diff options
Diffstat (limited to '43794-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 43794-8.txt | 7583 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 7583 deletions
diff --git a/43794-8.txt b/43794-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 863bddd..0000000 --- a/43794-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7583 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of My Religion, by Leo Tolstoy - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere 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 - - -Title: My Religion - -Author: Leo Tolstoy - -Translator: Huntington Smith - -Release Date: September 22, 2013 [EBook #43794] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MY RELIGION *** - - - - -Produced by Carlos Colon, Princeton Theological Seminary -Library and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at -http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images -generously made available by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - - - Transcriber's Notes: - - Italic text is denoted by _underscores_. - - Blank pages have been eliminated. - - Greek and Hebrew characters have been transliterated to English - characters. The transliterations are denoted by [Greek: [Hebrew: - - Variations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the - original. - - A few typographical errors have been corrected. - - - - - MY RELIGION. - - - BY - COUNT LEO TOLSTOI. - - - _TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH._ - - - NEW YORK: - THOMAS Y. CROWELL & CO., - 13 ASTOR PLACE. - - - Copyright by - THOMAS Y. CROWELL & CO., - 1885. - - - - -TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. - - -TO one not familiar with the Russian language the accessible data -relative to the external life of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi, the author of -this book, are, to say the least, not voluminous. His name does not -appear in that heterogeneous record of celebrities known as _The Men of -the Time_, nor is it to be found in M. Vapereau's comprehensive -_Dictionnaire des Contemporains_. And yet Count Leo Tolstoi is -acknowledged by competent critics to be a man of extraordinary genius, -who, certainly in one instance, has produced a masterpiece of literature -which will continue to rank with the great artistic productions of this -age. - -Perhaps it is enough for us to know that he was born on his father's -estate in the Russian province of Tula, in the year 1828; that he -received a good home education and studied the oriental languages at the -University of Kasan; that he was for a time in the army, which he -entered at the age of twenty-three as an officer of artillery, serving -later on the staff of Prince Gortschakof; and that subsequently he -alternated between St. Petersburg and Moscow, leading the existence of -super-refined barbarism and excessive luxury, characteristic of the -Russian aristocracy. He saw life in country and city, in camp and court. -He was numbered among the defenders of Sebastopol in the Crimean War, -and the impressions then gathered he used as material for a series of -_War Sketches_ that attracted attention in the pages of the magazine -where they first appeared; and when, a little later, they were published -in book form, their author, then twenty-eight years of age, acquired at -once a wide popularity. Popularity became fame with the publication, -also in 1856, of _Childhood and Youth_, remarkable alike for its artless -revelations concerning the genesis and growth of ideas and emotions in -the minds of the young, for its idyllic pictures of domestic life, and -for its graceful descriptions of nature. This was followed by _The -Cossacks_, a wild romance of the steppes, vigorously realistic in -details, and, like all of Count Tolstoi's works, poetic in conception -and inspired with a dramatic intensity. In 1860 appeared _War and -Peace_, an historical romance in many volumes, dealing with the -Napoleonic invasion of 1812 and the events that immediately followed the -retreat from Moscow. According to M. C. Courrière,[1] it was seized upon -with avidity and produced a profound sensation. - - [1] _Histoire de la littérature contemporaine en Russie._ - -"The stage is immense and the actors are innumerable; among them three -emperors with their ministers, their marshals, and their generals, and -then a countless retinue of minor officers, soldiers, nobles, and -peasants. We are transported by turns from the salons of St. Petersburg -to the camps of war, from Moscow to the country. And all these diverse -and varied scenes are joined together with a controlling purpose that -brings everything into harmony. Each one of the prolonged series of -constantly changing tableaux is of remarkable beauty and palpitating -with life." - -Pierre Besushkof, one of the three heroes of _War and Peace_, has, -rightly or wrongly, long been regarded as in some respects an -autobiographical study, but the personal note is always clearly -perceptible in Count Tolstoi's writings, if we are to believe the -reports of the enthusiastic purveyors of literary information who have -made known some of their many attractive qualities. It is plain also -that a common purpose runs through them all, a purpose which only in the -author's latest production finds full expression. There are hints of it -in _Childhood and Youth_; in _War and Peace_, and in a subsequent -romance, _Anna Karenin_, it becomes very distinct. In the two works last -named Count Tolstoi is pitiless in his portrayal of the vices and -follies of the wealthy, aristocratic class, and warm in his praise of -simplicity and unpretending virtue. Pierre Besushkof is represented as -the product of a transition period, one who sees clearly that the future -must be different from the past, but unable to interpret the prophecies -of its coming. M. Courrière speaks of him very happily as "an overgrown -child who seems to be lost in a wholly unfamiliar world." For a time -Pierre finds mental tranquility in the tenets of freemasonry, and the -author gives us a vivid account, humorous and pathetic by turns, of the -young man's efforts to carry the newly acquired doctrines into practice. -He determines to better the condition of the peasants on his estates; -but instead of looking after the affair himself, he leaves the -consummation of his plans to his stewards, with the result that "the -cleverest among them listened with attention, but considered one thing -only,--how to carry out their own private ends under the pretense of -executing his commands." Later on we are shown Pierre wandering -aimlessly about the streets of burning Moscow, until taken into custody -by the French. Then he learns the true meaning of life from a simple -soldier, a fellow-prisoner, and thereby realizes that safety for the -future is to be obtained only by bringing life to the standard of rude -simplicity adopted by the common people, by recognizing, in act as well -as in deed, the brotherhood of man. - -We cannot here enter into the question as to whether this mental -attitude, by no means unusual among Russians of cultivation and -liberality, arises from the lack of social gradation between the noble -and the peasant, which forces the social philosopher of rank to accept -an existence of pure worldliness and empty show, or to adopt the -primitive aspirations and humble toil of the tillers of the soil. At any -rate, it is plain that Count Tolstoi sides with the latter. The doctrine -of simplification has many adherents in Russia, and when, some time -ago, it was announced that the author of _War and Peace_ had retired to -the country and was leading a life of frugality and unaffected toil in -the cultivation of his estates, the surprise to his own countrymen could -not have been very great. In this book he tells us how the decision was -formed. He bases his conclusions on a direct and literal interpretation -of the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. - -The interpretation is not new in theory, but never before has it been -carried out with so much zeal, so much determination, so much sincerity, -and, granting the premises, with logic so unanswerable, as in this -beautiful confession of faith. How movingly does he depict the doubts -and fears of the searcher after the better life; how impressive his -earnest inquiry for truth; how inspiring his confidence in the natural -goodness, as opposed to the natural depravity of man; how convincing his -argument that the doctrine of Jesus is simple, practicable, and -conducive to the highest happiness; how terrifying his enumeration of -the sufferings of "the martyrs to the doctrine of the world"; how -pitiless his arraignment of the Church for its complacent indifference -to the welfare of humanity here in this present stage of existence; how -sublime his prophecy of the golden age when men shall dwell together in -the bonds of love, and sin and suffering shall be no more the common lot -of mankind! We read, and are thrilled with a divine emotion; but which -of us is willing to accept the truth here unfolded as the veritable -secret of life? - -Shall we take seriously this eloquent enunciation of faith in humility, -in self-denial, in fraternal love, or shall we regard it only as a -beautiful and peaceful phase in the career of a man of genius who, after -the storm and stress of a life of sin and suffering, has turned back to -the ideals of youth and innocence, and sought to make them once more the -objects of desire? Fanaticism, do you say? Ah, yes; but did not Jesus -and his disciples practise just such fanaticism as this? Does any one -deny that all that is best in this modern world (and there is so much of -the best, after all), that all that is best has come from the great -moral impulse generated by a little group of fanatics in an obscure -corner of Asia eighteen centuries ago? That impulse we still feel, in -spite of all the obstructions that have been put in its way to nullify -its action; and if any would seek for strength from the primary source -of power, who shall say him nay? And so although we may smile at the -artlessness of this Russian evangelist in his determination to find in -the gospels the categorical imperative of self-renunciation, although we -may regard with wonder the magnificent audacity of his exegetical -speculations, we cannot refuse to admire a faith so sincere, so intense, -and, in many respects, so elevating and so noble. - - HUNTINGTON SMITH. - - DORCHESTER, MASS., - Nov. 19, 1885. - - - - -INTRODUCTION. - - -I HAVE not always been possessed of the religious ideas set forth in -this book. For thirty-five years of my life I was, in the proper -acceptation of the word, a nihilist,--not a revolutionary socialist, but -a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago faith came to me; I -believed in the doctrine of Jesus, and my whole life underwent a sudden -transformation. What I had once wished for I wished for no longer, and I -began to desire what I had never desired before. What had once appeared -to me right now became wrong, and the wrong of the past I beheld as -right. My condition was like that of a man who goes forth upon some -errand, and having traversed a portion of the road, decides that the -matter is of no importance, and turns back. What was at first on his -right hand is now on his left, and what was at his left hand is now on -his right; instead of going away from his abode, he desires to get back -to it as soon as possible. My life and my desires were completely -changed; good and evil interchanged meanings. Why so? Because I -understood the doctrine of Jesus in a different way from that in which I -had understood it before. - -It is not my purpose to expound the doctrine of Jesus; I wish only to -tell how it was that I came to understand what there is in this doctrine -that is simple, clear, evident, indisputable; how I understand that part -of it which appeals to all men, and how this understanding refreshed my -soul and gave me happiness and peace. - -I do not intend to comment on the doctrine of Jesus; I desire only that -all comment shall be forever done away with. The Christian sects have -always maintained that all men, however unequal in education and -intelligence, are equal before God; that divine truth is accessible to -every one. Jesus has even declared it to be the will of God that what is -concealed from the wise shall be revealed to the simple. Not every one -is able to understand the mysteries of dogmatics, homiletics, liturgics, -hermeneutics, apologetics; but every one is able and ought to understand -what Jesus Christ said to the millions of simple and ignorant people who -have lived, and who are living to-day. Now, the things that Jesus said -to simple people who could not avail themselves of the comments of Paul, -of Clement, of Chrysostom, and of others, are just what I did not -understand, and which, now that I have come to understand them, I wish -to make plain to all. - -The thief on the cross believed in the Christ, and was saved. If the -thief, instead of dying on the cross, had descended from it, and told -all men of his belief in the Christ, would not the result have been of -great good? Like the thief on the cross, I believe in the doctrine of -Jesus, and this belief has made me whole. This is not a vain comparison, -but a truthful expression of my spiritual condition; my soul, once -filled with despair of life and fear of death, is now full of happiness -and peace. - -Like the thief, I knew that my past and present life was vile; I saw -that the majority of men about me lived unworthy lives. I knew, like the -thief, that I was wretched and suffering, that all those about me -suffered and were wretched; and I saw before me nothing but death to -save me from this condition. As the thief was nailed to his cross, so I -was nailed to a life of suffering and evil by an incomprehensible power. -And as the thief saw before him, after the sufferings of a foolish life, -the horrible shadows of death, so I beheld the same vista opening before -me. - -In all this I felt that I was like the thief. There was, however, a -difference in our conditions; he was about to die, and I--I still lived. -The dying thief thought perhaps to find his salvation beyond the grave, -while I had before me life and its mystery this side the grave. I -understood nothing of this life; it seemed to me a frightful thing, and -then--I understood the words of Jesus, and life and death ceased to be -evil; instead of despair, I tasted joy and happiness that death could -not take away. - -Will any one, then, be offended if I tell the story of how all this came -about? - - LEO TOLSTOI. - - MOSCOW, Jan. 22, 1884. - - - - -MY RELIGION. - - - - -CHAPTER I. - - -I SHALL explain elsewhere, in two voluminous treatises, why I did not -understand the doctrine of Jesus, and how at length it became clear to -me. These works are a criticism of dogmatic theology and a new -translation of the four Gospels, followed by a concordance. In these -writings I seek methodically to disentangle everything that tends to -conceal the truth from men; I translate the four Gospels anew, verse by -verse, and I bring them together in a new concordance. The work has -lasted for six years. Each year, each month, I discover new meanings -which corroborate the fundamental idea; I correct the errors which have -crept in, and I put the last touches to what I have already written. My -life, whose final term is not far distant, will doubtless end before I -have finished my work; but I am convinced that the work will be of great -service; so I shall do all that I can to bring it to completion. - -I do not now concern myself with this outward work upon theology and the -Gospels, but with an inner work of an entirely different nature. I have -to do now with nothing systematic or methodical, only with that sudden -light which showed me the Gospel doctrine in all its simple beauty. - -The process was something similar to that experienced by one who, -following an erroneous model, seeks to restore a statue from broken bits -of marble, and who with one of the most refractory fragments in hand -perceives the hopelessness of his ideal; then he begins anew, and -instead of the former incongruities he finds, as he observes the -outlines of each fragment, that all fit well together and form one -consistent whole. That is exactly what happened to me, and is what I -wish to relate. I wish to tell how I found the key to the true meaning -of the doctrine of Jesus, and how by this meaning doubt was absolutely -driven from my soul. The discovery came about in this way. - -From my childhood, from the time I first began to read the New -Testament, I was touched most of all by that portion of the doctrine of -Jesus which inculcates love, humility, self-denial, and the duty of -returning good for evil. This, to me, has always been the substance of -Christianity; my heart recognized its truth in spite of scepticism and -despair, and for this reason I submitted to a religion professed by a -multitude of toilers, who find in it the solution of life,--the religion -taught by the Orthodox Church. But in making my submission to the -Church, I soon saw that I should not find in its creed the confirmation -of the essence of Christianity; what was to me essential seemed to be in -the dogma of the Church merely an accessory. What was to me the most -important of the teachings of Jesus was not so regarded by the Church. -No doubt (I thought) the Church sees in Christianity, aside from its -inner meaning of love, humility, and self-denial, an outer, dogmatic -meaning, which, however strange and even repulsive to me, is not in -itself evil or pernicious. But the further I went on in submission to -the doctrine of the Church, the more clearly I saw in this particular -point something of greater importance than I had at first realized. What -I found most repulsive in the doctrine of the Church was the strangeness -of its dogmas and the approval, nay, the support, which it gave to -persecutions, to the death penalty, to wars stirred up by the -intolerance common to all sects; but my faith was chiefly shattered by -the indifference of the Church to what seemed to me essential in the -teachings of Jesus, and its partiality for what seemed to me of -secondary importance. I felt that something was wrong; but I could not -see where the fault lay, because the doctrine of the Church did not deny -what seemed to me essential in the doctrine of Jesus; this essential was -fully recognized, yet in such a way as not to give it the first place. I -could not accuse the Church of denying the essence of the doctrine of -Jesus, but it was recognized in a way which did not satisfy me. The -Church did not give me what I expected from her. I had passed from -nihilism to the Church simply because I felt it to be impossible to live -without religion, that is, without a knowledge of good and evil aside -from animal instincts. I hoped to find this knowledge in Christianity; -but Christianity I then saw only as a vague spiritual tendency, from -which it was impossible to deduce any clear and peremptory rules for the -guidance of life. These I sought and these I demanded of the Church. The -Church offered me rules wherein I not only sought in vain the practice -of the Christian life so dear to me, but which drove me still further -away. I could not become a disciple of the Church. An existence based -upon Christian truth was to me indispensable, and the Church only -offered me rules completely at variance with the truth that I loved. The -rules of the Church touching articles of faith, dogmas, the observance -of the sacrament, fasts, prayers, were not necessary to me, and did not -seem to be based on Christian truth. Moreover, the rules of the Church -weakened and sometimes destroyed the Christian disposition of soul which -alone gave meaning to my life. - -I was troubled most that the miseries of humanity, the habit of judging -one another, of passing judgment upon nations and religions, and the -wars and massacres which resulted in consequence, all went on with the -approbation of the Church. The doctrine of Jesus,--judge not, be humble, -forgive offences, deny self, love,--this doctrine was extolled by the -Church in words, but at the same time the Church approved what was -incompatible with the doctrine. Was it possible that the doctrine of -Jesus admitted of such contradiction? I could not believe so. - -Another astonishing thing about the Church was that the passages upon -which it based affirmation of its dogmas were those which were most -obscure. On the other hand, the passages from which came the moral laws -were the most clear and precise. And yet the dogmas and the duties -depending upon them were definitely formulated by the Church, while the -recommendation to obey the moral law was put in the most vague and -mystical terms. Was this the intention of Jesus? The Gospels alone could -dissipate my doubts. I read them once and again. - -Of all the other portions of the Gospels, the Sermon on the Mount always -had for me an exceptional importance. I now read it more frequently than -ever. Nowhere does Jesus speak with greater solemnity, nowhere does he -propound moral rules more definitely and practically, nor do these rules -in any other form awaken more readily an echo in the human heart; -nowhere else does he address himself to a larger multitude of the common -people. If there are any clear and precise Christian principles, one -ought to find them here. I therefore sought the solution of my doubts in -Matthew v., vi., and vii., comprising the Sermon on the Mount. These -chapters I read very often, each time with the same emotional ardor, as -I came to the verses which exhort the hearer to turn the other cheek, to -give up his cloak, to be at peace with all the world, to love his -enemies,--but each time with the same disappointment. The divine words -were not clear. They exhorted to a renunciation so absolute as to -entirely stifle life as I understood it; to renounce everything, -therefore, could not, it seemed to me, be essential to salvation. And -the moment this ceased to be an absolute condition, clearness and -precision were at an end. - -I read not only the Sermon on the Mount; I read all the Gospels and all -the theological commentaries on the Gospels. I was not satisfied with -the declarations of the theologians that the Sermon on the Mount was -only an indication of the degree of perfection to which man should -aspire; that man, weighed down by sin, could not reach such an ideal; -and that the salvation of humanity was in faith and prayer and grace. I -could not admit the truth of these propositions. It seemed to me a -strange thing that Jesus should propound rules so clear and admirable, -addressed to the understanding of every one, and still realize man's -inability to carry his doctrine into practice. - -Then as I read these maxims I was permeated with the joyous assurance -that I might that very hour, that very moment, begin to practise them. -The burning desire I felt led me to the attempt, but the doctrine of the -Church rang in my ears,--_Man is weak, and to this he cannot -attain_;--my strength soon failed. On every side I heard, "You must -believe and pray"; but my wavering faith impeded prayer. Again I heard, -"You must pray, and God will give you faith; this faith will inspire -prayer, which in turn will invoke faith that will inspire more prayer, -and so on, indefinitely." Reason and experience alike convinced me that -such methods were useless. It seemed to me that the only true way was -for me to try to follow the doctrine of Jesus. - -And so, after all this fruitless search and careful meditation over all -that had been written for and against the divinity of the doctrine of -Jesus, after all this doubt and suffering, I came back face to face with -the mysterious Gospel message. I could not find the meanings that others -found, neither could I discover what I sought. It was only after I had -rejected the interpretations of the wise critics and theologians, -according to the words of Jesus, "_Except ye... become as little -children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven_" (Matt. xviii. -3),--it was only then that I suddenly understood what had been so -meaningless before. I understood, not through exegetical fantasies or -profound and ingenious textual combinations; I understood everything, -because I put all commentaries out of my mind. This was the passage that -gave me the key to the whole:-- - -"_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._" (Matt. v. -38, 39.) - -One day the exact and simple meaning of these words came to me; I -understood that Jesus meant neither more nor less than what he said. -What I saw was nothing new; only the veil that had hidden the truth from -me fell away, and the truth was revealed in all its grandeur. - -"_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._" - -These words suddenly appeared to me as if I had never read them before. -Always before, when I had read this passage, I had, singularly enough, -allowed certain words to escape me, "_But I say unto you, that ye resist -not evil_." To me it had always been as if the words just quoted had -never existed, or had never possessed a definite meaning. Later on, as I -talked with many Christians familiar with the Gospel, I noticed -frequently the same blindness with regard to these words. No one -remembered them, and often in speaking of this passage, Christians took -up the Gospel to see for themselves if the words were really there. -Through a similar neglect of these words I had failed to understand the -words that follow:-- - -"_But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the -other also_," etc. (Matt. v. 39, _et seq._) - -Always these words had seemed to me to demand long-suffering and -privation contrary to human nature. They touched me; I felt that it -would be noble to follow them, but I also felt that I had not the -strength to put them into practice. I said to myself, "If I turn the -other cheek, I shall get another blow; if I give, all that I have will -be taken away. Life would be an impossibility. Since life is given to -me, why should I deprive myself of it? Jesus cannot demand as much as -that." Thus I reasoned, persuaded that Jesus, in exalting long-suffering -and privation, made use of exaggerated terms lacking in clearness and -precision; but when I understood the words "_Resist not evil_," I saw -that Jesus did not exaggerate, that he did not demand suffering for -suffering, but that he had formulated with great clearness and precision -exactly what he wished to say. - -"_Resist not evil_," knowing that you will meet with those who, when -they have struck you on one cheek and met with no resistance, will -strike you on the other; who, having taken away your coat, will take -away your cloak also; who, having profited by your labor, will force you -to labor still more without reward. And yet, though all this should -happen to you, "_Resist not evil_"; do good to them that injure you. -When I understood these words as they are written, all that had been -obscure became clear to me, and what had seemed exaggerated I saw to be -perfectly reasonable. For the first time I grasped the pivotal idea in -the words "_Resist not evil_"; I saw that what followed was only a -development of this command; I saw that Jesus did not exhort us to turn -the other cheek that we might endure suffering, but that his exhortation -was, "_Resist not evil_," and that he afterward declared suffering to be -the possible consequence of the practice of this maxim. - -A father, when his son is about to set out on a far journey, commands -him not to tarry by the way; he does not tell him to pass his nights -without shelter, to deprive himself of food, to expose himself to rain -and cold. He says, "Go thy way, and tarry not, though thou should'st be -wet or cold." So Jesus does not say, "Turn the other cheek and suffer." -He says, "_Resist not evil_"; no matter what happens, "_Resist not_." - -These words, "_Resist not evil_," when I understood their significance, -were to me the key that opened all the rest. Then I was astonished that -I had failed to comprehend words so clear and precise. - -"_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._" - -Whatever injury the evil-disposed may inflict upon you, bear it, give -all that you have, but resist not. Could anything be more clear, more -definite, more intelligible than that? I had only to grasp the simple -and exact meaning of these words, just as they were spoken, when the -whole doctrine of Jesus, not only as set forth in the Sermon on the -Mount, but in the entire Gospels, became clear to me; what had seemed -contradictory was now in harmony; above all, what had seemed superfluous -was now indispensable. Each portion fell into harmonious unison and -filled its proper part, like the fragments of a broken statue when -adjusted in harmony with the sculptor's design. In the Sermon on the -Mount, as well as throughout the whole Gospel, I found everywhere -affirmation of the same doctrine, "_Resist not evil_." - -In the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in many other places, Jesus -represents his disciples, those who observe the rule of non-resistance -to evil, as turning the other cheek, giving up their cloaks, persecuted, -used despitefully, and in want. Everywhere Jesus says that he who taketh -not up his cross, he who does not renounce worldly advantage, he who is -not ready to bear all the consequences of the commandment, "_Resist not -evil_," cannot become his disciple. - -To his disciples Jesus says, Choose to be poor; bear all things without -resistance to evil, even though you thereby bring upon yourself -persecution, suffering, and death. - -Prepared to suffer death rather than resist evil, he reproved the -resentment of Peter, and died exhorting his followers not to resist and -to remain always faithful to his doctrine. The early disciples observed -this rule, and passed their lives in misery and persecution, without -rendering evil for evil. - -It seems, then, that Jesus meant precisely what he said. We may declare -the practice of such a rule to be very difficult; we may deny that he -who follows it will find happiness; we may say with the unbelievers that -Jesus was a dreamer, an idealist who propounded impracticable maxims; -but it is impossible not to admit that he expressed in a manner at once -clear and precise what he wished to say; that is, that according to his -doctrine a man must not resist evil, and, consequently, that whoever -adopts his doctrine will not resist evil. And yet neither believers nor -unbelievers will admit this simple and clear interpretation of Jesus' -words. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - - -WHEN I apprehended clearly the words "_Resist not evil_," my conception -of the doctrine of Jesus was entirely changed; and I was astounded, not -that I had failed to understand it before, but that I had misunderstood -it so strangely. I knew, as we all know, that the true significance of -the doctrine of Jesus was comprised in the injunction to love one's -neighbor. When we say, "_Turn the other cheek_," "_Love your enemies_," -we express the very essence of Christianity. I knew all that from my -childhood; but why had I failed to understand aright these simple words? -Why had I always sought for some ulterior meaning? "_Resist not evil_" -means, never resist, never oppose violence; or, in other words, never do -anything contrary to the law of love. If any one takes advantage of this -disposition and affronts you, bear the affront, and do not, above all, -have recourse to violence. This Jesus said in words so clear and simple -that it would be impossible to express the idea more clearly. How was it -then, that believing or trying to believe these to be the words of God, -I still maintained the impossibility of obeying them? If my master says -to me, "Go; cut some wood," and I reply, "It is beyond my strength," I -say one of two things: either I do not believe what my master says, or I -do not wish to obey his commands. Should I then say of God's -commandment that I could not obey it without the aid of a supernatural -power? Should I say this without having made the slightest effort of my -own to obey? We are told that God descended to earth to save mankind; -that salvation was secured by the second person of the Trinity, who -suffered for men, thereby redeeming them from sin, and gave them the -Church as the shrine for the transmission of grace to all believers; but -aside from this, the Saviour gave to men a doctrine and the example of -his own life for their salvation. How, then, could I say that the rules -of life which Jesus has formulated so clearly and simply for every -one--how could I say that these rules were difficult to obey, that it -was impossible to obey them without the assistance of a supernatural -power? Jesus saw no such impossibility; he distinctly declared that -those who did not obey could not enter into the kingdom of God. Nowhere -did he say that obedience would be difficult; on the contrary, he said -in so many words, "_My yoke is easy and my burden is light_" (Matt. xi. -30). And John, the evangelist, says, "_His commandments are not -grievous_" (1 John v. 3). Since God declared the practice of his law to -be easy, and himself practised it in human form, as did also his -disciples, how dared I speak of the impossibility of obedience without -the aid of a supernatural power? - -If one bent all his energies to overthrow any law, what could he say of -greater force than that the law was essentially impracticable, and that -the maker of the law knew it to be impracticable and unattainable -without the aid of a supernatural power? Yet that is exactly what I had -been thinking of the command, "_Resist not evil_." I endeavored to find -out how it was that I got the idea that Jesus' law was divine, but that -it could not be obeyed; and as I reviewed my past history, I perceived -that the idea had not been communicated to me in all its crudeness (it -would then have been revolting to me), but insensibly I had been imbued -with it from childhood, and all my after life had only confirmed me in -error. - -From my childhood I had been taught that Jesus was God, and that his -doctrine was divine, but at the same time I was taught to respect as -sacred the institutions which protected me from violence and evil. I was -taught to resist evil, that it was humiliating to submit to evil, and -that resistance to it was praiseworthy. I was taught to judge, and to -inflict punishment. Then I was taught the soldier's trade, that is, to -resist evil by homicide; the army to which I belonged was called "The -Christophile Army," and it was sent forth with a Christian benediction. -From infancy to manhood I learned to venerate things that were in direct -contradiction to the law of Jesus,--to meet an aggressor with his own -weapons, to avenge myself by violence for all offences against my -person, my family, or my race. Not only was I not blamed for this; I -learned to regard it as not at all contrary to the law of Jesus. All -that surrounded me, my personal security and that of my family and my -property--depended then upon a law which Jesus reproved,--the law of "a -tooth for a tooth." My spiritual instructors taught me that the law of -Jesus was divine, but, because of human weakness, impossible of -practice, and that the grace of Jesus Christ alone could aid us to -follow its precepts. And this instruction agreed with what I received in -secular institutions and from the social organization about me. I was so -thoroughly possessed with this idea of the impracticability of the -divine doctrine, and it harmonized so well with my desires, that not -till the time of awakening did I realize its falsity. I did not see how -impossible it was to confess Jesus and his doctrine, "_Resist not -evil_," and at the same time deliberately assist in the organization of -property, of tribunals, of governments, of armies; to contribute to the -establishment of a polity entirely contrary to the doctrine of Jesus, -and at the same time pray to Jesus to help us to obey his commands, to -forgive our sins, and to aid us that we resist not evil. I did not see, -what is very clear to me now, how much more simple it would be to -organize a method of living conformable to the law of Jesus, and then to -pray for tribunals, and massacres, and wars, and all other things -indispensable to our happiness. - -Thus I came to understand the source of error into which I had fallen. I -had confessed Jesus with my lips, but my heart was still far from him. -The command, "_Resist not evil_," is the central point of Jesus' -doctrine; it is not a mere verbal affirmation; it is a rule whose -practice is obligatory. It is verily the key to the whole mystery; but -the key must be thrust to the bottom of the lock. When we regard it as a -command impossible of performance, the value of the entire doctrine is -lost. Why should not a doctrine seem impracticable, when we have -suppressed its fundamental proposition? It is not strange that -unbelievers look upon it as totally absurd. When we declare that one may -be a Christian without observing the commandment, "_Resist not evil_," -we simply leave out the connecting link which transmits the force of the -doctrine of Jesus into action. - -Some time ago I was reading in Hebrew, the fifth chapter of Matthew with -a Jewish rabbi. At nearly every verse the rabbi said, "This is in the -Bible," or "This is in the Talmud," and he showed me in the Bible and in -the Talmud sentences very like the declarations of the Sermon on the -Mount. When we reached the words, "_Resist not evil_," the rabbi did not -say, "This is in the Talmud," but he asked me, with a smile, "Do the -Christians obey this command? Do they turn the other cheek?" I had -nothing to say in reply, especially as at that particular time, -Christians, far from turning the other cheek, were smiting the Jews upon -both cheeks. I asked him if there were anything similar in the Bible or -in the Talmud. "No," he replied, "there is nothing like it; but tell me, -do the Christians obey this law?" It was only another way of saying that -the presence in the Christian doctrine of a commandment which no one -observed, and which Christians themselves regarded as impracticable, is -simply an avowal of the foolishness and nullity of that law. I could say -nothing in reply to the rabbi. - -Now that I understand the exact meaning of the doctrine, I see clearly -the strangely contradictory position in which I was placed. Having -recognized the divinity of Jesus and of his doctrine, and having at the -same time organized a life wholly contrary to that doctrine, what -remained for me but to look upon the doctrine as impracticable? In words -I had recognized the doctrine of Jesus as sacred; in actions, I had -professed a doctrine not at all Christian, and I had recognized and -reverenced the anti-Christian customs which hampered my life upon every -side. The persistent message of the Old Testament is that misfortunes -came upon the Hebrew people because they believed in false gods and -denied Jehovah. Samuel (I. viii.-xii.) accuses the people of adding to -their other apostasies the choice of a man, upon whom they depended for -deliverance instead of upon Jehovah, who was their true King. "Turn not -aside after _tohu_, after vain things," Samuel says to the people (I. -xii. 21); "turn not aside after vain things, which cannot profit nor -deliver; for they are _tohu_, are vain." "Fear Jehovah and serve him.... -But if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and -your king" (I. xii. 24, 25). And so with me, faith in _tohu_, in vain -things, in empty idols, had concealed the truth from me. Across the -path which led to the truth, _tohu_, the idol of vain things, rose -before me, cutting off the light, and I had not the strength to beat it -down. - -On a certain day, at this time, I was walking in Moscow towards the -Borovitzky Gate, where was stationed an old lame beggar, with a dirty -cloth wrapped about his head. I took out my purse to bestow an alms; but -at the same moment I saw a young soldier emerging from the Kremlin at a -rapid pace, head well up, red of face, wearing the State insignia of -military dignity. The beggar, on perceiving the soldier, arose in fear, -and ran with all his might towards the Alexander Garden. The soldier, -after a vain attempt to come up with the fugitive, stopped, shouting -forth an imprecation upon the poor wretch who had established himself -under the gateway contrary to regulations. I waited for the soldier. -When he approached me, I asked him if he knew how to read. - -"Yes; why do you ask?" - -"Have you read the New Testament?" - -"Yes." - -"And do you remember the words, 'If thine enemy hunger, feed him...'?" - -I repeated the passage. He remembered it, and heard me to the end. I saw -that he was uneasy. Two passers-by stopped and listened. The soldier -seemed to be troubled that he should be condemned for doing his duty in -driving persons away from a place where they had been forbidden to -linger. He thought himself at fault, and sought for an excuse. Suddenly -his eye brightened; he looked at me over his shoulder, as if he were -about to move away. - -"And the military regulation, do you know anything about that?" he -demanded. - -"No," I said. - -"In that case, you have nothing to say to me," he retorted, with a -triumphant wag of the head, and elevating his plume once more, he -marched away to his post. He was the only man that I ever met who had -solved, with an inflexible logic, the question which eternally -confronted me in social relations, and which rises continually before -every man who calls himself a Christian. - - - - -CHAPTER III. - - -WE are wrong when we say that the Christian doctrine is concerned only -with the salvation of the individual, and has nothing to do with -questions of State. Such an assertion is simply a bold affirmation of an -untruth, which, when we examine it seriously, falls of itself to the -ground. It is well (so I said); I will resist not evil; I will turn the -other cheek in private life; but hither comes the enemy, or here is an -oppressed nation, and I am called upon to do my part in the struggle -against evil, to go forth and kill. I must decide the question, to serve -God or _tohu_, to go to war or not to go. Perhaps I am a peasant; I am -appointed mayor of a village, a judge, a juryman; I am obliged to take -the oath of office, to judge, to condemn. What ought I to do? Again I -must choose between the divine law and the human law. Perhaps I am a -monk living in a monastery; the neighboring peasants trespass upon our -pasturage, and I am appointed to resist evil, to plead for justice -against the wrong-doers. Again I must choose. It is a dilemma from which -no man can escape. - -I do not speak of those whose entire lives are passed in resisting evil, -as military authorities, judges, or governors. No one is so obscure that -he is not obliged to choose between the service of God and the service -of _tohu_, in his relation to the State. My very existence, entangled -with that of the State and the social existence organized by the State, -exacts from me an anti-Christian activity directly contrary to the -commandments of Jesus. In fact, with conscription and compulsory jury -service, this pitiless dilemma arises before every one. Every one is -forced to take up murderous weapons; and even if he does not get as far -as murder, his weapons must be ready, his carbine loaded, and his sword -keen of edge, that he may declare himself ready for murder. Every one is -forced into the service of the courts to take part in meting out -judgment and sentence; that is, to deny the commandment of Jesus, -"_Resist not evil_," in acts as well as in words. - -The soldier's problem, the Gospel or military regulations, divine law or -human law, is before mankind to-day as it was in the time of Samuel. It -was forced upon Jesus and upon his disciples; it is forced in these -times upon all who would be Christians; and it was forced upon me. - -The law of Jesus, with its doctrine of love, humility, and self-denial, -touched my heart more deeply than ever before. But everywhere, in the -annals of history, in the events that were going on about me, in my -individual life, I saw the law opposed in a manner revolting to -sentiment, conscience, and reason, and encouraging to brute instincts. I -felt that if I adopted the law of Jesus, I should be alone; I should -pass many unhappy hours; I should be persecuted and afflicted as Jesus -had said. But if I adopted the human law, everybody would approve; I -should be in peace and safety, with all the resources of civilization at -my command to put my conscience at ease. As Jesus said, I should laugh -and be glad. I felt all this, and so I did not analyze the meaning of -the doctrine of Jesus, but sought to understand it in such a way that it -might not interfere with my life as an animal. That is, I did not wish -to understand it at all. This determination not to understand led me -into delusions which now astound me. As an instance in point, let me -explain my former understanding of these words:-- - -"_Judge not, that ye be not judged._" (Matt. vii. 1.) - -"_Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not -be condemned._" (Luke vi. 37.) - -The courts in which I served, and which insured the safety of my -property and my person, seemed to be institutions so indubitably sacred -and so entirely in accord with the divine law, it had never entered into -my head that the words I have quoted could have any other meaning than -an injunction not to speak ill of one's neighbor. It never occurred to -me that Jesus spoke in these words of the courts of human law and -justice. It was only when I understood the true meaning of the words, -"_Resist not evil_," that the question arose as to Jesus' advice with -regard to tribunals. When I understood that Jesus would denounce them, I -asked myself, Is not this the real meaning: Not only do not judge your -neighbor, do not speak ill of him, but do not judge him in the courts, -do not judge him in any of the tribunals that you have instituted? Now -in Luke (vi. 37-49) these words follow immediately the doctrine that -exhorts us to resist not evil and to do good to our enemies. And after -the injunction, "_Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is -merciful_," Jesus says, "_Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn -not, and ye shall not be condemned_." "_Judge not_;" does not this mean, -Institute no tribunals for the judgment of your neighbor? I had only to -bring this boldly before myself when heart and reason united in an -affirmative reply. - -To show how far I was before from the true interpretation, I shall -confess a foolish pleasantry for which I still blush. When I was reading -the New Testament as a divine book at the time that I had become a -believer, I was in the habit of saying to my friends who were judges or -attorneys, "And you still judge, although it is said, 'Judge not, and ye -shall not be judged'?" I was so sure that these words could have no -other meaning than a condemnation of evil-speaking that I did not -comprehend the horrible blasphemy which I thus committed. I was so -thoroughly convinced that these words did not mean what they did mean, -that I quoted them in their true sense in the form of a pleasantry. - -I shall relate in detail how it was that all doubt with regard to the -true meaning of these words was effaced from my mind, and how I saw -their purport to be that Jesus denounced the institution of all human -tribunals, of whatever sort; that he meant to say so, and could not have -expressed himself otherwise. When I understood the command, "_Resist -not evil_," in its proper sense, the first thing that occurred to me was -that tribunals, instead of conforming to this law, were directly opposed -to it, and indeed to the entire doctrine; and therefore that if Jesus -had thought of tribunals at all, he would have condemned them. - -Jesus said, "_Resist not evil_"; the sole aim of tribunals is to resist -evil. Jesus exhorted us to return good for evil; tribunals return evil -for evil. Jesus said that we were to make no distinction between those -who do good and those who do evil; tribunals do nothing else. Jesus -said, Forgive, forgive not once or seven times, but without limit; love -your enemies, do good to them that hate you--but tribunals do not -forgive, they punish; they return not good but evil to those whom they -regard as the enemies of society. It would seem, then, that Jesus -denounced judicial institutions. Perhaps (I said) Jesus never had -anything to do with courts of justice, and so did not think of them. But -I saw that such a theory was not tenable. Jesus, from his childhood to -his death, was concerned with the tribunals of Herod, of the Sanhedrim, -and of the High Priests. I saw that Jesus must have regarded courts of -justice as wrong. He told his disciples that they would be dragged -before the judges, and gave them advice as to how they should comport -themselves. He said of himself that he should be condemned by a -tribunal, and he showed what the attitude toward judges ought to be. -Jesus, then, must have thought of the judicial institutions which -condemned him and his disciples; which have condemned and continue to -condemn millions of men. - -Jesus saw the wrong and faced it. When the sentence against the woman -taken in adultery was about to be carried into execution, he absolutely -denied the possibility of human justice, and demonstrated that man could -not be the judge since man himself was guilty. And this idea he has -propounded many times, as where it is declared that one with a beam in -his eye cannot see the mote in another's eye, or that the blind cannot -lead the blind. He even pointed out the consequences of such -misconceptions,--the disciple would be above his Master. - -Perhaps, however, after having denounced the incompetency of human -justice as displayed in the case of the woman taken in adultery, or -illustrated in the parable of the mote and the beam; perhaps, after all, -Jesus would admit of an appeal to the justice of men where it was -necessary for protection against evil; but I soon saw that this was -inadmissible. In the Sermon on the Mount, he says, addressing the -multitude, - -"_And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let -him have thy cloak also."_ (Matt. v. 40.) - -Once more, perhaps Jesus spoke only of the personal bearing which a man -should have when brought before judicial institutions, and did not -condemn justice, but admitted the necessity in a Christian society of -individuals who judge others in properly constituted forms. But I saw -that this view was also inadmissible. When he prayed, Jesus besought all -men, without exception, to forgive others, that their own trespasses -might be forgiven. This thought he often expresses. He who brings his -gift to the altar with prayer must first grant forgiveness. How, then, -could a man judge and condemn when his religion commanded him to forgive -all trespasses, without limit? So I saw that according to the doctrine -of Jesus no Christian judge could pass sentence of condemnation. - -But might not the relation between the words "_Judge not, and ye shall -not be judged_" and the preceding or subsequent passages permit us to -conclude that Jesus, in saying "_Judge not_," had no reference whatever -to judicial institutions? No; this could not be so; on the contrary, it -is clear from the relation of the phrases that in saying "_Judge not_," -Jesus did actually speak of judicial institutions. According to Matthew -and Luke, before saying "_Judge not, condemn not_," his command was to -resist not evil. And prior to this, as Matthew tells us, he repeated the -ancient criminal law of the Jews, "_An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a -tooth_." Then, after this reference to the old criminal law, he added, -"_But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil_"; and, after that, -"_Judge not_." Jesus did, then, refer directly to human criminal law, -and reproved it in the words, "_Judge not_." Moreover, according to -Luke, he not only said, "_Judge not_," but also, "_Condemn not_." It -was not without a purpose that he added this almost synonymous word; it -shows clearly what meaning should be attributed to the other. If he had -wished to say "Judge not your neighbor," he would have said "neighbor"; -but he added the words which are translated "_Condemn not_," and then -completed the sentence, "_And ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye -shall be forgiven_." But some may still insist that Jesus, in expressing -himself in this way, did not refer at all to the tribunals, and that I -have read my own thoughts into his teachings. Let the apostles tell us -what they thought of courts of justice, and if they recognized and -approved of them. The apostle James says (iv. 11, 12):-- - -"_Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his -brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth -the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but -a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who -art thou that judgest another?