Meet us on:
 
Entire Site
    Try our fun game

    Dueling book covers…may the best design win!

    Random Quote
    "He removes the greatest ornament of friendship, who takes away from it respect."
     

    Subscribe to Our Newsletter

    Follow us on Twitter

    Never miss a good book again! Follow Read Print on Twitter

    Chapter 9

    • Rate it:
    • 5 Favorites on Read Print
    Launch Reading Mode Next Chapter
    Chapter 10
    Previous Chapter
    THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION OF LIFE WILL EMANCIPATE
    MEN FROM THE MISERIES OF OUR PAGAN LIFE.

    The External Life of Christian Peoples Remains Pagan Though they
    are Penetrated by Christian Consciousness--The Way Out of this
    Contradiction is by the Acceptance of the Christian Theory of
    Life--Only Through Christianity is Every Man Free, and Emancipated
    of All Human Authority--This Emancipation can be Effected by no
    Change in External Conditions of Life, but Only by a Change in the
    Conception of Life--The Christian Ideal of Life Requires
    Renunciation of all Violence, and in Emancipating the Man who
    Accepts it, Emancipates the Whole World from All External
    Authorities--The Way Out of the Present Apparently Hopeless
    Position is for Every Man who is Capable of Assimilating the
    Christian Conception of Life, to Accept it and Live in Accordance
    with it--But Men Consider this Way too Slow, and Look for
    Deliverance Through Changes in Material Conditions of Life Aided
    by Government--That Will Lead to No Improvement, as it is simply
    Increasing the Evil under which Men are Suffering--A Striking
    Instance of this is the Submission to Compulsory Military Service,
    which it would be More Advantageous for Every Man to Refuse than
    to Submit to--The Emancipation of Men Can Only be Brought About by
    each Individual Emancipating Himself, and the Examples of this
    Self-emancipation which are already Appearing Threaten the
    Destruction of Governmental Authority--Refusal to Comply with the
    Unchristian Demands of Government Undermines the Authority of the
    State and Emancipates Men--And therefore Cases of such Non-
    compliance are Regarded with more Dread by State Authorities than
    any Conspiracies or Acts of Violence--Examples of Non-compliance
    in Russia, in Regard to Oath of Allegiance, Payment of Taxes,
    Passports, Police Duties, and Military Service--Examples of such
    Non-compliance in other States--Governments do not Know how to
    Treat Men who Refuse to Comply with their Demands on Christian
    Grounds--Such People, without Striking a Blow, Undermine the very
    Basis of Government from Within--To Punish them is Equivalent to
    Openly Renouncing Christianity, and Assisting in Diffusing the
    Very Principle by which these Men justify their Non-compliance--So
    Governments are in a Helpless Position--Men who Maintain the
    Uselessness of Personal Independence, only Retard the Dissolution
    Dissolution of the Present State Organization Based on Force.

    The position of the Christian peoples in our days has remained
    just as cruel as it was in the times of paganism. In many
    respects, especially in the oppression of the masses, it has
    become even more cruel than it was in the days of paganism.

    But between the condition of men in ancient times and their
    condition in our days there is just the difference that we see in
    the world of vegetation between the last days of autumn and the
    first days of spring. In the autumn the external lifelessness in
    nature corresponds with its inward condition of death, while in
    the spring the external lifelessness is in sharp contrast with the
    internal state of reviving and passing into new forms of life.

    In the same way the similarity between the ancient heathen life
    and the life of to-day is merely external: the inward condition of
    men in the times of heathenism was absolutely different from their
    inward condition at the present time.

    Then the outward condition of cruelty and of slavery was in
    complete harmony with the inner conscience of men, and every step
    in advance intensified this harmony; now the outward condition of
    cruelty and of slavery is completely contradictory to the
    Christian consciousness of men, and every step in advance only
    intensifies this contradiction.

    Humanity is passing through seemingly unnecessary, fruitless
    agonies. It is passing through something like the throes of
    birth. Everything is ready for the new life, but still the new
    life does not come.

    There seems no way out of the position. And there would be none,
    except that a man (and thereby all men) is gifted with the power
    of forming a different, higher theory of life, which at once frees
    him from all the bonds by which he seems indissolubly fettered.

    And such a theory is the Christian view of life made known to
    mankind eighteen hundred years ago.

    A man need only make this theory of life his own, for the fetters
    which seemed so indissolubly forged upon him to drop off of
    themselves, and for him to feel himself absolutely free, just as a
    bird would feel itself free in a fenced-in place directly it tools
    to its wings.

    People talk about the liberty of the Christian Church, about
    giving or not giving freedom to Christians. Underlying all these
    ideas and expressions there is some strange misconception.
    Freedom cannot be bestowed on or taken from a Christian or
    Christians. Freedom is an inalienable possession of the
    Christian.

    If we talk of bestowing freedom on Christians or withholding it
    from them, we are obviously talking not of real Christians but of
    people who only call themselves Christians. A Christian cannot
    fail to be free, because the attainment of the aim he sets before
    himself cannot be prevented or even hindered by anyone or
    anything.

    Let a man only understand his life as Christianity teaches him to
    understand it, let him understand, that is, that his life belongs
    not to him--not to his own individuality, nor to his family, nor
    to the state--but to him who has sent him into the world, and let
    him once understand that he must therefore fulfill not the law of
    his own individuality, nor his family, nor of the state, but the
    infinite law of him from whom he has come; and he will not only
    feel himself absolutely free from every human power, but will even
    cease to regard such power as at all able to hamper anyone.

