and sometimes plainly destroyed that Christian frame of mind which alone gave meaning to my life. What disturbed me most of all was that all human evils — the condemnation of individuals, of whole peoples, of other religions, and the executions and wars which resulted from such condemnations — were all justified by the Church. The teaching of Christ about humility, not judging, forgiveness of injuries, self-sacrifice and love, was extolled in words, but at the same time in practice the Church approved of what was incompatible with this teaching.
Was it possible that the teaching of Christ was such that these contradictions were in- evitable? I could not believe it. Moreover, what always seemed to me surprising was that, as far as my knowledge of the Gospels went, those passages on which the definite Church dogmas were based were the most obscure; while those from which one derived the practical teaching were the clearest and most definite. Yet the dogmas and those Christian obligations which result from them were defined by the Church in the clearest and most precise manner, while of the practical fulfilment of the teaching mention was made in the most indefinite, foggy, mystical way. Could Christ possibly Ihave wished this when delivering his teaching? A solution of my doubts could only be found in the Gospels. So I read and re-read them. Out of them all, the Sermon on the Mount always stood out for me as something special, and I read it more often than anything else.
WHAT I BELIEVE Nowhere else did Christ speak with such authority — nowhere else does he give so many clear, intelligible moral rules directly appealing to the heart of every man. Nowhere did he speak to a larger crowd of the common people. If there were any clear, definite Christian rules, they ought to be expressed here. In these three chapters of Matthew I sought a solution of my perplexity. Often and often did I re-read the Sermon on the Mount and experi- enced the same feeling every time: a thrill of exaltation at the verses about turning the other cheek, surrendering one's cloak, reconciliation with all men, love of one's enemies, but also a dissatisfied feeling. The words of God addressed to all lacked clearness. A too impossible renunciation of everything was demanded, destroying all life as I understood it, and therefore it seemed to me that such renunciation could not be the obligatory condition of salvation; but if that were not so, then there was nothing definite and clear. I read not the Sermon on the Mount alone, but all the Gospels, as well as all the theo- logical commentaries on them. The theological explanation that the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount are indications of the perfection towards which men should strive, but that fallen man, immersed in sin, cannot by his own strength attain this perfection, and that his safety lies in faith, prayer, and the Sacra- ments— such explanations did not satisfy me.
I did not agree with this because it always seemed strange to me why Christ, knowing in KEY TO THE GOSPEL TEACHING 113 advance that the fulfilment of his teaching was unattainable by man's individual strength, gave such clear and admirable rules relating directly to each individual man. In reading these rules it always seemed to me that they related directly to me and demanded my personal fulfilment. Reading them, I always experienced a joyous confidence that I could immediately, from that very hour, fulfil them all, and I wished and endeavoured to do this. But as soon as I experienced difficulty in doing this, I involuntarily remembered the Church's teaching that man is weak and cannot do these things by his own strength, and I weakened.
They told me we must believe and pray.
But I felt I had little faith, and therefore could not pray. They told me one must pray God to give faith — the very faith that gives the prayer that gives the faith that gives the prayer — and so on to infinity.
But both reason and experience showed me that only my efforts to fulfil Christ's teaching could be effective.
And so, after many, many vain seekings and studyings of what was written in proof and disproof of the Divinity of this teaching, and after many doubts and much suffering, I again was left alone with my heart and the mysterious book. I could not give it the meaning others gave it, could not find any other meaning for it, and could not reject it. And only after disbelieving equally all the explanations of the learned critics and all the explanations of the learned theologians, and WHAT I BELIEVE after rejecting them all (in accord with Christ's words, 4 Except ye turn and become as little * children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven'), I suddenly understood what I had not formerly understood. I under- stood it not as a result of some artificial, recon- dite transposition, harmonization, or reinter- pretation; on the contrary, everything revealed J itself to me because I forgot all the interpreta- tions. The passage which served me as key to the whole was Matt. v. 38, 39: 4 Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil.' And suddenly, for the first time, I understood this verse simply and directly. I understood that Christ says just what he says, and what immediately happened was not that something new revealed itself, but that everything that obscured the truth fell away, and the truth arose before me in its full meaning. 4 Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: But I sa}^ unto you, Resist not him that is evil.' These words suddenly appeared to me as some- thing quite new, as if I had never read them before. Previously when reading that passage I had always, by some strange blindness, omitted the words, 4 But I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil,’ just as if those words had not been there, or as if they had no definite meaning.