_" - -The word translated "speak evil" is the verb [Greek: katalaleô], which -means "to speak against, to accuse"; this is its true meaning, as any -one may find out for himself by opening a dictionary. In the translation -we read, "_He that speaketh evil of his brother, ... speaketh evil of -the law_." Why so? is the question that involuntarily arises. I may -speak evil of my brother, but I do not thereby speak evil of the law. -If, however, I _accuse_ my brother, if I bring him to justice, it is -plain that I thereby accuse the law of Jesus of insufficiency: I accuse -and judge the law. It is clear, then, that I do not practise the law, -but that I make myself a judge of the law. "_Not to judge, but to save_" -is Jesus' declaration. How then shall I, who cannot save, become a judge -and punish? The entire passage refers to human justice, and denies its -authority. The whole epistle is permeated with the same idea. In the -second chapter we read:-- - -"_For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; -and mercy is exalted above judgment._"[2] (Jas. ii. 13.) - - [2] Count Tolstoi's rendering. - -(The last phrase has been translated in such a way as to declare that -judgment is compatible with Christianity, but that it ought to be -merciful.) - -James exhorts his brethren to have no respect of persons. If you have -respect of the condition of persons, you are guilty of sin; you are like -the untrustworthy judges of the tribunals. You look upon the beggar as -the refuse of society, while it is the rich man who ought to be so -regarded. He it is who oppresses you and draws you before the -judgment-seats. If you live according to the law of love for your -neighbor, according to the law of mercy (which James calls "_the law of -liberty_," to distinguish it from all others)--if you live according to -this law, it is well. But if you have respect of persons, you transgress -the law of mercy. Then (doubtless thinking of the case of the woman -taken in adultery, who, when she was brought before Jesus, was about to -be put to death according to the law), thinking, no doubt, of that case, -James says that he who inflicts death upon the adulterous woman would -himself be guilty of murder, and thereby transgress the eternal law; for -the same law forbids both adultery and murder. - -"_So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of -liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no -mercy; and mercy is exalted above judgment._" (Jas. ii. 12, 13.) - -Could the idea be expressed in terms more clear and precise? Respect of -persons is forbidden, as well as any judgment that shall classify -persons as good or bad; human judgment is declared to be inevitably -defective, and such judgment is denounced as criminal when it condemns -for crime; judgment is blotted out by the eternal law, the law of mercy. - -I open the epistles of Paul, who had been a victim of tribunals, and in -the letter to the Romans I read the admonitions of the apostle for the -vices and errors of those to whom his words are addressed; among other -matters he speaks of courts of justice:-- - -"_Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things -are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them -that do them._" (Rom. i. 32.) - -"_Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that -judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for -thou that judgest doest the same things._" (Rom. ii. 1.) - -"_Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and -long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to -repentance?_" (Rom. ii. 4.) - -Such was the opinion of the apostles with regard to tribunals, and we -know that human justice was among the trials and sufferings that they -endured with steadfastness and resignation to the will of God. When we -think of the situation of the early Christians, surrounded by -unbelievers, we can understand that a denial of the right to judge -persecuted Christians before the tribunals was not considered. The -apostles spoke of it only incidentally as an evil, and denied its -authority on every occasion. - -I examined the teachings of the early Fathers of the Church, and found -them to agree in obliging no one to judge or to condemn, and in urging -all to bear the inflictions of justice. The martyrs, by their acts, -declared themselves to be of the same mind. I saw that Christianity -before Constantine regarded tribunals only as an evil which was to be -endured with patience; but it never could have occurred to any early -Christian that he could take part in the administration of the courts of -justice. It is plain, therefore, that Jesus' words, "_Judge not, -condemn not_," were understood by his first disciples, as they ought to -be understood now, in their direct and literal meaning: judge not in -courts of justice; take no part in them. - -All this seemed absolutely to corroborate my conviction that the words, -"_Judge not, condemn not_," referred to the justice of tribunals. Yet -the meaning, "Speak not evil of your neighbor," is so firmly -established, and courts of justice flaunt their decrees with so much -assurance and audacity in all Christian societies, with the support even -of the Church, that for a long time still I doubted the wisdom of my -interpretation. If men have understood the words in this way (I -thought), and have instituted Christian tribunals, they must certainly -have some reason for so doing; there must be a good reason for regarding -these words as a denunciation of evil-speaking, and there is certainly a -basis of some sort for the institution of Christian tribunals; perhaps, -after all, I am in the wrong. - -I turned to the Church commentaries. In all, from the fifth century -onward, I found the invariable interpretation to be, "Accuse not your -neighbor"; that is, avoid evil-speaking. As the words came to be -understood exclusively in this sense, a difficulty arose,--How to -refrain from judgment? It being impossible not to condemn evil, all the -commentators discussed the question, What is blamable and what is not -blamable? Some, such as Chrysostom and Theophylact, said that, as far -as servants of the Church were concerned, the phrase could not be -construed as a prohibition of censure, since the apostles themselves -were censorious. Others said that Jesus doubtless referred to the Jews, -who accused their neighbors of shortcomings, and were themselves guilty -of great sins. - -Nowhere a word about human institutions, about tribunals, to show how -they were affected by the warning, "_Judge not_." Did Jesus sanction -courts of justice, or did he not? To this very natural question I found -no reply--as if it was evident that from the moment a Christian took his -seat on the judge's bench he might not only judge his neighbor, but -condemn him to death. - -I turned to other writers, Greek, Catholic, Protestant, to the Tübingen -school, to the historical school. Everywhere, even by the most liberal -commentators, the words in question were interpreted as an injunction -against evil-speaking. - -But why, contrary to the spirit of the whole doctrine of Jesus, are -these words interpreted in so narrow a way as to exclude courts of -justice from the injunction, "_Judge not_"? Why the supposition that -Jesus in forbidding the comparatively light offence of speaking evil of -one's neighbor did not forbid, did not even consider, the more -deliberate judgment which results in punishment inflicted upon the -condemned? To all this I got no response; not even an allusion to the -least possibility that the words "to judge" could be used as referring -to a court of justice, to the tribunals from whose punishments so many -millions have suffered. - -Moreover, when the words, "_Judge not, condemn not_," are under -discussion, the cruelty of judging in courts of justice is passed over -in silence, or else commended. The commentators all declare that in -Christian societies tribunals are necessary, and in no way contrary to -the law of Jesus. - -Realizing this, I began to doubt the sincerity of the commentators; and -I did what I should have done in the first place; I turned to the -textual translations of the words which we render "to judge" and "to -condemn." In the original these words are [Greek: krinô] and [Greek: -katadikazô]. The defective translation in James of [Greek: katalaleô], -which is rendered "to speak evil," strengthened my doubts as to the -correct translation of the others. When I looked through different -versions of the Gospels, I found [Greek: katadikazô] rendered in the -Vulgate by _condemnare_, "to condemn"; in the Sclavonic text the -rendering is equivalent to that of the Vulgate; Luther has _verdammen_, -"to speak evil of." These divergent renderings increased my doubts, and -I was obliged to ask again the meaning of [Greek: krinô], as used by the -two evangelists, and of [Greek: katadikazô], as used by Luke who, -scholars tell us, wrote very correct Greek. - -How would these words be translated by a man who knew nothing of the -evangelical creed, and who had before him only the phrases in which they -are used? - -Consulting the dictionary, I found that the word [Greek: krinô] had -several different meanings, among the most used being "to condemn in a -court of justice," and even "to condemn to death," but in no instance -did it signify "to speak evil." I consulted a dictionary of New -Testament Greek, and found that was often used in the sense "to condemn -in a court of justice," sometimes in the sense "to choose," never as -meaning "to speak evil." From which I inferred that the word [Greek: -krinô] might be translated in different ways, but that the rendering "to -speak evil" was the most forced and far-fetched. - -I searched for the word [Greek: katadikazô], which follows [Greek: -krinô], evidently to define more closely the sense in which the latter -is to be understood. I looked for [Greek: katadikazô] in the dictionary, -and found that it had no other signification than "to condemn in -judgment," or "to judge worthy of death." I found that the word was used -four times in the New Testament, each time in the sense "to condemn -under sentence, to judge worthy of death." In James (v. 6) we read, "_Ye -have condemned and killed the just_." The word rendered "condemned" is -this same [Greek: katadikazô], and is used with reference to Jesus, who -was condemned to death by a court of justice. The word is never used in -any other sense, in the New Testament or in any other writing in the -Greek language. - -What, then, are we to say to all this? Is my conclusion a foolish one? -Is not every one who considers the fate of humanity filled with horror -at the sufferings inflicted upon mankind by the enforcement of criminal -codes,--a scourge to those who condemn as well as to the -condemned,--from the slaughters of Genghis Khan to those of the French -Revolution and the executions of our own times? He would indeed be -without compassion who could refrain from feeling horror and repulsion, -not only at the sight of human beings thus treated by their kind, but at -the simple recital of death inflicted by the knout, the guillotine, or -the gibbet. - -The Gospel, of which every word is sacred to you, declares distinctly -and without equivocation: "You have from of old a criminal law, An eye -for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; but a new law is given you, That you -resist not evil. Obey this law; render not evil for evil, but do good to -every one, forgive every one, under all circumstances." Further on comes -the injunction, "_Judge not_," and that these words might not be -misunderstood, Jesus added, "_Condemn not_; condemn not in justice the -crimes of others." - -"No more death-warrants," said an inner voice--"no more death-warrants," -said the voice of science; "evil cannot suppress evil." The Word of God, -in which I believed, told me the same thing. And when in reading the -doctrine, I came to the words, "_Condemn not, and ye shall not be -condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven_," could I look upon them -as meaning simply that I was not to indulge in gossip and evil-speaking, -and should continue to regard tribunals as a Christian institution, and -myself as a Christian judge? - -I was overwhelmed with horror at the grossness of the error into which I -had fallen. - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - - -I NOW understood the words of Jesus: "_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._" Jesus' meaning is: "You have thought that you -were acting in a reasonable manner in defending yourself by violence -against evil, in tearing out an eye for an eye, by fighting against evil -with criminal tribunals, guardians of the peace, armies; but I say unto -you, Renounce violence; have nothing to do with violence; do harm to no -one, not even to your enemy." I understood now that in saying "_Resist -not evil_," Jesus not only told us what would result from the observance -of this rule, but established a new basis for society conformable to his -doctrine and opposed to the social basis established by the law of -Moses, by Roman law, and by the different codes in force to-day. He -formulated a new law whose effect would be to deliver humanity from its -self-inflicted woes. His declaration was: "You believe that your laws -reform criminals; as a matter of fact, they only make more criminals. -There is only one way to suppress evil, and that is to return good for -evil, without respect of persons. For thousands of years you have tried -the other method; now try mine, try the reverse." - -Strange to say, in these later days, I talked with different persons -about this commandment of Jesus, "_Resist not evil_," and rarely found -any one to coincide with my opinion! Two classes of men would never, -even by implication, admit the literal interpretation of the law. These -men were at the extreme poles of the social scale,--they were the -conservative Christian patriots who maintained the infallibility of the -Church, and the atheistic revolutionists. Neither of these two classes -was willing to renounce the right to resist by violence what they -regarded as evil. And the wisest and most intelligent among them would -not acknowledge the simple and evident truth, that if we once admit the -right of any man to resist by violence what he regards as evil, every -other man has equally the right to resist by violence what he regards as -evil. - -Not long ago I had in my hands an interesting correspondence between an -orthodox Slavophile and a Christian revolutionist. The one advocated -violence as a partisan of a war for the relief of brother Slavs in -bondage; the other, as a partisan of revolution, in the name of our -brothers the oppressed Russian peasantry. Both invoked violence, and -each based himself upon the doctrine of Jesus. The doctrine of Jesus is -understood in a hundred different ways; but never, unhappily, in the -simple and direct way which harmonizes with the inevitable meaning of -Jesus' words. - -Our entire social fabric is founded upon principles that Jesus reproved; -we do not wish to understand his doctrine in its simple and direct -acceptation, and yet we assure ourselves and others that we follow his -doctrine, or else that his doctrine is not expedient for us. Believers -profess that Christ as God, the second person of the Trinity, descended -upon earth to teach men by his example how to live; they go through the -most elaborate ceremonies for the consummation of the sacraments, the -building of temples, the sending out of missionaries, the establishment -of priesthoods, for parochial administration, for the performance of -rituals; but they forget one little detail,--the practice of the -commandments of Jesus. Unbelievers endeavor in every possible way to -organize their existence independent of the doctrine of Jesus, they -having decided _a priori_ that this doctrine is of no account. But to -endeavor to put his teachings in practice, this each refuses to do; and -the worst of it is, that without any attempt to put them in practice, -both believers and unbelievers decide _a priori_ that it is impossible. - -Jesus said, simply and clearly, that the law of resistance to evil by -violence, which has been made the basis of society, is false, and -contrary to man's nature; and he gave another basis, that of -non-resistance to evil, a law which, according to his doctrine, would -deliver man from wrong. "You believe" (he says in substance) "that your -laws, which resort to violence, correct evil; not at all; they only -augment it. For thousands of years you have tried to destroy evil by -evil, and you have not destroyed it; you have only augmented it. Do as I -command you, follow my example, and you will know that my doctrine is -true." Not only in words, but by his acts, by his death, did Jesus -propound his doctrine, "_Resist not evil_." - -Believers listen to all this. They hear it in their churches, persuaded -that the words are divine; they worship Jesus as God, and then they say: -"All this is admirable, but it is impossible; as society is now -organized, it would derange our whole existence, and we should be -obliged to give up the customs that are so dear to us. We believe it -all, but only in this sense: That it is the ideal toward which humanity -ought to move; the ideal which is to be attained by prayer, and by -believing in the sacraments, in the redemption, and in the resurrection -of the dead." - -The others, the unbelievers, the free-thinkers who comment on the -doctrine of Jesus, the historians of religions, the Strausses, the -Renans,--completely imbued with the teachings of the Church, which says -that the doctrine of Jesus accords with difficulty with our conceptions -of life,--tell us very seriously that the doctrine of Jesus is the -doctrine of a visionary, the consolation of feeble minds; that it was -all very well preached in the fishermen's huts by Galilee; but that for -us it is only the sweet dream of one whom Renan calls the "charmant -docteur." - -In their opinion, Jesus could not rise to the heights of wisdom and -culture attained by our civilization. If he had been on an intellectual -level with his modern critics, he never would have uttered his charming -nonsense about the birds of the air, the turning of the other cheek, the -taking no thought for the morrow. These historical critics judge of the -value of Christianity by what they see of it as it now exists. The -Christianity of our age and civilization approves of society as it now -is, with its prison-cells, its factories, its houses of infamy, its -parliaments; but as for the doctrine of Jesus, which is opposed to -modern society, it is only empty words. The historical critics see this, -and, unlike the so-called believers, having no motives for concealment, -submit the doctrine to a careful analysis; they refute it -systematically, and prove that Christianity is made up of nothing but -chimerical ideas. - -It would seem that before deciding upon the doctrine of Jesus, it would -be necessary to understand of what it consisted; and to decide whether -his doctrine is reasonable or not, it would be well first to realize -that he said exactly what he did say. And this is precisely what we do -not do, what the Church commentators do not do, what the free-thinkers -do not do--and we know very well why. We know perfectly well that the -doctrine of Jesus is directed at and denounces all human errors, all -_tohu_, all the empty idols that we try to except from the category of -errors, by dubbing them "Church," "State," "Culture," "Science," "Art," -"Civilization." But Jesus spoke precisely of all these, of these and all -other _tohu_. Not only Jesus, but all the Hebrew prophets, John the -Baptist, all the true sages of the world denounced the Church and State -and culture and civilization of their times as sources of man's -perdition. - -Imagine an architect who says to a house-owner, "Your house is good for -nothing; you must rebuild it," and then describes how the supports are -to be cut and fastened. The proprietor turns a deaf ear to the words, -"Your house is good for nothing," and only listens respectfully when the -architect begins to discuss the arrangement of the rooms. Evidently, in -this case, all the subsequent advice of the architect will seem to be -impracticable; less respectful proprietors would regard it as -nonsensical. But it is precisely in this way that we treat the doctrine -of Jesus. I give this illustration for want of a better. I remember now -that Jesus in teaching his doctrine made use of the same comparison. -"_Destroy this temple_," he said, "_and in three days I will raise it -up_." It was for this they put him on the cross, and for this they now -crucify his doctrine. - -The least that can be asked of those who pass judgment upon any doctrine -is that they shall judge of it with the same understanding as that with -which it was propounded. Jesus understood his doctrine, not as a vague -and distant ideal impossible of attainment, not as a collection of -fantastic and poetical reveries with which to charm the simple -inhabitants on the shores of Galilee; to him his doctrine was a doctrine -of action, of acts which should become the salvation of mankind. This he -showed in his manner of applying his doctrine. The crucified one who -cried out in agony of spirit and died for his doctrine was not a -dreamer; he was a man of action. They are not dreamers who have died, -and still die, for his doctrine. No; that doctrine is not a chimera! - -All doctrine that reveals the truth is chimerical to the blind. We may -say, as many people do say (I was of the number), that the doctrine of -Jesus is chimerical because it is contrary to human nature. It is -against nature, we say, to turn the other cheek when we have been -struck, to give all that we possess, to toil not for ourselves but for -others. It is natural, we say, for a man to defend his person, his -family, his property; that is to say, it is the nature of man to -struggle for existence. A learned person has proved scientifically that -the most sacred duty of man is to defend his rights, that is, to fight. - -But the moment we detach ourselves from the idea that the existing -organization established by man is the best, is sacred, the moment we do -this, the objection that the doctrine of Jesus is contrary to human -nature turns immediately upon him who makes it. No one will deny that -not only to kill or torture a man, but to torture a dog, to kill a fowl -or a calf, is to inflict suffering reproved by human nature. (I have -known of farmers who had ceased to eat meat solely because it had -fallen to their lot to slaughter animals.) And yet our existence is so -organized that every personal enjoyment is purchased at the price of -human suffering contrary to human nature. - -We have only to examine closely the complicated mechanism of our -institutions that are based upon coercion to realize that coercion and -violence are contrary to human nature. The judge who has condemned -according to the code, is not willing to hang the criminal with his own -hands; no clerk would tear a villager from his weeping family and cast -him into prison; the general or the soldier, unless he be hardened by -discipline and service, will not undertake to slay a hundred Turks or -Germans or destroy a village, would not, if he could help it, kill a -single man. Yet all these things are done, thanks to the administrative -machinery which divides responsibility for misdeeds in such a way that -no one feels them to be contrary to nature. - -Some make the laws, others execute them; some train men by discipline to -automatic obedience; and these last, in their turn, become the -instruments of coercion, and slay their kind without knowing why or to -what end. But let a man disentangle himself for a moment from this -complicated network, and he will readily see that coercion is contrary -to his nature. Let us abstain from affirming that organized violence, of -which we make use to our own profit, is a divine, immutable law, and we -shall see clearly which is most in harmony with human nature,--the -doctrine of violence or the doctrine of Jesus. - -What is the law of nature? Is it to know that my security and that of my -family, all my amusements and pleasures, are purchased at the expense of -misery, deprivation, and suffering to thousands of human beings--by the -terror of the gallows; by the misfortune of thousands stifling within -prison walls; by the fear inspired by millions of soldiers and guardians -of civilization, torn from their homes and besotted by discipline, to -protect our pleasures with loaded revolvers against the possible -interference of the famishing? Is it to purchase every fragment of bread -that I put in my mouth and the mouths of my children by the numberless -privations that are necessary to procure my abundance? Or is it to be -certain that my piece of bread only belongs to me when I know that every -one else has a share, and that no one starves while I eat? - -It is only necessary to understand that, thanks to our social -organization, each one of our pleasures, every minute of our cherished -tranquility, is obtained by the sufferings and privations of thousands -of our fellows--it is only necessary to understand this, to know what is -conformable to human nature; not to our animal nature alone, but the -animal and spiritual nature which constitutes man. When we once -understand the doctrine of Jesus in all its bearings, with all its -consequences, we shall be convinced that his doctrine is not contrary to -human nature; but that its sole object is to supplant the chimerical -law of the struggle against evil by violence--itself the law contrary -to human nature and productive of so many evils. - -Do you say that the doctrine of Jesus, "_Resist not evil_," is vain? -What, then, are we to think of the lives of those who are not filled -with love and compassion for their kind,--of those who make ready for -their fellow-men punishment at the stake, by the knout, the wheel, the -rack, chains, compulsory labor, the gibbet, dungeons, prisons for women -and children, the hecatombs of war, or bring about periodical -revolutions; of those who carry these horrors into execution; of those -who benefit by these calamities or prepare reprisals,--are not such -lives vain? - -We need only understand the doctrine of Jesus, to be convinced that -existence,--not the reasonable existence which gives happiness to -humanity, but the existence men have organized to their own hurt,--that -such an existence is a vanity, the most savage and horrible of vanities, -a veritable delirium of folly, to which, once reclaimed, we do not again -return. - -God descended to earth, became incarnate to redeem Adam's sin, and (so -we were taught to believe) said many mysterious and mystical things -which are difficult to understand, which it is not possible to -understand except by the aid of faith and grace--and suddenly the words -of God are found to be simple, clear, and reasonable! God said, Do no -evil, and evil will cease to exist. Was the revelation from God really -so simple--nothing but that? It would seem that every one might -understand it, it is so simple! - -The prophet Elijah, a fugitive from men, took refuge in a cave, and was -told that God would appear to him. There came a great wind that -devastated the forest; Elijah thought that the Lord had come, but the -Lord was not in the wind. After the wind came the thunder and the -lightning, but God was not there. Then came the earthquake: the earth -belched forth fire, the rocks were shattered, the mountain was rent to -its foundations; Elijah looked for the Lord, but the Lord was not in the -earthquake. Then, in the calm that followed, a gentle breeze came to the -prophet, bearing the freshness of the fields; and Elijah knew that God -was there. It is a magnificent illustration of the words, "_Resist not -evil_." - -They are very simple, these words; but they are, nevertheless, the -expression of a law divine and human. If there has been in history a -progressive movement for the suppression of evil, it is due to the men -who understood the doctrine of Jesus--who endured evil, and resisted not -evil by violence. The advance of humanity towards righteousness is due, -not to the tyrants, but to the martyrs. As fire cannot extinguish fire, -so evil cannot suppress evil. Good alone, confronting evil and resisting -its contagion, can overcome evil. And in the inner world of the human -soul, the law is as absolute as it was for the hearers by Galilee, more -absolute, more clear, more immutable. Men may turn aside from it, they -may hide its truth from others; but the progress of humanity towards -righteousness can only be attained in this way. Every step must be -guided by the command, "_Resist not evil_." A disciple of Jesus may say -now, with greater assurance than they of Galilee, in spite of -misfortunes and threats: "And yet it is not violence, but good, that -overcomes evil." If the progress is slow, it is because the doctrine of -Jesus (which, through its clearness, simplicity, and wisdom, appeals so -inevitably to human nature), because the doctrine of Jesus has been -cunningly concealed from the majority of mankind under an entirely -different doctrine falsely called by his name. - - - - -CHAPTER V. - - -THE true meaning of the doctrine of Jesus was revealed to me; everything -confirmed its truth. But for a long time I could not accustom myself to -the strange fact, that after the eighteen centuries during which the law -of Jesus had been professed by millions of human beings, after the -eighteen centuries during which thousands of men had consecrated their -lives to the study of this law, I had discovered it for myself anew. But -strange as it seemed, so it was. Jesus' law, "_Resist not evil_," was to -me wholly new, something of which I had never had any conception before. -I asked myself how this could be; I must certainly have had a false idea -of the doctrine of Jesus to cause such a misunderstanding. And a false -idea of it I unquestionably had. When I began to read the Gospel, I was -not in the condition of one who, having heard nothing of the doctrine of -Jesus, becomes acquainted with it for the first time; on the contrary, I -had a preconceived theory as to the manner in which I ought to -understand it. Jesus did not appeal to me as a prophet revealing the -divine law, but as one who continued and amplified the absolute divine -law which I already knew; for I had very definite and complex notions -about God, the creator of the world and of man, and about the -commandments of God given to men through the instrumentality of Moses. - -When I came to the words, "_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_,"--the words, "_An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth_," -expressed the law given by God to Moses; the words, "_But I say unto -you, That ye resist not evil_," expressed the new law, which was a -negation of the first. If I had seen Jesus' words, simply, in their true -sense, and not as a part of the theological theory that I had imbibed at -my mother's breast, I should have understood immediately that Jesus -abrogated the old law, and substituted for it a new law. But I had been -taught that Jesus did not abrogate the law of Moses, that, on the -contrary, he confirmed it to the slightest iota, and that he made it -more complete. Verses 17-20 of the fifth chapter of Matthew always -impressed me, when I read the Gospel, by their obscurity, and they -plunged me into doubt. I knew the Old Testament, particularly the last -books of Moses, very thoroughly, and recalling certain passages in which -minute doctrines, often absurd and even cruel in their purport, are -preceded by the words, "And the Lord said unto Moses," it seemed to me -very singular that Jesus should confirm all these injunctions; I could -not understand why he did so. But I allowed the question to pass without -solution, and accepted with confidence the explanations inculcated in my -infancy,--that the two laws were equally inspired by the Holy Spirit, -that they were in perfect accord, and that Jesus confirmed the law of -Moses while completing and amplifying it. I did not concern myself with -accounting for the process of this amplification, with the solution of -the contradictions apparent throughout the whole Gospel, in verses 17-20 -of the fifth chapter, in the words, "_But I say unto you_." - -Now that I understood the clear and simple meaning of the doctrine of -Jesus, I saw clearly that the two laws are directly opposed to one -another; that they can never be harmonized; that, instead of -supplementing one by the other, we must inevitably choose between the -two; and that the received explanation of the verses, Matthew v. 17-20, -which had impressed me by their obscurity, must be incorrect. - -When I now came to read once more the verses that had before impressed -me as obscure, I was astonished at the clear and simple meaning which -was suddenly revealed to me. This meaning was revealed, not by any -combination and transposition, but solely by rejecting the factitious -explanations with which the words had been encumbered. According to -Matthew, Jesus said (v. 17-18):-- - -"_Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets_ (the -doctrine of the prophets): _I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For -verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle -shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled._" - -And in verse 20 he added:-- - -"_For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the -righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter -into the kingdom of heaven._" - -I am not come (Jesus said) to destroy the eternal law of whose -fulfilment your books of prophecy foretell. I am come to teach you the -fulfilment of the eternal law; not of the law that your scribes and -pharisees call the divine law, but of that eternal law which is more -immutable than the earth and the heavens. - -I have expressed the idea in other words in order to detach the thoughts -of my readers from the traditional false interpretation. If this false -interpretation had never existed, the idea expressed in the verses could -not be rendered in a better or more definite manner. - -The view that Jesus did not abrogate the old law arises from the -arbitrary conclusion that "law" in this passage signifies the written -law instead of the law eternal, the reference to the iota--jot and -tittle--perhaps furnishing the grounds for such an opinion. But if Jesus -had been speaking of the written law, he would have used the expression -"the law and the prophets," which he always employed in speaking of the -written law; here, however, he uses a different expression,--"the law -_or_ the prophets." If Jesus had meant the written law, he would have -used the expression, "the law and the prophets," in the verses that -follow and that continue the thought; but he says, briefly, "the law." -Moreover, according to Luke, Jesus made use of the same phraseology, and -the context renders the meaning inevitable. According to Luke, Jesus -said to the Pharisees, who assumed the justice of their written law:-- - -"_Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your -hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in -the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that -time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And -it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to -fail._" (Luke xvi. 15-17.) - -In the words, "_The law and the prophets were until John_," Jesus -abrogated the written law; in the words, "_And it is easier for heaven -and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail_," Jesus confirmed -the law eternal. In the first passage cited he said, "the law _and_ the -prophets," that is, the written law; in the second he said "the law" -simply, therefore the law eternal. It is clear, then, that the eternal -law is opposed to the written law,[3] exactly as in the context of -Matthew where the eternal law is defined by the phrase, "the law _or_ -the prophets." - - [3] More than this, as if to do away with all doubt about the law - to which he referred, Jesus cites immediately, in connection with - this passage, the most decisive instance of the negation of the law - of Moses by the eternal law, the law of which not the smallest jot - is to fail: "_Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth - another, committeth adultery._" (Luke xvi. 18.) That is, according - to the written law divorce is permissible; according to the eternal - law it is forbidden. - -The history of the variants of the text of these verses is quite worthy -of notice. The majority of texts have simply "the law," without the -addition, "and the prophets," thus avoiding a false interpretation in -the sense of the written law. In other texts, notably that of -Tischendorf, and in the canonical versions, we find the word "prophets" -used, not with the conjunction "and," but with the conjunction -"or,"--"the law _or_ the prophets,"--which also excludes any question of -the written law, and indicates, as the proper signification, the law -eternal. In several other versions, not countenanced by the Church, we -find the word "prophets" used with the conjunction "and," not with "or"; -and in these versions every repetition of the words "the law" is -followed by the phrase, "and the prophets," which would indicate that -Jesus spoke only of the written law. - -The history of the commentaries on the passage in question coincides -with that of the variants. The only clear meaning is that authorized by -Luke,--that Jesus spoke of the eternal law. But among the copyists of -the Gospel were some who desired that the written law of Moses should -continue to be regarded as obligatory. They therefore added to the words -"the law" the phrase "and the prophets," and thereby changed the -interpretation of the text. - -Other Christians, not recognizing to the same degree the authority of -the books of Moses, suppressed the added phrase, and replaced the -particle [Greek: kai], "and," with [Greek: ê], "or"; and with this -substitution the passage was admitted to the canon. Nevertheless, in -spite of the unequivocal clearness of the text as thus written, the -commentators perpetuated the interpretation supported by the phrase -which had been rejected in the canon. The passage evoked innumerable -comments, which stray from the true signification in proportion to the -lack, on the part of the commentators, of fidelity to the simple and -obvious meaning of Jesus' doctrine. Most of them recognize the reading -rejected by the canonical text. - -To be absolutely convinced that Jesus spoke only of the eternal law, we -need only examine the true meaning of the word which has given rise to -so many false interpretations. The word "law" (in Greek [Greek: nomos], -in Hebrew [Hebrew: torah], _torah_) has in all languages two principal -meanings: one, law in the abstract sense, independent of formulæ; the -other, the written statutes which men generally recognize as law. In the -Greek of Paul's Epistles the distinction is indicated by the use of the -article. Without the article Paul uses [Greek: nomos] the most -frequently in the sense of the divine eternal law. By the ancient -Hebrews, as in books of Isaiah and the other prophets, [Hebrew: torah], -_torah_, is always used in the sense of an eternal revelation, a divine -intuition. It was not till the time of Esdras, and later in the Talmud, -that "Torah" was used in the same sense in which we use the word -"Bible"--with this difference, that while we have words to distinguish -between the Bible and the divine law, the Jews employed the same word to -express both meanings. - -And so Jesus sometimes speaks of law as the divine law (of Isaiah and -the other prophets), in which case he confirms it; and sometimes in the -sense of the written law of the Pentateuch, in which case he rejects it. -To distinguish the difference, he always, in speaking of the written -law, adds, "and the prophets," or prefixes the word "your,"--"your law." - -When he says: "_Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should -do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets_" -(Matt. vii. 12), he speaks of the written law. The entire written law, -he says, may be reduced to this expression of the eternal law, and by -these words he abrogated the eternal law. When he says, "_The law and -the prophets were until John_" (Luke xvi. 16), he speaks of the written -law, and abrogates it. When he says, "_Did not Moses give you the law, -and yet none of you keepeth the law_" (John vii. 19), "_It is also -written in your law_" (John viii. 17), "_that the word might be -fulfilled that is written in their law_" (John xv. 25), he speaks of the -written law, the law whose authority he denied, the law that condemned -him to death: "_The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he -ought to die_" (John xix. 7). It is plain that this Jewish law, which -authorized condemnation to death, was not the law of Jesus. But when -Jesus says, "I am not come to destroy the law, but to teach you the -fulfilment of the law; for nothing of this law shall be changed, but all -shall be fulfilled," then he speaks, not of the written law, but of the -divine and eternal law. - -Admit that all this is merely formal proof; admit that I have carefully -combined contexts and variants, and excluded everything contrary to my -theory; admit that the commentators of the Church are clear and -convincing, that, in fact, Jesus did not abrogate the law of Moses, but -upheld it--admit this: then the question is, what were the teachings of -Jesus? - -According to the Church, he taught that he was the second person of the -Trinity, the Son of God, and that he came into the world to atone by his -death for Adam's sin. Those, however, who have read the Gospels know -that Jesus taught nothing of the sort, or at least spoke but very -vaguely on these topics. The passages in which Jesus affirms that he is -the second person of the Trinity, and that he was to atone for the sins -of humanity, form a very inconsiderable and very obscure portion of the -Gospels. In what, then, does the rest of Jesus' doctrine consist? It is -impossible to deny, for all Christians have recognized the fact, that -the doctrine of Jesus aims summarily to regulate the lives of men, to -teach them how they ought to live with regard to one another. But to -realize that Jesus taught men a new way of life, we must have some idea -of the condition of the people to whom his teachings were addressed. - -When we examine into the social development of the Russians, the -English, the Chinese, the Indians, or even the races of insular -savages, we find that each people invariably has certain practical rules -or laws which govern its existence; consequently, if any one would -inculcate a new law, he must at the same time abolish the old; in any -race or nation this would be inevitable. Laws that we are accustomed to -regard as almost sacred would assuredly be abrogated; with us, perhaps, -it might happen that a reformer who taught a new law would abolish only -our civil laws, the official code, our administrative customs, without -touching what we consider as our divine laws, although it is difficult -to believe that such could be the case. But with the Jewish people, who -had but one law, and that recognized as divine,--a law which enveloped -life to its minutest details,--what could a reformer accomplish if he -declared in advance that the existing law was inviolable? - -Admit that this argument is not conclusive, and try to interpret the -words of Jesus as an affirmation of the entire Mosaic law; in that case, -who were the Pharisees, the scribes, the doctors of the law, denounced -by Jesus during the whole of his ministry? Who were they that rejected -the doctrine of Jesus and, their High Priests at their head, crucified -him? If Jesus approved the law of Moses, where were the faithful -followers of that law, who practised it sincerely, and must thereby have -obtained Jesus' approval? Is it possible that there was not one such? -The Pharisees, we are told, constituted a sect; where, then, were the -righteous? - -In the Gospel of John the enemies of Jesus are spoken of directly as -"the Jews." They are opposed to the doctrine of Jesus; they are hostile -because they are Jews. But it is not only the Pharisees and the -Sadducees who figure in the Gospels as the enemies of Jesus: we also -find mention of the doctors of the law, the guardians of the law of -Moses, the scribes, the interpreters of the law, the ancients, those who -are always considered as representatives of the people's wisdom. Jesus -said, "_I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to -repentance_," to change their way of life ([Greek: metanoia]). But where -were the righteous? Was Nicodemus the only one? He is represented as a -good, but misguided man. - -We are so habituated to the singular opinion that Jesus was crucified by -the Pharisees and a number of Jewish shopkeepers, that we never think to -ask, Where were the true Jews, the good Jews, the Jews that practised -the law? When we have once propounded this query, everything becomes -perfectly clear. Jesus, whether he was God or man, brought his doctrine -to a people possessing rules, called the divine law, governing their -whole existence. How could Jesus avoid denouncing that law? - -Every prophet, every founder of a religion, inevitably meets, in -revealing the divine law to men, with institutions which are regarded as -upheld by the laws of God. He cannot, therefore, avoid a double use of -the word "law," which expresses what his hearers wrongfully consider the -law of God ("your law"), and the law he has come to proclaim, the true -law, the divine and eternal law. A reformer not only cannot avoid the -use of the word in this manner; often he does not wish to avoid it, but -purposely confounds the two ideas, thus indicating that, in the law -confessed by those whom he would convert, there are still some eternal -truths. Every reformer takes these truths, so well known to his hearers, -as the basis of his teaching. This is precisely what Jesus did in -addressing the Jews, by whom the two laws were vaguely grouped together -as "Torah." Jesus recognized that the Mosaic law, and still more the -prophetical books, especially the writings of Isaiah, whose words he -constantly quotes,--Jesus recognized that these contained divine and -eternal truths in harmony with the eternal law, and these he takes as -the basis of his own doctrine. This method was many times referred to by -Jesus; thus he said, "_What is written in the law? how readest thou?_" -(Luke x. 26). That is, one may find eternal truth in the law, if one -reads it aright. And more than once he affirms that the commandments of -the Mosaic law, to love the Lord and one's neighbor, are also -commandments of the eternal law. At the conclusion of the parables by -which Jesus explained the meaning of his doctrine to his disciples, he -pronounced words that have a bearing upon all that precedes:-- - -"_Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven_ -(the truth) _is like unto a man that is a householder, which bringeth -forth out of his treasure_ (without distinction) _things new and old_." -(Matt. xiii. 52.) - -The Church understands these words, as they were understood by Irenæus; -but at the same time, in defiance of the true signification, it -arbitrarily attributes to them the meaning that everything old is -sacred. The manifest meaning is this: He who seeks for the good, takes -not only the new, but also the old; and because a thing is old, he does -not therefore reject it. By these words Jesus meant that he did not deny -what was eternal in the old law. But when they spoke to him of the whole -law, or of the formalities exacted by the old law, his reply was that -new wine should not be put into old bottles. Jesus could not affirm the -whole law; neither could he deny the entire teachings of the law and the -prophets,--the law which says, "_love thy neighbor as thyself_," the -prophets whose words often served to express his own thoughts. And yet, -in place of this clear and simple explanation of Jesus' words, we are -offered a vague interpretation which introduces needless contradictions, -which reduces the doctrine of Jesus to nothingness, and which -re-establishes the doctrine of Moses in all its savage cruelty. - -Commentators of the Church, particularly those who have written since -the fifth century, tell us that Jesus did not abolish the written law; -that, on the contrary, he affirmed it. But in what way? How is it -possible that the law of Jesus should harmonize with the law of Moses? -To these inquiries we get no response. The commentators all make use of -a verbal juggle to the effect that Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses, and -that the sayings of the prophets were fulfilled in his person; that -Jesus fulfilled the law as our mediator by our faith in him. And the -essential question for every believer--How to harmonize two conflicting -laws, each designed to regulate the lives of men?