    Let a man but realize that the aim of his life is the fulfillment
    of God's law, and that law will replace all other laws for him,
    and he will give it his sole allegiance, so that by that very
    allegiance every human law will lose all binding and controlling
    power in his eyes.

    The Christian is independent of every human authority by the fact
    that he regards the divine law of love, implanted in the soul of
    every man, and brought before his consciousness by Christ, as the
    sole guide of his life and other men's also.

    The Christian may be subjected to external violence, he may be
    deprived of bodily freedom, he may be in bondage to his passions
    (he who commits sin is the slave of sin), but he cannot be in
    bondage in the sense of being forced by any danger or by any
    threat of external harm to perform an act which is against his
    conscience.

    He cannot be compelled to do this, because the deprivations and
    sufferings which form such a powerful weapon against men of the
    state conception of life, have not the least power to compel him.

    Deprivations and sufferings take from them the happiness for which
    they live; but far from disturbing the happiness of the Christian,
    which consists in the consciousness of fulfilling the will of God,
    they may even intensify it, when they are inflicted on him for
    fulfilling his will.

    And therefore the Christian, who is subject only to the inner
    divine law, not only cannot carry out the enactments of the
    external law, when they are not in agreement with the divine law
    of love which he acknowledges (as is usually the case with state
    obligations), he cannot even recognize the duty of obedience to
    anyone or anything whatever, he cannot recognize the duty of what
    is called allegiance.

    For a Christian the oath of allegiance to any government whatever
    --the very act which is regarded as the foundation of the
    existence of a state--is a direct renunciation of Christianity.
    For the man who promises unconditional obedience in the future to
    laws, made or to be made, by that very promise is in the most,
    positive manner renouncing Christianity, which means obeying in
    every circumstance of life only the divine law of love he
    recognizes within him.

    Under the pagan conception of life it was possible to carry out
    the will of the temporal authorities, without infringing the law
    of God expressed in circumcisions, Sabbaths, fixed times of
    prayer, abstention from certain kinds of food, and so on. The one
    law was not opposed to the other. But that is just the
    distinction between the Christian religion and heathen religion.
    Christianity does not require of a man certain definite negative
    acts, but puts him in a new, different relation to men, from which
    may result the most diverse acts, which cannot be defined
    beforehand. And therefore the Christian not only cannot promise
    to obey the will of any other man, without knowing what will be
    required by that will; he not only cannot obey the changing laws
    of than, but he cannot even promise to do anything definite at a
    certain time, or to abstain from doing anything for a certain
    time. For he cannot know what at any time will be required of him
    by that Christian law of love, obedience to which constitutes the
    meaning of life for him. The Christian, in promising
    unconditional fulfillment of the laws of men in the future, would
    show plainly by that promise that the inner law of God does not
    constitute for him the sole law of his life.

    For a Christian to promise obedience to men, or the laws of men,
    is just as though a workman bound to one employer should also
    promise to carry out every order that might be given him by
    outsiders. One cannot serve two masters.

    The Christian is independent of human authority, because he
    acknowledges God's authority alone. His law, revealed by Christ,
    he recognizes in himself, and voluntarily obeys it.

    And this independence is gained, not by means of strife, not by
    the destruction of existing forms,of life, but only by a change in
    the interpretation of life. This independence results first from
    the Christian recognizing the law of love, revealed to him by his
    teacher, as perfectly sufficient for all human relations, and
    therefore he regards every use of force as unnecessary and
    unlawful; and secondly, from the fact that those deprivations and
    sufferings, or threats of deprivations and sufferings (which
    reduce the man of the social conception of life to the necessity
    of obeying) to the Christian from his different conception of
    life, present themselves merely as the inevitable conditions of
    existence. And these conditions, without striving against them by
    force, he patiently endures, like sickness, hunger, and every
    other hardship, but they cannot serve him as a guide for his
    actions. The only guide for the Christian's actions is to be
    found in the divine principle living within him, which cannot be
    checked or governed by anything.

    The Christian acts according to the words of the prophecy applied
    to his teacher: "He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any
    man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not
    break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth
    judgment unto victory." (Matt. xii. 19, 20.)

    The Christian will not dispute with anyone, nor attack anyone, nor
    use violence against anyone. On the contrary, he will bear
    violence without opposing it. But by this very attitude to
    violence, he will not only himself be free, but will free the
    whole world from all external power.

    "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." If
    there were any doubt of Christianity being the truth, the perfect
    liberty, that nothing can curtail, which a man experiences
    directly he makes the Christian theory of life his own, would be
    an unmistakable proof of its truth.

    Men in their present condition are like a swarm of bees hanging in
    a cluster to a branch. The position of the bees on the branch is
    temporary, and must inevitably be changed. They must start off
    and find themselves a habitation. Each of the bees knows this,
    and desires to change her own and the others' position, but no one
    of them can do it till the rest of them do it. They cannot all
    start off at once, because one hangs on to another and hinders her
    from separating from the swarm, and therefore they all continue to
    hang there. It would seem that the bees could never escape from
    their position, just as it seems that worldly men, caught in the
    toils of the state conception of life, can never escape. And
    there would be no escape for the bees, if each of them were not a
    living, separate creature, endowed with wings of its own.
    Similarly there would be no escape for men, if each were not a
    living being endowed with the faculty of entering into the
    Christian conception of life.