Subsequently, in my talks with many and many Christians familiar with the Gospels, I often had occasion to note the same blindness KEY TO THE GOSPEL TEACHING 115 as to those words. No one remembered them; and often when speaking about that pass- age Christians referred to the Gospels to verify the fact that the words were really there. In the same way I had missed those words and had begun understanding the passage only from the words which follow, £ But whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.. / and so forth; and these words always appeared to me as a demand to endure sufferings and deprivations that are unnatural to man. The words touched me, and I felt that it would be admirable to act up to them; but I also felt that I should never be strong enough to fulfil them merely in order to suffer. I said to myself, ‘ Very well, I will turn the other cheek, and I shall be again struck. I will give what is demanded and everything will be taken from me. I shall have no life — but life was given me, so why should I be deprived of it? It cannot be that Christ demands it/ That was what I formerly said to myself, imagining that in these words Christ extolled sufferings and deprivations, and extolling them, spoke with exaggeration and therefore inexactly and obscurely. But now, when I had understood the words about not resisting him that is evil, it became plain to me that Christ was not exaggerating nor demanding any suffering for the sake of suffering, but was only, very definitely and clearly, saying what he said. He says: ‘ Do not resist him that is evil, and while doing this know in advance that you may WHAT I BELIEVE meet people who, having struck you on one cheek and not met with resistance, will strike you on the other, and having taken away your coat will take your cloak also; who, having availed themselves of your work, will oblige you to do more work, and will not repay what they borrow...should this be so, continue never- theless to abstain from resisting the evil man. Continue, in spite of all this, to do good to those who will beat you and insult you/ And when I understood these words as they are said, at once all that was obscure became clear, and what had seemed exaggerated became quite exact. I understood for the first time that the centre of gravity of the whole thought lies in the words, 4 Resist not him that is evil/ and that what follows is only an explanation of that first proposition. I understood that Christ does not command us to present the cheek and to give up the cloak in order to suffer, but commands us not to resist him that is evil, and adds that this may involve having to suffer. It is just like a father sending his son off on a distant voyage, who does not order the son not to sleep at night and not to eat enough, and to be drenched and to freeze, but says to him, 4 Go your road/and if you have to be drenched and to freeze, continue your journey nevertheless/ Christ does not say, 6 Offer your cloak and suffer/ but he says, 4 Resist not him that is evil, and no matter what befalls you do not resist him/ These words, 4 Resist not evil/ or 4 Resist not him that is evil/ understood in their direct meaning, KEY TO THE GOSPEL TEACHING 117 were for me truly a key opening everything else, and it became surprising to me that I could so radically have misunderstood the clear and definite words: ‘ It was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil, and no matter what he does to you, suffer and surrender, but resist him not.’ What can be clearer, more intelligible, and more in- dubitable than that? And I only needed to understand these words simply and directly as they were said and at once Christ’s whole teaching, not only in the Sermon on the Mount but in the whole of the Gospels, everything that had been confused, became intelligible; what had been contradictory became harmo- nious, and, above all, what had appeared super- fluous became essential. All merged into one whole, and one thing indubitably confirmed another like the pieces of a broken statue I when they are replaced in their true position. In this Sermon and in the whole of the Gospels everything confirmed the same teaching of non-resistance to evil. In this Sermon, as everywhere else, Christ never represents his disciples— that is to say, the people who fulfil the law of non-resistance to evil — otherwise than as turning the cheek to the smiter, giving up the cloak, persecuted, beaten, and destitute.
Everywhere Christ repeatedly says that only he can be his disciple who takes up his cross and abandons everything; that is to say, only he who is ready to endure all consequences that result from the fulfilment of the law of WHAT I BELIEVE non-resistance to evil. To his disciples Christ says: ‘ Be beggars; be ready without resisting 4 > evil to accept persecution, suffering, and death.’
He himself prepares for suffering and death j without resisting evil, and sends Peter away because he complains of this. He himself dies forbidding resistance to evil, and without deviating from his teaching. All his first 4 disciples fulfilled this commandment of non- resistance, and passed their lives in poverty and persecutions, never returning evil for evil.
So Christ says what he says. It is possible to affirm that it is very difficult always to obey this rule. It is possible not to agree with the statement that every man will be happy if he obeys this rule. It may be said that it is stupid, as unbelievers say that Christ was a dreamer and an idealist who enunciated im- practicable rules which his disciples followed from stupidity. But it is quite impossible not to admit that Christ said very clearly and definitely just what he meant to say, namely that according to his teaching man should not resist evil, and that therefore whoever accepts his teaching must not resist evil. And yet neither believers nor unbelievers understand this simple, clear meaning of Christ’s words.
CHAPTER II THE COMMAND OF NON-RESISTANCE When I understood that the words 4 resist not him that is evil ’ meant 4 resist not him that is evil/ my former conception of the meaning of Christ’s teaching was suddenly changed, and I was horrified, not at the fact that I had not understood it, but at the strange way in which I had understood the teaching up to that time. I knew, we all know, that the meaning of Christ’s teaching is in love to men. To say 4 turn your cheek, love your enemies 5 is to express the essence of Christianity. I knew this from childhood. But why did I not understand these simple words simply, but sought in them some allegorical meaning?