--is left without the -slightest attempt at explanation. Thus the contradiction between the -verse where it is said that Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but -to fulfil the law, and Jesus' saying, "_Ye have heard that it hath been -said, An eye for an eye_... _But I say unto you_,"--the contradiction -between the doctrine of Jesus and the very spirit of the Mosaic -doctrine,--is left without any mitigation. - -Let those who are interested in the question look through the Church -commentaries touching this passage from the time of Chrysostom to our -day. After a perusal of the voluminous explanations offered, they will -be convinced not only of the complete absence of any solution for the -contradiction, but of the presence of a new, factitious contradiction -arising in its place. Let us see what Chrysostom says in reply to those -who reject the law of Moses:-- - -"He made this law, not that we might strike out one another's eyes, but -that fear of suffering by others might restrain us from doing any such -thing to them. As therefore He threatened the Ninevites with overthrow, -not that He might destroy them (for had that been His will, He ought to -have been silent), but that He might by fear make them better, and so -quiet His wrath: so also hath He appointed a punishment for those who -wantonly assail the eyes of others, that if good principle dispose them -not to refrain from such cruelty, fear may restrain them from injuring -their neighbors' sight. - -"And if this be cruelty, it is cruelty also for the murderer to be -restrained, and the adulterer checked. But these are the sayings of -senseless men, and of those that are mad to the extreme of madness. For -I, so far from saying that this comes of cruelty, should say that the -contrary to this would be unlawful, according to men's reckoning. And -whereas thou sayest, 'Because He commanded to pluck out _an eye for an -eye_, therefore He is cruel'; I say that if He had not given this -commandment, then He would have seemed, in the judgment of most men, to -be that which thou sayest He is." - -Chrysostom clearly recognized the law. _An eye for an eye_, as divine, -and the contrary of that law, that is, the doctrine of Jesus, _Resist -not evil_, as an iniquity. "For let us suppose," says Chrysostom -further:-- - -"For let us suppose that this law had been altogether done away, and -that no one feared the punishment ensuing thereupon, but that license -had been given to all the wicked to follow their own dispositions in all -security to adulterers, and to murderers, to perjured persons, and to -parricides; would not all things have been turned upside down? would -not cities, market-places and houses, sea and land, and the whole world -have been filled with unnumbered pollutions and murders? Every one sees -it. For if, when there are laws, and fear, and threatening, our evil -dispositions are hardly checked; were even this security taken away, -what is there to prevent men's choosing vice? and what degree of -mischief would not then come revelling upon the whole of human life? - -"The rather, since cruelty lies not only in allowing the bad to do what -they will, but in another thing too quite as much,--to overlook, and -leave uncared for, him who hath done no wrong, but who is without cause -or reason suffering ill. For tell me; were any one to gather together -wicked men from all quarters, and arm them with swords, and bid them go -about the whole city, and massacre all that came in their way, could -there be anything more like a wild beast than he? And what if some -others should bind, and confine with the utmost strictness, those whom -that man had armed, and should snatch from those lawless hands them who -were on the point of being butchered; could anything be greater humanity -than this?" - -Chrysostom does not say what would be the estimate of these others in -the opinion of the wicked. And what if these others were themselves -wicked and cast the innocent into prison? Chrysostom continues:-- - -"Now then, I bid thee transfer these examples to the Law likewise; for -He that commands to pluck out _an eye for an eye_ hath laid the fear as -a kind of strong chain upon the souls of the bad, and so resembles him -who detains those assassins in prison; whereas he who appoints no -punishment for them, doth all but arm them by such security, and acts -the part of that other, who was putting the swords in their hands, and -letting them loose over the whole city." ("Homilies on the Gospel of St. -Matthew," xvi.) - -If Chrysostom had understood the law of Jesus, he would have said, Who -is it that strikes out another's eyes? who is it that casts men into -prison? If God, who made the law, does this, then there is no -contradiction; but it is men who carry out the decrees, and the Son of -God has said to men that they must abstain from violence. God commanded -to strike out, and the Son of God commanded not to strike out. We must -accept one commandment or the other; and Chrysostom, like all the rest -of the Church, accepted the commandment of Moses and denied that of the -Christ, whose doctrine he nevertheless claims to believe. - -Jesus abolished the Mosaic law, and gave his own law in its place. To -one who really believes in Jesus there is not the slightest -contradiction; such an one will pay no attention to the law of Moses, -but will practise the law of Jesus, which he believes. To one who -believes in the law of Moses there is no contradiction. The Jews looked -upon the words of Jesus as foolishness, and believed in the law of -Moses. The contradiction is only for those who would follow the law of -Moses under the cover of the law of Jesus--for those whom Jesus -denounced as hypocrites, as a generation of vipers. - -Instead of recognizing as divine truth the one or the other of the two -laws, the law of Moses or that of Jesus, we recognize the divine quality -of both. But when the question comes with regard to the acts of -every-day life, we reject the law of Jesus and follow that of Moses. And -this false interpretation, when we realize its importance, reveals the -source of that terrible drama which records the struggle between evil -and good, between darkness and light. - -To the Jewish people, trained to the innumerable formal regulations -instituted by the Levites in the rubric of divine laws, each preceded by -the words, "And the Lord said unto Moses"--to the Jewish people Jesus -appeared. He found everything, to the minutest detail, prescribed by -rule; not only the relation of man with God, but his sacrifices, his -feasts, his fasts, his social, civil, and family duties, the details of -personal habits, circumcision, the purification of the body, of domestic -utensils, of clothing--all these regulated by laws recognized as -commandments of God, and therefore as divine. - -Excluding the question of Jesus' divine mission, what could any prophet -or reformer do who wished to establish his own doctrines among a people -so enveloped in formalism--what but abolish the law by which all these -details were regulated? Jesus selected from what men considered as the -law of God the portions which were really divine; he took what served -his purpose, rejected the rest, and upon this foundation established the -eternal law. It was not necessary to abolish all, but inevitable to -abrogate much that was looked upon as obligatory. This Jesus did, and -was accused of destroying the divine law; for this he was condemned and -put to death. But his doctrine was cherished by his disciples, traversed -the centuries, and is transmitted to other peoples. Under these -conditions it is again hidden beneath heterogeneous dogmas, obscure -comments, and factitious explanations. Pitiable human sophisms replace -the divine revelation. For the formula, "And the Lord said unto Moses," -we substitute "Thus saith the Holy Spirit." And again formalism hides -the truth. Most astounding of all, the doctrine of Jesus is amalgamated -with the written law, whose authority he was forced to deny. This -_Torah_, this written law, is declared to have been inspired by the Holy -Spirit, the spirit of truth; and thus Jesus is taken in the snare of his -own revelation--his doctrine is reduced to nothingness. - -This is why, after eighteen hundred years, it so singularly happened -that I discovered the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus as some new -thing. But no; I did not discover it; I did simply what all must do who -seek after God and His law; I sought for the eternal law amid the -incongruous elements that men call by that name. - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - - -WHEN I understood the law of Jesus as the law of Jesus, and not as the -law of Jesus and of Moses, when I understood the commandment of this law -which absolutely abrogated the law of Moses, then the Gospels, before to -me so obscure, diffuse, and contradictory, blended into a harmonious -whole, the substance of whose doctrine, until then incomprehensible, I -found to be formulated in terms simple, clear, and accessible to every -searcher after truth.[4] - - [4] Matt. v. 21-48, especially 38 - -Throughout the Gospels we are called upon to consider the commandments -of Jesus and the necessity of practising them. All the theologians -discuss the commandments of Jesus; but what are these commandments? I -did not know before. I thought that the commandment of Jesus was to love -God, and one's neighbor as one's self. I did not see that this could not -be a new commandment of Jesus, since it was given by them of old in -Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The words:-- - -"_Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and -shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of -heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called -great in the kingdom of heaven_," (Matt. v. 19.)--these words I believed -to relate to the Mosaic law. But it never had occurred to me that Jesus -had propounded, clearly and precisely, new laws. I did not see that in -the passage where Jesus declares, "_Ye have heard that it was said.... -But I say unto you_," he formulated a series of very definite -commandments--five entirely new, counting as one the two references to -the ancient law against adultery. I had heard of the beatitudes of Jesus -and of their number; their explanation and enumeration had formed a part -of my religious instruction; but the commandments of Jesus--I had never -heard them spoken of. To my great astonishment, I now discovered them -for myself. In the fifth chapter of Matthew I found these verses:-- - -"_Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not -kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I -say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause -shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his -brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall -say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire. Therefore if -thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother -hath aught against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go -thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy -gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with -him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the -judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily -I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast -paid the uttermost farthing._" (Matt. v. 21-26.) - -When I understood the commandment, "_Resist not evil_," it seemed to me -that these verses must have a meaning as clear and intelligible as has -the commandment just cited. The meaning I had formerly given to the -passage was, that every one ought to avoid angry feelings against -others, ought never to utter abusive language, and ought to live in -peace with all men, without exception. But there was in the text a -phrase which excluded this meaning, "Whosoever shall be angry with his -brother _without a cause_"--the words could not then be an exhortation -to absolute peace. I was greatly perplexed, and I turned to the -commentators, the theologians, for the removal of my doubts. To my -surprise I found that the commentators were chiefly occupied with the -endeavor to define under what conditions anger was permissible. All the -commentators of the Church dwelt upon the qualifying phrase "_without a -cause_," and explained the meaning to be that one must not be offended -without a reason, that one must not be abusive, but that anger is not -always unjust; and, to confirm their view, they quoted instances of -anger on the part of saints and apostles. I saw plainly that the -commentators who authorized anger "for the glory of God" as not -reprehensible, although entirely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, -based their argument on the phrase "without a cause," in the -twenty-second verse. These words change entirely the meaning of the -passage. - -Be not angry without cause? Jesus exhorts us to pardon every one, to -pardon without restriction or limit. He pardoned all who did him wrong, -and chided Peter for being angry with Malchus when the former sought to -defend his Master at the time of the betrayal, when, if at any time, it -would seem that anger might have been justifiable. And yet did this same -Jesus formally teach men not to be angry "without a cause," and thereby -sanction anger for a cause? Did Jesus enjoin peace upon all men, and -then, in the phrase "without a cause," interpolate the reservation that -this rule did not apply to all cases; that there were circumstances -under which one might be angry with a brother, and so give the -commentators the right to say that anger is sometimes expedient? - -But who is to decide when anger is expedient and when it is not -expedient? I never yet encountered an angry person who did not believe -his wrath to be justifiable. Every one who is angry thinks anger -legitimate and serviceable. Evidently the qualifying phrase "without a -cause" destroys the entire force of the verse. And yet there were the -words in the sacred text, and I could not efface them. The effect was -the same as if the word "good" had been added to the phrase. "Love thy -neighbor"--love thy good neighbor, the neighbor that agrees with thee! - -The entire signification of the passage was changed by this phrase, -"without a cause." Verses 23 and 24, which exhort us to be reconciled -with all men before appealing for divine aid, also lost their direct and -imperative meaning and acquired a conditional import through the -influence of the foregoing qualification. It had seemed to me, however, -that Jesus forbade all anger, all evil sentiment, and, that it might not -continue in our hearts, exhorted us before entering into communion with -God to ask ourselves if there were any person who might be angry with -us. If such were the case, whether this anger were with cause or without -cause, he commanded us to be reconciled. In this manner I had -interpreted the passage; but it now seemed, according to the -commentators, that the injunction must be taken as a conditional -affirmation. The commentators all explained that we ought to try to be -at peace with everybody; but, they added, if this is impossible, if, -actuated by evil instincts, any one is at enmity with you, try to be -reconciled with him in spirit, in idea, and then the enmity of others -will be no obstacle to divine communion. - -Nor was this all. The words, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, -shall be in danger of the council," always seemed to me strange and -absurd. If we are forbidden to be abusive, why this example with its -ordinary and harmless epithet; why this terrible threat against those -that utter abuse so feeble as that implied in the word _raca_, which -means a good-for-nothing? All this was obscure to me. - -I was convinced that I had before me a problem similar to that which had -confronted me in the words, "_Judge not_." I felt that here again the -simple, grand, precise, and practical meaning of Jesus had been hidden, -and that the commentators were groping in gloom. It seemed to me that -Jesus, in saying, "_be reconciled to thy brother_," could not have -meant, "be reconciled in idea,"--an explanation not at all clear, -supposing it were true. I understood what Jesus meant when, using the -words of the prophet, he said, "_I will have mercy, and not sacrifice_;" -that is, I will that men shall love one another. If you would have your -acts acceptable to God, then, before offering prayer, interrogate your -conscience; and if you find that any one is angry with you, go and make -your peace with him, and then pray as you desire. After this clear -interpretation, what was I to understand by the comment, "be reconciled -in idea"? - -I saw that what seemed to me the only clear and direct meaning of the -verse was destroyed by the phrase, "without a cause." If I could -eliminate that, there would be no difficulty in the way of a lucid -interpretation. But all the commentators were united against any such -course; and the canonical text authorized the rendering to which I -objected. I could not drop these words arbitrarily, and yet, if they -were excluded, everything would become clear. I therefore sought for -some interpretation which would not conflict with the sense of the -entire passage. - -I consulted the dictionary. In ordinary Greek, the word [Greek: eikê] -means "heedlessly, inconsiderately." I tried to find some term that -would not destroy the sense; but the words, "without a cause," plainly -had the meaning attributed to them. In New Testament Greek the -signification of [Greek: eikê] is exactly the same. I consulted the -concordances. The word occurs but once in the Gospels, namely, in this -passage. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, xv. 2, it occurs in -exactly the same sense. It is impossible to interpret it otherwise, and -if we accept it, we must conclude that Jesus uttered in vague words a -commandment easily so construed as to be of no effect. To admit this -seemed to me equivalent to rejecting the entire Gospel. There remained -one more resource--was the word to be found in all the manuscripts? I -consulted Griesbach, who records all recognized variants, and discovered -to my joy that the passage in question was not invariable, and that the -variation depended upon the word [Greek: eikê]. In most of the Gospel -texts and the citations of the Fathers, this word does not occur. I -consulted Tischendorf for the most ancient reading: the word [Greek: -eikê] did not appear. - -This word, so destructive to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus, is -then an interpolation which had not crept into the best copies of the -Gospel as late as the fifth century. Some copyist added the word; others -approved it and undertook its explanation. Jesus did not utter, could -not have uttered, this terrible word; and the primary meaning of the -passage, its simple, direct, impressive meaning, is the true -interpretation. - -Now that I understood Jesus to forbid anger, whatever the cause, and -without distinction of persons, the warning against the use of the words -"raca" and "fool" had a purport quite distinct from any prohibition with -regard to the utterance of abusive epithets. The strange Hebrew word, -_raca_, which is not translated in the Greek text, serves to reveal the -meaning. _Raca_ means, literally, "vain, empty, that which does not -exist." It was much used by the Hebrews to express exclusion. It is -employed in the plural form in Judges ix. 4, in the sense, "empty and -vain." This word Jesus forbids us to apply to any one, as he forbids us -to use the word "fool," which, like "raca," relieves us of all the -obligations of humanity. We get angry, we do evil to men, and then to -excuse ourselves we say that the object of our anger is an empty person, -the refuse of a man, a fool. It is precisely such words as these that -Jesus forbids us to apply to men. He exhorts us not to be angry with any -one, and not to excuse our anger with the plea that we have to do with a -vain person, a person bereft of reason. - -And so in place of insignificant, vague, and uncertain phrases subject -to arbitrary interpretation, I found in Matthew v. 21-26 the first -commandment of Jesus: Live in peace with all men. Do not regard anger as -justifiable under any circumstances. Never look upon a human being as -worthless or as a fool. Not only refrain from anger yourself, but do -not regard the anger of others toward you as vain. If any one is angry -with you, even without reason, be reconciled to him, that all hostile -feelings may be effaced. Agree quickly with those that have a grievance -against you, lest animosity prevail to your loss. - -The first commandment of Jesus being thus freed from obscurity, I was -able to understand the second, which also begins with a reference to the -ancient law:-- - -"_Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not -commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman -to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. -And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: -for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and -not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand -offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for -thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body -should be cast into hell. It hath been said,[5] Whosoever shall put away -his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit -adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth -adultery._ (Matt. v. 27-32.) - - [5] Deut. xxiv. 1. - -By these words I understood that a man ought not, even in imagination, -to admit that he could approach any woman save her to whom he had once -been united, and her he might never abandon to take another, although -permitted to do so by the Mosaic law. - -In the first commandment, Jesus counselled us to extinguish the germ of -anger, and illustrated his meaning by the fate of the man who is -delivered to the judges; in the second commandment, Jesus declares that -debauchery arises from the disposition of men and women to regard one -another as instruments of voluptuousness, and, this being so, we ought -to guard against every idea that excites to sensual desire, and, once -united to a woman, never to abandon her on any pretext, for women thus -abandoned are sought by other men, and so debauchery is introduced into -the world. - -The wisdom of this commandment impressed me profoundly. It would -suppress all the evils in the world that result from the sexual -relations. Convinced that license in the sexual relations leads to -contention, men, in obedience to this injunction, would avoid every -cause for voluptuousness, and, knowing that the law of humanity is to -live in couples, would so unite themselves, and never destroy the bond -of union. All the evils arising from dissensions caused by sexual -attraction would be suppressed, since there would be neither men nor -women deprived of the sexual relation. - -But I was much more impressed, as I read the Sermon on the Mount, with -the words, "Saving for the cause of fornication," which permitted a man -to repudiate his wife in case of infidelity. The very form in which the -idea was expressed seemed to me unworthy of the dignity of the -occasion, for here, side by side with the profound truths of the Sermon -on the Mount, occurred, like a note in a criminal code, this strange -exception to the general rule; but I shall not dwell upon the question -of form; I shall speak only of the exception itself, so entirely in -contradiction with the fundamental idea. - -I consulted the commentators; all, Chrysostom and the others, even -authorities on exegesis like Reuss, all recognized the meaning of the -words to be that Jesus permitted divorce in case of infidelity on the -part of the woman, and that, in the exhortation against divorce in the -nineteenth chapter of Matthew, the same words had the same -signification. I read the thirty-second verse of the fifth chapter again -and again, and reason refused to accept the interpretation. To verify my -doubts I consulted the other portions of the New Testament texts, and I -found in Matthew (xix.), Mark (x.), Luke (xvi.), and in the first -epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, affirmation of the doctrine of the -indissolubility of marriage. In Luke (xvi. 18) it is said:-- - -"_Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth -adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband -committeth adultery._" - -In Mark (x. 5-12) the doctrine is also proclaimed without any exception -whatever:-- - -"_For the hardness of your heart he_ [Moses] _wrote you this precept. -But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. -For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to -his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more -twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not -man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the -same matter. And he said unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, -and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall -put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth -adultery._" - -The same idea is expressed in Matt. xix. 4-9. Paul, in the first epistle -to the Corinthians (vii. 1-11), develops systematically the idea that -the only way of preventing debauchery is that every man have his own -wife, and every woman have her own husband, and that they mutually -satisfy the sexual instinct; then he says, without equivocation, "_Let -not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her -remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the -husband put away his wife_." - -According to Mark, and Luke, and Paul, divorce is forbidden. It is -forbidden by the assertion repeated in two of the Gospels, that husband -and wife are one flesh whom God hath joined together. It is forbidden by -the doctrine of Jesus, who exhorts us to pardon every one, without -excepting the adulterous woman. It is forbidden by the general sense of -the whole passage, which explains that divorce is provocative of -debauchery, and for this reason that divorce with an adulterous woman is -prohibited. - -Upon what, then, is based the opinion that divorce is permissible in -case of infidelity on the part of the woman? Upon the words which had so -impressed me in Matt. v. 32; the words every one takes to mean that -Jesus permits divorce in case of adultery by the woman; the words, -repeated in Matt. xix. 9, in a number of copies of the Gospel text, and -by many Fathers of the Church,--the words, "unless for the cause of -adultery." I studied these words carefully anew. For a long time I could -not understand them. It seemed to me that there must be a defect in the -translation, and an erroneous exegesis; but where was the source of the -error? I could not find it; and yet the error itself was very plain. - -In opposition to the Mosaic law, which declares that if a man take an -aversion to his wife he may write her a bill of divorcement and send her -out of his house--in opposition to this law Jesus is made to declare, -"_But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for -the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery_." I saw -nothing in these words to allow us to affirm that divorce was either -permitted or forbidden. It is said that whoever shall put away his wife -causes her to commit adultery, and then an exception is made with regard -to a woman guilty of adultery. This exception, which throws the guilt of -marital infidelity entirely upon the _woman_ is, in general, strange and -unexpected; but here, in relation to the context, it is simply absurd, -for even the very doubtful meaning which might otherwise be attributed -to it is wholly destroyed. Whoever puts away his wife exposes her to the -crime of adultery, and yet a man is permitted to put away a wife guilty -of adultery, as if a woman guilty of adultery would no more commit -adultery after she were put away. - -But this is not all; when I had examined this passage attentively, I -found it also to be lacking in grammatical meaning. The words are, -"Whoever shall put away his wife, except for the fault of adultery, -exposes her to the commission of adultery,"--and the proposition is -complete. It is a question of the husband, of him who in putting away -his wife exposes her to the commission of the crime of adultery; what, -then, is the purport of the qualifying phrase, "except for the fault of -adultery"? If the proposition were in this form: Whoever shall put away -his wife is guilty of adultery, unless the wife herself has been -unfaithful--it would be grammatically correct. But as the passage now -stands, the subject "whoever" has no other predicate than the word -"exposes," with which the phrase "except for the fault of adultery" -cannot be connected. What, then, is the purport of this phrase? It is -plain that whether for or without the fault of adultery on the part of -the woman, the husband who puts away his wife exposes her to the -commission of adultery. - -The proposition is analogous to the following sentence: Whoever refuses -food to his son, besides the fault of spitefulness, exposes him to the -possibility of being cruel. This sentence evidently cannot mean that a -father may refuse food to his son if the latter is spiteful. It can only -mean that a father who refuses food to his son, besides being spiteful -towards his son, exposes his son to the possibility of becoming cruel. -And in the same way, the Gospel proposition would have a meaning if we -could replace the words, "the fault of adultery," by libertinism, -debauchery, or some similar phrase, expressing not an act but a quality. - -And so I asked myself if the meaning here was not simply that whoever -puts away his wife, besides being himself guilty of libertinism (since -no one puts away his wife except to take another), exposes his wife to -the commission of adultery? If, in the original text, the word -translated "adultery" or "fornication" had the meaning of libertinism, -the meaning of the passage would be clear. And then I met with the same -experience that had happened to me before in similar instances. The text -confirmed my suppositions and entirely effaced my doubts. - -The first thing that occurred to me in reading the text was that the -word [Greek: porneia], translated in common with [Greek: moichasthai], -"adultery" or "fornication," is an entirely different word from the -latter. But perhaps these two words are used as synonyms in the Gospels? -I consulted the dictionary, and found that the word [Greek: porneia], -corresponding in Hebrew to _zanah_, in Latin to _fornicatio_, in German -to _hurerei_, in French to _libertinage_, has a very precise meaning, -and that it never has signified, and never can signify, the act of -adultery, _ehebruch_, as Luther and the Germans after him have rendered -the word. It signifies a state of depravity,--a quality, and not an -act,--and never can be properly translated by "adultery" or -"fornication." I found, moreover, that "adultery" is expressed -throughout the Gospel, as well as in the passage under consideration, by -the word [Greek: moicheuô]. I had only to correct the false translation, -which had evidently been made intentionally, to render absolutely -inadmissible the meaning attributed by commentators to the text, and to -show the proper grammatical relation of [Greek: porneia] to the subject -of the sentence. - -A person acquainted with Greek would construe as follows: [Greek: -parektos], "except, outside," [Greek: logou], "the matter, the cause," -[Greek: porneias], "of libertinism," [Greek: poiei], "obliges," [Greek: -autên], "her," [Greek: moichasthai], "to be an adulteress"--which -rendering gives, word for word, Whoever puts away his wife, besides the -fault of libertinism, obliges her to be an adulteress. - -We obtain the same meaning from Matt. xix. 9. When we correct the -unauthorized translation of [Greek: porneia], by substituting -"libertinism" for "fornication," we see at once that the phrase [Greek: -ei mê epi porneia] cannot apply to "wife." And as the words [Greek: -parektos logou porneias] could signify nothing else than the fault of -libertinism on the part of the husband, so the words [Greek: ei mê epi -porneia], in the nineteenth chapter, can have no other than the same -meaning. The phrase [Greek: ei mê epi porneia] is, word for word, "if -this is not through libertinism" (to give one's self up to -libertinism). The meaning then becomes clear. Jesus replies to the -theory of the Pharisees, that a man who abandons his wife to marry -another without the intention of giving himself up to libertinism does -not commit adultery--Jesus replies to this theory that the abandonment -of a wife, that is, the cessation of sexual relations, even if not for -the purpose of libertinism, but to marry another, is none the less -adultery. Thus we come at the simple meaning of this commandment--a -meaning which accords with the whole doctrine, with the words of which -it is the complement, with grammar, and with logic. This simple and -clear interpretation, harmonizing so naturally with the doctrine and the -words from which it was derived, I discovered after the most careful and -prolonged research. Upon a premeditated alteration of the text had been -based an exegesis which destroyed the moral, religious, logical, and -grammatical meaning of Jesus' words. - -And thus once more I found a confirmation of the terrible fact that the -meaning of the doctrine of Jesus is simple and clear, that its -affirmations are emphatic and precise, but that commentaries upon the -doctrine, inspired by a desire to sanction existing evil, have so -obscured it that determined effort is demanded of him who would know the -truth. If the Gospels had come down to us in a fragmentary condition, it -would have been easier (so it seemed to me) to restore the true meaning -of the text than to find that meaning now, beneath the accumulations of -fallacious comments which have apparently no purpose save to conceal the -doctrine they are supposed to expound. With regard to the passage under -consideration, it is plain that to justify the divorce of some Byzantine -emperor this ingenious pretext was employed to obscure the doctrine -regulating the relations between the sexes. When we have rejected the -suggestions of the commentators, we escape from the mist of uncertainty, -and the second commandment of Jesus becomes precise and clear. "Guard -against libertinism. Let every man justified in entering into the sexual -relation have one wife, and every wife one husband, and under no pretext -whatever let this union be violated by either." - - * * * * * - -Immediately after the second commandment is another reference to the -ancient law, followed by the third commandment:-- - -"_Again, ye have heard that it hath been said[6] by them of old time, -Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine -oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it -is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by -Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou -swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. -But let your communications be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is -more than these cometh of evil._" (Matt. v. 33-37.) - - [6] Levit. xix. 12; Deut. xxiii. 21, 34. - -This passage always troubled me when I read it. It did not trouble me by -its obscurity, like the passage about divorce; or by conflicting with -other passages, like the authorization of anger for cause; or by the -difficulty in the way of obedience, as in the case of the command to -turn the other cheek;--it troubled me rather by its very clearness, -simplicity, and practicality. Side by side with rules whose magnitude -and importance I felt profoundly, was this saying, which seemed to me -superfluous, frivolous, weak, and without consequence to me or to -others. I naturally did not swear, either by Jerusalem, or by heaven, or -by anything else, and it cost me not the least effort to refrain from -doing so; on the other hand, it seemed to me that whether I swore or did -not swear could not be of the slightest importance to any one. And -desiring to find an explanation of this rule, which troubled me through -its very simplicity, I consulted the commentators. They were in this -case of great assistance to me. - -The commentators all found in these words a confirmation of the third -commandment of Moses,--not to swear by the name of the Lord; but, in -addition to this, they explained that this commandment of Jesus against -an oath was not always obligatory, and had no reference whatever to the -oath which citizens are obliged to take before the authorities. And they -brought together Scripture citations, not to support the direct meaning -of Jesus' commandment, but to prove when it ought and ought not to be -obeyed. They claimed that Jesus had himself sanctioned the oath in -courts of justice by his reply, "_Thou hast said_," to the words of the -High Priest, "_I adjure thee by the living God_;" that the apostle Paul -invoked God to witness the truth of his words, which invocation was -evidently equivalent to an oath; that the law of Moses proscribing the -oath was not abrogated by Jesus; and that Jesus forbade only false -oaths, the oaths of Pharisees and hypocrites. When I had read these -comments, I understood that unless I excepted from the oaths forbidden -by Jesus the oath of fidelity to the State, the commandment was as -insignificant as superficial, and as easy to practise as I had supposed. - -And I asked myself the question, Does this passage contain an -exhortation to abstain from an oath that the commentators of the Church -are so zealous to justify? Does it not forbid us to take the oath -indispensable to the assembling of men into political groups and the -formation of a military caste? The soldier, that special instrument of -violence, goes in Russia by the nickname of _prissaiaga_ (sworn in). If -I had asked the soldier at the Borovitzky Gate how he solved the -contradiction between the Gospels and military regulations, he would -have replied that he had taken the oath, that is, that he had sworn by -the Gospels. This is the reply that soldiers always make. The oath is so -indispensable to the horrors of war and armed coercion that in France, -where Christianity is out of favor, the oath remains in full force. If -Jesus did not say in so many words, "Do not take an oath," the -prohibition ought to be a consequence of his teaching. He came to -suppress evil, and, if he did not condemn the oath, he left a terrible -evil untouched. It may be said, perhaps, that at the time at which Jesus -lived this evil passed unperceived; but this is not true. Epictetus and -Seneca declare against the taking of oaths. A similar rule is inscribed -in the laws of Mani. The Jews of the time of Jesus made proselytes, and -obliged them to take the oath. How could it be said that Jesus did not -perceive this evil when he forbade it in clear, direct, and -circumstantial terms? He said, "_Swear not at all_." This expression is -as simple, clear, and absolute as the expression, "_Judge not, condemn -not_," and is as little subject to explanation; moreover, he added to -this, "_Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is -more than these cometh of evil_." - -If obedience to the doctrine of Jesus consists in perpetual observance -of the will of God, how can a man swear to observe the will of another -man or other men? The will of God cannot coincide with the will of man. -And this is precisely what Jesus said in Matt. v. 36:-- - -"_Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one -hair white or black._" - -And the apostle James says in his epistle, v. 12:-- - -"_But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, -neither by earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; -and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation._" - -The apostle tells us clearly why we must not swear: the oath in itself -may be unimportant, but by it men are condemned, and so we ought not to -swear at all. How could we express more clearly the saying of Jesus and -his apostle? - -My ideas had become so confused that for a long time I had kept before -me the question, Do the words and the meaning of this passage agree?--it -does not seem possible. But, after having read the commentaries -attentively, I saw that the impossible had become a fact. The -explanations of the commentators were in harmony with those they had -offered concerning the other commandments of Jesus: judge not, be not -angry, do not violate the marital bonds. - -We have organized a social order which we cherish and look upon as -sacred. Jesus, whom we recognize as God, comes and tells us that our -social organization is wrong. We recognize him as God, but we are not -willing to renounce our social institutions. What, then, are we to do? -Add, if we can, the words "without a cause" to render void the command -against anger; mutilate the sense of another law, as audacious -prevaricators have done by substituting for the command absolutely -forbidding divorce, phraseology which permits divorce; and if there is -no possible way of deriving an equivocal meaning, as in the case of the -commands, "_Judge not, condemn not_," and "_Swear not at all_," then -with the utmost effrontery openly violate the rule while affirming that -we obey it. - -In fact, the principal obstacle to a comprehension of the truth that the -Gospel forbids all manner of oaths exists in the fact that our -pseudo-Christian commentators themselves, with unexampled audacity, take -oath upon the Gospel itself. They make men swear by the Gospel, that is -to say, they do just the contrary of what the Gospel commands. Why does -it never occur to the man who is made to take an oath upon the cross and -the Gospel that the cross was made sacred only by the death of one who -forbade all oaths, and that in kissing the sacred book he perhaps is -pressing his lips upon the very page where is recorded the clear and -direct commandment, "_Swear not at all_"? - -But I was troubled no more with regard to the meaning of the passage -comprised in Matt. v. 33-37 when I found the plain declaration of the -third commandment, that we should take no oath, since all oaths are -imposed for an evil purpose. - - * * * * * - -After the third commandment comes the fourth reference to the ancient -law and the enunciation of the fourth commandment:-- - -"_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 cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with -him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow -of thee turn not thou away._" (Matt. V. 38-42.) - -I have already spoken of the direct and precise meaning of these words; -I have already said that we have no reason whatever for basing upon them -an allegorical explanation. The comments that have been made upon them, -from the time of Chrysostom to our day, are really surprising. The words -are pleasing to every one, and they inspire all manner of profound -reflections save one,--that these words express exactly what Jesus meant -to say. The Church commentators, not at all awed by the authority of one -whom they recognize as God, boldly distort the meaning of his words. -They tell us, of course, that these commandments to bear offences and to -refrain from reprisals are directed against the vindictive character of -the Jews; they not only do not exclude all general measures for the -repression of evil and the punishment of evil-doers, but they exhort -every one to individual and personal effort to sustain justice, to -apprehend aggressors, and to prevent the wicked from inflicting evil -upon others,--for, otherwise (they tell us) these spiritual commandments -of the Saviour would become, as they became among the Jews, a dead -letter, and would serve only to propagate evil and to suppress virtue. -The love of the Christian should be patterned after the love of God; but -divine love circumscribes and reproves evil only as may be required for -the glory of God and the safety of his servants. If evil is propagated, -we must set bounds to evil and punish it,--now this is the duty of -authorities.[7] - - [7] This citation is taken from the _Commentaries on the Gospel_, - by the Archbishop Michael, a work based upon the writings of the - Fathers of the Church. - -Christian scholars and free-thinkers are not embarrassed by the meaning -of these words of Jesus, and do not hesitate to correct them. The -sentiments here expressed, they tell us, are very noble, but are -completely inapplicable to life; for if we practised to the letter the -commandment, "_Resist not evil_," our entire social fabric would be -destroyed. This is what Renan, Strauss, and all the liberal commentators -tell us. If, however, we take the words of Jesus as we would take the -words of any one who speaks to us, and admit that he says exactly what -he does say, all these profound circumlocutions vanish away. Jesus says, -"Your social system is absurd and wrong. I propose to you another." And -then he utters the teachings reported by Matthew (v. 38-42). It would -seem that before correcting them one ought to understand them; now this -is exactly what no one wishes to do. We decide in advance that the -social order which controls our existence, and which is abolished by -these words, is the superior law of humanity. - -For my part, I consider our social order to be neither wise nor sacred; -and that is why I have understood this commandment when others have not. -And when I had understood these words just as they are written, I was -struck with their truth, their lucidity, and their precision. Jesus -said, "You wish to suppress evil by evil; this is not reasonable. To -abolish evil, avoid the commission of evil." And then he enumerates -instances where we are in the habit of returning evil for evil, and says -that in these cases we ought not so to do. - -This fourth commandment was the one that I first understood; and it -revealed to me the meaning of all the others. This simple, clear, and -practical fourth commandment says: "Never resist evil by force, never -return violence for violence: if any one beat you, bear it; if one would -deprive you of anything, yield to his wishes; if any one would force you -to labor, labor; if any one would take away your property, abandon it at -his demand." - - * * * * * - -After the fourth commandment we find a fifth reference to the ancient -law, followed by the fifth commandment:-- - -"_Ye have heard that it hath been said,[8] Thou shall love thy neighbor -and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them -that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which -despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of -your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the -evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. -For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the -publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more -than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even -as your Father which is in heaven is perfect._" (Matt. v. 43-48.) - - [8] See Levit. xix. 17, 18. - -These verses I had formerly regarded as a continuation, an exposition, -an enforcement, I might almost say an exaggeration, of the words, -"_Resist not evil_." But as I had found a simple, precise, and practical -meaning in each of the passages beginning with a reference to the -ancient law, I anticipated a similar experience here. After each -reference of this sort had thus far come a commandment, and each -commandment had been important and distinct in meaning; it ought to be -so now. The closing words of the passage, repeated by Luke, which are to -the effect that God makes no distinction of persons, but lavishes his -gifts upon all, and that we, following his precepts, ought to regard all -men as equally worthy, and to do good to all,--these words were clear; -they seemed to me to be a confirmation and exposition of some definite -law--but what was this law? For a long time I could not understand it. - -To love one's enemies?--this was impossible. It was one of those sublime -thoughts that we must look upon only as an indication of a moral ideal -impossible of attainment. It demanded all or nothing. We might, perhaps, -refrain from doing injury to our enemies--but to love them!--no; Jesus -did not command the impossible. And besides, in the words referring to -the ancient law, "_Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt ... -hate thine enemy_," there was cause for doubt. In other references -Jesus cited textually the terms of the Mosaic law; but here he -apparently cites words that have no such authority; he seems to -calumniate the law of Moses. - -As with regard to my former doubts, so now the commentators gave me no -explanation of the difficulty. They all agreed that the words "_hate -thine enemy_" were not in the Mosaic law, but they offered no suggestion -as to the meaning of the unauthorized phrase. They spoke of the -difficulty of loving one's enemies, that is, wicked men (thus they -emended Jesus' words); and they said that while it is impossible to love -our enemies, we may refrain from wishing them harm and from inflicting -injury upon them. Moreover, they insinuated that we might and should -"convince" our enemies, that is, resist them; they spoke of the -different degrees of love for our enemies which we might attain--from -all of which the final conclusion was that Jesus, for some inexplicable -reason, quoted as from the law of Moses words not to be found therein, -and then uttered a number of sublime phrases which at bottom are -impracticable and empty of meaning. - -I could not agree with this conclusion. In this passage, as in the -passages containing the first four commandments, there must be some -clear and precise meaning. To find this meaning, I set myself first of -all to discover the purport of the words containing the inexact -reference to the ancient law, "_Ye have heard that it hath been said, -Thou shalt... hate thine enemy_." Jesus had some reason for placing at -the head of each of his commandments certain portions of the ancient law -to serve as the antitheses of his own doctrine. If we do not understand -what is meant by the citations from the ancient law, we cannot -understand what Jesus proscribed. The commentators say frankly (it is -impossible not to say so) that Jesus in this instance made use of words -not to be found in the Mosaic law, but they do not tell us why he did so -or what meaning we are to attach to the words thus used. - -It seemed to me above all necessary to know what Jesus had in view when -he cited these words which are not to be found in the law. I asked -myself what these words could mean. In all other references of the sort, -Jesus quotes a single rule from the ancient law: "Thou shalt not -kill"--"Thou shalt not commit adultery"--"Thou shalt not forswear -thyself"--"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"--and with regard to -each rule he propounds his own doctrine. In the instance under -consideration, he cites two contrasting rules: "_Ye have heard that it -hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine -enemy_,"--from which it would appear that the contrast between these two -rules of the ancient law, relative to one's neighbor and one's enemy, -should be the basis of the new law. To understand clearly what this -contrast was, I sought for the meanings of the words "neighbor" and -"enemy," as used in the Gospel text. After consulting dictionaries and -Biblical texts, I was convinced that "neighbor" in the Hebrew language -meant, invariably and exclusively, a Hebrew. We find the same meaning -expressed in the Gospel parable of the Samaritan. From the inquiry of -the Jewish scribe (Luke x. 29), "_And who is my neighbor?