And of this kind, without exception, are all the criticisms of educated believers, who must, as such, understand the danger of their position. The sole escape from it for them lies in their hope that they may be able, by using the authority of the Church, of antiquity, and of their sacred office, to overawe the reader and draw him away from the idea of reading the Gospel for himself and thinking out the question in his own mind for himself. And in this they are successful; for, indeed, how could the notion occur to any- one that all that has been repeated from century to century with such earnestness and solemnity by all those arch- deacons, bishops, archbishops, holy synods, and popes, is all of it a base lie and a calumny foisted upon Christ by them for the sake of keeping safe the money they must have to live luxuriously on the necks of other men? And it is a lie and a calumny so transparent that the only way of keep- ing it up consists in overawing people by their earnestness, their conscientiousness. It is just what has taken place of late years at recruiting sessions; at a table before the zert- zal — the symbol of the Tzar's authority — in the seat of honor under the life-size portrait of the Tzar, sit dignified old officials, wearing decorations, conversing freely and easily, writing notes, summoning men before them, and giv- ing orders. Here, wearing a cross on his breast, near them, is a prosperous-looking old priest in a silken cassock, with long gray hair flowing on to his cope, before a lectern who wears the golden cross and has a Gospel bound in gold.
They summon Ivan Petroff. A young man comes in, wretchedly, shabbily dressed, and in terror, the muscles of his face working, his eyes bright and restless; and in a 75 WITHIN Your 41 broken voice, hardly above a whisper, he says: "I — by Christ's law — as a Christian — I cannot.'* "What is he muttering?" asks the president, frowning impatiently and raising his eyes from his book to listen. "Speak louder," the colonel with shining epaulets shouts to him.
"I — I as a Christian " And at last it appears that the young man refuses to serve in the army because he is a Christian. "Don't talk nonsense. Stand to be measured. Doctor, may I trouble you to measure him. He is all right?" "Yes." ''Reverend father, administer the oath to him."
No one is the least disturbed by what the poor scared young man is muttering. They do not even pay attention to it. "They all mutter something, but we've no time to listen to it, we have to enroll so many.'* The recruit tries to say something still. "It*s opposed to the law of Christ.'* "Go along, go along; we know without your help what is opposed to the law and what's not; and you soothe his mind, reverend father, soothe him. Next: Vassily Nikitin.** And they lead the trembling youth away. And it does not strike anyone — the guards, or Vassily Niki- tin, whom they are bringing in, or any of the spectators of this scene — that these inarticulate words of the young man, at once suppressed by the authorities, contain the truth, and that the loud, solemnly uttered sentences of the calm, self- confident official and the priest are a lie and a decep- tion.
Such is the impression produced not only by Farrar*s article, but by all those solemn sermons, articles, and books which make their appearance from all sides directly there is anywhere a glimpse of truth exposing a predominant false- hood. At once begins the series of long, clever, ingenious, and solemn speeches and writings, which deal with ques- tions nearly related to the subject, but skillfully avoid touching the subject itself, 42 *' THE KINGDOM OF GOD That is the essence of the fifth and most effective means of getting out of the contradictions in which Church Chris- tianity has placed itself, by professing its faith in Christ's teaching in words, while it denies it in its life, and teaches people to do the same.
Those who justify themselves by the first method, directly, crudely asserting that Christ sanctioned violence, wars, and murder, repudiate Christ's doctrine directly; those who find their defense in the second, the third, or the fourth method are confused and can easily be convicted of error; but this last class, who do not argue, who do not condescend to argue about it, but take shelter behind their own grandeur, and make a show of all this having been decided by them or at least by someone long ago, and no longer offering a possi- bility of doubt to anyone — they seem safe from attack, and will be beyond attack till men come to realize that they are under the narcotic influence exerted on them by govern- ments and churches, and are no longer affected by it.