4 Resist not him that is evil ’ means 4 never resist him that is evil,’ that is, never do violence, never do an act that cannot but be contrary to love, and if they then insult you, bear the insult and still do not inflict violence on any one else. He said it so clearly and simply that it is impossible to say it more clearly. How was it that I, believing or trying to believe that he who said it was God, declared that to fulfil this by my own strength was impossible? The Master says to me, 4 Go and chop wood/ and I reply, 4 1 cannot do that by my own WHAT I BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE strength.’ Replying so, I say one of two things, either that I do not believe what the Master says, or that I do not wish to do what he commands. Of the commandment of God which he gave us to perform, and of which he said, 4 Whoso doeth this and teacheth men so shall be called great,’ etc., of which he said that only those who do it shall receive life; the command which he himself fulfilled and which he expressed so clearly and simply that there can be no doubt about its meaning. It was of this command that I who had never even tried to fulfil it said, £ It is impossible to perform it by my own strength; I need super- natural aid.’ God came down on earth to give salvation to men. That salvation consists in this. The Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, suffered for people and redeemed their sins before his Father, and gave men the Church in which is preserved the grace which is administered to believers. But besides all this that same Son of God also gave people a teaching and an example of life for their salva- tion. How was it that I said that the rules of life expressed by him simply and clearly for all men were so difficult of accomplishment as to be even impossible without miraculous aid? He not only did not say that, but he said, ‘ Do it. He that does not do it will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ And he never said that the performance was difficult. On the contrary he said, £ My yoke is easy and my burden is light.’ John the Evangelist said, ‘ His law is not hard.’ How was it that I said COMMAND OF NON-RESISTANCE 121 that what God had told us to do, that act the performance of which he had so exactly defined and of which he had said that to do it was easy, that which he himself performed as a man and which was performed by his first followers— how was it that I said that to do it was so difficult as to be even impossible without miraculous aid? If a man applied the whole : strength of his mind to destroy some law that I had been given, what more effective for the destruction of such a law could that man say than that the law itself was impracticable, and that the intention of the lawgiver himself concerning his law was that it was impracticable and that to fulfil it needed miraculous aid? And that is just what I thought concerning the law of non-resistance to evil; and I began to remember how this strange thought entered my head — that the law of Christ was divine f but that its fulfilment was impossible— and reconsidering my past I understood that that thought was never conveyed to me in its complete nakedness (it would have repelled me), but that I, without noticing it, had sucked it in with my mother’s milk from my very first childhood, and the whole of my subsequent life * had only confirmed in me this strange delusion.
From childhood I was taught that Christ was God and that his teaching was divine, but at the same time 1 was taught to respect those institutions which secured by violence my safety from evil men. I was taught to respect these institutions by the priests. I was taught to resist the evil man, and it was inculcated WHAT I BELIEVE that it is degrading and shameful to submit to the evil man and to endure him. They * 1 taught me to judge and to execute; afterwards! they taught me to go to war — that is to say to resist the evil man by murder, and the army j of which I was a member was called the * Christ- | loving Army/ and its activities were sanctified by the blessings of the Church. Moreover, A * from childhood and until I was a man I was taught to respect what directly contradicted! the law of Christ; to resist an injurer, to revenge myself by violence for a personal, family, or national insult. All this was not merely not condemned, but it was instilled into me that all this was excellent and not contrary to the law of Christ.
All my circumstances, my tranquillity, the safety of myself and my family and my property were all based on the law repudiated by Christ, i on the law of a tooth for a tooth. The doctors of the Church taught that Christ’s teaching -Was divine, but its performance impossible on account of human frailty, and only Christ’s blessing can assist its performance. The worldly teachers and the whole construction of our life plainly admitted the impracticability j and fantastic nature of Christ’s teaching, and by words and deeds taught what was opposed to it. The admission of the impracticability of God’s teaching had gradually to such a! degree impregnated me and had become so familiar, and it coincided to such a degree | with my desires, that I had never before noticed j the contradiction with which I was faced. I COMMAND OF NON-RESISTANCE 123 did not see that it is impossible at one and the same time to confess Christ as God, the basis of whose teaching is non-resistance to him that is evil, and consciously and calmly to work for the establishment of property, law-courts, government, and military forces, to establish a life contrary to the teaching of Christ, and to ' pray to that same Christ that the law of non- resistance to him that is evil and of forgiveness should be fulfilled among us. That which is so clear had not yet occurred to me: that it would be much simpler to arrange and organize life according to the law of Christ and then to pray that there should be law-courts, executions, and wars if they are so necessary for our welfare.1 1 Many philosophies are logically sound and irre- futable once one grants them the premises from which they start. The chandelier is often solid and brilliant, the only question is whether the hook which attaches it to the ceiling is sufficiently firm to support it. So it is with Tolstoy’s philosophy of Christian anarchy. Once accept his thesis that Jesus, by saying ‘resist not him that is evil,’ intended to forbid any use of physical force to prevent any one from doing what- ever evil he likes, and that he was divinely and abso- lutely right in laying down that principle, and there is no logical escape from the ultimate conclusion that any Government using force, all compulsory law, all , police, and all protection of life or property is immoral.