_" it is plain -that he did not regard the Samaritan as such. The word "neighbor" is -used with the same meaning in Acts vii. 27. "Neighbor," in Gospel -language, means a compatriot, a person belonging to the same -nationality. And so the antithesis used by Jesus in the citation, "_love -thy neighbor, hate thine enemy_," must be in the distinction between the -words "compatriot" and "foreigner." I then sought for the Jewish -understanding of "enemy," and I found my supposition confirmed. The word -"enemy" is nearly always employed in the Gospels in the sense, not of a -personal enemy, but, in general, of a "hostile people" (Luke i. 71, 74; -Matt. xxii. 44; Mark xii. 36; Luke xx. 43, etc.). The use of the word -"enemy" in the singular form, in the phrase "_hate thine enemy_," -convinced me that the meaning is a "hostile people." In the Old -Testament, the conception "hostile people" is nearly always expressed in -the singular form. - -When I understood this, I understood why Jesus, who had before quoted -the authentic words of the law, had here cited the words "_hate thine -enemy_." When we understand the word "enemy" in the sense of "hostile -people," and "neighbor" in the sense of "compatriot," the difficulty is -completely solved. Jesus spoke of the manner in which Moses directed -the Hebrews to act toward "hostile peoples." The various passages -scattered through the different books of the Old Testament, prescribing -the oppression, slaughter, and extermination of other peoples, Jesus -summed up in one word, "hate,"--make war upon the enemy. He said, in -substance: "You have heard that you must love those of your own race, -and hate foreigners; but I say unto you, love every one without -distinction of nationality." When I had understood these words in this -way, I saw immediately the force of the phrase, "_Love your enemies_." -It is impossible to love one's personal enemies; but it is perfectly -possible to love the citizens of a foreign nation equally with one's -compatriots. And I saw clearly that in saying, "_Ye have heard that it -hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But -I say unto you, Love your enemies_," Jesus meant to say that men are in -the habit of looking upon compatriots as neighbors, and foreigners as -enemies; and this he reproved. His meaning was that the law of Moses -established a difference between the Hebrew and the foreigner--the -hostile peoples; but he forbade any such difference. And then, according -to Matthew and Luke, after giving this commandment, he said that with -God all men are equal, all are warmed by the same sun, all profit by the -same rain. God makes no distinction among peoples, and lavishes his -gifts upon all men; men ought to act exactly in the same way toward one -another, without distinction of nationality, and not like the heathen, -who divide themselves into distinct nationalities. - -Thus once more I found confirmed on all sides the simple, clear, -important, and practical meaning of the words of Jesus. Once more, in -place of an obscure sentence, I had found a clear, precise, important, -and practical rule: To make no distinction between compatriots and -foreigners, and to abstain from all the results of such -distinction,--from hostility towards foreigners, from wars, from all -participation in war, from all preparations for war; to establish with -all men, of whatever nationality, the same relations granted to -compatriots. All this was so simple and so clear, that I was astonished -that I had not perceived it from the first. - -The cause of my error was the same as that which had perplexed me with -regard to the passages relating to judgments and the taking of oaths. It -is very difficult to believe that tribunals upheld by professed -Christians, blest by those who consider themselves the guardians of the -law of Jesus, could be incompatible with the Christian religion; could -be, in fact, diametrically opposed to it. It is still more difficult to -believe that the oath which we are obliged to take by the guardians of -the law of Jesus, is directly reproved by this law. To admit that -everything in life that is considered essential and natural, as well as -what is considered the most noble and grand,--love of country, its -defence, its glory, battle with its enemies,--to admit that all this is -not only an infraction of the law of Jesus, but is directly denounced by -Jesus,--this, I say, is difficult. - -Our existence is now so entirely in contradiction with the doctrine of -Jesus, that only with the greatest difficulty can we understand its -meaning. We have been so deaf to the rules of life that he has given us, -to his explanations,--not only when he commands us not to kill, but when -he warns us against anger, when he commands us not to resist evil, to -turn the other cheek, to love our enemies; we are so accustomed to speak -of a body of men especially organized for murder, as a Christian army, -we are so accustomed to prayers addressed to the Christ for the -assurance of victory, we who have made the sword, that symbol of murder, -an almost sacred object (so that a man deprived of this symbol, of his -sword, is a dishonored man); we are so accustomed, I say, to this, that -the words of Jesus seem to us compatible with war. We say, "If he had -forbidden it, he would have said so plainly." We forget that Jesus did -not foresee that men having faith in his doctrine of humility, love, and -fraternity, could ever, with calmness and premeditation, organize -themselves for the murder of their brethren. - -Jesus did not foresee this, and so he did not forbid a Christian to -participate in war. A father who exhorts his son to live honestly, never -to wrong any person, and to give all that he has to others, would not -forbid his son to kill people upon the highway. None of the apostles, no -disciple of Jesus during the first centuries of Christianity, realized -the necessity of forbidding a Christian that form of murder which we -call war. - -Here, for example, is what Origen says in his reply to Celsus:[9]-- - - [9] _Contra Celsum_, book VIII. chap. LXXIII. - -"In the next place, Celsus urges us 'to help the king with all our -might, and to labor with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for -him; and, if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along -with him.' To this, our answer is that we do, when occasion requires, -give help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, 'putting on the -whole armour of God.' And this we do in obedience to the injunction of -the apostle, 'I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, -prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for -kings, and for all that are in authority'; and the more any one excels -in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more -than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of the -enemy as they can. And to those enemies of our faith who require us to -bear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply: 'Do not -those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on -certain gods, as you account them, keep their hands free from blood, -that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood, offer the -appointed sacrifices to your gods? and even when war is upon you, you -never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable -custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these -too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their -hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are -fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, -that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be -destroyed!'" - -And at the close of the chapter, in explaining that Christians, through -their peaceful lives, are much more helpful to kings than soldiers are, -Origen says:-- - -"And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not, indeed, fight -under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a -special army,--an army of piety,--by offering our prayers to God." - -This is the way in which the Christians of the first centuries regarded -war, and such was the language that their leaders addressed to the -rulers of the earth at a period when martyrs perished by hundreds and by -thousands for having confessed the religion of Jesus, the Christ. - -And now is not the question settled as to whether a Christian may or may -not go to war? All young men brought up according to the doctrine of the -Church called Christian, are obliged at a specified date during every -autumn, to report at the bureaus of conscription and, under the guidance -of their spiritual directors, deliberately to renounce the religion of -Jesus. Not long ago, there was a peasant who refused military service -on the plea that it was contrary to the Gospel. The doctors of the -Church explained to the peasant his error; but, as the peasant had -faith, not in their words, but in those of Jesus, he was thrown into -prison, where he remained until he was ready to renounce the law of -Christ. And all this happened after Christians had heard for eighteen -hundred years the clear, precise, and practical commandment of their -Master, which teaches not to consider men of different nationality as -enemies, but to consider all men as brethren, and to maintain with them -the same relations existing among compatriots; to refrain not only from -killing those who are called enemies, but to love them and to minister -to their needs. - -When I had understood these simple and precise commandments of Jesus, -these commandments so ill adapted to the ingenious distortions of -commentators,--I asked myself what would be the result if the whole -Christian world believed in them, believed not only in reading and -chanting them for the glory of God, but also in obeying them for the -good of humanity? What would be the result if men believed in the -observance of these commandments at least as seriously as they believe -in daily devotions, in attendance on Sunday worship, in weekly fasts, in -the holy sacrament? What would be the result if the faith of men in -these commandments were as strong as their faith in the requirements of -the Church? And then I saw in imagination a Christian society living -according to these commandments and educating the younger generation to -follow their precepts. I tried to picture the results if we taught our -children from infancy, not what we teach them now--to maintain personal -dignity, to uphold personal privileges against the encroachments of -others (which we can never do without humiliating or offending -others)--but to teach them that no man has a right to privileges, and -can neither be above or below any one else; that he alone debases and -demeans himself who tries to domineer over others; that a man can be in -a no more contemptible condition than when he is angry with another; -that what may seem to be foolish and despicable in another is no excuse -for wrath or enmity. I sought to imagine the results if, instead of -extolling our social organization as it now is, with its theatres, its -romances, its sumptuous methods for stimulating sensuous desires--if, -instead of this, we taught our children by precept and by example, that -the reading of lascivious romances and attendance at theatres and balls -are the most vulgar of all distractions, and that there is nothing more -grotesque and humiliating than to pass one's time in the collection and -arrangement of personal finery to make of one's body an object of show. -I endeavored to imagine a state of society where, instead of permitting -and approving libertinism in young men before marriage, instead of -regarding the separation of husband and wife as natural and desirable, -instead of giving to women the legal right to practise the trade of -prostitution, instead of countenancing and sanctioning divorce--if, -instead of this, we taught by words and actions that the state of -celibacy, the solitary existence of a man properly endowed for, and who -has not renounced the sexual relation, is a monstrous and opprobrious -wrong; and that the abandonment of wife by husband or of husband by wife -for the sake of another, is an act against nature, an act bestial and -inhuman. - -Instead of regarding it as natural that our entire existence should be -controlled by coercion; that every one of our amusements should be -provided and maintained by force; that each of us from childhood to old -age should be by turns victim and executioner--instead of this I tried -to picture the results if, by precept and example, we endeavored to -inspire the world with the conviction that vengeance is a sentiment -unworthy of humanity; that violence is not only debasing, but that it -deprives us of all capacity for happiness; that the true pleasures of -life are not those maintained by force; and that our greatest -consideration ought to be bestowed, not upon those who accumulate riches -to the injury of others, but upon those who best serve others and give -what they have to lessen the woes of their kind. If instead of regarding -the taking of an oath and the placing of ourselves and our lives at the -disposition of another as a rightful and praiseworthy act,--I tried to -imagine what would be the result if we taught that the enlightened will -of man is alone sacred; and that if a man place himself at the -disposition of any one, and promise by oath anything whatever, he -renounces his rational manhood and outrages his most sacred right. I -tried to imagine the results, if, instead of the national hatred with -which we are inspired under the name of "patriotism"; if, in place of -the glory associated with that form of murder which we call war,--if, in -place of this, we were taught, on the contrary, horror and contempt for -all the means--military, diplomatic, and political--which serve to -divide men; if we were educated to look upon the division of men into -political States, and a diversity of codes and frontiers, as an -indication of barbarism; and that to massacre others is a most horrible -forfeit, which can only be exacted of a depraved and misguided man, who -has fallen to the lowest level of the brute. I imagined that all men had -arrived at these convictions, and I considered what I thought would be -the result. - -Up to this time (I said), what have been the practical results of the -doctrine of Jesus as I understand it? and the involuntary reply was, -Nothing. We continue to pray, to partake of the sacraments, to believe -in the redemption, and in our personal salvation as well as that of the -world by Jesus the Christ,--and yet that this salvation will never come -by our efforts, but will come because the period set for the end of the -world will have arrived when the Christ will appear in his glory to -judge the quick and the dead, and the kingdom of heaven will be -established. - -Now the doctrine of Jesus, as I understood it, had an entirely different -meaning. The establishment of the kingdom of God depended upon our -personal efforts in the practice of Jesus' doctrine as propounded in the -five commandments, which instituted the kingdom of God upon earth. The -kingdom of God upon earth consists in this, that all men should be at -peace with one another. It was thus that the Hebrew prophets conceived -of the rule of God. Peace among men is the greatest blessing that can -exist upon this earth, and it is within reach of all men. This ideal is -in every human heart. The prophets all brought to men the promise of -peace. The whole doctrine of Jesus has but one object, to establish -peace--the kingdom of God--among men. - -In the Sermon on the Mount, in the interview with Nicodemus, in the -instructions given to his disciples, in all his teachings, Jesus spoke -only of this, of the things that divided men, that kept them from peace, -that prevented them from entering into the kingdom of heaven. The -parables make clear to us what the kingdom of heaven is, and show us the -only way of entering therein, which is to love our brethren, and to be -at peace with all. John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, proclaimed -the approach of the kingdom of God, and declared that Jesus was to bring -it upon earth. Jesus himself said that his mission was to bring peace:-- - -"_Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world -giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it -be afraid_" (John xiv. 27). - -And the observance of his five commandments will bring peace upon the -earth. They all have but one object,--the establishment of peace among -men. If men will only believe in the doctrine of Jesus and practise it, -the reign of peace will come upon earth,--not that peace which is the -work of man, partial, precarious, and at the mercy of chance; but the -peace that is all-pervading, inviolable, and eternal. - -The first commandment tells us to be at peace with every one and to -consider none as foolish or unworthy. If peace is violated, we are to -seek to re-establish it. The true religion is in the extinction of -enmity among men. We are to be reconciled without delay, that we may not -lose that inner peace which is the true life (Matt. v. 22-24). -Everything is comprised in this commandment; but Jesus knew the worldly -temptations that prevent peace among men. The first temptation perilous -to peace is that of the sexual relation. We are not to consider the body -as an instrument of lust; each man is to have one wife, and each woman -one husband, and one is never to forsake the other under any pretext -(Matt. v. 28-32). The second temptation is that of the oath, which draws -men into sin; this is wrong, and we are not to be bound by any such -promise (Matt. v. 34-37). The third temptation is that of vengeance, -which we call human justice; this we are not to resort to under any -pretext; we are to endure offences and never to return evil for evil -(Matt. v. 38-42). The fourth temptation is that arising from difference -in nationalities, from hostility between peoples and States; but we are -to remember that all men are brothers, and children of the same Father, -and thus take care that difference in nationality leads not to the -destruction of peace (Matt. v. 43-48). - -If men abstain from practising any one of these commandments, peace will -be violated. Let men practise all these commandments, which exclude evil -from the lives of men, and peace will be established upon earth. The -practice of these five commandments would realize the ideal of human -life existing in every human heart. All men would be brothers, each -would be at peace with others, enjoying all the blessings of earth to -the limit of years accorded by the Creator. Men would beat their swords -into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and then would -come the kingdom of God,--that reign of peace foretold by all the -prophets, which was foretold by John the Baptist as near at hand, and -which Jesus proclaimed in the words of Isaiah:-- - -"'_The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to -preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken -hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight -to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the -acceptable year of the Lord.'[10]... And he began to say unto them, -To-day hath this Scripture been fulfilled in your ears_" (Luke iv. 18, -19, 21). - - [10] Isaiah lxi. 1, 2. - -The commandments for peace given by Jesus,--those simple and clear -commandments, foreseeing all possibilities of discussion, and -anticipating all objections,--these commandments proclaimed the kingdom -of God upon earth. Jesus, then, was, in truth, the Messiah. He fulfilled -what had been promised. But we have not fulfilled the commands we must -fulfil if the kingdom of God is to be established upon earth,--that -kingdom which men in all ages have earnestly desired, and have sought -for continually, all their days. - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - - -WHY is it that men have not done as Jesus commanded them, and thus -secured the greatest happiness within their reach, the happiness they -have always longed for and still desire? The reply to this inquiry is -always the same, although expressed in different ways. The doctrine of -Jesus (we are told) is admirable, and it is true that if we practised -it, we should see the kingdom of God established upon earth; but to -practise it is difficult, and consequently this doctrine is -impracticable. The doctrine of Jesus, which teaches men how they should -live, is admirable, is divine; it brings true happiness, but it is -difficult to practise. We repeat this, and hear it repeated so many, -many times, that we do not observe the contradiction contained in these -words. - -It is natural to each human being to do what seems to him best. Any -doctrine teaching men how they should live instructs them only as to -what is best for each. If we show men what they have to do to attain -what is best for each, how can they say that they would like to do it, -but that it is impossible of attainment? According to the law of their -nature they cannot do what is worse for each, and yet they declare that -they cannot do what is best. - -The reasonable activity of man, from his earliest existence, has been -applied to the search for what is best among the contradictions that -envelop human life. Men struggled for the soil, for objects which are -necessary to them; then they arrived at the division of goods, and -called this property; finding that this arrangement, although difficult -to establish, was best, they maintained ownership. Men fought with one -another for the possession of women, they abandoned their children; then -they found it was best that each should have his own family; and -although it was difficult to sustain a family, they maintained the -family, as they did ownership and many other things. As soon as they -discover that a thing is best, however difficult of attainment, men do -it. What, then, is the meaning of the saying that the doctrine of Jesus -is admirable, that a life according to the doctrine of Jesus would be -better than the life which men now lead, but that men cannot lead this -better life because it is difficult? - -If the word "difficult," used in this way, is to be understood in the -sense that it is difficult to renounce the fleeting satisfaction of -sensual desires that we may obtain a greater good, why do we not say -that it is difficult to labor for bread, difficult to plant a tree that -we may enjoy the fruit? Every being endowed with even the most -rudimentary reason knows that he must endure difficulties to procure any -good, superior to that which he has enjoyed before. And yet we say that -the doctrine of Jesus is admirable, but impossible of practice, because -it is difficult! Now it is difficult, because in following it we are -obliged to deprive ourselves of many things that we have hitherto -enjoyed. Have we never heard that it is far more to our advantage to -endure difficulties and privations than to satisfy all our desires? Man -may fall to the level of the beasts, but he ought not to make use of his -reason to devise an apology for his bestiality. From the moment that he -begins to reason, he is conscious of being endowed with reason, and this -consciousness stimulates him to distinguish between the reasonable and -the unreasonable. Reason does not proscribe; it enlightens. - -Suppose that I am shut into a dark room, and in searching for the door I -continually bruise myself against the walls. Some one brings me a light, -and I see the door. I ought no longer to bruise myself when I see the -door; much less ought I to affirm that, although it is best to go out -through the door, it is difficult to do so, and that, consequently, I -prefer to bruise myself against the walls. - -In this marvellous argument that the doctrine of Jesus is admirable, and -that its practice would give the world true happiness, but that men are -weak and sinful, that they would do the best and do the worst, and so -cannot do the best,--in this strange plea there is an evident -misapprehension; there is something else besides defective reasoning; -there is also a chimerical idea. Only a chimerical idea, mistaking -reality for what does not exist, and taking the non-existent for -reality, could lead men to deny the possibility of practising that which -by their own avowal would be for their true welfare. - -The chimerical idea which has reduced men to this condition is that of -the dogmatic Christian religion, as it is taught through the various -catechisms, to all who profess the Christianity of the Church. This -religion, according to the definition of it given by its followers, -consists in accepting as real that which does not exist--these are -Paul's words,[11] and they are repeated in all the theologies and -catechisms as the best definition of faith. It is this faith in the -reality of what does not exist that leads men to make the strange -affirmation that the doctrine of Jesus is excellent for all men, but is -worth nothing as a guide to their way of living. Here is an exact -summary of what this religion teaches:-- - - [11] Heb. ii. 2. Literally, "Faith is the _support_ of the hoped - for, the _conviction_ of the unseen." - -A personal God, who is from all eternity--one of three persons--decided -to create a world of spirits. This God of goodness created the world of -spirits for their own happiness, but it so happened that one of the -spirits became spontaneously wicked. Time passed, and God created a -material world, created man for man's own happiness, created man happy, -immortal, and without sin. The felicity of man consisted in the -enjoyment of life without toil; his immortality was due to the promise -that this life should last forever; his innocence was due to the fact -that he had no conception of evil. - -Man was beguiled in paradise by one of the spirits of the first -creation, who had become spontaneously wicked. From this dates the fall -of man, who engendered other men fallen like himself, and from this time -men have endured toil, sickness, suffering, death, the physical and -moral struggle for existence; that is to say, the fantastic being -preceding the fall became real, as we know him to be, as we have no -right or reason to imagine him not to be. The state of man who toils, -who suffers, who chooses what is for his own welfare and rejects what -would be injurious to him, who dies,--this state, which is the real and -only conceivable state, is not, according to the doctrine of this -religion, the normal state of man, but a state which is unnatural and -temporary. - -Although this state, according to the doctrine, has lasted for all -humanity since the expulsion of Adam from paradise, that is, from the -commencement of the world until the birth of Jesus, and has continued -since the birth of Jesus under exactly the same conditions, the faithful -are asked to believe that this is an abnormal and temporary state. -According to this doctrine, the Son of God, the second person of the -Trinity, who was himself God, was sent by God into the world in the garb -of humanity to rescue men from this temporary and abnormal state; to -deliver them from the pains with which they had been stricken by this -same God because of Adam's sin; and to restore them to their former -normal state of felicity,--that is to immortality, innocence, and -idleness. The second person of the Trinity (according to this doctrine), -by suffering death at the hands of man, atoned for Adam's sin, and put -an end to that abnormal state which had lasted from the commencement of -the world. And from that time onward, the men who have had faith in -Jesus have returned to the state of the first man in paradise; that is, -have become immortal, innocent, and idle. - -The doctrine does not concern itself too closely with the practical -result of the redemption, in virtue of which the earth after Jesus' -coming ought to have become once more, at least for believers, -everywhere fertile, without need of human toil; sickness ought to have -ceased, and mothers have borne children without pain;--since it is -difficult to assure even believers who are worn by excessive labor and -broken down by suffering, that toil is light, and suffering easy to -endure. - -But that portion of the doctrine which proclaims the abrogation of death -and of sin, is affirmed with redoubled emphasis. It is asserted that the -dead continue to live. And as the dead cannot bear witness that they are -dead or prove that they are living (just as a stone is unable to affirm -either that it can or cannot speak), this absence of denial is admitted -as proof, and it is affirmed that dead men are not dead. It is affirmed -with still more solemnity and assurance that, since the coming of Jesus, -the man who has faith in him is free from sin; that is, that since the -coming of Jesus, it is no longer necessary that man should guide his -life by reason, and choose what is best for himself. He has only to -believe that Jesus has redeemed his sins and he then becomes infallible, -that is, perfect. According to this doctrine, men ought to believe that -reason is powerless, and that for this cause they are without sin, that -is, cannot err. A faithful believer ought to be convinced that since the -coming of Jesus, the earth brings forth without labor, that childbirth -no longer entails suffering, that diseases no longer exist, and that -death and sin, that is, error, are destroyed; in a word, that what is, -is not, and what is not, is. - -Such is the rigorously logical theory of Christian theology. This -doctrine, by itself, seems to be innocent. But deviations from truth are -never inoffensive, and the significance of their consequences is in -proportion to the importance of the subject to which these errors are -applied. And here the subject at issue is the whole life of man. What -this doctrine calls the true life, is a life of personal happiness, -without sin, and eternal; that is, a life that no one has ever known, -and which does not exist. But the life that is, the only life that we -know, the life that we live and that all humanity lives and has lived, -is, according to this doctrine, a degraded and evil existence, a mere -phantasmagoria of the happy life which is our due. - -Of the struggle between animal instincts and reason, which is the -essence of human life, this doctrine takes no account. The struggle that -Adam underwent in paradise, in deciding whether to eat or not to eat -the fruit of the tree of knowledge, is, according to this doctrine, no -longer within the range of human experience. The question was decided, -once for all, by Adam in paradise. Adam sinned for all; in other words, -he did wrong, and all men are irretrievably degraded; and all our -efforts to live by reason are vain and even impious. This I ought to -know, for I am irreparably bad. My salvation does not depend upon living -by the light of reason, and, after distinguishing between good and evil, -choosing the good; no, Adam, once for all, sinned for me, and Jesus, -once for all, has atoned for the wrong committed by Adam; and so I -ought, as a looker-on, to mourn over the fall of Adam and rejoice at the -redemption through Jesus. - -All the love for truth and goodness in the heart of man, all his efforts -to illuminate his spiritual life by the light of reason, are not only of -slight importance, according to this doctrine; they are a temptation, an -incitement to pride. Life as it is upon this earth, with all its joys -and its splendors, its struggles of reason with darkness,--the life of -all men that have lived before me, my own life with its inner struggles -and triumphs,--all this is not the true life; it is the fallen life, a -life irretrievably bad. The true life, the life without sin, is only in -faith, that is, in imagination, that is, in lunacy. - -Let any one break the habit contracted from infancy of believing in all -this; let him look boldly at this doctrine as it is; let him endeavor to -put himself in the position of a man without prejudice, educated -independently of this doctrine--and then let him ask himself if this -doctrine would not appear to such a man as a product of absolute -insanity. - -However strange and shocking all this might appear to me, I was obliged -to examine into it, for here alone I found the explanation of the -objection, so devoid of logic and common-sense, that I heard everywhere -with regard to the impossibility of practising the doctrine of Jesus: It -is admirable, and would give true happiness to men, but men are not able -to obey it. - -Only a conviction that reality does not exist, and that the non-existent -is real, could lead men to this surprising contradiction. And this false -conviction I found in the pseudo-Christian religion which men had been -teaching for fifteen hundred years. - -The objection that the doctrine of Jesus is excellent but impracticable, -comes not only from believers, but from sceptics, from those who do not -believe, or think that they do not believe, in the dogmas of the fall of -man and the redemption; from men of science and philosophers who -consider themselves free from all prejudice. They believe, or imagine -that they believe, in nothing, and so consider themselves as above such -a superstition as the dogma of the fall and the redemption. At first it -seemed to me that all such persons had serious motives for denying the -possibility of practising the doctrine of Jesus. But when I came to look -into the source of their negation, I was convinced that the sceptics, -in common with the believers, have a false conception of life; to them -life is not what it is, but what they imagine it ought to be,--and this -conception rests upon the same foundation as does that of the believers. -It is true that the sceptics, who pretend to believe in nothing, believe -not in God, or in Jesus, or in Adam; but they believe in a fundamental -idea which is at the basis of their misconception,--in the rights of man -to a life of happiness,--much more firmly than do the theologians. - -In vain do science and philosophy pose as the arbiters of the human -mind, of which they are in fact only the servants. Religion has provided -a conception of life, and science travels in the beaten path. Religion -reveals the meaning of life, and science only applies this meaning to -the course of circumstances. And so, if religion falsifies the meaning -of human life, science, which builds upon the same foundation, can only -make manifest the same fantastic ideas. - -According to the doctrine of the Church, men have a right to happiness, -and this happiness is not the result of their own efforts, but of -external causes. This conception has become the base of science and -philosophy. Religion, science, and public opinion all unite in telling -us that the life we now live is bad, and at the same time they affirm -that the doctrine which teaches us how we can succeed in ameliorating -life by becoming better, is an impracticable doctrine. Religion says -that the doctrine of Jesus, which provides a reasonable method for the -improvement of life by our own efforts, is impracticable because Adam -fell and the world was plunged into sin. Philosophy says that the -doctrine of Jesus is impracticable because human life is developed -according to laws that are independent of the human will. In other -words, the conclusions of science and philosophy are exactly the same as -the conclusion reached by religion in the dogmas of original sin and the -redemption. - -There are two leading theses at the basis of the doctrine of the -redemption: (1) the normal life of man is a life of happiness, but our -life on earth is one of misery, and it can never be bettered by our own -efforts; (2) our salvation is in faith, which enables us to escape from -this life of misery. These two theses are the source of the religious -conceptions of the believers and sceptics who make up our -pseudo-Christian societies. The second thesis gave birth to the Church -and its organization; from the first is derived the received tenets of -public opinion and our political and philosophical theories. The germ of -all political and philosophical theories that seek to justify the -existing order of things--such as Hegelianism and its offshoots--is in -this second thesis. Pessimism, which demands of life what it cannot give -and then denies its value, has also its origin in the same dogmatic -proposition. Materialism, with its strange and enthusiastic affirmation -that man is the product of natural forces and nothing more, is the -legitimate result of the doctrine that teaches that life on earth is a -degraded existence. Spiritism, with its learned adherents, is the best -proof we have that the conclusions of philosophy and science are based -upon the religious doctrine of that eternal happiness which should be -the natural heritage of man. - -This false conception of life has had a deplorable influence upon all -reasonable human activity. The dogma of the fall and the redemption has -debarred man from the most important and legitimate field for the -exercise of his powers, and has deprived him entirely of the idea that -he can of himself do anything to make his life happier or better. -Science and philosophy, proudly believing themselves hostile to -pseudo-Christianity, only carry out its decrees. Science and philosophy -concern themselves with everything except the theory that man can do -anything to make himself better or happier. Ethical and moral -instruction have disappeared from our pseudo-Christian society without -leaving a trace. - -Believers and sceptics who concern themselves so little with the problem -how to live, how to make use of the reason with which we are endowed, -ask why our earthly life is not what they imagine it ought to be, and -when it will become what they wish. This singular phenomenon is due to -the false doctrine which has penetrated into the very marrow of -humanity. The effects of the knowledge of good and evil, which man so -unhappily acquired in paradise, do not seem to have been very lasting; -for, neglecting the truth that life is only a solution of the -contradictions between animal instincts and reason, he stolidly -refrains from applying his reason to the discovery of the historical -laws that govern his animal nature. - -Excepting the philosophical doctrines of the pseudo-Christian world, all -the philosophical and religious doctrines of which we have -knowledge--Judaism, the doctrine of Confucius, Buddhism, Brahmanism, the -wisdom of the Greeks--all aim to regulate human life, and to enlighten -men with regard to what they must do to improve their condition. The -doctrine of Confucius teaches the perfecting of the individual; Judaism, -personal fidelity to an alliance with God; Buddhism, how to escape from -a life governed by animal instincts; Socrates taught the perfecting of -the individual through reason; the Stoics recognized the independence of -reason as the sole basis of the true life. - -The reasonable activity of man has always been--it could not be -otherwise--to light by the torch of reason his progress toward -beatitude. Philosophy tells us that free-will is an illusion, and then -boasts of the boldness of such a declaration. Free-will is not only an -illusion; it is an empty word invented by theologians and experts in -criminal law; to refute it would be to undertake a battle with a -wind-mill. But reason, which illuminates our life and impels us to -modify our actions, is not an illusion, and its authority can never be -denied. To obey reason in the pursuit of good is the substance of the -teachings of all the masters of humanity, and it is the substance of the -doctrine of Jesus; it is reason itself, and we cannot deny reason by -the use of reason. - -Making use of the phrase "son of man," Jesus teaches that all men have a -common impulse toward good and toward reason, which leads to good. It is -superfluous to attempt to prove that "son of man" means "Son of God." To -understand by the words "son of man" anything different from what they -signify is to assume that Jesus, to say what he wished to say, -intentionally made use of words which have an entirely different -meaning. But even if, as the Church says, "son of man" means "Son of -God," the phrase "son of man" applies none the less to man, for Jesus -himself called all men "the sons of God." - -The doctrine of the "son of man" finds its most complete expression in -the interview with Nicodemus. Every man, Jesus says, aside from his -consciousness of his material, individual life and of his birth in the -flesh, has also a consciousness of a spiritual birth (John iii. 5, 6, -7), of an inner liberty, of something within; this comes from on high, -from the infinite that we call God (John iii. 14-17); now it is this -inner consciousness born of God, the son of God in man, that we must -possess and nourish if we would possess true life. The son of man is -homogeneous (of the same race) with God. - -Whoever lifts up within himself this son of God, whoever identifies his -life with the spiritual life, will not deviate from the true way. Men -wander from the way because they do not believe in this light which is -within them, the light of which John speaks when he says, "_In him was -life; and the life was the light of men_." Jesus tells us to lift up the -son of man, who is the son of God, for a light to all men. When we have -lifted up the son of man, we shall then know that we can do nothing -without his guidance (John viii. 28). Asked, "Who is this son of man?" -Jesus answers:-- - -"_Yet a little while is the light in you.[12] Walk while ye have the -light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness -knoweth not whither he goeth._" (John xii. 35.) - - [12] In all the translations authorized by the Church, we find here - a perhaps intentional error. The words [Greek: en hymin], _in you_, - are invariably rendered _with you_. - -The son of man is the light in every man that ought to illuminate his -life. "_Take heed therefore, that the light which is in thee be not -darkness_," is Jesus' warning to the multitude (Luke xi. 35). - -In all the different ages of humanity we find the same thought, that man -is the receptacle of the divine light descended from heaven, and that -this light is reason, which alone should be the object of our worship, -since it alone can show the way to true well-being. This has been said -by the Brahmins, by the Hebrew prophets, by Confucius, by Socrates, by -Marcus Aurelius, by Epictetus, and by all the true sages,--not by -compilers of philosophical theories, but by men who sought goodness for -themselves and for others.[13] And yet we declare, in accordance with -the dogma of the redemption, that it is entirely superfluous to think of -the light that is in us, and that we ought not to speak of it at all! - - [13] Marcus Aurelius says: "Reverence that which is best in the - universe; and this is that which makes use of all things and - directs all things. And in like manner also reverence that which is - best in thyself; and this is of the same kind as that. For in - thyself, also, that which makes use of everything else, is this, - and thy life is directed by this." (Meditations v. 21.) - - Epictetus says: "From God have descended the seeds not only to my - father and grandfather, but to all beings which are generated on - the earth and are produced, and particularly to rational beings; - for these only are by their nature formed to have communion with - God, being by means of reason conjoined with him." (Discourses, - chap. ix.) - - Confucius says: "The law of the great learning consists in - developing and re-establishing the luminous principle of reason - which we have received from on high." This sentence is repeated - many times, and constitutes the basis of Confucius' doctrine. - -We must, say the believers, study the three persons of the Trinity; we -must know the nature of each of these persons, and what sacraments we -ought or ought not to perform, for our salvation depends, not on our own -efforts, but on the Trinity and the regular performance of the -sacraments. We must, say the sceptics, know the laws by which this -infinitesimal particle of matter was evolved in infinite space and -infinite time; but it is absurd to believe that by reason alone we can -secure true well-being, because the amelioration of man's condition does -not depend upon man himself, but upon the laws that we are trying to -discover. - -I firmly believe that, a few centuries hence, the history of what we -call the scientific activity of this age will be a prolific subject for -the hilarity and pity of future generations. For a number of centuries, -they will say, the scholars of the western portion of a great continent -were the victims of epidemic insanity; they imagined themselves to be -the possessors of a life of eternal beatitude, and they busied -themselves with divers lucubrations in which they sought to determine in -what way this life could be realized, without doing anything themselves, -or even concerning themselves with what they ought to do to ameliorate -the life which they already had. And what to the future historian will -seem much more melancholy, it will be found that this group of men had -once had a master who had taught them a number of simple and clear -rules, pointing out what they must do to render their lives happy,--and -that the words of this master had been construed by some to mean that he -would come on a cloud to re-organize human society, and by others as -admirable doctrine, but impracticable, since human life was not what -they conceived it to be, and consequently was not worthy of -consideration; as to human reason, it must concern itself with the study -of the laws of an imaginary existence, without concerning itself about -the welfare of the individual man. - -The Church says that the doctrine of Jesus cannot be literally practised -here on earth, because this earthly life is naturally evil, since it is -only a shadow of the true life. The best way of living is to scorn this -earthly existence, to be guided by faith (that is, by imagination) in a -happy and eternal life to come, and to continue to live a bad life here -and to pray to the good God. - -Philosophy, science, and public opinion all say that the doctrine of -Jesus is not applicable to human life as it now is, because the life of -man does not depend upon the light of reason, but upon general laws; -hence it is useless to try to live absolutely conformable to reason; we -must live as we can with the firm conviction that according to the laws -of historical and sociological progress, after having lived very -imperfectly for a very long time, we shall suddenly find that our lives -have become very good. - -People come to a farm; they find there all that is necessary to sustain -life,--a house well furnished, barns filled with grain, cellars and -store-rooms well stocked with provisions, implements of husbandry, -horses and cattle,--in a word, all that is needed for a life of comfort -and ease. Each wishes to profit by this abundance, but each for himself, -without thinking of others, or of those who may come after him. Each -wants the whole for himself, and begins to seize upon all that he can -possibly grasp. Then begins a veritable pillage; they fight for the -possession of the spoils; oxen and sheep are slaughtered; wagons and -other implements are broken up into firewood; they fight for the milk -and grain; they grasp more than they can consume. No one is able to sit -down to the tranquil enjoyment of what he has, lest another take away -the spoils already secured, to surrender them in turn to some one -stronger. All these people leave the farm, bruised and famished. -Thereupon the Master puts everything to rights, and arranges matters so -that one may live there in peace. The farm is again a treasury of -abundance. Then comes another group of seekers, and the same struggle -and tumult is repeated, till these in their turn go away bruised and -angry, cursing the Master for providing so little and so ill. The good -Master is not discouraged; he again provides for all that is needed to -sustain life,--and the same incidents are repeated over and over again. - -Finally, among those who come to the farm, is one who says to his -companions: "Comrades, how foolish we are! see how abundantly everything -is supplied, how well everything is arranged! There is enough here for -us and for those who will come after us; let us act in a reasonable -manner. Instead of robbing each other, let us help one another. Let us -work, plant, care for the dumb animals, and every one will be -satisfied." Some of the company understand what this wise person says; -they cease from fighting and from robbing one another, and begin to -work. But others, who have not heard the words of the wise man, or who -distrust him, continue their former pillage of the Master's goods. This -condition of things lasts for a long time. Those who have followed the -counsels of the wise man say to those about them: "Cease from fighting, -cease from wasting the Master's goods; you will be better off for doing -so; follow the wise man's advice." Nevertheless, a great many do not -hear and will not believe, and matters go on very much as they did -before. - -All this is natural, and will continue as long as people do not believe -the wise man's words. But, we are told, a time will come when every one -on the farm will listen to and understand the words of the wise man, and -will realize that God spoke through his lips, and that the wise man was -himself none other than God in person; and all will have faith in his -words. Meanwhile, instead of living according to the advice of the wise -man, each struggles for his own, and they slay each other without pity, -saying, "The struggle for existence is inevitable; we cannot do -otherwise." - -What does it all mean? Even the beasts graze in the fields without -interfering with each other's needs, and men, after having learned the -conditions of the true life, and after being convinced that God himself -has shown them how to live the true life, follow still their evil ways, -saying that it is impossible to live otherwise. What should we think of -the people at the farm if, after having heard the words of the wise man, -they had continued to live as before, snatching the bread from each -other's mouths, fighting, and trying to grasp everything, to their own -loss? We should say that they had misunderstood the wise man's words, -and imagined things to be different from what they really were. The wise -man said to them, "Your life here is bad; amend your ways, and it will -become good." And they imagined that the wise man had condemned their -life on the farm, and had promised them another and a better life -somewhere else. They decided that the farm was only a temporary -dwelling-place, and that it was not worth while to try to live well -there; the important thing was not to be cheated out of the other life -promised them elsewhere. This is the only way in which we can explain -the strange conduct of the people on the farm, of whom some believed -that the wise man was God, and others that he was a man of wisdom, but -all continued to live as before in defiance of the wise man's words. -They understood everything but the one significant truth in the wise -man's teachings,--that they must work out for themselves their own peace -and happiness there on the farm, which they took for a temporary abode -thinking all the time of the better life they were to possess elsewhere. - -Here is the origin of the strange declaration that the precepts of the -wise man were admirable, even divine, but that they were difficult to -practise. - -Oh, if men would only cease from evil ways while waiting for the Christ -to come in his chariot of fire to their aid; if they would only cease to -invoke the law of the differentiation or integration of forces, or any -historical law whatever! None will come to their aid if they do not aid -themselves. And to aid ourselves to a better life, we need expect -nothing from heaven or from earth; we need only to cease from ways that -result in our own loss. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - - -IF it be admitted that the doctrine of Jesus is perfectly reasonable, -and that it alone can give to men true happiness, what would be the -condition of a single follower of that doctrine in the midst of a world -that did not practise it at all? If all men would decide at the same -time to obey, its practice would then be possible. But one man alone -cannot act in defiance of the whole world; and so we hear continually -this plea: "If, among men who do not practise the doctrine of Jesus, I -alone obey it; if I give away all that I possess; if I turn the other -cheek; if I refuse to take an oath or to go to war, I should find myself -in profound isolation; if I did not die of hunger, I should be beaten; -if I survived that, I should be cast into prison; I should be shot, and -all the happiness of my life--my life itself--would be sacrificed in -vain." - -This plea is founded upon the doctrine of _quid pro quo_, which is the -basis of all arguments against the possibility of practising the -doctrine of Jesus. It is the current objection, and I sympathized with -it in common with all the rest of the world, until I finally broke -entirely away from the dogmas of the Church which prevented me from -understanding the true significance of the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus -prepared his doctrine as a means of salvation from the life of -perdition organized by men contrary to his precepts; and I declared that -I should be very glad to follow this doctrine if it were not for fear of -this very perdition. Jesus offered me the true remedy against a life of -perdition, and I clung to the life of perdition! from which it was plain -that I did not consider this life as a life of perdition, but as -something good, something real. The conviction that my personal, worldly -life was something real and good constituted the misunderstanding, the -obstacle, that prevented me from comprehending Jesus' doctrine. Jesus -knew the disposition of men to regard their personal, worldly life as -real and good, and so, in a series of apothegms and parables, he taught -them that they had no right to life, and that they were given life only -that they might assure themselves of the true life by renouncing their -worldly and fantastic organization of existence. - -To understand what is meant by "saving" one's life, according to the -doctrine of Jesus, we must first understand what the prophets, what -Solomon, what Buddha, what all the wise men of the world have said about -the personal life of man. But, as Pascal says, we cannot endure to think -upon this theme, and so we carry always before us a screen to conceal -the abyss of death, toward which we are constantly moving. It suffices -to reflect on the isolation of the personal life of man, to be convinced -that this life, in so far as it is personal, is not only of no account -to each separately, but that it is a cruel jest to heart and reason. To -understand the doctrine of Jesus, we must, before all, return to -ourselves, reflect soberly, undergo the [Greek: metanoia] of which John -the Baptist, the precursor of Jesus, speaks, when addressing himself to -men of clouded judgment. "Repent" (such was his preaching); "repent, -have another mind, or you shall all perish. The axe is laid unto the -root of the trees. Death and perdition await each one of you. Be warned, -turn back, repent." And Jesus declared, "_Except ye repent, ye shall all -likewise perish_." When Jesus was told of the death of the Galileans -massacred by Pilate, he said:-- - -"_Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, -because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye -repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the -tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners -above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you. Nay: but, except ye -repent, ye shall all likewise perish._" (Luke xiii. 1-5.) - -If he had lived in our day, in Russia, he would have said: "Think you -that those who perished in the circus at Berditchef or on the slopes of -Koukouyef were sinners above all others? I tell you, No; but you, if you -do not repent, if you do not arouse yourselves, if you do not find in -your life that which is imperishable, you also shall perish. You are -horrified by the death of those crushed by the tower, burned in the -circus; but your death, equally as frightful and as inevitable, is here, -before you. You are wrong to conceal it or to forget it; unlocked for, -it is only more hideous." - -To the people of his own time he said:-- - -"_When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There -cometh a shower; and so it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye -say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, ye can -discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do -not discern this time? Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what -is right?_" (Luke xii. 54-57.) - -We know how to interpret the signs of the weather; why, then, do we not -see what is before us? It is in vain that we fly from danger, and guard -our material life by all imaginable means; in spite of all, death is -before us, if not in one way, then in another; if not by massacre, or -the falling of a tower, then in our beds, amidst much greater suffering. - -Make a simple calculation, as those do who undertake any worldly -project, any enterprise whatever, such as the construction of a house, -or the purchase of an estate, such as those make who labor with the hope -of seeing their calculations realized. - -"_For which of you intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, -and counteth the cost whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest -haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, -all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, -and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against -another king, sitteth not down first and consulteth whether he be able -with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty -thousand?_" (Luke xiv. 28-31.) - -Is it not the act of a madman to labor at what, under any circumstances, -one can never finish? Death will always come before the edifice of -worldly prosperity can be completed. And if we knew beforehand that, -however we may struggle with death, it is not we, but death, that will -triumph; is it not an indication that we ought not to struggle with -death, or to set our hearts upon that which will surely perish, but to -seek to perform the task whose results cannot be destroyed by our -inevitable departure? - -"_And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no -thought for your life what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye -shall put on. The life is more than meat and the body is more than -raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which -neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: How much more -are ye better than the fowls? And which of you with taking thought can -add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing -which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? Consider the lilies -how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you that -Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these._" (Luke xii. -22-27.) - -Whatever pains we may take for our nourishment, for the care of the -body, we cannot prolong life by a single hour.[14] Is it not folly to -trouble ourselves about a thing that we cannot possibly accomplish? We -know perfectly well that our material life will end with death, and we -give ourselves up to evil to procure riches. Life cannot be measured by -what we possess; if we think so, we only delude ourselves. Jesus tells -us that the meaning of life does not lie in what we possess or in what -we can accumulate, but in something entirely different. He says:-- - - [14] The words of verse 25 are incorrectly translated; the word - [Greek: hêlikian] means _age, age of life_: consequently the whole - phrase should be rendered: can add one hour to his life. - -"_The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he -thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room -where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down -my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and -my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods lead up -for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said -unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then -whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that -layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God._" (Luke xii. -16-21.) - -Death threatens us every moment; Jesus says:-- - -"_Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye -yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return -from the wedding; that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto -him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he -cometh shall find watching; ...And if he shall come in the second watch, -or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those -servants. And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known -what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have -suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for -the son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not._" (Luke xii. 35-40.) - -The parable of the virgins waiting for the bridegroom, that of the -consummation of the age and the last judgment, as the commentators all -agree, are designed to teach that death awaits us at every moment. Death -awaits us at every moment. Life is passed in sight of death. If we labor -for ourselves alone, for our personal future, we know that what awaits -us in the future is death. And death will destroy all the fruits of our -labor. Consequently, a life for self can have no meaning. The reasonable -life is different; it has another aim than the poor desires of a single -individual. The reasonable life consists in living in such a way that -life cannot be destroyed by death. We are troubled about many things, -but only one thing is necessary. - -From the moment of his birth, man is menaced by an inevitable peril, -that is, by a life deprived of meaning, and a wretched death, if he does -not discover the thing essential to the true life. Now it is precisely -this one thing which insures the true life that Jesus reveals to men. He -invents nothing, he promises nothing through divine power; side by side -with this personal life, which is a delusion, he simply reveals to men -the truth. - -In the parable of the husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 33-42), Jesus explains the -cause of that blindness in men which conceals the truth from them, and -which impels them to take the apparent for the real, their personal life -for the true life. Certain men, having leased a vineyard, imagined that -they were its masters. And this delusion leads them into a series of -foolish and cruel actions, which ends in their exile. So each one of us -imagines that life is his personal property, and that he has a right to -enjoy it in such a way as may seem to him good, without recognizing any -obligation to others. And the inevitable consequence of this delusion is -a series of foolish and cruel actions followed by exclusion from life. -And as the husbandmen killed the servants and at last the son of the -householder, thinking that the more cruel they were, the better able -they would be to gain their ends, so we imagine that we shall obtain the -greatest security by means of violence. - -Expulsion, the inevitable sentence visited upon the husbandmen for -having taken to themselves the fruits of the vineyard, awaits also all -men who imagine that the personal life is the true life. Death expels -them from life; they are replaced by others, as a consequence of the -error which led them to misconceive the meaning of life. As the -husbandmen forgot, or did not wish to remember, that they had received a -vineyard already hedged about and provided with winepress and tower, -that some one had labored for them and expected them to labor in their -turn for others;--so the men who would live for themselves forget, or do -not wish to remember, all that has been done for them during their -life; they forget that they are under an obligation to labor in their -turn, and that all the blessings of life which they enjoy are fruits -that they ought to divide with others. - -This new manner of looking at life, this [Greek: metanoia], or -repentance, is the corner-stone of the doctrine of Jesus. According to -this doctrine, men ought to understand and feel that they are insolvent, -as the husbandmen should have understood and felt that they were -insolvent to the householder, unable to pay the debt contracted by -generations past, present, and to come, with the overruling power. They -ought to feel that every hour of their existence is only a mortgage upon -this debt, and that every man who, by a selfish life, rejects this -obligation, separates himself from the principle of life, and so -forfeits life. Each one should remember that in striving to save his own -life, his personal life, he loses the true life, as Jesus so many times -said. The true life is the life which adds something to the store of -happiness accumulated by past generations, which increases this heritage -in the present, and hands it down to the future. To take part in this -true life, man should renounce his personal will for the will of the -Father, who gives this life to man. In John viii. 35, we read:-- - -"_And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the son abideth -forever._" - -That is, only the son who observes the will of the father shall have -eternal life. Now, the will of the Father of Life is not the personal, -selfish life, but the filial life of the son of man; and so a man saves -his life when he considers it as a pledge, as something confided to him -by the Father for the profit of all, as something with which to live the -life of the son of man. - -A man, about to travel into a far country, called his servants together -and divided among them his goods. Although receiving no precise -instructions as to the manner in which they were to use these goods, -some of the servants understood that the goods still belonged to the -master, and that they ought to employ them for the master's gain. And -the servants who had labored for the good of the master were rewarded, -while the others, who had not so labored, were despoiled even of what -they had received. (Matt. xxv. 14-46.) - -The life of the son of man has been given to all men, and they know not -why. Some of them understand that life is not for their personal use, -but that they must use it for the good of the son of man; others, -feigning not to understand the true object of life, refuse to labor for -the son of man; and those that labor for the true life will be united -with the source of life; those that do not so labor, will lose the life -they already have. Jesus tells us in what the service of the son of man -consists and what will be the recompense of that service. The son of -man, endowed with kingly authority, will call upon the faithful to -inherit the true life; they have fed the hungry, given drink to the -thirsty, clothed and consoled the wretched, and in so doing they have -ministered to the son of man, who is the same in all men; they have not -lived the personal life, but the life of the son of man, and they are -given the life eternal. - -According to all the Gospels, the object of Jesus' teaching was the life -eternal. And, strange as it may seem, Jesus, who is supposed to have -been raised in person, and to have promised a general resurrection, ---Jesus not only said nothing in affirmation of individual -resurrection and individual immortality beyond the grave, but on the -contrary, every time that he met with this superstition (introduced at -this period into the Talmud, and of which there is not a trace in the -records of the Hebrew prophets), he did not fail to deny its truth. The -Pharisees and the Sadducees were constantly discussing the subject of -the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection -of the dead, in angels, and in spirits (Acts xxiii. 8), but the -Sadducees did not believe in resurrection, or angel, or spirit. We do -not know the source of the difference in belief, but it is certain that -it was one of the polemical subjects among the secondary questions of -the Hebraic doctrine that were constantly under discussion in the -Synagogues. And Jesus not only did not recognize the resurrection, but -denied it every time he met with the idea. When the Sadducees demanded -of Jesus, supposing that he believed with the Pharisees in the -resurrection, to which of the seven brethren the woman should belong, he -refuted with clearness and precision the idea of individual -resurrection, saying that on this subject they erred, knowing neither -the Scriptures nor the power of God. Those who are worthy of -resurrection, he said, will remain like the angels of heaven (Mark xii. -21-24); and with regard to the dead:-- - -"_Have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto -him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God -of Jacob?[15] He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: -ye, therefore, do greatly err._" (Mark xii. 26, 27.) - - [15] Exod. iii. 6. - -Jesus' meaning was that the dead are living in God. God said to Moses, -"I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob." To God, all those -who have lived the life of the son of man, are living. Jesus affirmed -only this, that whoever lives in God, will be united to God; and he -admitted no other idea of the resurrection. As to personal resurrection, -strange as it may appear to those who have never carefully studied the -Gospels for themselves, Jesus said nothing about it whatever. - -If, as the theologians teach, the foundation of the Christian faith is -the resurrection of Jesus, is it not strange that Jesus, knowing of his -own resurrection, knowing that in this consisted the principal dogma of -faith in him--is it not strange that Jesus did not speak of the matter -at least once, in clear and precise terms? Now, according to the -canonical Gospels, he not only did not speak of it in clear and precise -terms; he did not speak of it at all, not once, not a single word. - -The doctrine of Jesus consisted in the elevation of the son of man, that -is, in the recognition on the part of man, that he, man, was the son of -God. In his own individuality Jesus personified the man who has -recognized the filial relation with God. He asked his disciples whom men -said that he was--the son of man? His disciples replied that some took -him for John the Baptist, and some for Elijah. Then came the question, -"_But whom say ye that I am?_" And Peter answered, "_Thou art the -Messiah, the son of the living God._" Jesus responded, "_Flesh and blood -hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven_;" -meaning that Peter understood, not through faith in human explanations, -but because, feeling himself to be the son of God, he understood that -Jesus was also the son of God. And after having explained to Peter that -the true faith is founded upon the perception of the filial relation to -God, Jesus charged his other disciples that they should tell no man that -he was the Messiah. After this, Jesus told them that although he might -suffer many things and be put to death, he, that is his doctrine, would -be triumphantly re-established. And these words are interpreted as a -prophecy of the resurrection (Matt. xvi. 13-21). - -Of the thirteen passages[16] which are interpreted as prophecies of -Jesus in regard to his own resurrection, two refer to Jonah in the -whale's belly, another to the rebuilding of the temple. The others -affirm that the son of man shall not be destroyed; but there is not a -word about the resurrection of Jesus. In none of these passages is the -word "resurrection" found in the original text. Ask any one who is -ignorant of theological interpretations, but who knows Greek, to -translate them, and he will never agree with the received versions. In -the original we find two different words, _[Greek: anistêmi]_ and -[Greek: egeirô], which are rendered in the sense of resurrection; one of -these words means to "re-establish"; the other means "to awaken, to rise -up, to arouse one's self." But neither the one nor the other can ever, -in any case, mean to "resuscitate"--to raise from the dead. With regard -to these Greek words and the corresponding Hebrew word, _qum_, we have -only to examine the scriptural passages where these words are employed, -as they are very frequently, to see that in no case is the meaning "to -resuscitate" admissible. The word _voskresnovit_, _auferstehn_, -_resusciter_--"to resuscitate"--did not exist in the Greek or Hebrew -tongues, for the reason that the conception corresponding to this word -did not exist. To express the idea of resurrection in Greek or in -Hebrew, it is necessary to employ a periphrasis, meaning, "is arisen, -has awakened among the dead." Thus, in the Gospel of Matthew (xiv. 2) -where reference is made to Herod's belief that John the Baptist had been -resuscitated, we read, [Greek: autos êgerthê apo tôn nekrôn], "has -awakened among the dead." In the same manner, in Luke (xvi. 31), at the -close of the parable of Lazarus, where it said that if men believe not -the prophets, they would not believe even though one be resuscitated, we -find the periphrasis, [Greek: ean tis ek nekrôn anastê], "if one arose -among the dead." But, if in these passages the words "among the dead" -were not added to the words "arose or awakened," the last two could -never signify resuscitation. When Jesus spoke of himself, he did not -once use the words "among the dead" in any of the passages quoted in -support of the affirmation that Jesus foretold his own resurrection. - - [16] John xi. 19-22; Matt. xii. 40; Luke xi. 30; Matt. xvi. 21; - Mark viii. 31; Luke ix. 22; Matt. xvii. 23; Mark ix. 31; Matt. xx. - 19; Mark x. 34; Luke xviii. 33; Matt. xxvi. 32; Mark xiv. 25. - -Our conception of the resurrection is so entirely foreign to any idea -that the Hebrews possessed with regard to life, that we cannot even -imagine how Jesus would have been able to talk to them of the -resurrection, and of an eternal, individual life, which should be the -lot of every man. The idea of a future eternal life comes neither from -Jewish doctrine nor from the doctrine of Jesus, but from an entirely -different source. We are obliged to believe that belief in a future life -is a primitive and crude conception based upon a confused idea of the -resemblance between death and sleep,--an idea common to all savage -races. - -The Hebraic doctrine (and much more the Christian doctrine) was far -above this conception. But we are so convinced of the elevated character -of this superstition, that we use it as a proof of the superiority of -our doctrine to that of the Chinese or the Hindus, who do not believe -in it at all. Not the theologians only, but the free-thinkers, the -learned historians of religions, such as Tiele, and Max Müller, make use -of the same argument. In their classification of religions, they give -the first place to those which recognize the superstition of the -resurrection, and declare them to be far superior to those not -professing that belief. Schopenhauer boldly denounced the Hebraic -religion as the most despicable of all religions because it contains not -a trace of this belief. Not only the idea itself, but all means of -expressing it, were wanting to the Hebraic religion. Eternal life is in -Hebrew _hayail eolam_. By _olam_ is meant the infinite, that which is -permanent in the limits of time; _olam_ also means "world" or "cosmos." -Universal life, and much more _hayai leolam_, "eternal life," is, -according to the Jewish doctrine, the attribute of God alone. God is the -God of life, the living God. Man, according to the Hebraic idea, is -always mortal. God alone is always living. In the Pentateuch, the -expression "eternal life" is twice met with; once in Deuteronomy and -once in Genesis. God is represented as saying:-- - - "_See now that I, even I, am he, - And there is no god with me: - I kill, and I make alive; - I have wounded, and I heal: - And there is none that can deliver out of my hand. - For I lift up my hand to heaven, - And say, As I live forever._" - - (Deut. xxxii. 39, 40.) - -"_And Jehovah said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good -and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also the tree of -life, and live forever._" (Gen. iii. 22.) - -These two sole instances of the use of the expression "eternal life" in -the Old Testament (with the exception of another instance in the -apocryphal book of Daniel) determine clearly the Hebraic conception of -the life of man and the life eternal. Life itself, according to the -Hebrews, is eternal, is in God; but man is always mortal: it is his -nature to be so. According to the Jewish doctrine, man as man, is -mortal. He has life only as it passes from one generation to another, -and is so perpetuated in a race. According to the Jewish doctrine, the -faculty of life exists in the _people_. When God said, "Ye may live, and -not die," he addressed these words to the people. The life that God -breathed into man is mortal for each separate human being; this life is -perpetuated from generation to generation, if men fulfil the union with -God, that is, obey the conditions imposed by God. After having -propounded the Law, and having told them that this Law was to be found -not in heaven, but in their own hearts, Moses said to the people:-- - -"_See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and -evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Eternal, to walk in -his ways, and to keep his commandments, that thou mayest live.... I call -heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before -thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, -that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed: to love the Eternal, to obey -his voice, and to cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of -thy days._" (Deut. xxx. 15-19.) - -The principal difference between our conception of human life and that -possessed by the Jews is, that while we believe that our mortal life, -transmitted from generation to generation, is not the true life, but a -fallen life, a life temporarily depraved,--the Jews, on the contrary, -believed this life to be the true and supreme good, given to man on -condition that he obey the will of God. From our point of view, the -transmission of the fallen life from generation to generation is the -transmission of a curse; from the Jewish point of view, it is the -supreme good to which man can attain, on condition that he accomplish -the will of God. It is precisely upon the Hebraic conception of life -that Jesus founded his doctrine of the true or eternal life, which he -contrasted with the personal and mortal life. Jesus said to the Jews:-- - -"_Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and -they are they which testify of me._" (John v. 39.) - -To the young man who asked what he must do to have eternal life, Jesus -said in reply, "_If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments_." -He did not say "the eternal life," but simply "the life" (Matt. xix. -17). To the same question propounded by the scribe, the answer was, -"_This do, and thou shalt live_" (Luke x. 28), once more promising life, -but saying nothing of eternal life. From these two instances, we know -what Jesus meant by eternal life; whenever he made use of the phrase in -speaking to the Jews, he employed it in exactly the same sense in which -it was expressed in their own law,--the accomplishment of the will of -God. In contrast with the life that is temporary, isolated, and -personal, Jesus taught of the eternal life promised by God to -Israel--with this difference, that while the Jews believed the eternal -life was to be perpetuated solely by their chosen people, and that -whoever wished to possess this life must follow the exceptional laws -given by God to Israel,--the doctrine of Jesus holds that the eternal -life is perpetuated in the son of man, and that to obtain it we must -practise the commandments of Jesus, who summed up the will of God for -all humanity. - -As opposed to the personal life, Jesus taught us, not of a life beyond -the grave, but of that universal life which comprises within itself the -life of humanity, past, present, and to come. According to the Jewish -doctrine, the personal life could be saved from death only by -accomplishing the will of God as propounded in the Mosaic law. On this -condition only the life of the Jewish race would not perish, but would -pass from generation to generation of the chosen people of God. -According to the doctrine of Jesus, the personal life is saved from -death by the accomplishment of the will of God as propounded in the -commandments of Jesus. On this condition alone the personal life does -not perish, but becomes eternal and immutable, in union with the son of -man. The difference is, that while the religion given by Moses was that -of a people for a national God, the religion of Jesus is the expression -of the aspirations of all humanity. The perpetuity of life in the -posterity of a people is doubtful, because the people itself may -disappear, and perpetuity depends upon a posterity in the flesh. -Perpetuity of life, according to the doctrine of Jesus, is indubitable, -because life, according to his doctrine, is an attribute of all humanity -in the son of man who lives in harmony with the will of God. - -If we believe that Jesus' words concerning the last judgment and the -consummation of the age, and other words reported in the Gospel of John, -are a promise of a life beyond the grave for the souls of men,--if we -believe this, it is none the less true that his teachings in regard to -the light of life and the kingdom of God have the same meaning for us -that they had for his hearers eighteen centuries ago; that is, that the -only real life is the life of the son of man conformable to the will of -the Giver of Life. It is easier to admit this than to admit that the -doctrine of the true life, conformable to the will of the Giver of Life, -contains the promise of the immortality of life beyond the grave. - -Perhaps it is right to think that man, after this terrestrial life -passed in the satisfaction of personal desires, will enter upon the -possession of an eternal personal life in paradise, there to taste all -imaginable enjoyments; but to believe that this is so, to endeavor to -persuade ourselves that for our good actions we shall be recompensed -with eternal felicity, and for our bad actions punished with eternal -torments,--to believe this, does not aid us in understanding the -doctrine of Jesus, but, on the contrary, takes away the principal -foundation of that doctrine. The entire doctrine of Jesus inculcates -renunciation of the personal, imaginary life, and a merging of this -personal life in the universal life of humanity, in the life of the son -of man. Now the doctrine of the individual immortality of the soul does -not impel us to renounce the personal life; on the contrary, it affirms -the continuance of individuality forever. - -The Jews, the Chinese, the Hindus, all men who do not believe in the -dogma of the fall and the redemption, conceive of life as it is. A man -lives, is united with a woman, engenders children, cares for them, grows -old, and dies. His life continues in his children, and so passes on from -one generation to another, like everything else in the world,--stones, -metals, earth, plants, animals, stars. Life is life, and we must make -the best of it. - -To live for self alone, for the animal life, is not reasonable. And so -men, from their earliest existence, have sought for some reason for -living aside from the gratification of their own desires; they live for -their children, for their families, for their nation, for humanity, for -all that does not die with the personal life. - -But according to the doctrine of the Church, human life, the supreme -good that we possess, is but a very small portion of another life of -which we are deprived for a season. Our life is not the life that God -intended to give us or such as is our due. Our life is degenerate and -fallen, a mere fragment, a mockery, compared with the real life to which -we think ourselves entitled. The principal object of life is not to try -to live this mortal life conformably to the will of the Giver of Life; -or to render it eternal in the generations, as the Hebrews believed; or -to identify ourselves with the will of God, as Jesus taught; no, it is -to believe that after this unreal life the true life will begin. - -Jesus did not speak of the imaginary life that we believe to be our due, -and that God did not give to us for some unexplained reason. The theory -of the fall of Adam, of eternal life in paradise, of an immortal soul -breathed by God into Adam, was unknown to Jesus; he never spoke of it, -never made the slightest allusion to its existence. Jesus spoke of life -as it is, as it must be for all men; we speak of an imaginary life that -has never existed. How, then, can we understand the doctrine of Jesus? - -Jesus did not anticipate such a singular change of view in his -disciples. He supposed that all men understood that the destruction of -the personal life is inevitable, and he revealed to them an imperishable -life. He offers true peace to them that suffer; but to those who believe -that they are certain to possess more than Jesus gives, his doctrine can -be of no value. How shall I persuade a man to toil in return for food -and clothing if this man is persuaded that he already possesses great -riches? Evidently he will pay no attention to my exhortations. So it is -with regard to the doctrine of Jesus. Why should I toil for bread when I -can be rich without labor? Why should I trouble myself to live this life -according to the will of God when I am sure of a personal life for all -eternity? - -That Jesus Christ, as the second person of the Trinity, as God made -manifest in the flesh, was the salvation of men; that he took upon -himself the penalty for the sin of Adam and the sins of all men; that he -atoned to the first person of the Trinity for the sins of humanity; that -he instituted the Church and the sacraments for our salvation--believing -this, we are saved, and shall enter into the possession of personal, -eternal life beyond the grave. But meanwhile we cannot deny that he has -saved and still saves men by revealing to them their inevitable loss, -showing them that he is the way, the truth, and the life, the true way -to life instead of the false way to the personal life that men had -heretofore followed. - -If there are any who doubt the life beyond the grave and salvation based -upon redemption, no one can doubt the salvation of all men, and of each -individual man, if they will accept the evidence of the destruction of -the personal life, and follow the true way to safety by bringing their -personal wills into harmony with the will of God. Let each man endowed -with reason ask himself, What is life? and What is death? and let him -try to give to life and death any other meaning than that revealed by -Jesus, and he will find that any attempt to find in life a meaning not -based upon the renunciation of self, the service of humanity, of the son -of man, is utterly futile. It cannot be doubted that the personal life -is condemned to destruction, and that a life conformable to the will of -God alone gives the possibility of salvation. It is not much in -comparison with the sublime belief in the future life! It is not much, -but it is sure. - -I am lost with my companions in a snow-storm. One of them assures me -with the utmost sincerity that he sees a light in the distance, but it -is only a mirage which deceives us both; we strive to reach this light, -but we never can find it. Another resolutely brushes away the snow; he -seeks and finds the road, and he cries to us, "Go not that way, the -light you see is false, you will wander to destruction; here is the -road, I feel it beneath my feet; we are saved." It is very little, we -say. We had faith in that light that gleamed in our deluded eyes, that -told us of a refuge, a warm shelter, rest, deliverance,--and now in -exchange for it we have nothing but the road. Ah, but if we continue to -travel toward the imaginary light, we shall perish; if we follow the -road, we shall surely arrive at a haven of safety. - -What, then, must I do if I alone understand the doctrine of Jesus, and I -alone have trust in it among a people who neither understand it nor obey -it? What ought I to do, to live like the rest of the world, or to live -according to the doctrine of Jesus? I understood the doctrine of Jesus -as expressed in his commandments, and I believed that the practice of -these commandments would bring happiness to me and to all men. I -understood that the fulfilment of these commandments is the will of God, -the source of life. More than this, I saw that I should die like a brute -after a farcical existence if I did not fulfil the will of God, and that -the only chance of salvation lay in the fulfilment of His will. In -following the example of the world about me, I should unquestionably act -contrary to the welfare of all men, and, above all, contrary to the will -of the Giver of Life; I should surely forfeit the sole possibility of -bettering my desperate condition. In following the doctrine of Jesus, I -should continue the work common to all men who had lived before me; I -should contribute to the welfare of my fellows, and of those who were to -live after me; I should obey the command of the Giver of Life; I should -seize upon the only hope of salvation. - -The circus at Berditchef[17] is in flames. A crowd of people are -struggling before the only place of exit,--a door that opens inward. -Suddenly, in the midst of the crowd, a voice rings out: "Back, stand -back from the door; the closer you press against it, the less the chance -of escape; stand back; that is your only chance of safety!" Whether I am -alone in understanding this command, or whether others with me also hear -and understand, I have but one duty, and that is, from the moment I have -heard and understood, to fall back from the door and to call upon every -one to obey the voice of the saviour. I may be suffocated, I may be -crushed beneath the feet of the multitude, I may perish; my sole chance -of safety is to do the one thing necessary to gain an exit. And I can do -nothing else. A saviour should be a saviour, that is, one who saves. And -the salvation of Jesus is the true salvation. He came, he preached his -doctrine, and humanity is saved. - - [17] A city in Russia become famous by a recent catastrophe. - -The circus may burn in an hour, and those penned up in it may have no -time to escape. But the world has been burning for eighteen hundred -years; it has burned ever since Jesus said, "_I am come to send fire on -the earth_;" and I suffer as it burns, and it will continue to burn -until humanity is saved. Was not this fire kindled that men might have -the felicity of salvation? Understanding this, I understood and believed -that Jesus is not only the Messiah, that is, the Anointed One, the -Christ, but that he is in truth the Saviour of the world. I know that he -is the only way, that there is no other way for me or for those who are -tormented with me in this life. I know, that for me as for all, there -is no other safety than the fulfilment of the commandments of Jesus, who -gave to all humanity the greatest conceivable sum of benefits. - -Would there be great trials to endure? Should I die in following the -doctrine of Jesus? This question did not alarm me. It might seem -frightful to any one who does not realize the nothingness and absurdity -of an isolated personal life, and who believes that he will never die. -But I know that my life, considered in relation to my individual -happiness, is, taken by itself, a stupendous farce, and that this -meaningless existence will end in a stupid death. Knowing this, I have -nothing to fear. I shall die as others die who do not observe the -doctrine of Jesus; but my life and my death will have a meaning for -myself and for others. My life and my death will have added something to -the life and salvation of others, and this will be in accordance with -the doctrine of Jesus. - - - - -CHAPTER IX. - - -LET all the world practise the doctrine of Jesus, and the reign of God -will come upon earth; if I alone practise it, I shall do what I can to -better my own condition and the condition of those about me. There is no -salvation aside from the fulfilment of the doctrine of Jesus. But who -will give me the strength to practise it, to follow it without ceasing, -and never to fail? "_Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief._" The -disciples called upon Jesus to strengthen their faith. "_When I would do -good_," says the apostle Paul, "_evil is present with me_." It is hard -to work out one's salvation. - -A drowning man calls for aid. A rope is thrown to him, and he says: -"Strengthen my belief that this rope will save me. I believe that the -rope will save me; but help my unbelief." What is the meaning of this? -If a man will not seize upon his only means of safety, it is plain that -he does not understand his condition. - -How can a Christian who professes to believe in the divinity of Jesus -and of his doctrine, whatever may be the meaning that he attaches -thereto, say that he wishes to believe, and that he cannot believe? God -comes upon earth, and says, "Fire, torments, eternal darkness await you; -and here is your salvation--fulfil my doctrine." It is not possible -that a believing Christian should not believe and profit by the -salvation thus offered to him; it is not possible that he should say, -"Help my unbelief." If a man says this, he not only does not believe in -his perdition, but he must be certain that he shall not perish. - -A number of children have fallen from a boat into the water. For an -instant their clothes and their feeble struggles keep them on the -surface of the stream, and they do not realize their danger. Those in -the boat throw out a rope. They warn the children against their peril, -and urge them to grasp the rope (the parables of the woman and the piece -of silver, the shepherd and the lost sheep, the marriage feast, the -prodigal son, all have this meaning), but the children do not believe; -they refuse to believe, not in the rope, but that they are in danger of -drowning. Children as frivolous as themselves have assured them that -they can continue to float gaily along even when the boat is far away. -The children do not believe; but when their clothes are saturated, the -strength of their little arms exhausted, they will sink and perish. This -they do not believe, and so they do not believe in the rope of safety. - -Just as the children in the water will not grasp the rope that is thrown -to them, persuaded that they will not perish, so men who believe in the -resurrection of the soul, convinced that there is no danger, do not -practise the commandments of Jesus. They do not believe in what is -certain, simply because they do believe in what is uncertain. It is for -this cause they cry, "Lord, strengthen our faith, lest we perish." But -this is impossible. To have the faith that will save them from -perishing, they must cease to do what will lead them to perdition, and -they must begin to do something for their own safety; they must grasp -the rope of safety. Now this is exactly what they do not wish to do; -they wish to persuade themselves that they will not perish, although -they see their comrades perishing one after another before their very -eyes. They wish to persuade themselves of the truth of what does not -exist, and so they ask to be strengthened in faith. It is plain that -they have not enough faith, and they wish for more. - -When I understood the doctrine of Jesus, I saw that what these men call -faith is the faith denounced by the apostle James:[18]-- - - [18] The epistle of James was for a long time rejected by the - Church, and when accepted, was subjected to various alterations: - certain words are omitted, others are transposed, or translated in - an arbitrary way. I have restored the defective passages after the - text authorized by Tischendorf. - -"_What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man believe he hath faith, but -hath not works? can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked -and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be -ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the -body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead -in itself. But some one will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: -Shew me thy faith which is without works, and I, by my works, will show -thee my faith. Thou believest there is one God; thou doest well: the -demons also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that -faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by -works when he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that -faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect.... Ye -see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.... For as -the body without the spirit is dead, so faith is dead without works._" -(James ii. 14-26.) - -James says that the indication of faith is the acts that it inspires, -and consequently that a faith which does not result in acts is of words -merely, with which one cannot feed the hungry, or justify belief, or -obtain salvation. A faith without acts is not faith. It is only a -disposition to believe in something, a vain affirmation of belief in -something in which one does not really believe. Faith, as the apostle -James defines it, is the motive power of actions, and actions are a -manifestation of faith. - -The Jews said to Jesus: "_What signs shewest thou then, that we may see, -and believe thee? what dost thou work?_" (John vi. 30. See also Mark xv. -32; Matt. xxvii. 42). Jesus told them that their desire was vain, and -that they could not be made to believe what they did not believe. "_If I -tell you,_" he said, "_ye will not believe_" (Luke xxii. 67); "_I told -you, and ye believed not.... But ye believe not because ye are not of my -sheep_" (John x. 25, 26). - -The Jews asked exactly what is asked by Christians brought up in the -Church; they asked for some outward sign which should make them believe -in the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus explained that this was impossible, and -he told them why it was impossible. He told them that they could not -believe because they were not of his sheep; that is, they did not follow -the road he had pointed out. He explained why some believed, and why -others did not believe, and he told them what faith really was. He said: -"_How can ye believe which receive your doctrine_ ([Greek: doxa][19]) -_one of another, and seek not the doctrine that cometh only from God?_" -(John v. 44). - - [19] Here, as in other passages, [Greek: doxa] has been incorrectly - translated "honor"; [Greek: doxa], from the verb [Greek: dokeô], - means "manner of seeing, judgment, _doctrine_." - -To believe, Jesus says, we must seek for the doctrine that comes from -God alone. - -"_He that speaketh of himself seeketh_ (to extend) _his own doctrine, -[Greek: doxan tên idian], but he that seeketh_ (to extend) _the doctrine -of him that sent him, the same is true, and no untruth is in him._" -(John vii. 18.) - -The doctrine of life, [Greek: doxa], is the foundation of faith, and -actions result spontaneously from faith. But there are two doctrines of -life: Jesus denies the one and affirms the other. One of these -doctrines, a source of all error, consists of the idea that the personal -life is one of the essential and real attributes of man. This doctrine -has been followed, and is still followed, by the majority of men; it is -the source of divergent beliefs and acts. The other doctrine, taught by -Jesus and by all the prophets, affirms that our personal life has no -meaning save through fulfilment of the will of God. If a man confess a -doctrine that emphasizes his own personal life, he will consider that -his personal welfare is the most important thing in the world, and he -will consider riches, honors, glory, pleasure, as true sources of -happiness; he will have a faith in accordance with his inclination, and -his acts will always be in harmony with his faith. If a man confess a -different doctrine, if he find the essence of life in fulfilment of the -will of God in accordance with the example of Abraham and the teaching -and example of Jesus, his faith will accord with his principles, and his -acts will be conformable to his faith. And so those who believe that -true happiness is to be found in the personal life can never have faith -in the doctrine of Jesus. All their efforts to fix their faith upon it -will be always vain. To believe in the doctrine of Jesus, they must look -at life in an entirely different way. Their actions will coincide always -with their faith and not with their intentions and their words. - -In men who demand of Jesus that he shall work miracles we may recognize -a desire to believe in his doctrine; but this desire never can be -realized in life, however arduous the efforts to obtain it. In vain they -pray, and observe the sacraments, and give in charity, and build -churches, and convert others; they cannot follow the example of Jesus -because their acts are inspired by a faith based upon an entirely -different doctrine from that which they confess. They could not -sacrifice an only son as Abraham was ready to do, although Abraham had -no hesitation whatever as to what he should do, just as Jesus and his -disciples were moved to give their lives for others, because such action -alone constituted for them the true meaning of life. This incapacity to -understand the substance of faith explains the strange moral state of -men, who, acknowledging that they ought to live in accordance with the -doctrine of Jesus, endeavor to live in opposition to this doctrine, -conformably to their belief that the personal life is a sovereign good. - -The basis of faith is the meaning that we derive from life, the meaning -that determines whether we look upon life as important and good, or -trivial and corrupt. Faith is the appreciation of good and of evil. Men -with a faith based upon their own doctrines do not succeed at all in -harmonizing this faith with the faith inspired by the doctrine of Jesus; -and so it was with the early disciples. This misapprehension is -frequently referred to in the Gospels in clear and decisive terms. -Several times the disciples asked Jesus to strengthen their faith in his -words (Matt. xx. 20-28; Mark x. 35-48). After the message, so terrible -to every man who believes in the personal life and who seeks his -happiness in the riches of this world, after the words, "_How hardly -shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God_," and after -words still more terrible for men who believe only in the personal life, -"_Sell whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor_;" after these warning -words Peter asked, "_Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee; -what shall we have therefore?_" Then James and John and, according to -the Gospel of Matthew, their mother, asked him that they might be -allowed to sit with him in glory. They asked Jesus to strengthen their -faith with a promise of future recompense. To Peter's question Jesus -replied with a parable (Matt. xx. 1-16); to James he replied that they -did not know what they asked; that they asked what was impossible; that -they did not understand the doctrine, which meant a renunciation of the -personal life, while they demanded personal glory, a personal -recompense; that they should drink the cup he drank of (that is, live as -he lived), but to sit upon his right hand and upon his left was not his -to give. And Jesus added that the great of this world had their profit -and enjoyment of glory and personal power only in the worldly life; but -that his disciples ought to know that the true meaning of human life is -not in personal happiness, but in ministering to others; "_the son of -man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his -life a ransom for many_." In reply to the unreasonable demands which -revealed their slowness to understand his doctrine, Jesus did not -command his disciples to have faith in his doctrine, that is, to modify -the ideas inspired by their own doctrine (he knew that to be -impossible), but he explained to them the meaning of that life which is -the basis of true faith, that is, taught them how to discern good from -evil, the important from the secondary. - -To Peter's question, "_What shall we receive?_" Jesus replies with the -parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. xx. 1-16), beginning with -the words "_For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a -householder_," and by this means Jesus explains to Peter that failure to -understand the doctrine is the cause of lack of faith; and that -remuneration in proportion to the amount of work done is important only -from the point of view of the personal life. - -This faith is based upon the presumption of certain imaginary rights; -but a man has a right to nothing; he is under obligations for the good -he has received, and so he can exact nothing. Even if he were to give up -his whole life to the service of others, he could not pay the debt he -has incurred, and so he cannot complain of injustice. If a man sets a -value upon his rights to life, if he keeps a reckoning with the -Overruling Power from whom he has received life, he proves simply that -he does not understand the meaning of life. Men who have received a -benefit act far otherwise. The laborers employed in the vineyard were -found by the householder idle and unhappy; they did not possess life in -the proper meaning of the term. And then the householder gave them the -supreme welfare of life,--work. They accepted the benefits offered, and -were discontented because their remuneration was not graduated according -to their imaginary deserts. They did the work, believing in their false -doctrine of life and work as a right, and consequently with an idea of -the remuneration to which they were entitled. They did not understand -that work is the supreme good, and that they should be thankful for the -opportunity to work, instead of exacting payment. And so all men who -look upon life as these laborers looked upon it, never can possess true -faith. This parable of the laborers, related by Jesus in response to the -request by his disciples that he strengthen their faith, shows more -clearly than ever the basis of the faith that Jesus taught. - -When Jesus told his disciples that they must forgive a brother who -trespassed against them not only once, but seventy times seven times, -the disciples were overwhelmed at the difficulty of observing this -injunction, and said, "_Increase our faith_," just as a little while -before they had asked, "_What shall we receive?