My religion

Front matter

A^

V

.*• o*

Chapter I

X SHALL explain elsewhere, in two voluminous -L treatises, why I did not understand the doctrine of Jesus, and how at length it became clear to me. These works are a criticism of dogmatic theology and a new translation of the four Gospels, followed by a concordance. In these writings I seek methodically to disentangle everything that tends to conceal the truth from men ; I translate the four Gospels anew, verse by verse, and I bring them together in a new concordance. The work has lasted for six years. Each year, each month, I discover new meanings which corroborate the fundamental idea ; I correct the errors which have crept in, and 1 put the last touches to what I have already written. My life, whose final term is not far distant, will doubtless end before I have finished my work ; but I am convinced that the work will be of great service ; so I shall do all that I can to bring it to completion.' I do not now concern myself with this outward work upon theology and the Gospels, but with an inner work of an entirely different nature. I have to do now with nothing systematic or methodical, only with that sudden light which showed me the Gospel doctrine in all its simple beaut}^.

The process was something similar to that experienced by one who, following an erroneous model, seeks to restore a statue from broken bits of marble, and who with one of the most refractory fragments in hand perceives the hopelessness of his ideal ; then he begins anew, and instead of the former incongruities he finds, as he observes the outlines of each fragment, that all fit well together and form one consistent whole. That is exactly what happened to me, and is what I wish to relate. I wish to tell how I found the key to the true meaning of the doctrine of Jesus, aud how by this meaning doubt was absolutely driven from my soul. The discovery came about in this way.

From my childhood, from the time I first began to read the New Testament, I was touched most of all by that portion of the doctrine of Jesus which inculcates love, humility, self-denial, and the dut}^ of returning good for evil. This, to me, has always been the substance of Christianity ; my heart recognized its truth in spite of scepticism and despau', and for this reason I submitted to a religion professed by a multitude of toilers, who find in it the solution of life, — the religion taught by the Orthodox Church. But in making my submission to the Church, I soon saw that I should not find in its creed the confirmation of the essence of Christianit}^ ; what was to me essential seemed to be in the dogma of the Chm'ch merely an accessory. What was to me the most important of the teachings of Jesus was not so regarded by the Chm-ch. No doubt (I thought) the Church sees in Christianity, aside from its inner meaning of love, humiUt}', and self-denial, an outer, dogmatic meaning, which, however strange and even repulsive to me, is not in itself evil or pernicious. But the further I went on in submission to the doctrine of the Church, the more clearly I saw in this particular point something of greater importance than I had at first realized. What I found most repulsive in the doctrine of the Church was the strangeness of its dogmas and the approval, nay, the support, which it gave to persecutions, to the death penalty, to wars stirred up by the intolerance common to all sects ; but my faith was chiefly shattered by the indifference of the Church to what seemed to me essential in the teachings of Jesus, and its partiality for what seemed to me of secondary importance.

I felt that something was wrong ; but I could not see where the fault lay, because the doctrine of the Church did not deny what seemed to me essential in the doctrine of Jesus ; this essential was fully recognized, yet in such a way as not to give it the first place. I could not accuse the Church of denying the essence of the doctrine of Jesus, but it was recognized in a way which did not satisfy me. The Church did not give me what I expected from her. I had passed from nihilism to the Church simply because I felt it to be impossible to live without religion, that is, without a knowledge of good and evil aside from animal mstincts. I hoped to find this knowledge in Christiauit3' ; but Christianity I tlien saw only as a vague spiritual tendency, from which it was impossible to deduce any clear and peremptory rules for the guidance of life. These I sought and these I demanded of the Church. The Church offered me rules wherein I not only sought in vain the practice of the Christian life so dear to me, but which drove me still further away. I could not become a disciple of the Church. An existence based upon Christian truth was to me indispensable, and the Church only offered me rules completely at variance with the truth that I loved. The rules of the Church touching articles of faith, dogmas, the observance of the sacrament, fasts, pra3'ers, were not necessary to me, and did not seem to be based on Christian ti'uth. Moreover, the rules of the Church weakened and sometimes destroyed the Christian disposition of soul which alone gave meaning to my life.

I was troubled most that the miseries of humanity, the habit of judging one another, of passing judgment upon nations and religions, and the wars and massacres which resulted in consequence, all went on with the approbation of the Church. The doctrine of Jesus, — judge not, be humble, forgive offences, deny self, love, — this doctrine was extolled b}^ the Church in words, but at the same time the Church approved what was incompatible with the doctrine. Was it possible that the doctrine of Jesus admitted of such contradiction? I could not believe so.