    If every bee who could fly, did not try to fly, the others, too,
    would never be stirred, and the swarm would never change its
    position. And if the man who has mastered the Christian
    conception of life would not, without waiting for other people,
    begin to live in accordance with this conception, mankind would
    never change its position. But only let one bee spread her wings,
    start off, and fly away, and after her another, and another, and
    the clinging, inert cluster would become a freely flying swarm of
    bees. Just in the same way, only let one man look at life as
    Christianity teaches him to look at it, and after him let another
    and another do the same, and the enchanted circle of existence in
    the state conception of life, from which there seemed no escape,
    will be broken through.

    But men think that to set all men free by this means is
    too slow a process, that they must find some other means by which
    they could set all men free at once. It is just as though the
    bees who want to start and fly away should consider it too long a
    process to wait for all the swarm to start one by one; and should
    think they ought to find some means by which it would not be
    necessary for every separate bee to spread her wings and fly off,
    but by which the whole swarm could fly at once where it wanted to.
    But that is not possible; till a first, a second, a third, a
    hundredth bee spreads her wings and flies off of her own accord,
    the swarm will not fly off and will not begin its new life. Till
    every individual man makes the Christian conception of life his
    own, and begins to live in accord with it, there can be no
    solution of the problem of human life, and no establishment of a
    new form of life.

    One of the most striking phenomena of our times is precisely this
    advocacy of slavery, which is promulgated among the masses, not by
    governments, in whom it is inevitable, but by men who, in
    advocating socialistic theories, regard themselves as the
    champions of freedom.

    These people advance the opinion that the amelioration of life,
    the bringing of the facts of life into harmony with the
    conscience, will come, not as the result of the personal efforts
    of individual men, but of itself as the result of a certain
    possible reconstruction of society effected in some way or other.
    The idea is promulgated that men ought not to walk on their own
    legs where they want and ought to go, but that a kind of floor
    under their feet will be moved somehow, so that on it they can
    reach where they ought to go without moving their own legs. And,
    therefore, all their efforts ought to be directed, not to going so
    far as their strength allows in the direction they ought to go,
    but to standing still and constructing such a floor.

    In the sphere of political economy a theory is propounded which
    amounts to saying that the worse things are the better they are;
    that the greater the accumulation of capital, and therefore the
    oppression of the workman, the nearer the day of emancipation,
    and, therefore, every personal effort on the part of a man to free
    himself from the oppression of capital is useless. In the sphere
    of government it is maintained that the greater the power of the
    government, which, according to this theory, ought to intervene in
    every department of private life in which it has not yet
    intervened, the better it will be, and that therefore we ought to
    invoke the interference of government in private life. In
    politics and international questions it is maintained that the
    improvement of the means of destruction, the multiplication of
    armaments, will lead to the necessity of making war by means of
    congresses, arbitration, and so on. And, marvelous to say, so
    great is the dullness of men, that they believe in these theories,
    in spite of the fact that the whole course of life, every step
    they take, shows how unworthy they are of belief.

    The people are suffering from oppression, and to deliver them from
    this oppression they are advised to frame general measures for the
    improvement of their position, which measures are to be intrusted
    to the authorities, and themselves to continue to yield obedience
    to the authorities. And obviously all that results from this is
    only greater power in the hands of the authorities, and greater
    oppression resulting from it.

    Not one of the errors of men carries them so far away from the aim
    toward which they are struggling as this very one. They do all
    kinds of different things for the attainment of their aim, but not
    the one simple obvious thing which is within reach of everyone.
    They devise the subtlest means for changing the position which is
    irksome to them, but not that simplest means, that everyone should
    refrain from doing what leads to that position.

    I have been told a story of a gallant police officer, who came to
    a village where the peasants were in insurrection and the military
    had been called out, and he undertook to pacify the insurrection
    in the spirit of Nicholas I., by his personal influence alone. He
    ordered some loads of rods to be brought, and collecting all the
    peasants together into a barn, he went in with them, locking the
    door after him. To begin with, he so terrified the peasants by
    his loud threats that, reduced to submission by him, they set to
    work to flog one another at his command. And so they flogged one
    another until a simpleton was found who would not allow himself to
    be flogged, and shouted to his companions not to flog one another.
    Only then the fogging ceased, and the police officer made his
    escape. Well, this simpleton's advice would never be followed by
    men of the state conception of life, who continue to flog one
    another, and teach people that this very act of self-castigation
    is the last word of human wisdom.

    Indeed, can one imagine a more striking instance of men flogging
    themselves than the submissiveness with which men of our times
    will perform the very duties required of them to keep them in
    slavery, especially the duty of military service? We see people
    enslaving themselves, suffering from this slavery, and believing
    that it must be so, that it does not matter, and will not hinder
    the emancipation of men, which is being prepared somewhere,
    somehow, in spite of the ever-increasing growth of slavery.