_" Now they uttered the -language of would-be Christians: "We wish to believe, but cannot; -strengthen our faith that we may be saved; make us believe" (as the Jews -said to Jesus when they demanded miracles); "either by miracles or -promises of recompense, make us to have faith in our salvation." - -The disciples said what we all say: "How pleasant it would be if we -could live our selfish life, and at the same time believe that it is far -better to practise the doctrine of God by living for others." This -disposition of mind is common to us all; it is contrary to the meaning -of the doctrine of Jesus, and yet we are astonished at our lack of -faith. Jesus disposed of this misapprehension by means of a parable -illustrating true faith. Faith cannot come of confidence in his words; -faith can come only of a consciousness of our condition; faith is based -only upon the dictates of reason as to what is best to do in a given -situation. He showed that this faith cannot be awakened in others by -promises of recompense or threats of punishment, which can only arouse a -feeble confidence that will fail at the first trial; but that the faith -which removes mountains, the faith that nothing can shatter, is inspired -by the consciousness of our inevitable loss if we do not profit by the -salvation that is offered. - -To have faith, we must not count on any promise of recompense; we must -understand that the only way of escape from a ruined life is a life -conformable to the will of the Master. He who understands this will not -ask to be strengthened in his faith, but will work out his salvation -without the need of any exhortation. The householder, when he comes from -the fields with his workman, does not ask the latter to sit down at once -to dinner, but directs him to attend first to other duties and to wait -upon him, the master, and then to take his place at the table and dine. -This the workman does without any sense of being wronged; he does not -boast of his labor nor does he demand recognition or recompense, for he -knows that labor is the inevitable condition of his existence and the -true welfare of his life. So Jesus says that when we have done all that -we are commanded to do, we have only fulfilled our duty. He who -understands his relations to his master will understand that he has life -only as he obeys the master's will; he will know in what his welfare -consists, and he will have a faith that does not demand the impossible. -This is the faith taught by Jesus, which has for its foundation a -thorough perception of the true meaning of life. The source of faith is -light:-- - -"_That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the -world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world -knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as -many as received him, to them gave he the right to become the children -of God, even to them that believe on his name._" (John i. 9-12.) - -"_And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and -men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For -every one that doeth ill hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, -lest his works should be reproved. But he that doeth the truth cometh to -the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they have been -wrought in God._" (John iii. 19-21.) - -He who understands the doctrine of Jesus will not ask to be strengthened -in his faith. The doctrine of Jesus teaches that faith is inspired by -the light of truth. Jesus never asked men to have faith in his person; -he called upon them to have faith in truth. To the Jews he said:-- - -"_Ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have -heard of God._" (John viii. 40.) - -"_Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not -believe me?_" (John viii. 46.) - -"_To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the -world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of -the truth heareth my voice._" (John xviii. 37.) - -To his disciples he said:-- - -"_I am the way, and the truth, and the life._" (John xiv. 6.) - -"_The Father ... shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with -you forever, even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; -for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he -abideth with you, and shall be in you._" (John xiv. 16, 17.) - -Jesus' doctrine, then, is truth, and he himself is truth. The doctrine -of Jesus is the doctrine of truth. Faith in Jesus is not belief in a -system based upon his personality, but a consciousness of truth. No one -can be persuaded to believe in the doctrine of Jesus, nor can any one be -stimulated by any promised reward to practise it. He who understands the -doctrine of Jesus will have faith in him, because this doctrine is true. -He who knows the truth indispensable to his happiness must believe in -it, just as a man who knows that he is drowning grasps the rope of -safety. Thus, the question, What must I do to believe? is an indication -that he who asks it does not understand the doctrine of Jesus. - - - - -CHAPTER X. - - -WE say, It is difficult to live according to the doctrine of Jesus! And -why should it not be difficult, when by our organization of life we -carefully hide from ourselves our true situation; when we endeavor to -persuade ourselves that our situation is not at all what it is, but that -it is something else? We call this faith, and regarding it as sacred, we -endeavor by all possible means, by threats, by flattery, by falsehood, -by stimulating the emotions, to attract men to its support. In this mad -determination to believe what is contrary to sense and reason, we reach -such a degree of aberration that we are ready to take as an indication -of truth the very absurdity of the object in whose behalf we solicit the -confidence of men. Are there not Christians who are ready to declare -with enthusiasm "Credo quia absurdum," supposing that the absurd is the -best medium for teaching men the truth? Not long ago a man of -intelligence and great learning said to me that the Christian doctrine -had no importance as a moral rule of life. Morality, he said, must be -sought in the teachings of the Stoics and the Brahmins, and in the -Talmud. The essence of the Christian doctrine is not in morality, he -said, but in the theosophical doctrine propounded in its dogmas. -According to this I ought to prize in the Christian doctrine not what it -contains of eternal good to humanity, not its teachings indispensable to -a reasonable life; I ought to regard as the most important element of -Christianity that portion of it which it is impossible to understand, -and therefore useless,--and this in the name of thousands of men who -have perished for their faith. - -We have a false conception of life, a conception based upon wrong doing -and inspired by selfish passions, and we consider our faith in this -false conception (which we have in some way attached to the doctrine of -Jesus), as the most important and necessary thing with which we are -concerned. If men had not for centuries maintained faith in what is -untrue, this false conception of life, as well as the truth of the -doctrine of Jesus, would long ago have been revealed. - -It is a terrible thing to say, but it seems to me that if the doctrine -of Jesus, and that of the Church which has been foisted upon it, had -never existed, those who to-day call themselves Christians would be much -nearer than they are to the truth of the doctrine of Jesus; that is, to -the reasonable doctrine which teaches the true meaning of life. The -moral doctrines of all the prophets of the world would not then be -closed to them. They would have their little ideas of truth, and would -regard them with confidence. Now, all truth is revealed, and this truth -has so horrified those whose manner of life it condemned, that they -have disguised it in falsehood, and men have lost confidence in the -truth. - -In our European society, the words of Jesus, "_To this end I am come -into the world, that I shall bear witness unto the truth. Every one that -is of the truth heareth my voice_,"--have been for a long time -supplanted by Pilate's question, "_What is truth?_" This question, -quoted as a bitter and profound irony against a Roman, we have taken as -of serious purport, and have made of it an article of faith. - -With us, all men live not only without truth, not only without the least -desire to know truth, but with the firm conviction that, among all -useless occupations, the most useless is the endeavor to find the truth -that governs human life. The rule of life, the doctrine that all -peoples, excepting our European societies, have always considered as the -most important thing, the rule of which Jesus spoke as the one thing -needful, is an object of universal disdain. An institution called the -Church, in which no one, not even if he belong to it, really believes, -has for a long time usurped the place of this rule. - -The only source of light for those who think and suffer is hidden. For a -solution of the questions, What am I? what ought I to do? I am not -allowed to depend upon the doctrine of him who came to save; I am told -to obey the authorities, and believe in the Church. But why is life so -full of evil? Why so much wrong-doing? May I not abstain from taking -part therein? Is it impossible to lighten this heavy load that weighs me -down? The reply is that this is impossible, that the desire to live -well and to help others to live well is only a temptation of pride; that -one thing is possible,--to save one's soul for the future life. He who -is not willing to take part in this miserable life may keep aloof from -it; this way is open to all; but, says the doctrine of the Church, he -who chooses this way can take no part in the life of the world; he -ceases to live. Our masters tell us that there are only two ways,--to -believe in and obey the powers that be, to participate in the organized -evil about us, or to forsake the world and take refuge in convent or -monastery; to take part in the offices of the Church, doing nothing for -men, and declaring the doctrine of Jesus impossible to practise, -accepting the iniquity of life sanctioned by the Church, or to renounce -life for what is equivalent to slow suicide. - -However surprising the belief that the doctrine of Jesus is excellent, -but impossible of practice, there is a still more surprising tradition -that he who wishes to practise this doctrine, not in word, but in deed, -must retire from the world. This erroneous belief that it is better for -a man to retire from the world than to expose himself to temptations, -existed amongst the Hebrews of old, but is entirely foreign, not only to -the spirit of Christianity, but to that of the Jewish religion. The -charming and significant story of the prophet Jonah, which Jesus so -loved to quote, was written in regard to this very error. The prophet -Jonah, wishing to remain upright and virtuous, retires from the perverse -companionship of men. But God shows him that as a prophet he ought to -communicate to misguided men a knowledge of the truth, and so ought not -to fly from men, but ought rather to live in communion with them. Jonah, -disgusted with the depravity of the inhabitants of Nineveh, flies from -the city; but he cannot escape his vocation. He is brought back, and the -will of God is accomplished; the Ninevites receive the words of Jonah -and are saved. Instead of rejoicing that he has been made the instrument -of God's will, Jonah is angry, and condemns God for the mercy shown the -Ninevites, arrogating to himself alone the exercise of reason and -goodness. He goes out into the desert and makes him a shelter, whence he -addresses his reproaches to God. Then a gourd comes up over Jonah and -protects him from the sun, but the next day it withers. Jonah, smitten -by the heat, reproaches God anew for allowing the gourd to wither. Then -God says to him:-- - -"_Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not labored, -neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a -night: and should I not have pity on Nineveh, that great city; wherein -are more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between -their right hand and their left hand?_" - -Jesus knew this story, and often referred to it. In the Gospels we find -it related how Jesus, after the interview with John, who had retired -into the desert, was himself subjected to the same temptation before -beginning his mission. He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, -and there tempted by the Devil (error), over which he triumphed and -returned to Galilee. Thereafter he mingled with the most depraved men, -and passed his life among publicans, Pharisees, and fishermen, teaching -them the truth.[20] - - [20] Jesus is led into the desert to be tempted of error. Error - suggests to Jesus that he is not the Son of God if he cannot make - stones into bread. Jesus replies that he lives, not by bread alone, - but by the word of God. Then Error says that if he lives by the - word or spirit of God, the flesh may be destroyed, but the spirit - will not perish. Jesus' reply is that life in the flesh is the will - of God; to destroy the flesh is to act contrary to the will of God, - to tempt God. Error then suggests that if this be true, he should, - like the rest of the world, place himself at the service of the - flesh, and the flesh will give him satisfaction. Jesus' reply is - that he can serve God only because the true life is spiritual, and - has been placed in the flesh by the will of God. Jesus then leaves - the desert and returns to the world. (Matt. iv. 1-11; Luke iv. - 1-13.) - -Even according to the doctrine of the Church, Jesus, as God in man, has -given us the example of his life. All of his life that is known to us -was passed in the company of publicans, of the downfallen, and of -Pharisees. The principal commandments of Jesus are that his followers -shall love others and spread his doctrine. Both exact constant communion -with the world. And yet the deduction is made that the doctrine of Jesus -permits retirement from the world. That is, to imitate Jesus we may do -exactly contrary to what he taught and did himself. - -As the Church explains it, the doctrine of Jesus offers itself to men of -the world and to dwellers in monasteries, not as a rule of life for -bettering one's own condition and the condition of others, but as a -doctrine which teaches the man of the world how to live an evil life and -at the same time gain for himself another life, and the monk how to -render existence still more difficult than it naturally is. But Jesus -did not teach this. Jesus taught the truth, and if metaphysical truth is -the truth, it will remain such in practice. If life in God is the only -true life, and is in itself profitable, then it is so here in this world -in spite of all that may happen. If in this world a life in accordance -with the doctrine of Jesus is not profitable, his doctrine cannot be -true. - -Jesus did not ask us to pass from better to worse, but, on the contrary, -from worse to better. He had pity upon men, who to him were like sheep -without a shepherd. He said that his disciples would be persecuted for -his doctrine, and that they must bear the persecutions of the world with -resolution. But he did not say that those who followed his doctrine -would suffer more than those who followed the world's doctrine; on the -contrary, he said that those who followed the world's doctrine would be -wretched, and that those who followed his doctrine would have joy and -peace. Jesus did not teach salvation by faith in asceticism or voluntary -torture, but he taught us a way of life which, while saving us from the -emptiness of the personal life, would give us less of suffering and more -of joy. Jesus told men that in practising his doctrine among unbelievers -they would be, not more unhappy, but, on the contrary, much more happy, -than those who did not practise it. There was, he said, one infallible -rule, and that was to have no care about the worldly life. When Peter -said to Jesus, "_We have forsaken all, and followed thee; what then -shall we have?_" Jesus replied:-- - -"_There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or -mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the -gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundred fold more in this time, -houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, -with persecutions; and in the age to come eternal life._" (Mark x. -28-30.) - -Jesus declared, it is true, that those who follow his doctrine must -expect to be persecuted by those who do not follow it, but he did not -say that his disciples will be the worse off for that reason; on the -contrary, he said that his disciples would have, here, in this world, -more benefits than those who did not follow him. That Jesus said and -thought this is beyond a doubt, as the clearness of his words on this -subject, the meaning of his entire doctrine, his life and the life of -his disciples, plainly show. But was his teaching in this respect true? - -When we examine the question as to which of the two conditions would be -the better, that of the disciples of Jesus or that of the disciples of -the world, we are obliged to conclude that the condition of the -disciples of Jesus ought to be the most desirable, since the disciples -of Jesus, in doing good to every one, would not arouse the hatred of -men. The disciples of Jesus, doing evil to no one, would be persecuted -only by the wicked. The disciples of the world, on the contrary, are -likely to be persecuted by every one, since the law of the disciples of -the world is the law of each for himself, the law of struggle; that is, -of mutual persecution. Moreover, the disciples of Jesus would be -prepared for suffering, while the disciples of the world use all -possible means to avoid suffering; the disciples of Jesus would feel -that their sufferings were useful to the world; but the disciples of the -world do not know why they suffer. On abstract grounds, then, the -condition of the disciples of Jesus would be more advantageous than that -of the disciples of the world. But is it so in reality? To answer this, -let each one call to mind all the painful moments of his life, all the -physical and moral sufferings that he has endured, and let him ask -himself if he has suffered these calamities in behalf of the doctrine of -the world or in behalf of the doctrine of Jesus. Every sincere man will -find in recalling his past life that he has never once suffered for -practising the doctrine of Jesus. He will find that the greater part of -the misfortunes of his life have resulted from following the doctrines -of the world. In my own life (an exceptionally happy one from a worldly -point of view) I can reckon up as much suffering caused by following the -doctrine of the world as many a martyr has endured for the doctrine of -Jesus. All the most painful moments of my life,--the orgies and duels -in which I took part as a student, the wars in which I have -participated, the diseases that I have endured, and the abnormal and -insupportable conditions under which I now live,--all these are only so -much martyrdom exacted by fidelity to the doctrine of the world. But I -speak of a life exceptionally happy from a worldly point of view. How -many martyrs have suffered for the doctrine of the world torments that I -should find difficulty in enumerating! - -We do not realize the difficulties and dangers entailed by the practice -of the doctrine of the world, simply because we are persuaded that we -could not do otherwise than follow that doctrine. We are persuaded that -all the calamities that we inflict upon ourselves are the result of the -inevitable conditions of life, and we cannot understand that the -doctrine of Jesus teaches us how we may rid ourselves of these -calamities and render our lives happy. To be able to reply to the -question, Which of these two conditions is the happier? we must, at -least for the time being, put aside our prejudices and take a careful -survey of our surroundings. - -Go through our great cities and observe the emaciated, sickly, and -distorted specimens of humanity to be found therein; recall your own -existence and that of all the people with whose lives you are familiar; -recall the instances of violent deaths and suicides of which you have -heard,--and then ask yourself for what cause all this suffering and -death, this despair that leads to suicide, has been endured. You will -find, perhaps to your surprise, that nine-tenths of all human suffering -endured by men is useless, and ought not to exist, that, in fact, the -majority of men are martyrs to the doctrine of the world. - -One rainy autumn day I rode on the tramway by the Sukhareff Tower in -Moscow. For the distance of half a verst the vehicle forced its way -through a compact crowd which quickly reformed its ranks. From morning -till night these thousands of men, the greater portion of them starving -and in rags, tramped angrily through the mud, venting their hatred in -abusive epithets and acts of violence. The same sight may be seen in all -the market-places of Moscow. At sunset these people go to the taverns -and gaming-houses; their nights are passed in filth and wretchedness. -Think of the lives of these people, of what they abandon through choice -for their present condition; think of the heavy burden of labor without -reward which weighs upon these men and women, and you will see that they -are true martyrs. All these people have forsaken houses, lands, parents, -wives, and children; they have renounced all the comforts of life, and -they have come to the cities to acquire that which according to the -gospel of the world is indispensable to every one. And all these tens of -thousands of unhappy people sleep in hovels, and subsist upon strong -drink and wretched food. But aside from this class, all, from factory -workman, cab-driver, sewing girl, and lorette, to merchant and -government official, all endure the most painful and abnormal -conditions without being able to acquire what, according to the doctrine -of the world, is indispensable to each. - -Seek among all these men, from beggar to millionaire, one who is -contented with his lot, and you will not find one such in a thousand. -Each one spends his strength in pursuit of what is exacted by the -doctrine of the world, and of what he is unhappy not to possess, and -scarcely has he obtained one object of his desires when he strives for -another, and still another, in that infinite labor of Sisyphus which -destroys the lives of men. Run over the scale of individual fortunes, -ranging from a yearly income of three hundred roubles to fifty thousand -roubles, and you will rarely find a person who is not striving to gain -four hundred roubles if he have three hundred, five hundred if he have -four hundred, and so on to the top of the ladder. Among them all you -will scarcely find one who, with five hundred roubles, is willing to -adopt the mode of life of him who has only four hundred. When such an -instance does occur, it is not inspired by a desire to make life more -simple, but to amass money and make it more sure. Each strives -continually to make the heavy burden of existence still more heavy, by -giving himself up body and soul to the practice of the doctrine of the -world. To-day we must buy an overcoat and galoches, to-morrow, a watch -and chain; the next day we must install ourselves in an apartment with a -sofa and a bronze lamp; then we must have carpets and velvet gowns; -then a house, horses and carriages, paintings and decorations, and -then--then we fall ill of overwork and die. Another continues the same -task, sacrifices his life to this same Moloch, and then dies also, -without realizing for what he has lived. - -But possibly this existence is in itself attractive? Compare it with -what men have always called happiness, and you will see that it is -hideous. For what, according to the general estimate, are the principal -conditions of earthly happiness? One of the first conditions of -happiness is that the link between man and nature shall not be severed, -that is, that he shall be able to see the sky above him, and that he -shall be able to enjoy the sunshine, the pure air, the fields with their -verdure, their multitudinous life. Men have always regarded it as a -great unhappiness to be deprived of all these things. But what is the -condition of those men who live according to the doctrine of the world? -The greater their success in practising the doctrine of the world, the -more they are deprived of these conditions of happiness. The greater -their worldly success, the less they are able to enjoy the light of the -sun, the freshness of the fields and woods, and all the delights of -country life. Many of them--including nearly all the women--arrive at -old age without having seen the sun rise or the beauties of the early -morning, without having seen a forest except from a seat in a carriage, -without ever having planted a field or a garden, and without having the -least idea as to the ways and habits of dumb animals. - -These people, surrounded by artificial light instead of sunshine, look -only upon fabrics of tapestry and stone and wood fashioned by the hand -of man; the roar of machinery, the roll of vehicles, the thunder of -cannon, the sound of musical instruments, are always in their ears; they -breathe an atmosphere heavy with distilled perfumes and tobacco smoke; -because of the weakness of their stomachs and their depraved tastes they -eat rich and highly spiced food. When they move about from place to -place, they travel in closed carriages. When they go into the country, -they have the same fabrics beneath their feet; the same draperies shut -out the sunshine; and the same array of servants cut off all -communication with the men, the earth, the vegetation, and the animals -about them. Wherever they go, they are like so many captives shut out -from the conditions of happiness. As prisoners sometimes console -themselves with a blade of grass that forces its way through the -pavement of their prison yard, or make pets of a spider or a mouse, so -these people sometimes amuse themselves with sickly plants, a parrot, a -poodle, or a monkey, to whose needs however they do not themselves -administer. - -Another inevitable condition of happiness is work: first, the -intellectual labor that one is free to choose and loves; secondly, the -exercise of physical power that brings a good appetite and tranquil and -profound sleep. Here, again, the greater the imagined prosperity that -falls to the lot of men according to the doctrine of the world, the more -such men are deprived of this condition of happiness. All the prosperous -people of the world, the men of dignity and wealth, are as completely -deprived of the advantages of work as if they were shut up in solitary -confinement. They struggle unsuccessfully with the diseases caused by -the need of physical exercise, and with the ennui which pursues -them--unsuccessfully, because labor is a pleasure only when it is -necessary, and they have need of nothing; or they undertake work that is -odious to them, like the bankers, solicitors, administrators, and -government officials, and their wives, who plan receptions and routs and -devise toilettes for themselves and their children. (I say odious, -because I never yet met any person of this class who was contented with -his work or took as much satisfaction in it as the porter feels in -shovelling away the snow from before their doorsteps.) All these -favorites of fortune are either deprived of work or are obliged to work -at what they do not like, after the manner of criminals condemned to -hard labor. - -The third undoubted condition of happiness is the family. But the more -men are enslaved by worldly success, the more certainly are they cut off -from domestic pleasures. The majority of them are libertines, who -deliberately renounce the joys of family life and retain only its cares. -If they are not libertines, their children, instead of being a source -of pleasure, are a burden, and all possible means are employed to render -marriage unfruitful. If they have children, they make no effort to -cultivate the pleasures of companionship with them. They leave their -children almost continually to the care of strangers, confiding them -first to the instruction of persons who are usually foreigners, and then -sending them to public educational institutions, so that of family life -they have only the sorrows, and the children from infancy are as unhappy -as their parents and wish their parents dead that they may become the -heirs.[21] These people are not confined in prisons, but the -consequences of their way of living with regard to the family are more -melancholy than the deprivation from the domestic relations inflicted -upon those who are kept in confinement under sentence of the law. - - [21] The justification of this existence made by parents is very - curious. "I need nothing for myself," the father says; "this way of - living is very distasteful to me; but, because of affection for my - children, I endure its burdens." In plain terms his argument would - be: "I know by experience that my way of living is a source of - unhappiness, consequently I am training my children to the same - unhappy method of existence. For love of them, I bring them into a - city permeated with physical and moral miasma; I give them into the - care of strangers, who regard the education of the young as a - lucrative enterprise; I surround my children with physical, moral, - and intellectual corruption." And this reasoning must serve as a - justification of the absurd existence led by the parents - themselves. - -The fourth condition of happiness is sympathetic and unrestricted -intercourse with all classes of men. And the higher a man is placed in -the social scale, the more certainly is he deprived of this essential -condition of happiness. The higher he goes, the narrower becomes his -circle of associates; the lower sinks the moral and intellectual level -of those to whose companionship he is restrained. - -The peasant and his wife are free to enter into friendly relations with -every one, and if a million men will have nothing to do with them, there -remain eighty millions of people with whom they may fraternize, from -Archangel to Astrakhan, without waiting for a ceremonious visit or an -introduction. A clerk and his wife will find hundreds of people who are -their equals; but the clerks of a higher rank will not admit them to a -footing of social equality, and they, in their turn, are excluded by -others. The wealthy man of the world reckons by dozens the families with -whom he is willing to maintain social ties--all the rest of the world -are strangers. For the cabinet minister and the millionaire there are -only a dozen people as rich and as important as themselves. For kings -and emperors, the circle is still more narrow. Is not the whole system -like a great prison where each inmate is restricted to association with -a few fellow-convicts? - -Finally, the fifth condition of happiness is bodily health. And once -more we find that as we ascend the social scale this condition of -happiness is less and less within the reach of the followers of the -doctrine of the world. Compare a family of medium social status with a -family of peasants. The latter toil unremittingly and are robust of -body; the former is made up of men and women more or less subject to -disease. Recall to mind the rich men and women whom you have known; are -not most of them invalids? A person of that class whose physical -disabilities do not oblige him to take a periodical course of hygienic -and medical treatment is as rare as is an invalid among the laboring -classes. All these favorites of fortune are the victims and -practitioners of sexual vices that have become a second nature, and they -are toothless, gray, and bald at an age when a workingman is in the -prime of manhood. Nearly all are afflicted with nervous or other -diseases arising from excesses in eating, drunkenness, luxury, and -perpetual medication. Those who do not die young, pass half of their -lives under the influence of morphine or other drugs, as melancholy -wrecks of humanity incapable of self-attention, leading a parasitic -existence like that of a certain species of ants which are nourished by -their slaves. Here is the death list. One has blown out his brains, -another has rotted away from the effects of syphilitic poison; this old -man succumbed to sexual excesses, this young man to a wild outburst of -sensuality; one died of drunkenness, another of gluttony, another from -the abuse of morphine, another from an induced abortion. One after -another they perished, victims of the doctrine of the world. And a -multitude presses on behind them, like an army of martyrs, to undergo -the same sufferings, the same perdition. - -To follow the doctrine of Jesus is difficult! Jesus said that they who -would forsake houses, and lands, and brethren, and follow his doctrine -should receive a hundred-fold in houses, and lands, and brethren, and -besides all this, eternal life. And no one is willing even to make the -experiment. The doctrine of the world commands its followers to leave -houses, and lands, and brethren; to forsake the country for the filth of -the city, there to toil as a bath-keeper soaping the backs of others; as -an apprentice in a little underground shop passing life in counting -kopecks; as a prosecuting attorney to serve in bringing unhappy wretches -under condemnation of the law; as a cabinet minister, perpetually -signing documents of no importance; as the head of an army, killing -men.--"Forsake all and live this hideous life ending in a cruel death, -and you shall receive nothing in this world or the other," is the -command, and every one listens and obeys. Jesus tells us to take up the -cross and follow him, to bear submissively the lot apportioned out to -us. No one hears his words or follows his command. But let a man in a -uniform decked out with gold lace, a man whose speciality is to kill his -fellows, say, "Take, not your cross, but your knapsack and carbine, and -march to suffering and certain death,"--and a mighty host is ready to -receive his orders. Leaving parents, wives, and children, clad in -grotesque costumes, subject to the will of the first comer of a higher -rank, famished, benumbed, and exhausted by forced marches, they go, like -a herd of cattle to the slaughter-house, not knowing where,--and yet -these are not cattle, they are men. - -With despair in their hearts they move on, to die of hunger, or cold, or -disease, or, if they survive, to be brought within range of a storm of -bullets and commanded to kill. They kill and are killed, none of them -knows why or to what end. An ambitious stripling has only to brandish -his sword and shout a few magniloquent words to induce them to rush to -certain death. And yet no one finds this to be difficult. Neither the -victims, nor those whom they have forsaken, find anything difficult in -such sacrifices, in which parents encourage their children to take part. -It seems to them not only that such things should be, but that they -could not be otherwise, and that they are altogether admirable and -moral. - -If the practice of the doctrine of the world were easy, agreeable, and -without danger, we might perhaps believe that the practice of the -doctrine of Jesus is difficult, frightful, and cruel. But the doctrine -of the world is much more difficult, more dangerous, and more cruel, -than is the doctrine of Jesus. Formerly, we are told, there were martyrs -for the cause of Jesus; but they were exceptional. We cannot count up -more than about three hundred and eighty thousand of them, voluntary and -involuntary, in the whole course of eighteen hundred years; but who -shall count the martyrs to the doctrine of the world? For each Christian -martyr there have been a thousand martyrs to the doctrine of the world, -and the sufferings of each one of them have been a hundred times more -cruel than those endured by the others. The number of the victims of -wars in our century alone amounts to thirty millions of men. These are -the martyrs to the doctrine of the world, who would have escaped -suffering and death even if they had refused to follow the doctrine of -the world, to say nothing of following the doctrine of Jesus. - -If a man will cease to have faith in the doctrine of the world and not -think it indispensable to wear varnished boots and a gold chain, to -maintain a useless salon, or to do the various other foolish things the -doctrine of the world demands, he will never know the effects of -brutalizing occupations, of unlimited suffering, of the anxieties of a -perpetual struggle; he will remain in communion with nature; he will be -deprived neither of the work he loves, or of his family, or of his -health, and he will not perish by a cruel and brutish death. - -The doctrine of Jesus does not exact martyrdom similar to that of the -doctrine of the world; it teaches us rather how to put an end to the -sufferings that men endure in the name of the false doctrine of the -world. The doctrine of Jesus has a profound metaphysical meaning; it has -a meaning as an expression of the aspirations of humanity; but it has -also for each individual a very simple, very clear, and very practical -meaning with regard to the conduct of his own life. In fact, we might -say that Jesus taught men not to do foolish things. The meaning of the -doctrine of Jesus is simple and accessible to all. - -Jesus said that we were not to be angry, and not to consider ourselves -as better than others; if we were angry and offended others, so much the -worse for us. Again, he said that we were to avoid libertinism, and to -that end choose one woman, to whom we should remain faithful. Once more, -he said that we were not to bind ourselves by promises or oaths to the -service of those who may constrain us to commit acts of folly and -wickedness. Then he said that we were not to return evil for evil, lest -the evil rebound upon ourselves with redoubled force. And, finally, he -says that we are not to consider men as foreigners because they dwell in -another country and speak a language different from our own. And the -conclusion is, that if we avoid doing any of these foolish things, we -shall be happy. - -This is all very well (we say), but the world is so organized that, if -we place ourselves in opposition to it, our condition will be much more -calamitous than if we live in accordance with its doctrine. If a man -refuses to perform military service, he will be shut up in a fortress, -and possibly will be shot. If a man will not do what is necessary for -the support of himself and his family, he and his family will starve. -Thus argue the people who feel themselves obliged to defend the existing -social organization; but they do not believe in the truth of their own -words. They only say this because they cannot deny the truth of the -doctrine of Jesus which they profess, and because they must justify -themselves in some way for their failure to practise it. They not only -do not believe in what they say; they have never given any serious -consideration to the subject. They have faith in the doctrine of the -world, and they only make use of the plea they have learned from the -Church,--that much suffering is inevitable for those who would practise -the doctrine of Jesus; and so they have never tried to practise the -doctrine of Jesus at all. - -We see enough of the frightful suffering endured by men in following the -doctrine of the world, but in these times we hear nothing of suffering -in behalf of the doctrine of Jesus. Thirty millions of men have perished -in wars, fought in behalf of the doctrine of the world; thousands of -millions of beings have perished, crushed by a social system organized -on the principle of the doctrine of the world; but where, in our day, -shall we find a million, a thousand, a dozen, or a single one, who has -died a cruel death, or has even suffered from hunger and cold, in behalf -of the doctrine of Jesus? This fear of suffering is only a puerile -excuse that proves how little we really know of Jesus' doctrine. We not -only do not follow it; we do not even take it seriously. The Church has -explained it in such a way that it seems to be, not the doctrine of a -happy life, but a bugbear, a source of terror. - -Jesus calls men to drink of a well of living water, which is free to -all. Men are parched with thirst, they have eaten of filth and drunk -blood, but they have been told that they will perish if they drink of -this water that is offered them by Jesus, and men believe in the -warnings of superstition. They die in torment, with the water that they -dare not touch within their reach. If they would only have faith in -Jesus' words, and go to this well of living water and quench their -thirst, they would realize how cunning has been the imposture practised -upon them by the Church, and how needlessly their sufferings have been -prolonged. If they would only accept the doctrine of Jesus, frankly and -simply, they would see at once the horrible error of which we are each -and all the victims. - -One generation after another strives to find the security of its -existence in violence, and by violence to protect its privileges. We -believe that the happiness of our life is in power, and domination, and -abundance of worldly goods. We are so habituated to this idea that we -are alarmed at the sacrifices exacted by the doctrine of Jesus, which -teaches that man's happiness does not depend upon fortune and power, and -that the rich cannot enter into the kingdom of God. But this is a false -idea of the doctrine of Jesus, which teaches us, not to do what is the -worst, but to do what is the best for ourselves here in this present -life. Inspired by his love for men, Jesus taught them not to depend upon -security based upon violence, and not to seek after riches, just as we -teach the common people to abstain, for their own interest, from -quarrels and intemperance. He said that if men lived without defending -themselves against violence, and without possessing riches, they would -be more happy; and he confirms his words by the example of his life. He -said that a man who lives according to his doctrine must be ready at any -moment to endure violence from others, and, possibly, to die of hunger -and cold. But this warning, which seems to exact such great and -unbearable sacrifices, is simply a statement of the conditions under -which men always have existed, and always will continue to exist. - -A disciple of Jesus should be prepared for everything, and especially -for suffering and death. But is the disciple of the world in a more -desirable situation? We are so accustomed to believe in all we do for -the so-called security of life (the organization of armies, the building -of fortresses, the provisioning of troops), that our wardrobes, our -systems of medical treatment, our furniture, and our money, all seem -like real and stable pledges of our existence. We forget the fate of him -who resolved to build greater storehouses to provide an abundance for -many years: he died in a night. Everything that we do to make our -existence secure is like the act of the ostrich, when she hides her head -in the sand, and does not see that her destruction is near. But we are -even more foolish than the ostrich. To establish the doubtful security -of an uncertain life in an uncertain future, we sacrifice a life of -certainty in a present that we might really possess. - -The illusion is in the firm conviction that our existence can be made -secure by a struggle with others. We are so accustomed to this illusory -so-called security of our existence and our property, that we do not -realize what we lose by striving after it. We lose everything,--we lose -life itself. Our whole life is taken up with anxiety for personal -security, with preparations for living, so that we really never live at -all. - -If we take a general survey of our lives, we shall see that all our -efforts in behalf of the so-called security of existence are not made at -all for the assurance of security, but simply to help us to forget that -existence never has been, and never can be, secure. But it is not enough -to say that we are the dupes of our own illusions, and that we forfeit -the true life for an imaginary life; our efforts for security often -result in the destruction of what we most wish to preserve. The French -took up arms in 1870 to make their national existence secure, and the -attempt resulted in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of -Frenchmen. All people who take up arms undergo the same experience. The -rich man believes that his existence is secure because he possesses -money, and his money attracts a thief who kills him. The invalid thinks -to make his life secure by the use of medicines, and the medicines -slowly poison him; if they do not bring about his death, they at least -deprive him of life, till he is like the impotent man who waited -thirty-five years at the pool for an angel to come down and trouble the -waters. The doctrine of Jesus, which teaches us that we cannot possibly -make life secure, but that we must be ready to die at any moment, is -unquestionably preferable to the doctrine of the world, which obliges us -to struggle for the security of existence. It is preferable because the -impossibility of escaping death, and the impossibility of making life -secure, is the same for the disciples of Jesus as it is for the -disciples of the world; but, according to the doctrine of Jesus, life -itself is not absorbed in the idle attempt to make existence secure. To -the follower of Jesus life is free, and can be devoted to the end for -which it is worthy,--its own welfare and the welfare of others. The -disciple of Jesus will be poor, but that is only saying that he will -always enjoy the gifts that God has lavished upon men. He will not ruin -his own existence. We make the word poverty a synonym for calamity, but -it is in truth a source of happiness, and however much we may regard it -as a calamity, it remains a source of happiness still. To be poor means -not to live in cities, but in the country, not to be shut up in close -rooms, but to labor out of doors, in the woods and fields, to have the -delights of sunshine, of the open heavens, of the earth, of observing -the habits of dumb animals; not to rack our brains with inventing dishes -to stimulate an appetite, and not to endure the pangs of indigestion. To -be poor is to be hungry three times a day, to sleep without passing -hours tossing upon the pillow a victim of insomnia, to have children, -and have them always with us, to do nothing that we do not wish to do -(this is essential), and to have no fear for anything that may happen. -The poor person will be ill and will suffer; he will die like the rest -of the world; but his sufferings and his death will probably be less -painful than those of the rich; and he will certainly live more happily. -Poverty is one of the conditions of following the doctrine of Jesus, a -condition indispensable to those who would enter into the kingdom of God -and be happy. - -The objection to this is, that no one will care for us, and that we -shall be left to die of hunger. To this objection we may reply in the -words of Jesus, (words that have been interpreted to justify the -idleness of the clergy):-- - -"_Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; no wallet for -your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer -is worthy of his food_" (Matt. x. 10). - -"_And into whatsoever house ye shall enter, ... in that same house -remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is -worthy of his hire_" (Luke x. 5, 7). - -The laborer is worthy of ([Greek: axios esti] means, word for word, can -and ought to have) his food. It is a very short sentence, but he who -understands it as Jesus understood it, will no longer have any fear of -dying of hunger. To understand the true meaning of these words we must -get rid of that traditional idea which we have developed from the -doctrine of the redemption that man's felicity consists in idleness. We -must get back to that point of view natural to all men who are not -fallen, that work, and not idleness, is the indispensable condition of -happiness for every human being; that man cannot, in fact, refrain from -work. We must rid ourselves of the savage prejudice which leads us to -think that a man who has an income from a place under the government, -from landed property, or from stocks and bonds, is in a natural and -happy position because he is relieved from the necessity of work. We -must get back into the human brain the idea of work possessed by -undegenerate men, the idea that Jesus has, when he says that the laborer -is worthy of his food. Jesus did not imagine that men would regard work -as a curse, and consequently he did not have in mind a man who would not -work, or desired not to work. He supposed that all his disciples would -work, and so he said that if a man would work, his work would bring him -food. He who makes use of the labor of another will provide food for him -who labors, simply because he profits by that labor. And so he who works -will always have food; he may not have property, but as to food, there -need be no uncertainty whatever. - -With regard to work there is a difference between the doctrine of Jesus -and the doctrine of the world. According to the doctrine of the world, -it is very meritorious in a man to be willing to work; he is thereby -enabled to enter into competition with others, and to demand wages -proportionate to his qualifications. According to the doctrine of Jesus, -labor is the inevitable condition of human life, and food is the -inevitable consequence of labor. Labor produces food, and food produces -labor. However cruel and grasping the employer may be, he will always -feed his workman, as he will always feed his horse; he feeds him that he -may get all the work possible, and in this way he contributes to the -welfare of the workman. - -"_For verily the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to -minister and to give his life a ransom for many._" - -According to the doctrine of Jesus, every individual will be the happier -the more clearly he understands that his vocation consists, not in -exacting service from others, but in ministering to others, in giving -his life for the ransom of many. A man who does this will be worthy of -his food and will not fail to have it. By the words, "_came not to be -ministered unto but to minister_," Jesus established a method which -would insure the material existence of man; and by the words, "_the -laborer is worthy of his food_," he answered once for all the objection -that a man who should practise the doctrine of Jesus in the midst of -those who do not practise it would be in danger of perishing from hunger -and cold. Jesus practised his own doctrine amid great opposition, and he -did not perish from hunger and cold. He showed that a man does not -insure his own subsistence by amassing worldly goods at the expense of -others, but by rendering himself useful and indispensable to others. The -more necessary he is to others, the more will his existence be made -secure. - -There are in the world as it is now organized millions of men who -possess no property and do not practise the doctrine of Jesus by -ministering unto others, but they do not die of hunger. How, then, can -we object to the doctrine of Jesus, that those who practise it by -working for others will perish for want of food? Men cannot die of -hunger while the rich have bread. In Russia there are millions of men -who possess nothing and subsist entirely by their own toil. The -existence of a Christian would be as secure among pagans as it would be -among those of his own faith. He would labor for others; he would be -necessary to them, and therefore he would be fed. Even a dog, if he be -useful, is fed and cared for; and shall not a man be fed and cared for -whose service is necessary to the whole world? - -But those who seek by all possible means to justify the personal life -have another objection. They say that if a man be sick, even if he have -a wife, parents, and children dependent upon him,--if this man cannot -work, he will not be fed. They say so, and they will continue to say so; -but their own actions prove that they do not believe what they say. -These same people who will not admit that the doctrine of Jesus is -practicable, practise it to a certain extent themselves. They do not -cease to care for a sick sheep, a sick ox, or a sick dog. They do not -kill an old horse, but they give him work in proportion to his strength. -They care for all sorts of animals without expecting any benefit in -return; and can it be that they will not care for a useful man who has -fallen sick, that they will not find work suited to the strength of the -old man and the child, that they will not care for the very babes who -later on will be able to work for them in return? As a matter of fact -they do all this. Nine-tenths of men are cared for by the other tenth, -like so many cattle. And however great the darkness in which this -one-tenth live, however mistaken their views in regard to the other -nine-tenths of humanity, the tenth, even if they had the power, would -not deprive the other nine-tenths of food. The rich will not deprive the -poor of what is necessary, because they wish them to multiply and work, -and so in these days the little minority of rich people provide directly -or indirectly for the nourishment of the majority, that the latter may -furnish the maximum of work, and multiply, and bring up a new supply of -workers. Ants care for the increase and welfare of their slaves. Shall -not men care for those whose labor they find necessary? Laborers are -necessary. And those who profit by labor will always be careful to -provide the means of labor for those who are willing to work. - -The objection concerning the possibility of practising the doctrine of -Jesus, that if men do not acquire something for themselves and have -wealth in reserve no one will take care of their families, is true, but -it is true only in regard to idle and useless and obnoxious people such -as make up the majority of our opulent classes. No one (with the -exception of foolish parents) takes the trouble to care for lazy people, -because lazy people are of no use to any one, not even to themselves; as -for the workers, the most selfish and cruel of men will contribute to -their welfare. People breed and train and care for oxen, and a man, as a -beast of burden, is much more useful than an ox, as the tariff of the -slave-mart shows. This is why children will never be left without -support. - -Man is not in the world to work for himself; he is in the world to work -for others, and the laborer is worthy of his hire. These truths are -justified by universal experience; now, always, and everywhere, the man -who labors receives the means of bodily subsistence. This subsistence is -assured to him who works against his will; for such a workman desires -only to relieve himself of the necessity of work, and acquires all that -he possibly can in order that he may take the yoke from his own neck and -place it upon the neck of another. A workman like this--envious, -grasping, toiling against his will--will never lack for food and will be -happier than one, who without labor, lives upon the labor of others. How -much more happy, then, will that laborer be who labors in obedience to -the doctrine of Jesus with the object of accomplishing all the work of -which he is capable and wishing for it the least possible return? How -much more desirable will his condition be, as, little by little, he sees -his example followed by others. For services rendered he will then be -the recipient of equal services in return. - -The doctrine of Jesus with regard to labor and the fruits of labor is -expressed in the story of the loaves and fishes, wherein it was shown -that man enjoys the greatest sum of the benefits accessible to humanity, -not by appropriating all that he can possibly grasp and using what he -has for his personal pleasure, but by administering to the needs of -others, as Jesus did by the borders of Galilee. - -There were several thousand men and women to be fed. One of the -disciples told Jesus that there was a lad who had five loaves and two -fishes. Jesus understood that some of the people coming from a distance -had brought provisions with them and that some had not, for after all -were filled, the disciples gathered up twelve basketsful of fragments. -(If no one but the boy had brought anything, how could so much have been -left after so many were fed?) If Jesus had not set them an example, the -people would have acted as people of the world act now. Some of those -who had food would have eaten all that they had through gluttony or -avidity, and some, after eating what they could eat, would have taken -the rest to their homes. Those who had nothing would have been famished, -and would have regarded their more fortunate companions with envy and -hatred; some of them would perhaps have tried to take food by force from -them who had it, and so hunger and anger and quarrels would have been -the result. That is, the multitude would have acted just as people act -nowadays. - -But Jesus knew exactly what to do. He asked that all be made to sit -down, and then commanded his disciples to give of what they had to those -who had nothing, and to request others to do the same. The result was -that those who had food followed the example of Jesus and his disciples, -and offered what they had to others. Every one ate and was satisfied, -and with the broken pieces that remained the disciples filled twelve -baskets. - -Jesus teaches every man to govern his life by the law of reason and -conscience, for the law of reason is as applicable to the individual as -it is to humanity at large. Work is the inevitable condition of human -life, the true source of human welfare. For this reason a refusal to -divide the fruits of one's labor with others is a refusal to accept the -conditions of true happiness. To give of the fruits of one's labor to -others is to contribute to the welfare of all men. The retort is made -that if men did not wrest food from others, they would die of hunger. To -me it seems more reasonable to say, that if men do wrest their food from -one another, some of them will die of hunger, and experience confirms -this view. - -Every man, whether he lives according to the doctrine of Jesus or -according to the doctrine of the world, lives only by the sufferance and -care of others. From his birth, man is cared for and nourished by -others. According to the doctrine of the world, man has a right to -demand that others should continue to nourish and care for him and for -his family, but, according to the doctrine of Jesus, he is only entitled -to care and nourishment on the condition that he do all he can for the -service of others, and so render himself useful and indispensable to -mankind. Men who live according to the doctrine of the world are usually -anxious to rid themselves of any one who is useless and whom they are -obliged to feed; at the first possible opportunity they cease to feed -such a one, and leave him to die, because of his uselessness; but him -who lives for others according to the doctrine of Jesus, all men, -however wicked they may be, will always nourish and care for, that he -may continue to labor in their behalf. - -Which, then, is the more reasonable; which offers the more joy and the -greater security, a life according to the doctrine of the world, or a -life according to the doctrine of Jesus? - - - - -CHAPTER XI. - - -THE doctrine of Jesus is to bring the kingdom of God upon earth. The -practice of this doctrine is not difficult; and not only so, its -practice is a natural expression of the belief of all who recognize its -truth. The doctrine of Jesus offers the only possible chance of -salvation for those who would escape the perdition that threatens the -personal life. The fulfilment of this doctrine not only will deliver men -from the privations and sufferings of this life, but will put an end to -nine-tenths of the suffering endured in behalf of the doctrine of the -world. - -When I understood this I asked myself why I had never practised a -doctrine which would give me so much happiness and peace and joy; why, -on the other hand, I always had practised an entirely different -doctrine, and thereby made myself wretched? Why? The reply was a simple -one. Because I never had known the truth. The truth had been concealed -from me. - -When the doctrine of Jesus was first revealed to me, I did not believe -that the discovery would lead me to reject the doctrine of the -Church.