this general definition, and that is not a criticism in the precise meaning of the word, but an article treating of the same subject and having my book in view. I mean the pamphlet

    this general definition, and that is not a criticism in the

    precise meaning of the word, but an article treating of the

    same subject and having my book in view.  I mean the pamphlet

    of Mr. Troizky (published at Kazan), "A Sermon for the

    People."  The author obviously accepts Christ's teaching in

    its true meaning.  He says that the prohibition of resistance

    to evil by force means exactly what it does mean; and the same

    with the prohibition of swearing.  He does not, as others do,

    deny the meaning of Christ's teaching, but unfortunately he

    does not draw from this admission the inevitable deductions

    which present themselves spontaneously in our life when we

    understand Christ's teaching in that way.  If we must not

    oppose evil by force, nor swear, everyone naturally asks,

    "How, then, about military service? and the oath of

    obedience?"  To this question the author gives no reply; but

    it must be answered.  And if he cannot answer, then he would

    do better no to speak on the subject at all, as such silence

    leads to error.

The majority of religious critics of my book use this fifth method

of replying to it. I could quote dozens of such critics, in all of

whom, without exception, we find the same thing repeated:

everything is discussed except what constitutes the principal

subject of the book.  As a characteristic example of such

criticisms, I will quote the article of a well-known and ingenious

English writer and preacher--Farrar--who, like many learned

theologians, is a great master of the art of circuitously evading

a question.  The article was published in an American journal, the

FORUM, in October, 1888.

After conscientiously explaining in brief the contents of my book,

Farrar says:

   "Tolstoy came to the conclusion that a coarse deceit had been

   palmed upon the world when these words 'Resist not evil,' were

   held by civil society to be compatible with war, courts of

   justice, capital punishment, divorce, oaths, national

   prejudice, and, indeed, with most of the institutions of civil

   and social life.  He now believes that the kingdom of God would

   come if all men kept these five commandments of Christ, viz.:

   1. Live in peace with all men.  2. Be pure.  3. Take no oaths.

   4. Resist not evil.  5. Renounce national distinctions.

   "Tolstoy," he says, "rejects the inspiration of the Old

   Testament; hence he rejects the chief doctrines of the Church--

   that of the Atonement by blood, the Trinity, the descent of the

   Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and his transmission through the

   priesthood."  And he recognizes only the words and commands of

   Christ.  "But is this interpretation of Christ a true one?" he

   says.  "Are all men bound to act as Tolstoy teaches--i. e., to

   carry out these five commandments of Christ?"

You expect, then, that in answer to this essential question, which

is the only one that could induce a man to write an article about

the book, he will say either that this interpretation of Christ's

teaching is true and we ought to follow it, or he will say that

such an interpretation is untrue, will show why, and will give

some other correct interpretation of those words which I interpret

incorrectly.  But nothing of this kind is done.  Farrar only

expresses his "belief" that,

   "although actuated by the noblest sincerity, Count Tolstoy has

   been misled by partial and one-sided interpretations of the

   meaning of the Gospel and the mind and will of Christ."  What

   this error consists in is not made clear; it is only said:

   "To enter into the proof of this is impossible in this article,

   for I have already exceeded the space at my command."

And he concludes in a tranquil spirit:

   "Meanwhile, the reader who feels troubled lest it should be his

   duty also to forsake all the conditions of his life and to take

   up the position and work of a common laborer, may rest for the

   present on the principle, SECURUS JUDICAT ORBIS TERRARUM.  With

   few and rare exceptions," he continues, "the whole of

   Christendom, from the days of the Apostles down to our own, has

   come to the firm conclusion that it was the object of Christ to

   lay down great eternal principles, but not to disturb the bases

   and revolutionize the institutions of all human society, which

   themselves rest on divine sanctions as well as on inevitable

   conditions.  Were it my object to prove how untenable is the

   doctrine of communism, based by Count Tolstoy upon the divine

   paradoxes [sic], which can be interpreted only on historical

   principles in accordance with the whole method of the teaching

   of Jesus, it would require an ampler canvas than I have here at

   my disposal."

What a pity he has not an "ampler canvas at his disposal"!  And

what a strange thing it is that for all these last fifteen

centuries no one has had a "canvas ample enough" to prove that

Christ, whom we profess to believe in, says something utterly

unlike what he does say!  Still, they could prove it if they

wanted to.  But it is not worth while to prove what everyone

knows; it is enough to say "SECURUS JUDICAT ORBIS TERRARUM."

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 archdeacons,

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 keeping 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 zertzal--the symbol of the Tzars 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 giving orders.

Here, wearing a cross on his breast, near them, is 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 Iran 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 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

Tweet