It is therefore important to examine the context, intention, and scope of the passage referred to, and to ask whether, had Jesus wished to give it the exten- sion and application Tolstoy gives it, he would not have done so explicitly, not leaving such tremendous conclusions to be deduced from such brief remarks.
‘ Sweet reasonableness ’ would hardly have been pre- dicated of Christ’s teaching had he allowed his repudiation of ‘ an eye for an eye ’ to carry him to such an extreme in the contrary direction.
WHAT I BELIEVE And I understood how my mistake had arisen.
It had arisen from obedience to Christ in words f ' and denial of him in deeds.
The command of non-resistance to him that is evil is one that makes a complete whole of all 1 the teaching, but this only if it is not a mere saying, but an obligatory rule — a law to be fulfilled.
It is really a key which opens everything, but only when it is pushed into the lock. The treatment of this statement as a mere saying impossible of fulfilment without supernatural aid is the destruction of the whole teaching, and whatbutan impossibility can any teaching appear t to men from which the unifying, fundamental ,thesis has been removed? To an unbeliever it even appears simply stupid and cannot appear otherwise.
To put an engine in position, to heat the boiler, to set it in motion, but not to attach the con- necting belt, was what was done with the teach- ing of Christ when people began to teach that you can be a Christian without fulfilling the law of non-resistance to him that is evil.
I was recently reading the Fifth Chapter of Matthew with a Jewish Rabbi. At almost every sentence the Rabbi said, ‘ That is in the Jewish Canon. That is in the Talmud/ and he pointed out to me in the Old Testament and the Talmud dicta very similar to the dicta of the Sermon on the Mount. But when we came to the verse about non-resistance to him that is evil he did not say, ‘ And that is in the Talmud/ but only ironically asked me: j COMMAND OF NON-RESISTANCE 126 ‘ Do the Christians fulfil that? Do they turn the other cheek? *■ I had no reply, especially as I knew that at that very time Christians were not only not turning the other cheek, but were striking cheeks the Jews had turned. But I was interested to know whether there was anything similar in the Old Testament or in the Talmud, and I asked him about this. He replied: c No, it is not there. But tell me whether the Christians fulfil this law/ By this ques- tion he showed me that the presence of this rule in the Christian law, which not only is not performed by any one, but which Christians 3 themselves admit to be impracticable, is an admission of the irrationality and superfluity of the Christian law. And I had no reply to give him.
Now having understood the meaning of this teaching, I see clearly the strange internal I contradiction with which I was faced. Having admitted Christ to be God and his law to be divine, and having at the same time arranged my life in contradiction to the teaching, what was left me but to admit that the teaching was impracticable? In words I admitted the teaching of Christ to be holy, in practice I professed a quite unchristian teaching and ad- mitted and submitted to unchristian institu- tions which surrounded me on all sides.
The whole of the Old Testament says that the misfortunes of the Jewish people were the effect of their believing in false gods and not in the true God. Samuel, in his First Book, chapters viii. and xii., told the people that to all 126 WHAT I BELIEVE their former disobedience they had added a new one. Instead of God who had been their King * 1 * * they had chosen a man-king, whom they thought would save them. Do not believe in 4 vain things/ says Samuel to the people (xii. 21).
It cannot help you or save you because it is 4 vain? — empty. That you may not perish together with your king, cling to the one God.
And it was faith in that 4 vain thing/ in empty idols, that hid the truth from me. On the path to it, hiding its light from me, stood those 4 vain things ' which I had not strength to reject.
I was walking the other day towards the Borovitski Gates of the Moscow Kremlin. At the gates sat an old crippled beggar, wrapped round the ears with some rag. I took out my purse to give him something.1 Just then, coming down from the Kremlin, ran a manly, ruddy young fellow, a grenadier in his regi- mental sheepskin coat. The beggar, on seeing the soldier, jumped up in dismay, and ran limping down towards the Alexandrov Gardens. The grenadier started to catch him, but, without overtaking him, stopped and began abusing the 1 Tolstoy always gave away small change to beggars he met, in accord with the usual practice of religious folk in a country which had no State poor-relief organization, and also in accord with the injunction ‘ Give to him that asketh of thee! ’ He sometimes admitted that his gift might do harm and that the