    In fact, take any man of the present time whatever (I don't mean a
    true Christian, but an average man of the present day), educated
    or uneducated, believing or unbelieving, rich or poor, married or
    unmarried. Such a man lives working at his work, or enjoying his
    amusements, spending the fruits of his labors on himself or on
    those near to him, and, like everyone, hating every kind of
    restriction and deprivation, dissension and suffering. Such a man
    is going his way peaceably, when suddenly people come and say to
    him: First, promise and swear to us that you will slavishly obey
    us in everything we dictate to you, and will consider absolutely
    good and authoritative everything we plan, decide, and call law.
    Secondly, hand over a part of the fruits of your labors for us to
    dispose of--we will use the money to keep you in slavery, and to
    hinder you from forcibly opposing our orders. Thirdly, elect
    others, or be yourself elected, to take a pretended share in the
    government, knowing all the while that the government will proceed
    quite without regard to the foolish speeches you, and those like
    you, may utter, and knowing that its proceedings will be according
    to our will, the will of those who have the army in their hands.
    Fourthly, come at a certain time to the law courts and take your
    share in those senseless cruelties which we perpetrate on sinners,
    and those whom we have corrupted, in the shape of penal servitude,
    exile, solitary confinement, and death. And fifthly and lastly,
    more than all this, in spite of the fact that you maybe on the
    friendliest terms with people of other nations, be ready, directly
    we order you to do so, to regard those whom we indicate to you as
    your enemies; and be ready to assist, either in person or by
    proxy, in devastation, plunder, and murder of their men, women,
    children, and aged alike--possibly your own kinsmen or relations--
    if that is necessary to us.

    One would expect that every man of the present day who has a grain
    of sense left, might reply to such requirements, "But why should I
    do all this?" One would think every right-minded man must say in
    amazement: "Why should I promise to yield obedience to everything
    that has been decreed first by Salisbury, then by Gladstone; one
    day by Boulanger, and another by Parliament; one day by Peter
    III., the next by Catherine, and the day after by Pougachef; one
    day by a mad king of Bavaria, another by William? Why should I
    promise to obey them, knowing them to be wicked or foolish people,
    or else not knowing them at all? Why am I to hand over the fruits
    of my labors to them in the shape of taxes, knowing that the money
    will be spent on the support of officials, prisons, churches,
    armies, on things that are harmful, and on my own enslavement?
    Why should I punish myself? Why should I go wasting my time and
    hoodwinking myself, giving to miscreant evildoers a semblance of
    legality, by taking part in elections, and pretending that I am
    taking part in the government, when I know very well that the real
    control of the government is in the hands of those who have got
    hold of the army? Why should I go to the law courts to take part
    in the trial and punishment of men because they have sinned,
    knowing, if I am a Christian, that the law of vengeance is replaced
    by the law of love, and, if I am an educated man, that punishments
    do not reform, but only deprave those on whom they are inflicted?
    And why, most of all, am I to consider as enemies the people of a
    neighboring nation, with whom I have hitherto lived and with whom
    I wish to live in love and harmony, and to kill and rob them, or
    to bring them to misery, simply in order that the keys of the
    temple at Jerusalem may be in the hands of one archbishop and not
    another, that one German and not another may be prince in
    Bulgaria, or that the English rather than the American merchants
    may capture seals?

    And why, most of all, should I take part in person or hire others
    to murder my own brothers and kinsmen? Why should I flog myself?
    It is altogether unnecessary for me; it is hurtful to me, and from
    every point of view it is immoral, base, and vile. So why should
    I do this? If you tell me that if I do it not I shall receive
    some injury from someone, then, in the first place, I cannot
    anticipate from anyone an injury so great as the injury you bring
    on me if I obey you; and secondly, it is perfectly clear to me
    that if we our own selves do not flog ourselves, no one will flog
    us.

    As for the government--that means the tzars, ministers, and
    officials with pens in their hands, who cannot force us into doing
    anything, as that officer of police compelled the peasants; the
    men who will drag us to the law court, to prison, and to
    execution, are not tzars or officials with pens in their hands,
    but the very people who are in the same position as we are. And
    it is just as unprofitable and harmful and unpleasant to them to
    be flogged as to me, and therefore there is every likelihood that
    if I open their eyes they not only would not treat me with
    violence, but would do just as I am doing.

    Thirdly, even if it should come to pass that I had to suffer for
    it, even then it would be better for me to be exiled or sent to
    prison for standing up for common sense and right--which, if not
    to-day, at least within a very short time, must be triumphant--
    than to suffer for folly and wrong which must come to an end
    directly. And therefore, even in that case, it is better to run
    the risk of their banishing me, shutting me up in prison, or
    executing me, than of my living all my life in bondage, through my
    own fault, to wicked men. Better is this than the possibility of
    being destroyed by victorious enemies, and being stupidly tortured
    and killed by them, in fighting for a cannon, or a piece of land
    of no use to anyone, or for a senseless rag called a banner.

    I don't want to flog myself and I won't do it. I have no reason
    to do it. Do it yourselves, if you want it done; but I won't do
    it.

    One would have thought that not religious or moral feeling alone,
    but the simplest common sense and foresight should impel every man
    of the present day to answer and to act in that way. But not so.
    Men of the state conception of life are of the opinion that to act
    in that way is not necessary, and is even prejudicial to the
    attainment of their object, the emancipation of men from slavery.
    They hold that we must continue, like the police officer's
    peasants, to flog one another, consoling ourselves with the
    reflection that we are talking away in the assemblies and
    meetings, founding trades unions, marching through the streets on
    the 1st of May, getting up conspiracies, and stealthily teasing
    the government that is flogging us, and that through all this it
    will be brought to pass that, by enslaving ourselves in closer and
    closer bondage, we shall very soon be free.

    Nothing hinders the emancipation of men from slavery so much as
    this amazing error. Instead of every man directing his energies
    to freeing himself, to transforming his conception of life, people
    seek for an external united method of gaining freedom, and
    continue to rivet their chains faster and faster.