[22] I dreaded this separation, and in the course of my studies -I did not attempt to search out the errors in the doctrine of the -Church. I sought, rather, to close my eyes to propositions that seemed -to be obscure and strange, provided they were not in evident -contradiction with what I regarded as the substance of the Christian -doctrine. - - [22] See Appendix. - -But the further I advanced in the study of the Gospels, and the more -clearly the doctrine of Jesus was revealed to me, the more inevitable -the choice became. I must either accept the doctrine of Jesus, a -reasonable and simple doctrine in accordance with my conscience and my -hope of salvation; or I must accept an entirely different doctrine, a -doctrine in opposition to reason and conscience and that offered me -nothing except the certainty of my own perdition and that of others. I -was therefore forced to reject, one after another, the dogmas of the -Church. This I did against my will, struggling with the desire to -mitigate as much as possible my disagreement with the Church, that I -might not be obliged to separate from the Church, and thereby deprive -myself of communion with fellow-believers, the greatest happiness that -religion can bestow. But when I had completed my task, I saw that in -spite of all my efforts to maintain a connecting-link with the Church, -the separation was complete. I knew before that the bond of union, if it -existed at all, must be a very slight one, but I was soon convinced that -it did not exist at all. - -My son came to me one day, after I had completed my examination of the -Gospels, and told me of a discussion that was going on between two -domestics (uneducated persons who scarcely knew how to read) concerning -a passage in some religious book which maintained that it was not a sin -to put criminals to death, or to kill enemies in war. I could not -believe that an assertion of this sort could be printed in any book, and -I asked to see it. The volume bore the title of "_A Book of Selected -Prayers_; third edition; eighth ten thousand; Moscow: 1879." On page 163 -of this book I read:-- - -"What is the sixth commandment of God? - -"Thou shalt not kill. - -"What does God forbid by this commandment? - -"He forbids us to kill, to take the life of any man. - -"Is it a sin to punish a criminal with death according to the law, or to -kill an enemy in war? - -"No; that is not a sin. We take the life of the criminal to put an end -to the wrong that he commits; we slay an enemy in war, because in war we -fight for our sovereign and our native land." - -And in this manner was enjoined the abrogation of the law of God! I -could scarcely believe that I had read aright. - -My opinion was asked with regard to the subject at issue. To the one who -maintained that the instruction given by the book was true, I said that -the explanation was not correct. - -"Why, then, do they print untrue explanations contrary to the law?" was -his question, to which I could say nothing in reply. - -I kept the volume and looked over its contents. The book contained -thirty-one prayers with instructions concerning genuflexions and the -joining of the fingers; an explanation of the _Credo_; a citation from -the fifth chapter of Matthew without any explanation whatever, but -headed, "Commands for those who would possess the Beatitudes"; the ten -commandments accompanied by comments that rendered most of them void; -and hymns for every saint's day. - -As I have said, I not only had sought to avoid censure of the religion -of the Church; I had done my best to see only its most favorable side; -and knowing its academic literature from beginning to end, I had paid no -attention whatever to its popular literature. This book of devotion, -spread broadcast in an enormous number of copies, awakening doubts in -the minds of the most unlearned people, set me to thinking. The contents -of the book seemed to me so entirely pagan, so wholly out of accord with -Christianity, that I could not believe it to be the deliberate purpose -of the Church to propagate such a doctrine. To verify my belief, I -bought and read all the books published by the synod with its -"benediction" (_blagoslovnia_), containing brief expositions of the -religion of the Church for the use of children and the common people. - -Their contents were to me almost entirely new, for at the time when I -received my early religious instruction, they had not yet appeared. As -far as I could remember there were no commandments with regard to the -beatitudes, and there was no doctrine which taught that it was not a sin -to kill. No such teachings appeared in the old catechisms; they were -not to be found in the catechism of Peter Mogilas, or in that of -Beliokof, or the abridged Catholic catechisms. The innovation was -introduced by the metropolitan Philaret, who prepared a catechism with -proper regard for the susceptibilities of the military class, and from -this catechism the _Book of Selected Prayers_ was compiled. Philaret's -work is entitled, _The Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Church, for -the Use of all Orthodox Christians_, and is published, "by order of his -Imperial Majesty."[23] - - [23] This book has been in use in all the schools and churches of - Russia since 1839.--TR. - -The book is divided into three parts, "Concerning Faith," "Concerning -Hope," and "Concerning Love." The first part contains the analysis of -the symbol of faith as given by the Council of Nice. The second part is -made up of an exposition of the _Pater Noster_, and the first eight -verses of the fifth chapter of Matthew, which serve as an introduction -to the Sermon on the Mount, and are called (I know not why) "Commands -for those who would possess the Beatitudes." These first two parts treat -of the dogmas of the Church, prayers, and the sacraments, but they -contain no rules with regard to the conduct of life. The third part, -"Concerning Love," contains an exposition of Christian duties, based not -on the commandments of Jesus, but upon the ten commandments of Moses. -This exposition of the commandments of Moses seems to have been made for -the especial purpose of teaching men not to obey them. Each commandment -is followed by a reservation which completely destroys its force. With -regard to the first commandment, which enjoins the worship of God alone, -the catechism inculcates the worship of saints and angels, to say -nothing of the Mother of God and the three persons of the Trinity -("Special Catechism," pp. 107, 108). With regard to the second -commandment, against the worship of idols, the catechism enjoins the -worship of images (p. 108). With regard to the third commandment, the -catechism enjoins the taking of oaths as the principal token of -legitimate authority (p. 111). With regard to the fourth commandment, -concerning the observance of the Sabbath, the catechism inculcates the -observance of Sunday, of the thirteen principal feasts, of a number of -feasts of less importance, the observance of Lent, and of fasts on -Wednesdays and Fridays (pp. 112-115). With regard to the fifth -commandment, "_Honor thy father and thy mother_," the catechism -prescribes honor to the sovereign, the country, spiritual fathers, all -persons in authority, and of these last gives an enumeration in three -pages, including college authorities, civil, judicial, and military -authorities, and owners of serfs, with instructions as to the manner of -honoring each of these classes (pp. 116-119). My citations are taken -from the sixty-fourth edition of the catechism, dated 1880. Twenty years -have passed since the abolition of serfdom, and no one has taken the -trouble to strike out the phrase which, in connection with the -commandment of God to honor parents, was introduced into the catechism -to sustain and justify slavery. - -With regard to the sixth commandment, "_Thou shalt not kill_," the -instructions of the catechism are from the first in favor of murder. - -"_Question._--What does the sixth commandment forbid? - -"_Answer._--It forbids manslaughter, to take the life of one's neighbor -in any manner whatever. - -"_Question._--Is all manslaughter a transgression of the law? - -"_Answer._--Manslaughter is not a transgression of the law when life is -taken in pursuance of its mandate. For example: - -"1st. When a criminal condemned in justice is punished by death. - -"2d. When we kill _in war_ for the sovereign and our country." - -The italics are in the original. Further on we read:-- - -"_Question._--With regard to manslaughter, when is the law transgressed? - -"_Answer._--When any one conceals a murderer or sets him at liberty" -(_sic_). - -All this is printed in hundreds of thousands of copies, and under the -name of Christian doctrine is taught by compulsion to every Russian, who -is obliged to receive it under penalty of castigation. This is taught to -all the Russian people. It is taught to the innocent children,--to the -children whom Jesus commanded to be brought to him as belonging to the -kingdom of God; to the children whom we must resemble, in ignorance of -false doctrines, to enter into the kingdom of God; to the children whom -Jesus tried to protect in proclaiming woe on him who should cause one of -the little ones to stumble! And the little children are obliged to learn -all this, and are told that it is the only and sacred law of God. These -are not proclamations sent out clandestinely, whose authors are punished -with penal servitude; they are proclamations which inflict the -punishment of penal servitude upon all those who do not agree with the -doctrines they inculcate. - -As I write these lines, I experience a feeling of insecurity, simply -because I have allowed myself to say that men cannot render void the -fundamental law of God inscribed in all the codes and in all hearts, by -such words as these:-- - -"Manslaughter is not a transgression of the law when life is taken in -pursuance of its mandate... when we kill in war for our sovereign and -our country." - -I tremble because I have allowed myself to say that such things should -not be taught to children. - -It was against such teachings as these that Jesus warned men when he -said:-- - -"_Look, therefore, whether the light that is in thee be not darkness._" -(Luke xi. 35.) - -The light that is in us has become darkness; and the darkness of our -lives is full of terror. - -"_Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the -kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither -suffer ye them that are entering in to enter. Woe unto you, scribes and -Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, even while for a -pretense ye make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive greater -condemnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye -compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye -make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye -blind guides...._ - -"_Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye build the -sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous, and -say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, ice should not have been -partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye witness -to yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. Fill ye -up, then, the measure of your fathers.... I send unto you prophets, and -wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some -of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to -city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, -from the blood of Abel...._ - -"_Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy -against the Spirit shall not be forgiven._" - -Of a truth we might say that all this was written but yesterday, not -against men who no longer compass sea and land to blaspheme against the -Spirit, or to convert men to a religion that renders its proselytes -worse than they were before, but against men who deliberately force -people to embrace their religion, and persecute and bring to death all -the prophets and the righteous who seek to reveal their falsehoods to -mankind. I became convinced that the doctrine of the Church, although -bearing the name of "Christian," is one with the darkness against which -Jesus struggled, and against which he commanded his disciples to strive. - -The doctrine of Jesus, like all religious doctrines, is regarded in two -ways,--first, as a moral and ethical system which teaches men how they -should live as individuals, and in relation to each other; second, as a -metaphysical theory which explains why men should live in a given manner -and not otherwise. One necessitates the other. Man should live in this -manner because such is his destiny; or, man's destiny is this way, and -consequently he should follow it. These two methods of doctrinal -expression are common to all the religions of the world, to the religion -of the Brahmins, to that of Confucius, to that of Buddha, to that of -Moses, and to that of the Christ. But, with regard to the doctrine of -Jesus, as with regard to all other doctrines, men wander from its -precepts, and they always find some one to justify their deviations. -Those who, as Jesus said, sit in Moses' seat, explain the metaphysical -theory in such a way that the ethical prescriptions of the doctrine -cease to be regarded as obligatory, and are replaced by external forms -of worship, by ceremonial. This is a condition common to all religions, -but, to me, it seems that it never has been manifested with so much pomp -as in connection with Christianity,--and for two reasons: first, because -the doctrine of Jesus is the most elevated of all doctrines (the most -elevated because the metaphysical and ethical portions are so closely -united that one cannot be separated from the other without destroying -the vitality of the whole); second, because the doctrine of Jesus is in -itself a protest against all forms, a negation not only of Jewish -ceremonial, but of all exterior rites of worship. Therefore, the -arbitrary separation of the metaphysical and ethical aspects of -Christianity entirely disfigures the doctrine, and deprives it of every -sort of meaning. The separation began with the preaching of Paul, who -knew but imperfectly the ethical doctrine set forth in the Gospel of -Matthew, and who preached a metaphysico-cabalistic theory entirely -foreign to the doctrine of Jesus; and this theory was perfected under -Constantine, when the existing pagan social organization was proclaimed -Christian simply by covering it with the mantle of Christianity. After -Constantine, that arch-pagan, whom the Church in spite of all his crimes -and vices admits to the category of the saints, after Constantine began -the domination of the councils, and the centre of gravity of -Christianity was permanently displaced till only the metaphysical -portion was left in view. And this metaphysical theory with its -accompanying ceremonial deviated more and more from its true and -primitive meaning, until it has reached its present stage of -development, as a doctrine which explains the mysteries of a celestial -life beyond the comprehension of human reason, and, with all its -complicated formulas, gives no religious guidance whatever with regard -to the regulation of this earthly life. - -All religions, with the exception of the religion of the Christian -Church, demand from their adherents aside from forms and ceremonies, the -practice of certain actions called good, and abstinence from certain -actions that are called bad. The Jewish religion prescribed -circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, the giving of alms, the -feast of the Passover. Mohammedanism prescribes circumcision, prayer -five times a day, the giving of tithes to the poor, pilgrimage to the -tomb of the Prophet, and many other things. It is the same with all -other religions. Whether these prescriptions are good or bad, they are -prescriptions which exact the performance of certain actions. -Pseudo-Christianity alone prescribes nothing. There is nothing that a -Christian is obliged to observe except fasts and prayers, which the -Church itself does not recognize as obligatory. All that is necessary to -the pseudo-Christian is the sacrament. But the sacrament is not -fulfilled by the believer; it is administered to him by others. The -pseudo-Christian is obliged to do nothing or to abstain from nothing for -his own salvation, since the Church administers to him everything of -which he has need. The Church baptizes him, anoints him, gives him the -eucharist, confesses him, even after he has lost consciousness, -administers extreme unction to him, and prays for him,--and he is saved. -From the time of Constantine the Christian Church has prescribed no -religious duties to its adherents. It has never required that they -should abstain from anything. The Christian Church has recognized and -sanctioned divorce, slavery, tribunals, all earthly powers, the death -penalty, and war; it has exacted nothing except a renunciation of a -purpose to do evil on the occasion of baptism, and this only in its -early days: later on, when infant baptism was introduced, even this -requirement was no longer observed. - -The Church confesses the doctrine of Jesus in theory, but denies it in -practice. Instead of guiding the life of the world, the Church, through -affection for the world, expounds the metaphysical doctrine of Jesus in -such a way as not to derive from it any obligation as to the conduct of -life, any necessity for men to live differently from the way in which -they have been living. The Church has surrendered to the world, and -simply follows in the train of its victor. The world does as it pleases, -and leaves to the Church the task of justifying its actions with -explanations as to the meaning of life. The world organizes an existence -in absolute opposition to the doctrine of Jesus, and the Church -endeavors to demonstrate that men who live contrary to the doctrine of -Jesus really live in accordance with that doctrine. The final result is -that the world lives a worse than pagan existence, and the Church not -only approves, but maintains that this existence is in exact conformity -to the doctrine of Jesus. - -But a time comes when the light of the true doctrine of Jesus shines -forth from the Gospels, notwithstanding the guilty efforts of the Church -to conceal it from men's eyes, as, for instance, in prohibiting the -translation of the Bible; there comes a time when the light reaches the -people, even through the medium of sectarians and free-thinkers, and the -falsity of the doctrine of the Church is shown so clearly that men begin -to transform the method of living that the Church has justified. - -Thus men of their own accord, and in opposition to the sanction of the -Church, have abolished slavery, abolished the divine right of emperors -and popes, and are now proceeding to abolish property and the State. And -the Church cannot forbid such action because the abolition of these -iniquities is in conformity to the Christian doctrine, that the Church -preaches after having falsified. - -And in this way the conduct of human life is freed from the control of -the Church, and subjected to an entirely different authority. The Church -retains its dogmas, but what are its dogmas worth? A metaphysical -explanation can be of use only when there is a doctrine of life which it -serves to make manifest. But the Church possesses only the explanation -of an organization which it once sanctioned, and which no longer exists. -The Church has nothing left but temples and shrines and canonicals and -vestments and words. - -For eighteen centuries the Church has hidden the light of Christianity -behind its forms and ceremonials, and by this same light it is put to -shame. The world, with an organization sanctioned by the Church, has -rejected the Church in the name of the very principles of Christianity -that the Church has professed. The separation between the two is -complete and cannot be concealed. Everything that truly lives in the -world of Europe to-day (everything not cold and dumb in hateful -isolation),--everything that is living, is detached from the Church, -from all churches, and has an existence independent of the Church. Let -it not be said that this is true only of the decayed civilizations of -Western Europe. Russia, with its millions of civilized and uncivilized -Christian rationalists, who have rejected the doctrine of the Church, -proves incontestably that as regards emancipation from the yoke of the -Church, she is, thanks be to God, in a worse condition of decay than the -rest of Europe. - -All that lives is independent of the Church. The power of the State is -based upon tradition, upon science, upon popular suffrage, upon brute -force, upon everything except upon the Church. Wars, the relation of -State with State, are governed by principles of nationality, of the -balance of power, but not by the Church. The institutions established by -the State frankly ignore the Church. The idea that the Church can, in -these times, serve as a basis for justice or the conservation of -property, is simply absurd. Science not only does not sustain the -doctrine of the Church, but is, in its development, entirely hostile to -the Church. Art, formerly entirely devoted to the service of the -Church, has wholly forsaken the Church. It is little to say that human -life is now entirely emancipated from the Church; it has now, with -regard to the Church, only contempt when the Church does not interfere -with human affairs, and hatred when the Church seeks to re-assert its -ancient privileges. The Church is still permitted a formal existence -simply because men dread to shatter the chalice that once contained the -water of life. In this way only can we account, in our age, for the -existence of Catholicism, of Orthodoxy, and of the different Protestant -churches. - -All these churches--Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant--are like so many -sentinels still keeping careful watch before the prison doors, although -the prisoners have long been at liberty before their eyes, and even -threaten their existence. All that actually constitutes life, that is, -the activity of humanity towards progress and its own welfare, -socialism, communism, the new politico-economical theories, -utilitarianism, the liberty and equality of all social classes, and of -men and women, all the moral principles of humanity, the sanctity of -work, reason, science, art,--all these that lend an impulse to the -world's progress in hostility to the Church are only fragments of the -doctrine which the Church has professed, and so carefully endeavored to -conceal. In these times, the life of the world is entirely independent -of the doctrine of the Church. The Church is left so far behind, that -men no longer hear the voices of those who preach its doctrines. This -is easily to be understood because the Church still clings to an -organization of the world's life, which has been forsaken, and is -rapidly falling to destruction. - -Imagine a number of men rowing a boat, a pilot steering. The men rely -upon the pilot, and the pilot steers well; but after a time the good -pilot is replaced by another, who does not steer at all. The boat moves -along rapidly and easily. At first the men do not notice the negligence -of the new pilot; they are only pleased to find that the boat goes along -so easily. Then they discover that the new pilot is utterly useless, and -they mock at him, and drive him from his place. - -The matter would not be so serious if the men, in thrusting aside the -unskilful pilot, did not forget that without a pilot they are likely to -take a wrong course. But so it is with our Christian society. The Church -has lost its control; we move smoothly onward, and we are a long way -from our point of departure. Science, that especial pride of this -nineteenth century, is sometimes alarmed; but that is because of the -absence of a pilot. We are moving onward, but to what goal? We organize -our life without in the least knowing why, or to what end. But we can no -longer be contented to live without knowing why, any more than we can -navigate a boat without knowing the course that we are following. - -If men could do nothing of themselves, if they were not responsible for -their condition, they might very reasonably reply to the question, "Why -are you in this situation?"--"We do not know; but here we are, and -submit." But men are the builders of their own destiny, and more -especially of the destiny of their children; and so when we ask, "Why do -you bring together millions of troops, and why do you make soldiers of -yourselves, and mangle and murder one another? Why have you expended, -and why do you still expend, an enormous sum of human energy in the -construction of useless and unhealthful cities? Why do you organize -ridiculous tribunals, and send people whom you consider as criminals -from France to Cayenne, from Russia to Siberia, from England to -Australia, when you know the hopeless folly of it? Why do you abandon -agriculture, which you love, for work in factories and mills, which you -despise? Why do you bring up your children in a way that will force them -to lead an existence which you find worthless? Why do you do this?" To -all these questions men feel obliged to make some reply. - -If this existence were an agreeable one, and men took pleasure in it, -even then men would try to explain why they continued to live under such -conditions. But all these things are terribly difficult; they are -endured with murmuring and painful struggles, and men cannot refrain -from reflecting upon the motive which impels them to such a course. They -must cease to maintain the accepted organization of existence, or they -must explain why they give it their support. And so men never have -allowed this question to pass unanswered. We find in all ages some -attempt at a response. The Jew lived as he lived, that is, made war, -put criminals to death, built the Temple, organized his entire existence -in one way and not another, because, as he was convinced, he thereby -followed the laws which God himself had promulgated. We may say the same -of the Hindu, the Chinaman, the Roman, and the Mohammedan. A similar -response was given by the Christian a century ago, and is given by the -great mass of Christians now. - -A century ago, and among the ignorant now, the nominal Christian makes -this reply: "Compulsory military service, wars, tribunals, and the death -penalty, all exist in obedience to the law of God transmitted to us by -the Church. This is a fallen world. All the evil that exists, exists by -God's will, as a punishment for the sins of men. For this reason we can -do nothing to palliate evil. We can only save our own souls by faith, by -the sacraments, by prayers, and by submission to the will of God as -transmitted by the Church. The Church teaches us that all Christians -should unhesitatingly obey their rulers, who are the Lord's anointed, -and obey also persons placed in authority by rulers; that they ought to -defend their property and that of others by force, wage war, inflict the -death penalty, and in all things submit to the authorities, who command -by the will of God." - -Whatever we may think of the reasonableness of these explanations, they -once sufficed for a believing Christian, as similar explanations -satisfied a Jew or a Mohammedan, and men were not obliged to renounce -all reason for living according to a law which they recognized as -divine. But in this time only the most ignorant people have faith in any -such explanations, and the number of these diminishes every day and -every hour. It is impossible to check this tendency. Men irresistibly -follow those who lead the way, and sooner or later must pass over the -same ground as the advance guard. The advance guard is now in a critical -position; those who compose it organize life to suit themselves, prepare -the same conditions for those who are to follow, and absolutely have not -the slightest idea of why they do so. No civilized man in the vanguard -of progress is able to give any reply now to the direct questions, "Why -do you lead the life that you do lead? Why do you establish the -conditions that you do establish?" I have propounded these questions to -hundreds of people, and never have got from them a direct reply. Instead -of a direct reply to the direct question, I have received in return a -response to a question that I had not asked. - -When we ask a Catholic, or Protestant, or Orthodox believer why he leads -an existence contrary to the doctrine of Jesus, instead of making a -direct response he begins to speak of the melancholy state of scepticism -characteristic of this generation, of evil-minded persons who spread -doubt broadcast among the masses, of the importance of the future of the -existing Church. But he will not tell you why he does not act in -conformity to the commands of the religion that he professes. Instead of -speaking of his own condition, he will talk to you about the condition -of humanity in general, and of that of the Church, as if his own life -were not of the slightest significance, and his sole preoccupations were -the salvation of humanity, and of what he calls the Church. - -A philosopher of whatever school he may be, whether an idealist or a -spiritualist, a pessimist or a positivist, if we ask of him why he lives -as he lives, that is to say, in disaccord with his philosophical -doctrine, will begin at once to talk about the progress of humanity and -about the historical law of this progress which he has discovered, and -in virtue of which humanity gravitates toward righteousness. But he -never will make any direct reply to the question why he himself, on his -own account, does not live in harmony with what he recognizes as the -dictates of reason. It would seem as if the philosopher were as -preoccupied as the believer, not with his personal life, but with -observing the effect of general laws upon the development of humanity. - -The "average" man (that is, one of the immense majority of civilized -people who are half sceptics and half believers, and who all, without -exception, deplore existence, condemn its organization, and predict -universal destruction),--the average man, when we ask him why he -continues to lead a life that he condemns, without making any effort -towards its amelioration, makes no direct reply, but begins at once to -talk about things in general, about justice, about the State, about -commerce, about civilization. If he be a member of the police or a -prosecuting attorney, he asks, "And what would become of the State, if -I, to ameliorate my existence, were to cease to serve it?" "What would -become of commerce?" is his demand if he be a merchant; "What of -civilization, if I cease to work for it, and seek only to better my own -condition?" will be the objection of another. His response always will -be in this form, as if the duty of his life were not to seek the good -conformable to his nature, but to serve the State, or commerce, or -civilization. - -The average man replies in just the same manner as does the believer or -the philosopher. Instead of making the question a personal one, he -glides at once to generalities. This subterfuge is employed simply -because the believer and the philosopher, and the average man have no -positive doctrine concerning existence, and cannot, therefore, reply to -the personal question, "What of your own life?" They are disgusted and -humiliated at not possessing the slightest trace of a doctrine with -regard to life, for no one can live in peace without some understanding -of what life really means. But nowadays only Christians cling to a -fantastic and worn-out creed as an explanation of why life is as it is, -and is not otherwise. Only Christians give the name of religion to a -system which is not of the least use to any one. Only among Christians -is life separated from any or all doctrine, and left without any -definition whatever. Moreover, science, like tradition, has formulated -from the fortuitous and abnormal condition of humanity a general law. -Learned men, such as Tiele and Spencer, treat religion as a serious -matter, understanding by religion the metaphysical doctrine of the -universal principle, without suspecting that they have lost sight of -religion as a whole by confining their attention entirely to one of its -phases. - -From all this we get very extraordinary results. We see learned and -intelligent men artlessly believing that they are emancipated from all -religion simply because they reject the metaphysical explanation of the -universal principle which satisfied a former generation. It does not -occur to them that men cannot live without some theory of existence; -that every human being lives according to some principle, and that this -principle by which he governs his life is his religion. The people of -whom we have been speaking are persuaded that they have reasonable -convictions, but that they have no religion. Nevertheless, however -serious their asseverations, they have a religion from the moment that -they undertake to govern their actions by reason, for a reasonable act -is determined by some sort of faith. Now their faith is in what they are -told to do. The faith of those who deny religion is in a religion of -obedience to the will of the ruling majority; in a word, submission to -established authority. - -We may live a purely animal life according to the doctrine of the world, -without recognizing any controlling motive more binding than the rules -of established authority. But he who lives this way cannot affirm that -he lives a reasonable life. Before affirming that we live a reasonable -life, we must determine what is the doctrine of the life which we regard -as reasonable. Alas! wretched men that we are, we possess not the -semblance of any such doctrine, and more than that, we have lost all -perception of the necessity for a reasonable doctrine of life. - -Ask the believers or sceptics of this age, what doctrine of life they -follow. They will be obliged to confess that they follow but one -doctrine, the doctrine based upon laws formulated by the judiciary or by -legislative assemblies, and enforced by the police--the favorite -doctrine of most Europeans. They know that this doctrine does not come -from on high, or from prophets, or from sages; they are continually -finding fault with the laws drawn up by the judiciary or formulated by -legislative assemblies, but nevertheless they submit to the police -charged with their enforcement. They submit without murmuring to the -most terrible exactions. The clerks employed by the judiciary or the -legislative assemblies decree by statute that every young man must be -ready to take up arms, to kill others, and to die himself, and that all -parents who have adult sons must favor obedience to this law which was -drawn up yesterday by a mercenary official, and may be revoked -to-morrow. - -We have lost sight of the idea that a law may be in itself reasonable, -and binding upon every one in spirit as well as in letter. The Hebrews -possessed a law which regulated life, not by forced obedience to its -requirements, but by appealing to the conscience of each individual; and -the existence of this law is considered as an exceptional attribute of -the Hebrew people. That the Hebrews should have been willing to obey -only what they recognized by spiritual perception as the incontestable -truth direct from God is considered a remarkable national trait. But it -appears that the natural and normal state of civilized men is to obey -what to their own knowledge is decreed by despicable officials and -enforced by the co-operation of armed police. - -The distinctive trait of civilized man is to obey what the majority of -men regard as iniquitous, contrary to conscience. I seek in vain in -civilized society as it exists to-day for any clearly formulated moral -bases of life. There are none. No perception of their necessity exists. -On the contrary, we find the extraordinary conviction that they are -superfluous; that religion is nothing more than a few words about God -and a future life, and a few ceremonies very useful for the salvation of -the soul according to some, and good for nothing according to others; -but that life happens of itself and has no need of any fundamental rule, -and that we have only to do what we are told to do. - -The two substantial sources of faith, the doctrine that governs life, -and the explanation of the meaning of life, are regarded as of very -unequal value. The first is considered as of very little importance, and -as having no relation to faith whatever; the second, as the explanation -of a bygone state of existence, or as made up of speculations -concerning the historical development of life, is considered as of great -significance. As to all that constitutes the life of man expressed in -action, the members of our modern society depend willingly for guidance -upon people who, like themselves, know not why they direct their fellows -to live in one way and not in another. This disposition holds good -whether the question at issue is to decide whether to kill or not to -kill, to judge or not to judge, to bring up children in this way or in -that. And men look upon an existence like this as reasonable, and have -no feeling of shame! - -The explanations of the Church which pass for faith, and the true faith -of our generation, which is in obedience to social laws and the laws of -the State, have reached a stage of sharp antagonism. The majority of -civilized people have nothing to regulate life but faith in the police. -This condition would be unbearable if it were universal. Fortunately -there is a remnant, made up of the noblest minds of the age, who are not -contented with this religion, but have an entirely different faith with -regard to what the life of man ought to be. These men are looked upon as -the most malevolent, the most dangerous, and generally as the most -unbelieving of all human beings, and yet they are the only men of our -time believing in the Gospel doctrine, if not as a whole, at least in -part. These people, as a general thing, know little of the doctrine of -Jesus; they do not understand it, and, like their adversaries, they -refuse to accept the leading principle of the religion of Jesus, which -is to resist not evil; often they have nothing but a hatred for the name -of Jesus; but their whole faith with regard to what life ought to be is -unconsciously based upon the humane and eternal truths comprised in the -Christian doctrine. This remnant, in spite of calumny and persecution, -are the only ones who do not tamely submit to the orders of the first -comer. Consequently they are the only ones in these days who live a -reasonable and not an animal life, the only ones who have faith. - -The connecting link between the world and the Church, although carefully -cherished by the Church, becomes more and more attenuated. To-day it is -little more than a hindrance. The union between the Church and the world -has no longer any justification. The mysterious process of maturation is -going on before our eyes. The connecting bond will soon be severed, and -the vital social organism will begin to exercise its functions as a -wholly independent existence. The doctrine of the Church, with its -dogmas, its councils, and its hierarchy, is manifestly united to the -doctrine of Jesus. The connecting link is as perceptible as the cord -which binds the newly-born child to its mother; but as the umbilical -cord and the placenta become after parturition useless pieces of flesh, -which are carefully buried out of regard for what they once nourished, -so the Church has become a useless organism, to be preserved, if at all, -in some museum of curiosities out of regard for what it has once been. -As soon as respiration and circulation are established, the former -source of nutrition becomes a hindrance to life. Vain and foolish would -it be to attempt to retain the bond, and to force the child that has -come into the light of day to receive its nourishment by a pre-natal -process. But the deliverance of the child from the maternal tie does not -ensure life. The life of the newly born depends upon another bond of -union which is established between it and its mother that its -nourishment may be maintained. - -And so it must be with our Christian world of to-day. The doctrine of -Jesus has brought the world into the light. The Church, one of the -organs of the doctrine of Jesus, has fulfilled its mission and is now -useless. The world cannot be bound to the Church; but the deliverance of -the world from the Church will not ensure life. Life will begin when the -world perceives its own weakness and the necessity for a different -source of strength. The Christian world feels this necessity: it -proclaims its helplessness, it feels the impossibility of depending upon -its former means of nourishment, the inadequacy of any other form of -nourishment except that of the doctrine by which it was brought forth. -This modern European world of ours, apparently so sure of itself, so -bold, so decided, and within so preyed upon by terror and despair, is -exactly in the situation of a newly born animal: it writhes, it cries -aloud, it is perplexed, it knows not what to do; it feels that its -former source of nourishment is withdrawn, but it knows not where to -seek for another. A newly born lamb shakes its head, opens its eyes and -looks about, and leaps, and bounds, and would make us think by its -apparently intelligent movements that it already has mastered the secret -of living; but of this the poor little creature knows nothing. The -impetuosity and energy it displays were drawn from its mother through a -medium of transmission that has just been broken, nevermore to be -renewed. The situation of the new comer is one of delight, and at the -same time is full of peril. It is animated by youth and strength, but it -is lost if it cannot avail itself of the nourishment only to be had from -its mother. - -And so it is with our European world. What complex activities, what -energy, what intelligence, does it apparently possess! It would seem as -if all its deeds were governed by reason. With what enthusiasm, what -vigor, what youthfulness do the denizens of this modern world manifest -their abounding vitality! The arts and sciences, the various industries, -political and administrative details, all are full of life. But this -life is due to inspiration received through the connecting link that -binds it to its source. The Church, by transmitting the truth of the -doctrine of Jesus, has communicated life to the world. Upon this -nourishment the world has grown and developed. But the Church has had -its day and is now superfluous. - -The world is possessed of a living organism; the means by which it -formerly received its nourishment has withered away, and it has not yet -found another; and it seeks everywhere, everywhere but at the true -source of life. It still possesses the animation derived from -nourishment already received, and it does not yet understand that its -future nourishment is only to be had from one source, and by its own -efforts. The world must now understand that the period of gestation is -ended, and that a new process of conscious nutrition must henceforth -maintain its life. The truth of the doctrine of Jesus, once -unconsciously absorbed by humanity through the organism of the Church, -must now be consciously recognized; for in the truth of this doctrine -humanity has always obtained its vital force. Men must lift up the torch -of truth, which has so long remained concealed, and carry it before -them, guiding their actions by its light. - -The doctrine of Jesus, as a religion that governs the actions of men and -explains to them the meaning of life, is now before the world just as it -was eighteen hundred years ago. Formerly the world had the explanations -of the Church which, in concealing the doctrine, seemed in itself to -offer a satisfactory interpretation of life; but now the time is come -when the Church has lost its usefulness, and the world, having no other -means for sustaining its true existence, can only feel its helplessness -and go for aid directly to the doctrine of Jesus. - -Now, Jesus first taught men to believe in the light, and that the light -is within themselves. Jesus taught men to lift on high the light of -reason. He taught them to live, guiding their actions by this light, and -to do nothing contrary to reason. It is unreasonable, it is foolish, to -go out to kill Turks or Germans; it is unreasonable to make use of the -labor of others that you and yours may be clothed in the height of -fashion and maintain that mortal source of ennui, a salon; it is -unreasonable to take people already corrupted by idleness and depravity -and shut them up within prison walls, and thereby devote them to an -existence of absolute idleness and deprivation; it is unreasonable to -live in the pestilential air of cities when a purer atmosphere is within -your reach; it is unreasonable to base the education of your children on -the grammatical laws of dead languages;--all this is unreasonable, and -yet it is to-day the life of the European world, which lives a life of -no meaning; which acts, but acts without a purpose, having no confidence -in reason, and existing in opposition to its decrees. - -The doctrine of Jesus is the light. The light shines forth, and the -darkness cannot conceal it. Men cannot deny it, men cannot refuse to -accept its guidance. They must depend on the doctrine of Jesus, which -penetrates among all the errors with which the life of men is -surrounded. Like the insensible ether filling universal space, -enveloping all created things, so the doctrine of Jesus is inevitable -for every man in whatever situation he may be found. Men cannot refuse -to recognize the doctrine of Jesus; they may deny the metaphysical -explanation of life which it gives (we may deny everything), but the -doctrine of Jesus alone offers rules for the conduct of life without -which humanity has never lived, and never will be able to live; without -which no human being has lived or can live, if he would live as man -should live,--a reasonable life. The power of the doctrine of Jesus is -not in its explanation of the meaning of life, but in the rules that it -gives for the conduct of life. The metaphysical doctrine of Jesus is not -new; it is that eternal doctrine of humanity inscribed in all the hearts -of men, and preached by all the prophets of all the ages. The power of -the doctrine of Jesus is in the application of this metaphysical -doctrine to life. - -The metaphysical basis of the ancient doctrine of the Hebrews, which -enjoined love to God and men, is identical with the metaphysical basis -of the doctrine of Jesus. But the application of this doctrine to life, -as expounded by Moses, was very different from the teachings of Jesus. -The Hebrews, in applying the Mosaic law to life, were obliged to fulfil -six hundred and thirteen commandments, many of which were absurd and -cruel, and yet all were based upon the authority of the Scriptures. The -doctrine of life, as given by Jesus upon the same metaphysical basis, is -expressed in five reasonable and beneficent commandments, having an -obvious and justifiable meaning, and embracing within their restrictions -the whole of human life. A Jew, a disciple of Confucius, a Buddhist, or -a Mohammedan, who sincerely doubts the truth of his own religion, -cannot refuse to accept the doctrine of Jesus; much less, then, can this -doctrine be rejected by the Christian world of to-day, which is now -living without any moral law. The doctrine of Jesus cannot interfere in -any way with the manner in which men of to-day regard the world; it is, -to begin with, in harmony with their metaphysics, but it gives them what -they have not now, what is indispensable to their existence, and what -they all seek,--it offers them a way of life; not an unknown way, but a -way already explored and familiar to all. - -Let us suppose that you are a sincere Christian, it matters not of what -confession. You believe in the creation of the world, in the Trinity, in -the fall and redemption of man, in the sacraments, in prayer, in the -Church. The doctrine of Jesus is not opposed to your dogmatic belief, -and is absolutely in harmony with your theory of the origin of the -universe; and it offers you something that you do not possess. While you -retain your present religion you feel that your own life and the life of -the world is full of evil that you know not how to remedy. The doctrine -of Jesus (which should be binding upon you since it is the doctrine of -your own God) offers you simple and practical rules which will surely -deliver you, you and your fellows, from the evils with which you are -tormented. - -Believe, if you will, in paradise, in hell, in the pope, in the Church, -in the sacraments, in the redemption; pray according to the dictates of -your faith, attend upon your devotions, sing your hymns,--but all this -will not prevent you from practising the five commandments given by -Jesus for your welfare: Be not angry; Do not commit adultery; Take no -oaths; Resist not evil; Do not make war. It may happen that you will -break one of these rules; you will perhaps yield to temptation, and -violate one of them, just as you violate the rules of your present -religion, or the articles of the civil code, or the laws of custom. In -the same way you may, perhaps, in moments of temptation, fail of -observing all the commandments of Jesus. But, in that case, do not -calmly sit down as you do now, and so organize your existence as to -render it a task of extreme difficulty not to be angry, not to commit -adultery, not to take oaths, not to resist evil, not to make war; -organize rather an existence which shall render the doing of all these -things as difficult as the non-performance of them is now laborious. You -cannot refuse to recognize the validity of these rules, for they are the -commandments of the God whom you pretend to worship. - -Let us suppose that you are an unbeliever, a philosopher, it matters not -of what special school. You affirm that the progress of the world is in -accordance with a law that you have discovered. The doctrine of Jesus -does not oppose your views; it is in harmony with the law that you have -discovered. But, aside from this law, in pursuance of which the world -will in the course of a thousand years reach a state of felicity, there -is still your own personal life to be considered. This life you can use -by living in conformity to reason, or you can waste it by living in -opposition to reason, and you have now for its guidance no rule -whatever, except the decrees drawn up by men whom you do not esteem, and -enforced by the police. The doctrine of Jesus offers you rules which are -assuredly in accord with your law of "altruism," which is nothing but a -feeble paraphrase of this same doctrine of Jesus. - -Let us suppose that you are an average man, half sceptic, half believer, -one who has no time to analyze the meaning of human life, and one -therefore who has no determinate theory of existence. You live as lives -the rest of the world about you. The doctrine of Jesus is not at all -contrary to your condition. You are incapable of reason, of verifying -the truths of the doctrines that are taught you; it is easier for you to -do as others do. But however modest may be your estimate of your powers -of reason, you know that you have within you a judge that sometimes -approves your acts and sometimes condemns them. However modest your -social position, there are occasions when you are bound to reflect and -ask yourself, "Shall I follow the example of the rest of the world, or -shall I act in accordance with my own judgment?" It is precisely on -these occasions when you are called upon to solve some problem with -regard to the conduct of life, that the commandments of Jesus appeal to -you in all their efficiency. The commandments of Jesus will surely -respond to your inquiry, because they apply to your whole existence. -The response will be in accord with your reason and your conscience. If -you are nearer to faith than to unbelief, you will, in following these -commandments, act in harmony with the will of God. If you are nearer to -scepticism than to belief, you will, in following the doctrine of Jesus, -govern your actions by the laws of reason, for the commandments of Jesus -make manifest their own meaning, and their own justification. - -"_Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world -be cast out._" (John xii. 31.) - -"_These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In -the world ye have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the -world._" (John xvi. 33.) - -The world, that is, the evil in the world, is overcome. If evil still -exists in the world, it exists only through the influence of inertia; it -no longer contains the principle of vitality. For those who have faith -in the commandments of Jesus, it does not exist at all. It is vanquished -by an awakened conscience, by the elevation of the son of man. A train -that has been put in motion continues to move in the direction in which -it was started; but the time comes when the intelligent effort of a -controlling hand is made manifest, and the movement is reversed. - -"_Ye are of God, and have overcome them because greater is he that is -within you than he that is in the world._" (1 John v. 4.) - -The faith that triumphs over the doctrines of the world is faith in the -doctrine of Jesus. - - - - -CHAPTER XII. - - -I BELIEVE in the doctrine of Jesus, and this is my religion:-- - -I believe that nothing but the fulfilment of the doctrine of Jesus can -give true happiness to men. I believe that the fulfilment of this -doctrine is possible, easy, and pleasant. I believe that although none -other follows this doctrine, and I alone am left to practise it, I -cannot refuse to obey it, if I would save my life from the certainty of -eternal loss; just as a man in a burning house if he find a door of -safety, must go out, so I must avail myself of the way to salvation. I -believe that my life according to the doctrine of the world has been a -torment, and that a life according to the doctrine of Jesus can alone -give me in this world the happiness for which I was destined by the -Father of Life. I believe that this doctrine is essential to the welfare -of humanity, will save me from the certainty of eternal loss, and will -give me in this world the greatest possible sum of happiness. Believing -thus, I am obliged to practise its commandments. - -"_The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ._" -(John i. 17.) - -The doctrine of Jesus is a doctrine of grace and truth. Once I knew not -grace and knew not truth. Mistaking evil for good, I fell into evil, and -I doubted the righteousness of my tendency toward good. I understand and -believe now that the good toward which I was attracted is the will of -the Father, the essence of life. - -Jesus has told us to live in pursuit of the good, and to beware of -snares and temptations ([Greek: skandalon]) which, by enticing us with -the semblance of good, draw us away from true goodness, and lead us into -evil. He has taught us that our welfare is to be sought in fellowship -with all men; that evil is a violation of fellowship with the son of -man, and that we must not deprive ourselves of the welfare to be had by -obedience to his doctrine. - -Jesus has demonstrated that fellowship with the son of man, the love of -men for one another, is not merely an ideal after which men are to -strive; he has shown us that this love and this fellowship are natural -attributes of men in their normal condition, the condition into which -children are born, the condition in which all men would live if they -were not drawn aside by error, illusions, and temptations. - -In his commandments, Jesus has enumerated clearly and unmistakably the -temptations that interfere with this natural condition of love and -fellowship and render it a prey to evil. The commandments of Jesus offer -the remedies by which I must save myself from the temptations that have -deprived me of happiness; and so I am forced to believe that these -commandments are true. Happiness was within my grasp and I destroyed -it. In his commandments Jesus has shown me the temptations that lead to -the destruction of happiness. I can no longer work for the destruction -of my happiness, and in this determination, and in this alone, is the -substance of my religion. - -Jesus has shown me that the first temptation destructive of happiness is -enmity toward men, anger against them. I cannot refuse to believe this, -and so I cannot willingly remain at enmity with others. I cannot, as I -could once, foster anger, be proud of it, fan into a flame, justify it, -regarding myself as an intelligent and superior man and others as -useless and foolish people. Now, when I give up to anger, I can only -realize that I alone am guilty, and seek to make peace with those who -have aught against me. - -But this is not all. While I now see that anger is an abnormal, -pernicious, and morbid state, I also perceive the temptation that led me -into it. The temptation was in separating myself from my fellows, -recognizing only a few of them as my equals, and regarding all the -others as persons of no account (_rekim_) or as uncultivated animals -(_fools_). I see now that this wilful separation from other men, this -judgment of _raca_ or _fool_ passed upon others, was the principal -source of my disagreements. In looking over my past life I saw that I -had rarely permitted my anger to rise against those whom I considered as -my equals, whom I seldom abused. But the least disagreeable action on -the part of one whom I considered an inferior inflamed my anger and led -me to abusive words or actions, and the more superior I felt myself to -be, the less careful I was of my temper; sometimes the mere supposition -that a man was of a lower social position than myself was enough to -provoke me to an outrageous manner. - -I understand now that he alone is above others who is humble with others -and makes himself the servant of all. I understand now why those that -are great in the sight of men are an abomination to God, who has -declared woe upon the rich and mighty and invoked blessedness upon the -poor and humble. Now I understand this truth, I have faith in it, and -this faith has transformed my perception of what is right and important, -and what is wrong and despicable. Everything that once seemed to me -right and important, such as honors, glory, civilization, wealth, the -complications and refinements of existence, luxury, rich food, fine -clothing, etiquette, have become for me wrong and despicable. Everything -that formerly seemed to me wrong and despicable, such as rusticity, -obscurity, poverty, austerity, simplicity of surroundings, of food, of -clothing, of manners, all have now become right and important to me. And -so although I may at times give myself up to anger and abuse another, I -cannot deliberately yield to wrath and so deprive myself of the true -source of happiness,--fellowship and love; for it is possible that a man -should lay a snare for his own feet and so be lost. Now, I can no -longer give my support to anything that lifts me above or separates me -from others. I cannot, as I once did, recognize in myself or others -titles or ranks or qualities aside from the title and quality of -manhood. I can no longer seek for fame and glory; I can no longer -cultivate a system of instruction which separates me from men. I cannot -in my surroundings, my food, my clothing, my manners, strive for what -not only separates me from others but renders me a reproach to the -majority of mankind. - -Jesus showed me another temptation destructive of happiness, that is, -debauchery, the desire to possess another woman than her to whom I am -united. I can no longer, as I did once, consider my sensuality as a -sublime trait of human nature. I can no longer justify it by my love for -the beautiful, or my amorousness, or the faults of my companion. At the -first inclination toward debauchery I cannot fail to recognize that I am -in a morbid and abnormal state, and to seek to rid myself of the -besetting sin. - -Knowing that debauchery is an evil, I also know its cause, and can thus -evade it. I know now that the principal cause of this temptation is not -the necessity for the sexual relation, but the abandonment of wives by -their husbands, and of husbands by their wives. I know now that a man -who forsakes a woman, or a woman who forsakes a man, when the two have -once been united, is guilty of the divorce which Jesus forbade, because -men and women abandoned by their first companions are the original cause -of all the debauchery in the world. - -In seeking to discover the influences that led to debauchery, I found -one to be a barbarous physical and intellectual education that developed -the erotic passion which the world endeavors to justify by the most -subtile arguments. But the principal influence I found to be the -abandonment of the woman to whom I had first been united, and the -situation of the abandoned women around me. The principal source of -temptation was not in carnal desires, but in the fact that those desires -were not satisfied in the men and women by whom I was surrounded. I now -understand the words of Jesus when he says:-- - -"_He which made them from the beginning, made them male and female.... -So that they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath -joined together, let not man put asunder._" (Matt. xix. 4-6.) - -I understand now that monogamy is the natural law of humanity, which -cannot with impunity be violated. I now understand perfectly the words -declaring that the man or woman who separates from a companion to seek -another, forces the forsaken one to resort to debauchery, and thus -introduces into the world an evil that returns upon those who cause it. - -This I believe; and the faith I now have has transformed my opinions -with regard to the right and important, and the wrong and despicable, -things of life. What once seemed to me the most delightful existence in -the world, an existence made up of dainty, æsthetic pleasures and -passions, is now revolting to me. And a life of simplicity and -indigence, which moderates the sexual desires, now seems to me good. The -human institution of marriage, which gives a nominal sanction to the -union of man and woman, I regard as of less grave importance than that -the union, when accomplished, should be regarded as the will of God, and -never be broken. - -Now, when in moments of weakness I yield to the promptings of desire, I -know the snare that would deliver me into evil, and so I cannot -deliberately plan my method of existence as formerly I was accustomed to -do. I no longer habitually cherish physical sloth and luxury, which -excite to excessive sensuality. I can no longer pursue amusements which -are oil to the fire of amorous sensuality,--the reading of romances and -the most of poetry, listening to music, attendance at theatres and -balls,--amusements that once seemed to me elevated and refining, but -which I now see to be injurious. I can no longer abandon the woman with -whom I have been united, for I know that by forsaking her, I set a snare -for myself, for her, and for others. I can no longer encourage the gross -and idle existence of others. I can no longer encourage or take part in -licentious pastimes, romantic literature, plays, operas, balls, which -are so many snares for myself and for others. I cannot favor the -celibacy of persons fitted for the marriage relation. I cannot encourage -the separation of wives from their husbands. I cannot make any -distinction between unions that are called by the name of marriage, and -those that are denied this name. I am obliged to consider as sacred and -absolute the sole and unique union by which man is once for all -indissolubly bound to the first woman with whom he has been united. - -Jesus has shown me that the third temptation destructive to true -happiness is the oath. I am obliged to believe his words; consequently, -I cannot, as I once did, bind myself by oath to serve any one for any -purpose, and I can no longer, as I did formerly, justify myself for -having taken an oath because "it would harm no one," because everybody -did the same, because it is necessary for the State, because the -consequences might be bad for me or for some one else if I refuse to -submit to this exaction. I know now that it is an evil for myself and -for others, and I cannot conform to it. - -Nor is this all. I now know the snare that led me into evil, and I can -no longer act as an accomplice. I know that the snare is in the use of -God's name to sanction an imposture, and that the imposture consists in -promising in advance to obey the commands of one man, or of many men, -while I ought to obey the commands of God alone. I know now that evils -the most terrible of all in their result--war, imprisonments, capital -punishment--exist only because of the oath, in virtue of which men make -themselves instruments of evil, and believe that they free themselves -from all responsibility. As I think now of the many evils that have -impelled me to hostility and hatred, I see that they all originated with -the the oath, the engagement to submit to the will of others. I -understand now the meaning of the words:-- - -"_But let your speech be, Yea, yea; nay, nay; and whatsoever is more -than these is of evil._" (Matt. v. 37.) - -Understanding this, I am convinced that the oath is destructive of my -true welfare and of that of others, and this belief changes my estimate -of right and wrong, of the important and despicable. What once seemed to -me right and important,--the promise of fidelity to the government -supported by the oath, the exacting of oaths from others, and all acts -contrary to conscience, done because of the oath, now seem to me wrong -and despicable. Therefore I can no longer evade the commandment of Jesus -forbidding the oath, I can no longer bind myself by oath to any one, I -cannot exact an oath from another, I cannot encourage men to take an -oath, or to cause others to take an oath; nor can I regard the oath as -necessary, important, or even inoffensive. - -Jesus has shown me that the fourth temptation destructive to my -happiness is the resort to violence for the resistance of evil. I am -obliged to believe that this is an evil for myself and for others; -consequently, I cannot, as I did once, deliberately resort to violence, -and seek to justify my action with the pretext that it is indispensable -for the defence of my person and property, or of the persons and -property of others. I can no longer yield to the first impulse to resort -to violence; I am obliged to renounce it, and to abstain from it -altogether. - -But this is not all. I understand now the snare that caused me to fall -into this evil. I know now that the snare consisted in the erroneous -belief that my life could be made secure by violence, by the defence of -my person and property against the encroachments of others. I know now -that a great portion of the evils that afflict mankind are due to -this,--that men, instead of giving their work for others, deprive -themselves completely of the privilege of work, and forcibly appropriate -the labor of their fellows. Every one regards a resort to violence as -the best possible security for life and for property, and I now see that -a great portion of the evil that I did myself, and saw others do, -resulted from this practice. I understood now the meaning of the -words:-- - -"_Not to be ministered unto, but to minister._" "_The laborer is worthy -of his food._" - -I believe now that my true welfare, and that of others, is possible only -when I labor not for myself, but for another, and that I must not refuse -to labor for another, but to give with joy that of which he has need. -This faith has changed my estimate of what is right and important, and -wrong and despicable. What once seemed to me right and important ---riches, proprietary rights, the point of honor, the maintenance -of personal dignity and personal privileges--have now become to me wrong -and despicable. Labor for others, poverty, humility, the renunciation of -property and of personal privileges, have become in my eyes right and -important. - -When, now, in a moment of forgetfulness, I yield to the impulse to -resort to violence, for the defence of my person or property, or of the -persons or property of others, I can no longer deliberately make use of -this snare for my own destruction and the destruction of others. I can -no longer acquire property. I can no longer resort to force in any form -for my own defence or the defence of another. I can no longer co-operate -with any power whose object is the defence of men and their property by -violence. I can no longer act in a judicial capacity, or clothe myself -with any authority, or take part in the exercise of any jurisdiction -whatever. I can no longer encourage others in the support of tribunals, -or in the exercise of authoritative administration. - -Jesus has shown me that the fifth temptation that deprives me of -well-being, is the distinction that we make between compatriots and -foreigners. I must believe this; consequently, if, in a moment of -forgetfulness, I have a feeling of hostility toward a man of another -nationality, I am obliged, in moments of reflection, to regard this -feeling as wrong. I can no longer, as I did formerly, justify my -hostility by the superiority of my own people over others, or by the -ignorance, the cruelty, or the barbarism of another race. I can no -longer refrain from striving to be even more friendly with a foreigner -than with one of my own countrymen. - -I know now that the distinction I once made between my own people and -those of other countries is destructive of my welfare; but, more than -this, I now know the snare that led me into this evil, and I can no -longer, as I did once, walk deliberately and calmly into this snare. I -know now that this snare consists in the erroneous belief that my -welfare is dependent only upon the welfare of my countrymen, and not -upon the welfare of all mankind. I know now that my fellowship with -others cannot be shut off by a frontier, or by a government decree which -decides that I belong to some particular political organization. I know -now that all men are everywhere brothers and equals. When I think now of -all the evil that I have done, that I have endured, and that I have seen -about me, arising from national enmities, I see clearly that it is all -due to that gross imposture called patriotism,--love for one's native -land. When I think now of my education, I see how these hateful feelings -were grafted into my mind. I understand now the meaning of the words:-- - -"_Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may -be sons of your Father that is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise -on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust._" - -I understand now that true welfare is possible for me only on condition -that I recognize my fellowship with the whole world. I believe this, and -the belief has changed my estimate of what is right and wrong, important -and despicable. What once seemed to me right and important--love of -country, love for those of my own race, for the organization called the -State, services rendered at the expense of the welfare of other men, -military exploits--now seem to me detestable and pitiable. What once -seemed to me shameful and wrong--renunciation of nationality, and the -cultivation of cosmopolitanism--now seem to me right and important. -When, now, in a moment of forgetfulness, I sustain a Russian in -preference to a foreigner, and desire the success of Russia or of the -Russian people, I can no longer in lucid moments allow myself to be -controlled by illusions so destructive to my welfare and the welfare of -others. I can no longer recognize states or peoples; I can no longer -take part in any difference between peoples or states, or any discussion -between them either verbal or written, much less in any service in -behalf of any particular state. I can no longer co-operate with measures -maintained by divisions between states,--the collection of custom -duties, taxes, the manufacture of arms and projectiles, or any act -favoring armaments, military service, and, for a stronger reason, -wars,--neither can I encourage others to take any part in them. - -I understand in what my true welfare consists, I have faith in that, and -consequently I cannot do what would inevitably be destructive of that -welfare. I not only have faith that I ought to live thus, but I have -faith that if I live thus, and only thus, my life will attain its only -possible meaning, and be reasonable, pleasant, and indestructible by -death. I believe that my reasonable life, the light I bear with me, was -given to me only that it might shine before men, not in words only, but -in good deeds, that men may thereby glorify the Father. I believe that -my life and my consciousness of truth is the talent confided to me for a -good purpose, and that this talent fulfils its mission only when it is -of use to others. I believe that I am a Ninevite with regard to other -Jonahs from whom I have learned and shall learn of the truth; but that I -am a Jonah in regard to other Ninevites to whom I am bound to transmit -the truth. I believe that the only meaning of my life is to be attained -by living in accordance with the light that is within me, and that I -must allow this light to shine forth to be seen of all men. This faith -gives me renewed strength to fulfil the doctrine of Jesus, and to -overcome the obstacles which still arise in my pathway. All that once -caused me to doubt the possibility of practising the doctrine of Jesus, -everything that once turned me aside, the possibility of privations, and -of suffering, and death, inflicted by those who know not the doctrine of -Jesus, now confirm its truth and draw me into its service. Jesus said, -"_When you have lifted up the son of man, then shall you know that I am -he_,"--then shall you be drawn into my service,--and I feel that I am -irresistibly drawn to him by the influence of his doctrine. "_The -truth_," he says again, "_The truth shall make you free_," and I know -that I am in perfect liberty. - -I once thought that if a foreign invasion occurred, or even if -evil-minded persons attacked me, and I did not defend myself, I should -be robbed and beaten and tortured and killed with those whom I felt -bound to protect, and this possibility troubled me. But this that once -troubled me now seems desirable and in conformity with the truth. I know -now that the foreign enemy and the malefactors or brigands are all men -like myself; that, like myself, they love good and hate evil; that they -live as I live, on the borders of death; and that, with me, they seek -for salvation, and will find it in the doctrine of Jesus. The evil that -they do to me will be evil to them, and so can be nothing but good for -me. But if truth is unknown to them, and they do evil thinking that they -do good, I, who know the truth, am bound to reveal it to them, and this -I can do only by refusing to participate in evil, and thereby confessing -the truth by my example. - -"But hither come the enemy,--Germans, Turks, savages; if you do not make -war on them, they will exterminate you!" They will do nothing of the -sort. If there were a society of Christian men that did evil to none and -gave of their labor for the good of others, such a society would have no -enemies to kill or to torture them. The foreigners would take only what -the members of this society voluntarily gave, making no distinction -between Russians, or Turks, or Germans. But when Christians live in the -midst of a non-Christian society which defends itself by force of arm, -and calls upon the Christians to join in waging war, then the Christians -have an opportunity for revealing the truth to them who know it not. A -Christian knowing the truth bears witness of the truth before others, -and this testimony can be made manifest only by example. He must -renounce war and do good to all men, whether they are foreigners or -compatriots. - -"But there are wicked men among compatriots; they will attack a -Christian, and if the latter do not defend himself, will pillage and -massacre him and his family." No; they will not do so. If all the -members of this family are Christians, and consequently hold their lives -only for the service of others, no man will be found insane enough to -deprive such people of the necessaries of life or to kill them. The -famous Maclay lived among the most bloodthirsty of savages; they did not -kill him, they reverenced him and followed his teachings, simply because -he did not fear them, exacted nothing from them, and treated them always -with kindness. - -"But what if a Christian lives in a non-Christian family, accustomed to -defend itself and its property by a resort to violence, and is called -upon to take part in measures of defence?" This solicitation is simply -an appeal to the Christian to fulfil the decrees of truth. A Christian -knows the truth only that he may show it to others, more especially to -his neighbors and to those who are bound to him by ties of blood and -friendship, and a Christian can show the truth only by refusing to join -in the errors of others, by taking part neither with aggressors or -defenders, but by abandoning all that he has to those who will take it -from him, thus showing by his acts that he has need of nothing save the -fulfilment of the will of God, and that he fears nothing except -disobedience to that will. - -"But how, if the government will not permit a member of the society over -which it has sway, to refuse to recognize the fundamental principles of -governmental order or to decline to fulfil the duties of a citizen? The -government exacts from a Christian the oath, jury service, military -service, and his refusal to conform to these demands may be punished by -exile, imprisonment, and even by death." Then, once more, the exactions -of those in authority are only an appeal to the Christian to manifest -the truth that is in him. The exactions of those in authority are to a -Christian the exactions of those who do not know the truth. -Consequently, a Christian who knows the truth must bear witness of the -truth to those who know it not. Exile and imprisonment and death afford -to the Christian the possibility of bearing witness of the truth, not in -words, but in acts. Violence, war, brigandage, executions, are not -accomplished through the forces of unconscious nature; they are -accomplished by men who are blinded, and do not know the truth. -Consequently, the more evil these men do to Christians, the further they -are from the truth, the more unhappy they are, and the more necessary it -is that they should have knowledge of the truth. Now a Christian cannot -make known his knowledge of truth except by abstaining from the errors -that lead men into evil; he must render good for evil. This is the -life-work of a Christian, and if it is accomplished, death cannot harm -him, for the meaning of his life can never be destroyed. - -Men are united by error into a compact mass. The prevailing power of -evil is the cohesive force that binds them together. The reasonable -activity of humanity is to destroy the cohesive power of evil. -Revolutions are attempts to shatter the power of evil by violence. Men -think that by hammering upon the mass they will be able to break it in -fragments, but they only make it more dense and impermeable than it was -before. External violence is of no avail. The disruptive movement must -come from within when molecule releases its hold upon molecule and the -whole mass falls into disintegration. Error is the force that binds men -together; truth alone can set them free. Now truth is truth only when it -is in action, and then only can it be transmitted from man to man. Only -truth in action, by introducing light into the conscience of each -individual, can dissolve the homogeneity of error, and detach men one by -one from its bonds. - -This work has been going on for eighteen hundred years. It began when -the commandments of Jesus were first given to humanity, and it will not -cease till, as Jesus said, "_all things be accomplished_" (Matt. v. 18). -The Church that sought to detach men from error and to weld them -together again by the solemn affirmation that it alone was the truth, -has long since fallen to decay. But the Church composed of men united, -not by promises or sacraments, but by deeds of truth and love, has -always lived and will live forever. Now, as eighteen hundred years ago, -this Church is made up not of those who say "_Lord, Lord_," and bring -forth iniquity, but of those who hear the words of truth and reveal them -in their lives. The members of this Church know that life is to them a -blessing as long as they maintain fraternity with others and dwell in -the fellowship of the son of man; and that the blessing will be lost -only to those who do not obey the commandments of Jesus. And so the -members of this Church practise the commandments of Jesus and thereby -teach them to others. Whether this Church be in numbers little or great, -it is, nevertheless, the Church that shall never perish, the Church that -shall finally unite within its bonds the hearts of all mankind. - -"_Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good purpose to give -you the kingdom._" - - - - -APPENDIX. - - -WHEN Count Tolstoi speaks of the Church and its dogmas, he refers -especially, of course, to the Orthodox Greek Church, the national church -of Russia. The following summary of the teachings of the Orthodox Greek -Church is taken from Prof. T. M. Lindsay's article in the _Encyclopædia -Brittanica_, ninth edition, volume xi. p. 158. Variations from the Roman -Catholic doctrine are indicated by small capitals, and variations from -Protestant doctrine by italics. [Tr.] - -"Christianity is a divine revelation, communicated to mankind through -Christ; its saving truths are to be learned from the Bible _and -tradition_, the former having been written, _and the latter maintained -uncorrupted_ through the influence of the Holy Spirit; _the -interpretation of the Bible belongs to the Church, which is taught by -the Holy Spirit_, but every believer may read the Scriptures. - -"According to the Christian revelation, God is a trinity, that is, the -divine essence exists in three persons, perfectly equal in nature and -dignity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; THE HOLY GHOST -PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER ONLY. Besides the triune God, there is no -other object of divine worship, _but homage_ ([Greek: hyperdoulia]) _may -be paid to the Virgin Mary, and reverence_ ([Greek: doulia]) _to the -saints and to their pictures and relics_. - -"Man is born with a corrupt bias, which was not his at creation; the -first man, when created, possessed IMMORTALITY, PERFECT WISDOM, AND A -WILL REGULATED BY REASON. Through the first sin, Adam and his posterity -lost IMMORTALITY, AND HIS WILL RECEIVED A BIAS TOWARDS EVIL. In this -natural state, man, who, even before he actually sins, is a sinner -before God by original or inherited sin, commits manifold actual -transgressions; _but he is not absolutely without power of will towards -good, and is not always doing evil_. - -"Christ, the Son of God, became man in two natures, which internally and -inseparably united make One Person, and, according to the eternal -purpose of God, has obtained for man reconciliation with God and eternal -life, inasmuch as he, by his vicarious death has made satisfaction to -God for the world's sins; and this satisfaction was PERFECTLY -COMMENSURATE WITH THE SINS OF THE WORLD. Man is made partaker of -reconciliation in spiritual regeneration, which he attains to, being led -and kept by the Holy Ghost. This divine help is offered _to all men -without distinction, and may be rejected_. In order to attain to -salvation, man is justified, and, when so justified, CAN DO NO MORE THAN -THE COMMANDS OF GOD. He may fall from this state of grace through mortal -sin. - -"Regeneration is offered by the word of God and in the sacraments, -_which, under visible signs, communicate God's invisible grace to -Christians when administered cum intentione_. There are _seven_ -mysteries or sacraments. Baptism _entirely destroys_ original sin. In -the Eucharist, the true body and blood of Christ are _substantially -present, and the elements are changed into the substance of Christ, -whose body and blood are corporeally partaken of by communicants_. ALL -Christians should receive the bread and the WINE. _The Eucharist is also -an expiatory sacrifice._ The new birth when lost may be restored through -repentance, which is not merely (1) sincere sorrow, but also (2) -_confession of each individual sin to the priest, and_ (3) _the -discharge of penances imposed by the priest for the removal of the -temporal punishment, which may have been imposed by God and the Church. -Penance, accompanied by the judicial absolution of the priest, makes a -true sacrament_. - -"The Church of Christ is the fellowship of ALL THOSE WHO ACCEPT AND -PROFESS ALL THE ARTICLES OF FAITH TRANSMITTED BY THE APOSTLES, AND -APPROVED BY GENERAL SYNODS. _Without this visible Church there is no -salvation._ It is under the abiding influence of the Holy Ghost, and -_therefore cannot err in matters of faith_. Specially appointed persons -are necessary in the service of the Church, _and they form a threefold -order, distinct jure divino from other Christians, of Bishops, Priests, -and Deacons_. THE FOUR PATRIARCHS OF EQUAL DIGNITY HAVE THE HIGHEST -RANK AMONG THE BISHOPS, AND THE BISHOPS _united in a General Council -represent the Church and infallibly decide_, under the guidance of the -Holy Ghost, all matters of faith and ecclesiastical life. All ministers -of Christ must be regularly called and appointed to their office, and -are consecrated _by the sacrament of orders_. _Bishops must be -unmarried_, and PRIESTS AND DEACONS MUST NOT CONTRACT A SECOND MARRIAGE. -To all priests in common belongs, besides the preaching of the word, the -administration of the SIX SACRAMENTS,--BAPTISM, CONFIRMATION, PENANCE, -EUCHARIST, MATRIMONY, UNCTION OF THE SICK. The _bishops_ alone can -administer the _sacrament_ of orders. - -"_Ecclesiastical ceremonies are part of the divine service; most of them -have apostolic origin; and those connected with the sacrament must not -be omitted by priests under pain of mortal sin._" - - - - -INDEX. - - - Abraham, 165. - Adam, fall of, 118, 122. - Age, consummation of, 139, 152. - Amusements, harmful, 105; - maintained by coercion, 106. - Anger, the commandment against, 70 - _et seq._; destructive of happiness, - 247; temptations to, 247. - [Greek: anistêmi], meaning of, 146. - Army, the Christophile, 15. - Art has forsaken the Church, 224. - _auferstehn_, meaning of, 146. - Aurelius, Marcus, 126. - Average man, the, and the - problem of existence, 229. - Belief, if true, always brings - forth works, 160 _et seq._ - Believers, and the problem of - existence, 228. - Berditchef, circus at, 135, 157. - Bible, 17. - Biblical references.--O. T.: - Gen. (iii. 22) 149; - Exod. (iii. 6) 144; - Levit. (xix. 12) 86, (xix. 17, 18) 94; - Deut. (xiii. 21, 34) 86, (xxiv. 1) 77, - (xxx. 15-19) 150, (xxxii. 39, 40) 149; - Judges (ix. 4) 76; Sam. (I. viii.-xii.) - 18; Isaiah (lxi. 1, 2) 110. N. T.: - Matt. (iv. 1-11) 178, (iv. 37) 253, - (v.) 17, (v., vi., vii.) 5, (v. 17-20) - 51, 52, 53, (v. 18) 262, (v. 19) 70, - (v. 21-26) 70, 76, (v. 21-48) 69, - (v. 22-44) 109, (v. 27-32) 77, - (v. 28-32) 109, (v. 32) 79, 81, - (v. 33-37) 86, 91, (v. 34-37) 109, - (v. 36) 89, (v. 38, 39) 7, 8, (v. 38-42) - 92, 93, 110, (v. 40) 26, (v. 43-48) 95, - 110, (v. 44) 256, (vii. 1) 23, (vii. 12) - 57, (x. 10) 200, 254, (xi. 30) 14, - (xii. 16-21) 138, (xii. 31) 217, - (xii. 35-40) 139, (xii. 40) 145, - (xiii. 52) 62, (xiv. 2) 146, - (xvi. 13-21) 145, (xvi. 21) 145, - (xvii. 23) 145, (xix.) 79, (xix. 4-6) - 250, (xix. 4-9) 80, (xix. 9) 81, 84, - (xix. 17) 151, (xx. 1-16) 167, 168, - (xx. 19) 145, (xx. 20-28) 166, - (xxi. 33-42) 139, (xxii. 44) 98, - (xxiii. 13-35) 217, (xxv. 14-46) 142, - (xxvi. 32) 145, (xxvii. 42) 163; - Mark (viii. 31) 145, (ix. 31) 145, - (x. 5-12) 79, (x. 28-30) 180, - (x. 34) 145, (x. 35-48) 166, (x. 45) - 202, 254, (xii. 21-24) 144, - (xii. 26, 27) 144, (xii. 36) 98, - (xiv. 25) 145, (xv. 32) 163; Luke - (i. 71, 74) 98, (iv. 1-13) 178, - (iv. 18, 19, 21) 111, (vi. 37) 23, - (vi. 37-49) 24, (ix. 22) 145, (x. 5, 7) - 200, (x. 26) 61, (x. 28) 151, (x. 29) - 98, (xi. 30) 145, (xi. 35) 125, 216, - (xii. 22-27) 137, (xii. 32) 263, - (xii. 54-57) 136, (xiii. 1-5) 135, - (xiv. 28-31) 136, (xvi. 15-18) 54, - (xvi. 16) 57, (xvi. 18) 79, (xvi. 31) - 147, (xviii. 33) 145, (xx. 43) 98, - (xxii. 67) 163; John (i. 9-12) 171, - (i. 17) 245, (iii. 5, 6, 7) 125, - (iii. 19-21) 171, (iii. 14-17) 125, - (v. 39) 150, (v. 44) 164, (vi. 30) 163, - (vii. 18) 164, (vii. 19) 57, (viii. 17) - 57, (viii. 28) 125, 258, (viii. 32) 258, - (viii. 35) 141, (viii. 40) 171, - (viii. 46) 171, (x. 25, 26) 163, - (xi. 19-22) 145, (xii. 31) 244, - (xii. 35) 125, (xiv. 6) 172, - (xiv. 16, 17) 172, (xiv. 27) 109, - (xv. 25) 57, (xvi. 33) 244, (xviii. 37) - 172, (xix. 7) 57; Acts (vii. 27) 98, - (xxiii. 8) 143; Rom. - (i. 32, ii. 1, ii. 4) 31; Cor. - (I. vii. 1-11) 80, (I. xv. 2) 75; Heb. - (ii. 2) 115; Jas. (ii. 12, 13) 30, - (ii. 13) 29, (ii. 14-26) 163, - (iv. 11, 12) 28, (v. 6) 35, (v. 12) 89; - John (I. v. 3) 14, (I. v. 4) 244. - Borovitzky Gate, 19. - Brahmins, 173, 218. - Buddha, 134, 218. - Buddhism, 124. - Catechism analyzed, 213. - Children, education of, 105. - Christian rationalists in Russia, 223. - Christianity, substance of, 2, 13; - a spiritual tendency, 4; - lack of ethical and moral instruction - in, 123. - Christians may believe in Jesus, 241; - duties of, 258 _et seq._ - Chrysostom, xi., 33, 63 _et seq._; - 79, 92. - Church, the fathers of, 31, 81, 93; - the Orthodox, 2; creed of, 265; - inadequacy of 3, 4, 175, 209-244; - teachings of, 4, 40, 47, 58, 62, 107, - 115, 127, 154, 178, 213-217, 227; - compulsory in Russia, 216; the true, - 262. - Churches, as useless sentinels, 224. - Civilization, characteristics of, 42, 233. - Clement, x. - Commandments, abrogated by the Church, - 214. - Commentators, pseudo-Christian, 91; - liberal, 93. - _condemnare_, 34. - Confucius, 124, 126, 127, 218. - Constantine, 31, 219. - Cosmopolitanism, importance of, 257. - Daniel, apocryphal book of, 149. - Death, inevitable, 137, 138, 139. - Death penalty, sanctioned by the Church, - 221. - Debauchery, 77 _et seq._; Paul's idea - of, 80; destructive of happiness, 249; - temptations to, 251. - Devotion, a pagan book of, 212. - Divorce, denounced by Jesus, 78 - _et seq._; sanctioned by the - Church, 221. - [Greek: doxa], meaning of, 164. - [Greek: egeirô], meaning of, 146. - _ehebruch_, meaning of, 84. - [Greek: eikê], meaning and textual - authenticity of, 75. - Elijah, 48, 145. - [Greek: hêlikian], meaning of, 137. - Enemy, love for, 95 _et seq._; - meaning of, 98. - Epictetus, 89, 126, 127. - Error, temptation of Jesus by, 178; the - cohesive power of, 262. - Esdras, 56. - Evil, submission to, 8 _et seq._, 13, - 92-94; resistance to, 15; destructive of - happiness, 253; to speak, 28, 32. - Existence, its futilities, 226. - Faith, defined, 115, 162, 166, 244; and - works, 160, 169; based on the dictates - of reason, 170; source of, 171; the - false, 173. - Fall, dogma of the, 120, 153. - Family, the, a condition of happiness, 187. - Foreigners, hostility toward, 100; - destructive of happiness, 255. - Formalism, evils of, 68. - _fornicatio_, meaning of, 83. - Free-will, an illusion, 124. - French war of 1870, 198. - Galilee, 41, 44, 48, 49, 178. - Galileans, massacre of, 135. - Germans, 45, 259. - Ghengis Khan, 36. - God, service of, 21; appears to Elijah, - 48; commandments of, 51; kingdom of, - 108, 111, 160; how brought, 209. - Gospels, exegesis, 1, 55, 75. - Griesbach, 175. - Happiness, conditions of, 185-189. - _hayai leolam_, meaning of, 148. - Health, a condition of happiness, 189. - Hebrews, 176. - Hegelianism, 122. - Herod, 25, 146. - High Priests, 25, 59. - Householder, parable of, 168. - _hurerei_, meaning of, 83. - Husbandmen, parable of, 139. - Immortality, belief in, 147, 150, 153, 155. - Irenæus, 62. - Isaiah, 56, 61. - James, 167. - Jesus, as the "charmant docteur," 41; - divinity of, 15; the enemies of, 60; his - use of the Mosaic law, 67; commandments - of, 69, 76, 86, 194, 242, 246 _et seq._; - mission of, 108; the Messiah, 111, 145, - 158; his revelation of the true life, - 139; his doctrine of eternal life, 153; - as a Saviour, 158; his definition of - belief, 164; of true life, 167; his - temptation in the wilderness, 177; - offers the water of truth, 196. - Jesus, doctrine of, its simplicity, vi., - 6, 7, 11, 12, 69, 194; as a metaphysical - theory and an ethical system, 218, 231; - a doctrine of grace and truth, 246; - practical results of, 107; key to, 2, - 16, 17; requirements of, 248; its - meaning, 7, 43, 50, 58, 108, 172, 193, - 199, 240; its rewards, 179, 202; to - bring the kingdom of God, 209; its - relation to the Church, 209-244; its - adaptability to Christians, 241; to the - philosopher, 242; to the "average" man, - 243; difficulty in obeying, 14, 16, 112, - 132, 160, 173, 194, 259; belief in, 160 - _et seq._; requirements of, 245 - _et seq._; a protest against - ceremonial, 219; its concealment, 49, - 68, 90, 173, 174; and military - regulations, 19, 22, 104, 223; its - universality, 241; delusions with regard - to, 23, 101, 114, 191 _et seq._, - 204; will overcome the world, 244; - substance of, 124; and social customs, - 58, 90, 93, 133, 194; where are its - martyrs? 195. - Jews, criminal law of, 27. - John, 167. - John the Baptist, 43, 54, 108, 135, 145, - 146. - Jonah, 146; story of, 176. - Judaism, 124, 220. - Judgment, parable of the last, 139, 152. - Laborer, worthy of his sustenance, 200, - 205; rewards of, 201, 203. - Law, the eternal, 53, 55. - Law of struggle, 47, 181, 197. - Lazarus, 147. - _libertinage_, meaning of, 83. - Libertinism, 83, 85. - Liberty, law of, 29. - Life, essence of, 118, 138, 165; the - personal, 134, 139, 174; salvation of, - 152, 165; renunciation of, 141, 142; - the eternal, 143; how perpetuated, 150; - rewards of, 167; doctrine of, enforced - by the police, 232. - Loaves and fishes, lesson of the, 206. - Luke, 34, 54, 55, 80. - Luther, 34, 84. - Manu, laws of, 89. - Mark, 80. - Martyrs, Christian, number of, 192. - Martyrs to the world, 183, 193. - Materialism, 122. - Men, brotherhood of, 110, 246, 256; - intercourse with, essential to - happiness, 188; nature of, 112; debt to - the past, 141; mutual dependence, 207; - temptations against, 246. - [Greek: metanoia], meaning of, 135, 141. - Michael, Archbishop, 93. - Military regulations, 19. - [Greek: moichasthai], meaning of, 83. - Monasticism, contrary to the doctrine of - Jesus, 176. - Monogamy the natural law of humanity, 250. - Moscow, 183. - Mount, the Sermon on the, 5, 6, 10, 11, - 17, 26, 78, 79, 108. - Müller, Max, 148. - Nationality, renunciation of, 257. - Nature, the law of, 46; communion with, - essential to happiness, 185. - Neighbor, meaning of, 97 _et seq._ - Nicodemus, 60, 108, 125. - [Greek: nomos], meaning of, 56. - Oaths, the commandment against, 87 - _et seq._; destruction of happiness, - 252; evils of, 252. - Origen, 102. - Pascal, 134. - Paul, x., 30, 56, 80, 88, 115; his - metaphysico-cabalistic doctrine, 219. - Peace, the reign of, 108; how violated, - 109. - Penalty, the death, 36. - Pentateuch, 57, 148. - Persons, respect of, 29. - Pessimism, 122. - Peter, 11, 145, 167, 168, 180. - Pharisees, 54, 59, 60, 85, 88, 143, 178. - Philosophers, and the problem of - existence, 229. - Pilate, 135, 175. - [Greek: porneia], meaning of, 83 _et seq._ - Poverty, the blessings of, 199; - indispensable to the follower of Jesus, - 200. - _prissaiaga_, meaning of, 85. - Prophets, the Hebrew, 43, 57, 143. - _qum_, meaning of, 146. - _raca_, meaning of, 73, 76. - Reason, authority of, 124. - Redemption, dogma of, 120, 122, 153. - Religions, requirements of, 220. - Renan, 31, 93. - Repentance, 60; necessity of, 135. - Resurrection, not taught by Jesus, 143. - _resusciter_, meaning of, 146. - Reuss, 79. - Revolution, the French, 36. - Revolutionists, atheistic, 39; Christian, - 39. - Riches, the struggle for, 184. - Righteousness, progress toward, 48. - Sadducees, 60, 143. - Samaritan, 98. - Sanhedrim, 25. - Schopenhauer, 148. - Science, hostile to the Church, 223. - Security, struggle for, its futility, 198. - Seneca, 89. - Sisyphus, labor of, 184. - Slave, 39. - Slavery, sanctioned by the Church, 221. - Slavophile, 39. - Socrates, 124, 126. - Soldier, at Borovitzky Gate, 19, 88; - Russian nickname for, 88. - Solomon, 134. - Son of man, doctrine regarding, 125 - _et seq._; 142, 150, 152, 156, 263. - Spirit, the Holy, 68. - Spiritism, 123. - State, service of, 21, 22, 257; - independent of the Church, 223. - States, divisions into, a barbarism, 107. - Stoics, 124, 173. - Strauss, 41, 93. - Suffering, useless, 183. - Sukhareff Tower, 183. - Talents, parable of the, 142. - Talmud, 17, 56, 143, 173. - Theologians, declarations of, 6. - Theophylact, 33. - Thief, on the cross, vii. - Tiele, 148. - Tischendorf, 55, 75. - Tohu, 18, 19, 21, 22, 42, 43. - Torah, 56, 61, 68. - Tribunals, 23, 24; contrary to law of - Jesus, 25 _et seq._; sanctioned by - the Church, 221. - Trinity, 14, 40, 58, 116, 117, 127. - Truth, Christian, 4. - Tübingen, school of, 33. - Turks, 259. - _verdammen_, meaning of, 34. - Violence, renunciation of, 38; organized, - 45, 196; destructive to happiness, 253; - temptations to, 254; futility of, 259 - _et seq._ - Virgins, parable of, 139. - _voskresnovit_, meaning of, 146. - Vulgate, 34. - War, organized murder, 101, 192; justified - by the Church, 211, 221. - Wars of our century, victims of, 193. - Work, an inevitable condition of - happiness, 186, 201, 205, 207. - World, the doctrine of, illustrated, 129; - sufferings for, 181, 185-192; its - commands, 191; its necessities, 184 - _et seq._; justification of, 188; - its relation to the Church, 221 - _et seq._ - Worldly advantage, 11. - _zanah_, meaning of, 83. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of My Religion, by Leo Tolstoy - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MY RELIGION *** - -***** This file should be named 43794-8.txt or 43794-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/3/7/9/43794/ - -Produced by Carlos Colon, Princeton Theological Seminary -Library and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at -http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images -generously made available by The Internet Archive) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at - www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere 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 - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |