are no longer erected in honor of
statesmen or generals, still less of men of wealth, but to scientists, artists,
and inventors, to men who not only had nothing in common with
government or authority, but who frequently opposed it. It is to their
memory that the arts are thus consecrated.
The class of men who will govern, and of rich men, tends every day to grow
less numerous, and so far as intellect, education, and especially morality,
are concerned, rich men and men in power are not the most distinguished
members of society, as was the case in olden times. In Russia and Turkey,
as in France and America, notwithstanding the frequent changes of officials,
the greater number are often covetous and venal, and so little to be
commended from the point of view of morality that they do not satisfy even
the elementary exigencies of honesty demanded in government posts. Thus
one hears often the ingenuous complaints of those in government that the
best men among us, strangely enough as it seems to them, are always found
among those opposed to them. It is as if one complained that it is not the
nice, good people who become hangmen.
Rich men of the present day, as a general thing, are mere vulgar amassers of
wealth, for the most part having but little care beyond that of increasing
their capital, and that most often by impure means; or are the degenerate
inheritors, who, far from playing an important part in society, often incur
general contempt.
Many positions have lost their ancient importance. Kings and emperors now
hardly direct at all; they seldom effect internal changes or modify external
policy, leaving the decision of such questions to the departments of State, or
to public opinion. Their function is reduced to being the representatives of
state unity and power. But even this duty they begin to neglect. Most of