    It is much as if men were to maintain that to make up a fire there
    was no need to kindle any of the coals, but that all that was
    necessary was to arrange the coals in a certain order. Yet the
    fact that the freedom of all men will be brought about only
    through the freedom of individual persons, becomes more and more
    clear as time goes on. The freedom of individual men, in the name
    of the Christian conception of life, from state domination, which
    was formerly an exceptional and unnoticed phenomenon, has of late
    acquired threatening significance for state authorities.

    If in a former age, in the Roman times, it happened that a
    Christian confessed his religion and refused to take part in
    sacrifices, and to worship the emperors or the gods; or in the
    Middle Ages a Christian refused to worship images, or to
    acknowledge the authority of the Pope--these cases were in the
    first place a matter of chance. A man might be placed under the
    necessity of confessing his faith, or he might live all his life
    without being placed under this necessity. But now all men,
    without exception, are subjected to this trial of their faith.
    Every man of the present day is under the necessity of taking part
    in the cruelties of pagan life, or of refusing all participation
    in them. And secondly, in those days cases of refusal to worship
    the gods or the images or the Pope were not incidents that had any
    material bearing on the state. Whether men worshiped or did not
    worship the gods or the images or the Pope, the state remained
    just as powerful. But now cases of refusing to comply with the
    unchristian demands of the government are striking at the very
    root of state authority, because the whole authority of the state
    is based on the compliance with these unchristian demands.

    The sovereign powers of the world have in the course of time been
    brought into a position in which, for their own preservation, they
    must require from all men actions which cannot be performed by men
    who profess true Christianity.

    And therefore in our days every profession of true Christianity,
    by any individual man, strikes at the most essential power of the
    state, and inevitably leads the way for the emancipation of all.

    What importance, one might think, can one attach to such an
    incident as some dozens of crazy fellows, as people will call
    them, refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the government,
    refusing to pay taxes, to take part in law proceedings or in
    military service?

    These people are punished and exiled to a distance, and life goes
    on in its old way. One might think there was no importance in
    such incidents; but yet, it is just those incidents, more than
    anything else, that will undermine the power of the state and
    prepare the way for the freedom of men. These are the individual
    bees, who are beginning to separate from the swarm, and are flying
    near it, waiting till the whole swarm can no longer be prevented
    from starting off after them. And the governments know this, and
    fear such incidents more than all the socialists, communists, and
    anarchists, and their plots and dynamite bombs.

    A new reign is beginning. According to the universal rule and
    established order it is required that all the subjects should take
    the oath of allegiance to the new government. There is a general
    decree to that effect, and all are summoned to the council-houses
    to take the oath. All at once one man in Perm, another in Tula, a
    third in Moscow, and a fourth in Kalouga declare that they will
    not take the oath, and though there is no communication between
    them, they all explain their refusal on the same grounds--namely,
    that swearing is forbidden by the law of Christ, and that even if
    swearing had not been forbidden, they could not, in the spirit of
    the law of Christ, promise to perform the evil actions required of
    them in the oath, such as informing against all such as may act
    against the interests of the government, or defending their
    government with firearms or attacking its enemies. They are
    brought before rural police officers, district police captains,
    priests, and governors. They are admonished, questioned,
    threatened, and punished; but they adhere to their resolution, and
    do not take the oath. And among the millions of those who did
    take the oath, those dozens go on living who did not take the
    oath. And they are questioned:

    "What, didn't you take the oath?"

    "No, I didn't take the oath."

    "And what happened--nothing?"

    "Nothing."

    The subjects of a state are all bound to pay taxes. And everyone
    pays taxes, till suddenly one man in Kharkov, another in Tver, and
    a third in Samara refuse to pay taxes--all, as though in
    collusion, saying the same thing. One says he will only pay when
    they tell him what object the money taken from him will be spent
    on. "If it is for good deeds," he says, "he will give it of his
    own accord, and more even than is required of him. If for evil
    deeds, then he will give nothing voluntarily, because by the law
    of Christ, whose follower he is, he cannot take part in evil
    deeds." The others, too, say the same in other words, and will
    not voluntarily pay the taxes.

    Those who have anything to be taken have their property taken from
    them by force; as for those who have nothing, they are left alone.

    "What, didn't you pay the tax?"

    "No, I didn't pay it."

    "And what happened-nothing?"

    "Nothing."

    There is the institution of passports. Everyone moving from his
    place of residence is bound to carry one, and to pay a duty on it.
    Suddenly people are to be found in various places declaring that
    to carry a passport is not necessary, that one ought not to
    recognize one's dependence on a state which exists by means of
    force; and these people do not carry passports, or pay the duty on
    them. And again, it's impossible to force those people by any
    means to do what is required. They send them to jail, and let
    them out again, and these people live without passports.

    All peasants are bound to fill certain police offices--that of
    village constable, and of watchman, and so on. Suddenly in
    Kharkov a peasant refuses to perform this duty, justifying his
    refusal on the ground that by the law of Christ, of which he is a
    follower, he cannot put any man in fetters, lock him up, or drag
    him from place to place. The same declaration is made by a
    peasant in Tver, another in Tambov. These peasants are abused,
    beaten, shut up in prison, but they stick to their resolution and
    don't fill these offices against their convictions. And at last
    they cease to appoint them as constables. And again nothing
    happens.

    All citizens are obliged to take a share in law proceedings in the
    character of jurymen. Suddenly the most different people--
    mechanics, professors, tradesmen, peasants, servants, as though by
    agreement refuse to fill this office, and not on the grounds
    allowed as sufficient by law, but because any process at law is,
    according to their views, unchristian. They fine these people,
    trying not to let them have an opportunity of explaining their
    motives in public, and replace them by others. And again nothing
    can be done.

    All young men of twenty-one years of age are obliged to draw lots
    for service in the army. All at once one young man in Moscow,
    another in Tver, a third in Kharkov, and a fourth in Kiev present
    themselves before the authorities, and, as though by previous
    agreement, declare that they will not take the oath, they will not
    serve because they are Christians. I will give the details of one
    of the first cases, since they have become more frequent, which I
    happen to know about [footnote: All the details of this case, as
    well as those preceding it, are authentic]. The same treatment
    has been repeated in every other case. A young man of fair
    education refuses in the Moscow Townhall to take the oath. No
    attention is paid to what he says, and it is requested that he
    should pronounce the words of the oath like the rest. He
    declines, quoting a particular passage of the Gospel in which
    swearing is forbidden. No attention is paid to his arguments, and
    he is again requested to comply with the order, but he does not
    comply with it. Then it is supposed that he is a sectary and
    therefore does not understand Christianity in the right sense,
    that is to say, not in the sense in which the priests in the pay
    of the government understand it. And the young man is conducted
    under escort to the priests, that they may bring him to reason.
    The priests begin to reason with him, but their efforts in
    Christ's name to persuade him to renounce Christ obviously have no
    influence on him; he is pronounced incorrigible and sent back
    again to the army. He persists in not taking the oath and openly
    refuses to perform any military duties. It is a case that has not
    been provided for by the laws. To overlook such a refusal to
    comply with the demands of the authorities is out of the question,
    but to put such a case on a par with simple breach of discipline
    is also out of the question.

    After deliberation among themselves, the military authorities
    decide to get rid of the troublesome young man, to consider him as
    a revolutionist, and they dispatch him under escort to the
    committee of the secret police. The police authorities and
    gendarmes cross-question him, but nothing that he says can be
    brought under the head of any of the misdemeanors which come under
    their jurisdiction. And there is no possibility of accusing him
    either of revolutionary acts or revolutionary plotting, since he
    declares that he does not wish to attack anything, but, on the
    contrary, is opposed to any use of force, and, far from plotting
    in secret, he seeks every opportunity of saying and doing all that
    he says and does in the most open manner. And the gendarmes,
    though they are bound by no hard-and-fast rules, still find no
    ground for a criminal charge in the young man, and, like the
    clergy, they send him back to the army. Again the authorities
    deliberate together, and decide to accept him though he has not
    taken the oath, and to enrol him among the soldiers. They put him
    into the uniform, enrol him, and send him under guard to the place
    where the army is quartered. There the chief officer of the
    division which he enters again expects the young man to perform
    his military duties, and again he refuses to obey, and in the
    presence of other soldiers explains the reason of his refusal,
    saying that he as a Christian cannot voluntarily prepare himself
    to commit murder, which is forbidden by the law of Moses.

    This incident occurs in a provincial town. The case awakens the
    interest, and even the sympathy, not only of outsiders, but even
    of the officers. And the chief officers consequently do not
    decide to punish this refusal of obedience with disciplinary
    measures. To save appearances, though, they shut the young man up
    in prison, and write to the highest military authorities to
    inquire what they are to do. To refuse to serve in the army, in
    which the Tzar himself serves, and which enjoys the blessing of
    the Church, seems insanity from the official point of view.
    Consequently they write from Petersburg that, since the young man
    must be out of his mind, they must not use any severe treatment
    with him, but must send him to a lunatic asylum, that his mental
    condition may be inquired into and be scientifically treated.
    They send him to the asylum in the hope that he will remain there,
    like another young man, who refused ten years ago at Tver to serve
    in the army, and who was tortured in the asylum till he submitted.
    But even this step does not rid the military authorities of the
    inconvenient man. The doctors examine him, interest themselves
    warmly in his case, and naturally finding in him no symptoms of
    mental disease, send him back to the army. There they receive
    him, and making believe to have forgotten his refusal, and his
    motives for it, they again request him to go to drill, and again
    in the presence of the other soldiers he refuses and explains the
    reason of his refusal. The affair continues to attract more and
    more attention, both among the soldiers and the inhabitants of the
    town. Again they write to Petersburg, and thence comes the decree
    to transfer the young man to some division of the army stationed
    on the frontier, in some place where the army is under martial
    law, where he can be shot for refusing to obey, and where the
    matter can proceed without attracting observation, seeing that
    there are few Russians and Christians in such a distant part, but
    the majority are foreigners and Mohammedans. This is accordingly
    done. They transfer him to a division stationed on the Zacaspian
    border, and in company with convicts send him to a chief officer
    who is notorious for his harshness and severity.

    All this time, through all these changes from place to place, the
    young man is roughly treated, kept in cold, hunger, and filth, and
    life is made burdensome to him generally. But all these
    sufferings do not compel him to change his resolution. On the
    Zacaspian border, where he is again requested to go on guard fully
    armed, he again declines to obey. He does not refuse to go and
    stand near the haystacks where they place him, but refuses to take
    his arms, declaring that he will not use violence in any case
    against anyone. All this takes place in the presence of the other
    soldiers. To let such a refusal pass unpunished is impossible,
    and the young man is put on his trial for breach of discipline.
    The trial takes place, and he is sentenced to confinement in the
    military prison for two years. He is again transferred, in
    company with convicts, by étape, to Caucasus, and there he is shut
    up in prison and falls under the irresponsible power of the
    jailer. There he is persecuted for a year and a half, but he does
    not for all that alter his decision not to bear arms, and he
    explains why he will not do this to everyone with whom he is
    brought in contact. At the end of the second year they set him
    free, before the end of his term of imprisonment, reckoning it
    contrary to law to keep him in prison after his time of military
    service was over, and only too glad to get rid of him as soon as
    possible.

    Other men in various parts of Russia behave, as though by
    agreement, precisely in the same way as this young man, and in all
    these cases the government has adopted the same timorous,
    undecided, and secretive course of action. Some of these men are
    sent to the lunatic asylum, some are enrolled as clerks and
    transferred to Siberia, some are sent to work in the forests, some
    are sent to prison, some are fined. And at this very time some
    men of this kind are in prison, not charged with their real
    offense--that is, denying the lawfulness of the action of the
    government, but for non-fulfillment of special obligations imposed
    by government. Thus an officer of reserve, who did not report his
    change of residence, and justified this on the ground that he
    would not serve in the army any longer, was fined thirty rubles
    for non-compliance with the orders of the superior authority.
    This fine he also declined voluntarily to pay. In the same way
    some peasants and soldiers who have refused to be drilled and to
    bear arms have been placed under arrest on a charge of breach of
    discipline and insolence.

    And cases of refusing to comply with the demands of government
    when they are opposed to Christianity, and especially cases of
    refusing to serve in the army, are occurring of late not in Russia
    only, but everywhere. Thus I happen to know that in Servia men of
    the so-called sect of Nazarenes steadily refuse to serve in the
    army, and the Austrian Government has been carrying on a fruitless
    contest with them for years, punishing them with imprisonment. In
    the year 1885 there were 130 such cases. I know that in
    Switzerland in the year 1890 there were men in prison in the
    castle of Chillon for declining to serve in the army, whose
    resolution was not shaken by their punishment. There have been
    such cases in Sweden, and the men who refused obedience were sent
    to prison in exactly the same way, and the government studiously
    concealed these cases from the people. There have been similar
    cases also in Prussia. I know of the case of a sub-lieutenant of
    the Guards, who in 1891 declared to the authorities in Berlin that
    he would not, as a Christian, continue to serve, and in spite of
    all admonitions, threats, and punishments he stuck to his
    resolution. In the south of France a society has arisen of late
    bearing the name of the Hinschists (these facts are taken from the
    PEACE HERALD, July, 1891), the members of which refuse to enter
    military service on the grounds of their Christian principles. At
    first they were enrolled in the ambulance corps, but now, as their
    numbers increase, they are subjected to punishment for non-
    compliance, but they still refuse to bear arms just the same.

    The socialists, the communists, the anarchists, with their bombs
    and riots and revolutions, are not nearly so much dreaded by
    governments as these disconnected individuals coming from
    different parts, and all justifying their non-compliance on the
    grounds of the same religion, which is known to all the world.
    Every government knows by what means and in what manner to defend
    itself from revolutionists, and has resources for doing so, and
    therefore does not dread these external foes. But what are
    governments to do against men who show the uselessness,
    superfluousness, and perniciousness of all governments, and who
    do not contend against them, but simply do not need them and do
    without them, and therefore are unwilling to take any part in
    them? The revolutionists say: The form of government is bad in
    this respect and that respect; we must overturn it and substitute
    this or that form of government. The Christian says: I know
    nothing about the form of government, I don't know whether it is
    good or bad, and I don't want to overturn it precisely because I
    don't know whether it is good or bad, but for the very same reason
    I don't want to support it either. And I not only don't want to,
    but I can't, because what it demands of me is against my
    conscience.

    All state obligations are against the conscience of a Christian--
    the oath of allegiance, taxes, law proceedings,
    and military service. And the whole power of the government rests
    on these very obligations.

    Revolutionary enemies attack the government from without.
    Christianity does not attack it at all, but, from within, it
    destroys all the foundations on which government rests.

    Among the Russian people, especially since the age of Peter I.,
    the protest of Christianity against the government has never
    ceased, and the social organization has been such that men
    emigrate in communes to Turkey, to China, and to uninhabited
    lands, and not only feel no need of state aid, but always regard
    the state as a useless burden, only to be endured as a misfortune,
    whether it happens to be Turkish, Russian, or Chinese. And so,
    too, among the Russian people more and more frequent examples have
    of late appeared of conscious Christian freedom from subjection to
    the state. And these examples are the more alarming for the
    government from the fact that these non-compliant persons often
    belong not to the so-called lower uneducated classes, but are men
    of fair or good education; and also from the fact that they do not
    in these days justify their position by any mystic and exceptional
    views, as in former times, do not associate themselves with any
    superstitious or fanatic rites, like the sects who practice self-
    immolation by fire, or the wandering pilgrims, but put their
    refusal on the very simplest and clearest grounds, comprehensible
    to all, and recognized as true by all.

    Thus they refuse the voluntary payment of taxes, because taxes are
    spent on deeds of violence--on the pay of men of violence--
    soldiers, on the construction of prisons, fortresses, and cannons.
    They as Christians regard it as sinful and immoral to have any
    hand in such deeds.

    Those who refuse to take the oath of allegiance refuse because to
    promise obedience to authorities, that is, to men who are given to
    deeds of violence, is contrary to the sense of Christ's teaching.
    They refuse to take the oath in the law courts, because oaths are
    directly forbidden by the Gospel. They refuse to perform police
    duties, because in the performance of these duties they must use
    force against their brothers and ill treat them, and a Christian
    cannot do that. They refuse to take part in trials at law,
    because they consider every appeal to law is fulfilling the law of
    vengeance, which is inconsistent with the Christian law of
    forgiveness and love. They refuse to take any part in military
    preparations and in the army, because they cannot be executioners,
    and they are unwilling to prepare themselves to be so.

    The motives in all these cases are so excellent that, however
    despotic governments may be, they could hardly punish them openly.
    To punish men for refusing to act against their conscience the
    government must renounce all claim to good sense and benevolence.
    And they assure people that they only rule in the name of good
    sense and benevolence.

    What are governments to do against such people?

    Governments can of course flog to death or execute or keep in
    perpetual imprisonment all enemies who want to overturn them by
    violence, they can lavish gold on that section of the people who
    are ready to destroy their enemies. But what can they do against
    men who, without wishing to overturn or destroy anything, desire
    simply for their part to do nothing against the law of Christ, and
    who, therefore, refuse to perform the commonest state
    requirements, which are, therefore, the most indispensable to the
    maintenance of the state?

    If they had been revolutionists, advocating and practicing
    violence and murder, their suppression would have been an easy
    matter; some of them could have been bought over, some could have
    been duped, some could have been overawed, and these who could not
    be bought over, duped, or overawed would have been treated as
    criminals, enemies of society, would have been executed or
    imprisoned, and the crowd would have approved of the action of the
    government. If they had been fanatics, professing some peculiar
    belief, it might have been possible, in disproving the
    superstitious errors mixed in with their religion, to attack also
    the truth they advocate. But what is to be done with men who
    profess no revolutionary ideas nor any peculiar religious dogmas,
    but merely because they are unwilling to do evil to any man,
    refuse to take the oath, to pay taxes, to take part in law
    proceedings, to serve in the army, to fulfill, in fact, any of the
    obligations upon which the whole fabric of a state rests? What is
    to done with such people? To buy them over with bribes is
    impossible; the very risks to which they voluntarily expose
    themselves show that they are incorruptible. To dupe them into
    believing that this is their duty to God is also impossible, since
    their refusal is based on the clear, unmistakable law of God,
    recognized even by those who are trying to compel men to act
    against it. To terrify them by threats is still less possible,
    because the deprivations and sufferings to which they are
    subjected only strengthen their desire to follow the faith by
    which they are commanded: to obey God rather than men, and not to
    fear those who can destroy the body, but to fear him who can
    destroy body and soul. To kill them or keep them in perpetual
    imprisonment is also impossible. These men have friends, and a
    past; their way of thinking and acting is well known; they are
    known by everyone for good, gentle, peaceable people, and they
    cannot be regarded as criminals who must be removed for the safety
    of society. And to put men to death who are regarded as good men
    is to provoke others to champion them and justify their refusal.
    And it is only necessary to explain the reasons of their refusal
    to make clear to everyone that these reasons have the same force
    for all other men, and that they all ought to have done the same
    long ago. These cases put the ruling powers into a desperate
    position. They see that the prophecy of Christianity is coming to
    pass, that it is loosening the fetters of those in chains, and
    setting free them that are in bondage, and that this must
    inevitably be the end of all oppressors. The ruling authorities
    see this, they know that their hours are numbered, and they can do
    nothing. All that they can do to save themselves is only
    deferring the hour of their downfall. And this they do, but their
    position is none the less desperate.

    It is like the position of a conqueror who is trying to save a
    town which has been been set on fire by its own inhabitants.
    Directly he puts out the conflagration in one place, it is alight
    in two other places; directly he gives in to the fire and cuts off
    what is on fire from a large building, the building itself is
    alight at both ends. These separate fires may be few, but they
    are burning with a flame which, however small a spark it starts
    from, never ceases till it has set the whole ablaze.

    Thus it is that the ruling authorities are in such a defenseless
    position before men who advocate Christianity, that but little is
    necessary to overthrow this sovereign power which seems so
    powerful, and has held such an exalted position for so many
    centuries. And yet social reformers are busy promulgating the
    idea that it is not necessary and is even pernicious and immoral
    for every man separately to work out his own freedom. As though,
    while one set of men have been at work a long while turning a
    river into a new channel, and had dug out a complete water-course
    and had only to open the floodgates for the water to rush in and
    do the rest, another set of men should come along and begin to
    advise them that it would be much better, instead of letting the
    water out, to construct a machine which would ladle the water up
    from one side and pour it over the other side.

    But the thing has gone too far. Already ruling governments feel
    their weak and defenseless position, and men of Christian
    principles are awakening from their apathy, and already begin to
    feel their power.

    "I am come to send a fire on the earth," said Christ, "and what
    will I, if it be already kindled?"

    And this fire is beginning to burn.
    Next Chapter
    Chapter 10
    Previous Chapter
    If you're writing a Leo Tolstoy essay and need some advice, post your Leo Tolstoy essay question on our Facebook page where fellow bookworms are always glad to help!

    Top 5 Authors

    Top 5 Books

    Book Status
    Finished
    Want to read
    Abandoned

    Are you sure you want to leave this group?