Such was the attitude of the spiritual critics — /. ^., those professing faith in Christ — to my book. And their attitude could not have been different. They are bound to take up this attitude by the contradictory position in which they find themselves between belief in the divinity of their Master and disbelief in his clearest utterances, and they want to escape from this contradiction. So that one cannot expect from them free discussion of the very essence of the question- that is, of the change in men's life which must result from applying Christ's teaching to the existing order of the world. Such free discussion I only expected from worldly, free- thinking critics who are not bound to Christ's teaching in any way, and can therefore take an independent view of it. I had anticipated that freethinking writers would look at Christ, not merely, like the Churchmen, as the founder of a religion of personal salvation, but, to express it in their language, as a reformer who laid down new principles of life /s WITHIN you:' 43 and destroyed the old, and whose reforms are not yet com- plete, but are still in progress even now.
Such a view of Christ and his teaching follows from my book. But to my astonishment, out of the great number of critics of my book there was not one, either Russian or for- eign, who treated the subject from the side from which it was approached in the book — that is, who criticised Christ's doctrines as philosophical, moral, and social principles, to use their scientific expressions. This was not done in a single criticism. The freethinking Russian critics taking my book as though its whole contents could be reduced to non-resistance to evil, and understanding the doctrine of non-resistance to evil itself (no doubt for greater con- venience in refuting it) as though it would prohibit every kind of conflict with evil, fell vehemently upon this doctrine, and for some years past have been very successfully proving that Christ's teaching is mistaken in so far as it forbids resistance to evil. Their refutations of this hypothetical doctrine of Christ were all the more successful since they knew beforehand that their arguments could not be contested or corrected, for the censorship, not having passed the book, did not pass articles in its defense.
It is a remarkable thing that among us, where one cannot say a word about the Holy Scriptures without the prohibi- tion of the censorship, for some years past there have been in all the journals constant attacks and criticisms on the command of Christ simply and directly stated in Matt. v. 39. The Russian advanced critics, obviously unaware of all that has been done to elucidate the question of non-resistance, and sometimes even imagining apparently that the rule ofl non-resistance to evil had been invented by me personally, fell foul of the very idea of it. They opposed it and attacked it, and advancing Avith great heat arguments which had long ago been analyzed and refuted from every point of view, they demonstrated that a man ought invariably to 44 ** THE KINGDOM OF COD defend (with violence) all the injured and oppressed, and that thus the doctrine of non-resistance to evil is an immoral doctrine.
To all Russian critics the whole import of Christ's com- mand seemed reducible to the fact that it would hinder them from the active opposition to evil to which they are accus- tomed. So that the principle of non-resistance to evil by force has been attacked by two opposing camps: the con- servatives, because this principle would hinder their activity in resistance to evil as applied to the revolutionists, in per- secution and punishment of them; the revolutionists, too, because this principle would hinder their resistance to evil as applied to the conservatives and the overthrowing of them. The conservatives were indignant at the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force hindering the energetic destruction of the revolutionary elements, which may ruin the national prosperity; the revolutionists were indignant at the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force hindering the overthrow of the conservatives, who are ruining the national prosperity. It is worthy of remark in this connection that the revolutionists have attacked the principle of non- resistance to evil by force, in spite of the fact that it is the greatest terror and danger for every despotism. For ever since the beginning of the world, the use of violence of every kind, from the Inquisition to the Schliisselburg fortress, has rested and still rests on the opposite principle of the neces- sity of resisting evil by force.
Besides this, the Russian critics hav^ pointed out the fact that the application of the command of non-resistance to practical life would turn mankind aside out of the path of civilization along which it is moving. The path of civiliza- tion on which mankind in Europe is moving is in their opinion the one along which all mankind ought always to move.
So much for the general character of the Russian critics.
IS WITHIN your 4S Foreign critics started from the same premises, but their discussions of my book were somewhat different from those of Russian critics, not only in being less bitter, and in showing more culture, but even in the subject-matter.
In discussing my book and the Gospel teaching gener- ally, as it is expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, the for- eign critics maintained that such doctrine is not peculiarly Christian (Christian doctrine is either Catholicism or Prot- estantism according to their views) — the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is only a string of very pretty imprac- ticable dreams du charmant docteur^ as Renan says, fit for the simple and half-savage inhabitants of Galilee who lived eighteen hundred years ago, and for the half-savage Russian peasants — Sutaev and Bondarev — and the Russian mystic Tolstoy, but not at all consistent with a high degree of European culture.
The foreign freethinking critics have tried in a delicate manner, without being offensive to me, to give the impres- sion that my conviction that mankind could be guided by such a naive doctrine as that of the Sermon on the Mount proceeds from two causes: that such a conviction is partly due to my want of knowledge, my ignorance of history, my ignorance of all the vain attempts to apply the principles of the Sermon on the Mount to life, which have been made in history and have led to nothing; and partly it is due to my failing to appreciate the full value of the lofty civilization to which mankind has attained at present, with its Krupp cannons, smokeless pow^der, colonization of Africa, Irish Coercion Bill, parliamentary government, journalism, strikes, and the Eiffel Tower.
So wrote de Vogue and Leroy Beaulieu and Matthew Arnold; so wrote the American author Savage, and Inger- soll, the popular freethinking American preacher, and many others.
**Christ's teaching is no use, because it is inconsistent 46 '* THE KINGDOM OF GOD with our industrial age," says Ingersoll naively, expressing in this utterance, with perfect directness and simplicity, the exact notion of Christ's teaching held by persons of refine- ment and culture of our times. The teaching is no use for our industrial age, precisely as though the existence of this industrial age were a sacred fact which ought not to and could not be changed. It is just as though drunkards when advised how they could be brought to habits of so- briety should answer that the advice is incompatible with their habit of taking alcohol.
The arguments of all the freethinking critics, Russian and foreign alike, different as they may be in tone and man- ner of presentation, all amount essentially to the same strange misapprehension — namely, that Christ's teaching, one of the consequences of which is non-resistance to evil, is of no use to us because it requires a change of our life.
Christ's teaching is useless because, if it were carried into practice, life could not go on as at present; we must add: if we have begun by living sinfully, as w^e do live and are accustomed to live. Not only is the question of non- resistance to evil not discussed; the very mention of the fact that the duty of non-resistance enters into Christ's teaching is regarded as satisfactory proof of the impractica- bility of the whole teaching.
Meanwhile one would have thought it was necessary to point out at least some kind of solution of the following question, since it is at the root of almost everything that interests us.
The question amounts to this: In what way are we to decide men's disputes, when some men consider evil what others consider good, and vice versa? And to reply that that is evil which I think evil, in spite of the fact that my opponent thinks it good, is not a solution of the difficulty. There can only be two solutions: either to find a real /s WITHIN you:' 47 unquestionable criterion of what is evil or not to resist evil by force.
The first course has been tried ever since the beginning of historical times, and, as we all know, it has not hitherto led to any successful results.
The second solution — not forcibly to resist what we con- sider evil until we have found a universal criterion — that is the solution given by Christ.
We may consider the answer given by Christ unsatis- factory; we may replace it by another and better, by find- ing a criterion by which evil could be defined for all men unanimously and simultaneously; w^e may simply, like sav- age nations, not recognize the existence of the question. But we cannot treat the question as the learned critics of Christianity do. They pretend either that no such question exists at all or that the question is solved.by granting to certain persons or assemblies of persons the right to define evil and to resist it by force. But we know all the while that granting such a right to certain persons does not decide the question (still less so when we are ourselves the certain persons), since there are always people who do not recog- nize this right in the authorized persons or assemblies.
But this assumption, that what seems evil to us is really evil, shows a complete misunderstanding of the question, and lies at the root of the argument of freethinking critics about the Christian religion. In this way, then, the discus- sions of my book on the part of Churchmen and freethink- ing critics alike showed me that the majority of men simply do not understand either Christ's teaching or the questions which Christ's teaching solves.
4^ '' THE KINGDOM OF GOD CHAPTER III.
CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY BELIEVERS.
Meaning of Christian Doctrine, Understood by a Minority, has Become Completely Incomprehensible for the Majority of Men — Reason of this to be Found in Misinterpretation of Christianity and Mistaken Con- viction of Believers and Unbelievers Alike that they Understand it — The Meaning of Christianity Obscured for Believers by the Church — The First Appearance of Christ's Teaching — Its Essence and Differ- ence from Heathen Religions — Christianity not Fully Comprehended at the Beginning, Became More and More Clear to those who Accepted it from its Correspondence with Truth — Simultaneously with this Arose the Claim to Possession of the Authentic Meaning of the Doc- trine Based on the Miraculous Nature of its Transmission — Assembly of Disciples as Described in the Acts — The Authoritative Claim to the Sole Possession of the True Meaning of Christ's Teaching Supported by Miraculous Evidence has Led by Logical Develop- ment to the Creeds of the Churches — A Church Could Not be Founded by Christ — Definitions of a Church According to the Catechisms — The Churches have Always been Several in Number and Hostile to One Another — What is Heresy — The Work of G. Arnold on Heresies — Heresies the Manifestations of Progress in the Churches — Churches Cause Dissension among Men, and are Always Hostile to Christianity — Account of the Work Done by the Russian Church — Matt, xxiii. 23 — The Sermon on the Mount or the Creed — The Orthodox Church Conceals from the People the True Meaning of Christianity — The Same Thing is Done by the Other Churches — All the External Con- ditions of Modern Life are such as to Destroy the Doctrine of the Church, and therefore the Churches use Every Effort to Support their Doctrines.
Thus the information I received, after my book came out, went to show that the Christian doctrine, in its direct and simple sense, was understood, and had always been understood, by a minority of men, while the critics, eccle- siastical and freethinking alike, denied the possibility of taking Christ's teaching in its direct sense. All this con- vinced me that while on one hand the true understanding IS WITHIN Your 49 of this doctrine had never been lost to a minority, but had been established more and more clearly, on the other hand the meaning of it had been more and more obscured for the majority. So that at last such a depth of obscurity has been reached that men do not take in their direct sense even the simplest precepts, expressed in the simplest words, in the Gospel.
Christ's teaching is not generally understood in its true, simple, and direct sense even in these days, when the light of the Gospel has penetrated even to the darkest recesses of human consciousness; when, in the words of Christ, that which was spoken in the ear is proclaimed from the house- tops; and when the Gospel is influencing every side of human life — domestic, economic, civic, legislative, and international. This lack of true understanding of Christ's words at such a time would be inexplicable, if there were not causes to account for it.
One of these causes is the fact that believers and unbelievers alike are firmly persuaded that they have understood Christ's teaching a long time, and that they understand it so fully, indubitably, and conclusively that it can have no other significance than the one they attribute to it. And the reason of this conviction is that the false interpretation and consequent misapprehension of the Gospel is an error of such long standing. Even the strongest current of water cannot add a drop to a cup which is already full.
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
The Christian doctrine is presented to the men of our world to-day as a doctrine which everyone has known so so '* THE KINGDOM OF GOD long and accepted so unhesitatingly in all its minutest details that it cannot be understood in any other way than it is understood now.
Christianity is understood now by all who profess the doctrines of the Church as a supernatural miraculous revelation of everything which is repeated inVhe Creed. By unbelievers it is regarded as an illustration of man's craving for a belief in the supernatural, which mankind has now outgrown, as an historical phenomenon which has received full expression in Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, and has no longer any living signifi- cance for us. The significance of the Gospel is hidden ' from believers ^by the Church, from unbelievers by Science.
I will speak first of the former. Eighteen hundred years ago there appeared in the midst of the heathen Roman world a strange new doctrine, unlike any of the old reli- gions, and attributed to a man, Christ.
This new doctrine was in both form and content abso- lutely new to the Jewish world in which it originated, and still more to the Roman world in which it was preached and diffused.
In the midst of the elaborate religious observances of Judaism, in which, in the words of Isaiah, law was laid upon law, and in the midst of the Roman legal system worked out to the highest point of perfection, a new doc- trine appeared, which denied not only every deity, and all fear and worship of them, but even all human institutions and all necessity for them. In place of all the rules of the )/old religions, this doctrine sets up only a type of inward per- [fection, truth, and love in the person of Christ, and — as a result of this inward perfection being attained by men — also the outward perfection foretold by the Prophets — the kingdom of God, when all men will cease to learn to make war, when all shall be taught of God and united in love, and the lion will lie down with the lamb. Instead of the IS WITHIN Your 51 threats of punishment which all the old laws of religions and governments alike laid down for non-fulfillment of their rules, instead of promises of rewards for fulfillment of them, this doctrine called men to it only because it was the truth. John vii. 17: ** If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God." John viii. 46: " If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? But ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth. Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Keep my sayings, and ye shall know of my sayings whether they be true/' No proofs of this doctrine were offered except its truth, the correspond- ence of the doctrine with the truth. The whole teaching consisted in the recognition of truth and following it, in a greater and greater attainment of truth, and a closer and closer following of it in the acts of life. There are no acts in this doctrine which could justify a man and make him saved. There is only the image of truth to guide'him, for inward perfection in the person of Christ, and for out- ward perfection in the establishment of the kingdom of God. The fulfillment of this teaching consists only in walking in the chosen way, in getting nearer to inward per- fection in the imitation of Christ, and outward perfection in the establishment of the kingdom of God. The greater/ or less blessedness of a man depends, according to this doctrine, not on the degree of perfection to which he has attained, but on the greater or less swiftness with which he is pursuing it.
The progress toward perfection of the publican Zaccheus, of the woman that was a sinner, of the robber on the cross, is a greater state of blessedness, according to this doctrine, than the stationary righteous- ness of the Pharisee. The lost sheep is dearer than ninety- / * nine that were not lost. The prodigal son, the piece of ^ 52 " THE KINGDOM OF GOD money that was lost and found again, are dearer, more precious to God than those which have not been lost.
Every condition, according to this doctrine, is only a particular step in the attainment of inward and outward perfection, and therefore has no significance of itself. Blessedness consists in progress toward perfection; to stand still in any condition whatever means the cessation of this blessedness.
"Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.*' '^ No man having put his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God." " Rejoice not that the spirits are subject to you, but seek rather that your names be written in heaven." " Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." " Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness."
The fulfillment of this precept is only to be found in uninterrupted progress toward the attainment of ever higher truth, toward establishing more and more firmly an ever greater love within oneself, and establishing more and more widely the kingdom of God outside oneself.
It is obvious that, appearing as it did in the midst of, the Jewish and heathen world, such teaching could not be / accepted by the majority of men, who were living a life ^^; absolutely different from what was required by it. It is obvious, too, that even for those by whom it was accepted, it was so absolutely opposed to all their old views that it could not be comprehensible in its full significance.
It has been only by a succession of misunderstandings, errors, partial explanations, and the corrections and additions of generations that the meaning of the Christian doctrine has grown continually more and more clear to men. The Christian view of life has exerted an influence on the Jewish and heathen, and the heathen and Jewish view of life has, too, exerted an influence on the Christian. And Christianity, as the living force, has gained more and IS WITHIN Your S3 IS WITHIN Your S3 more upon the extinct Judaism and heathenism, and has grown continually clearer and clearer, as it freed itself from the admixture of falsehood which had overlaid it. Men went further and further in the attainment of the meaning of Christianity, and realized it more and more in life.
The longer mankind lived, the clearer and clearer became the meaning of Christianity, as must always be the case with every theory of life.
Succeeding generations corrected the errors of their predecessors, and grew ever nearer and nearer to a com- prehension of the true meaning. It was thus from the very earliest times of Christianity. And so, too, from the earliest times of Christianity there were men who began to assert on their own authority that the meaning they at- tribute to the doctrine is the only true one, and as proof bring forward supernatural occurrences in support of the correctness of their interpretation.
This was the principal cause at first of the misunder- standing of the doctrine, and afterward of the complete distortion of it.
It was supposed that Christ's teaching was transmitted to men not like every other truth, but in a special miracu- lous way. Thus the truth of the teaching was not proved by its correspondence with the needs of the mind and the whole nature of man, but by the miraculous manner of its transmission, which was advanced as an irrefutable proof of the truth of the interpretation put on it. This hypothesis. originated from misunderstanding of the teaching, and its // result was to make it impossible to understand it rightly.
And this happened first in the earliest times, when the doctrine was still not so fully understood and often inter- preted wrongly, as we see by the Gospels and the Acts. The less the doctrine was understood, the more obscure it appeared and the more necessary were external proofs of 54 '' THE KINGDOM OF GOD its truth. The proposition that we ought not to do unto others as we would not they should do unto us, did not need to be proved by miracles and needed no exercise of faith, because this proposition is in itself convincing and in harmony with man's mind and nature; but the proposition