Another astonishing thing about the Church was that the passages upon which it based affirmation of its dogmas were those which were most obscure. On the other hand, the passages from which came the moral laws were the most clear and precise. And yet the dogmas and the duties depending upon them were definitely formulated by the Church, while the recommendation to obey the moral law was put in the most vague and mystical terms. Was this the intention of Jesus? The Gospels alone could dissipate my doubts. I read them once and again.

Of all the other portions of the Gospels, the Sermon on the Mount always had for me an exceptional importance. I now read it more frequenth^ than ever. Nowhere does Jesus speak with greater solemnity, nowhere does he propound moral rules more definitely and practically, nor do these rules in any other form awaken more readily an echo in the human heart ; nowhere else does he address himself to a larger multitude of the common people. If there are any clear and precise Christian principles, one ouo;ht to find them here. I therefore souo;ht the solution of my doubts in Matthew v., vi., and vii., comprising the Sermon on the Mount. These chapters I read very often, each time with the same emotional ardor, as I came to the verses which exhort the hearer to turn the other cheek, to give up his cloak, to be at peace with all the world, to love his enemies, — but each time with the same disappointment. The divine words were not clear. They exhorted to a renunciation so absolute as to entirely

6 3fY RELIGIOX.

stifle life as I understood it ; to renounce everything, therefore, could not, it seemed to me, be essential to salvation. And the moment this ceased to be an absolute condition, clearness and precision were at an end.

I read not only the Sermon on the Mount ; I read all the Gospels and all the theological commentaries on the Gospels. I was not satisfied with the declarations of the theologians that tlie Sermon on the Mount was only an indication of the degree of perfection to which man should aspire ; that man, weighed down by sin, could not reach such an ideal ; and that the salvation of humanity was in faith and prayer and grace. I could not admit the truth of these propositions. It seemed to me a strange thing that Jesus should propound rules so clear and admirable, addressed to the understanding of every one, and still realize man's inability to carry his doctrine into practice.

Then as I read these maxims I was permeated with the joyous assurance that I might that very hour, that very moment, begin to practise them. The burning desire I felt led me to the attempt, but the doctrine of the Church rang in my ears, — Man is weak, and to this lie cannot attain; — my strength soon failed. On every side I heard, "You must believe and pray " ; but my wavering faith impeded praj^er. Again I heard, "You must pra}^, and God will give you faith ; this faith will inspire prayer, which in turn will invoke faith that wiU inspire more prayer, and so on, indefinitely." Reason and experience alike conyinced me that such methods were useless. It seemed to me that the only true way was for me to try to follow the doctrine of Jesus.

And so, after all this fruitless search and careful meditation OA'er all that had been written for and against the diviuit}^ of the doctrine of Jesus, after all this doubt and suffering, I came back face to face with the mysterious Gospel message. I could not find the meanings that others found, neither could I discover what I sought. It was only after I had rejected the interpretations of the wise critics and theologians, according to the words of Jesus, '-''Except ye . . . become cls little children, ye sJiall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'' (Matt, xviii. 3) , — it was only then that I suddenly understood what had been so meaningless before. I understood, not through exegetical fantasies or profound and ingenious textual combinations ; I understood everything, because I put all commentaries out of my mind. This was the passage that gave me the key to the whole : —

" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil.'* (Matt. v. 38, 39.)

One day the exact and simple meaning of these words came to me ; I understood that Jesus meant neither more nor less than what he said. What I saw was nothing new ; only the veil that had hidden the truth from me fell away, and the truth was revealed in all its o-randeur.

8 J/r EZLIGION.

" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, TJiat ye resist not evil."

These words suddenly appeared to me as if I had never read them before. Always before, when I had read this passage, I had, singularly enough, allowed certain words to escape me, ^'But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil.'' To me it had always been as if the words just quoted had never existed, or had never possessed a definite meaning. Later on, as I talked with many Christians familiar with the Gospel, I noticed frequently the same blindness with regard to these words. iN'o one remembered them, and often in speaking of this passage, Chi'istians took up the Gospel to see for themselves if the words were really there. Through a similar neglect of these words I had failed to understand the words that follow : —

'' Bv^ ichosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheeJc, tiwn to him the other also," etc. (Matt. v. 39, et seq.)

Always these words had seemed to me to demand long-sutFering and privation contrary to human nature. They touched me ; I felt that it would be noble to follow them, but I also felt that I had not the strength to put them into practice. I said to myself, "If I turn the other cheek, I shall get another blow ; if I give, all that I have will be taken away. Life would be an impossibility. Since life is given to me, why should I deprive myself of it?

Jesus cannot demand as much as that." Thus I reasoned, persuaded that Jesus, in exalting longsuffering and privation, made use of exaggerated terms lacking in clearness and precision ; but when I understood the words " Resist not evil,'' I saw that Jesus did not exaggerate, that he did not demand suffering for suffering, but that he had formulated with great clearness and precision exactly what he wished to say.

'"'' Hesist not eiv7," knowing that you will meet with those who, when the}^ have struck you on one cheek and met with no resistance, will strike you on the other ; who, having taken away your coat, will take away your cloak also ; who, having profited b}' your labor, will force you to labor still more without reward. And yet, though all this should happen to you, " Resist not evil'' ; do good to them that injure you. When I understood these words as they are written, all that had been obscure became clear to me, and what had seemed exaggerated I saw to be perfectl}^ reasonable. For the first time I grasped the pivotal idea in the words ''Resist not evil" ; I saw that what followed was only a development of this command ; I saw that Jesus did not exhort us to turn the other cheek that we might endure suffering, but that his exhortation was, ""Resist not evil," and that he afterward declared suffering to be the possible consequence of the practice of this maxim.

A father, when his son is about to set out on a

JO MY RELIGION.

far journey, commands him not to tarry by the way : he does not tell him to pass his nights without shJlter, to deprive himself of food, to expose hmiself to rain and cold. He says, " Go thy way, and tarry not, though thou should'st be wet or cold. So Jesus does not say, ''Turn the other cheek and suffer." He says, " Resist not evil " ; no matter what happens, '' Besist not:'

These words, ''Resist not e^'z7," when I understood thek significance, were to me the key that opened all the rest. Then I was astonished that I had failed to comprehend words so clear and

precise.

" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye Jor an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, Tliat ye resist not evil."

Whatever injury the evil-disposed may inflict upon yon, bear it, give all that you have, but resist not. Could anything be more clear, more definite, more inteUicrible than that? I had only to grasp the simple and exact meaning of these words, just as they were spoken, when the whole doctrine of Jesus, not only as set forth in the Sei-mon on the Mount, but in the entire Gospels, became clear to me ; what had seemed contradictory was now in harmony ; above all, what had seemed superfluous was now indispensable. Each portion fell into harmonious unison and filled its proper part, like the fragments of a broken statue when adjusted in harmony with the sculptor's design. In the Sermon on the Mount, fis well as throughout the whole Gospel, I found everywhere affirmation of the same doctrine, '•'■ Resist not evil."

In the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in many other places, Jesus represents his disciples, those who observe the rule of non-resistance to evil, as turning the other cheek, giving up their cloaks, persecuted, used despitef uUy, and in want. Ever3'where Jesus says that he who taketh not up his cross, he who does not renounce worldly advantage, he who is not ready to bear all the consequences of the commandment, " Resist not evil.)'' cannot become his disciple.

To his disciples Jesus says. Choose to be poor ; bear all things without resistance to evil, even though you thereby bring upon yourself persecution, suffering, and death.

Prepared to suffer death rather than resist evil, he reproved the resentment of Peter, and died exhorting his followers not to resist and to remain always faithful to his doctrine. The early disciples observed this rule, and passed their lives in misery and persecution, without rendering evil for evil.

It seems, then, that Jesus meant precisely what he said. We may declare the practice of such a rule to be very difficult ; we may deny that he who follows it will find happiness ; we may say with the unbelievers that Jesus was a dreamer, an idealist who propounded impracticable maxims ; but it is impossible not to admit that he expressed in a manner at ouce clear and precise what he wished to say ; that is, that according to his doctrine a man must not resist evil, and, consequently, that whoever adopts his doctrine will not resist evil. And yet neither believers nor unbelievers will admit this simple and clear interpretation of Jesus' words.

Chapter II

WHEN I apprehended clearly the words ' ' Resist not evil," my conception of the doctrine of Jesus was entirely changed ; and I was astounded, not that I had failed to understand it before, but that I had misunderstood it so strangely. I knew, as we all know, that the true significance of the doctrine of Jesus was comprised in the injunction to love one's neighbor. AVhen we say, " Timi the other cheek,'" '•^ Love your enemies,''' we express the very essence of Christianity. I knew all that from my childhood ; but why had I failed to understand aright these simple words? Why had I alwa3^s sought for some ulterior meaning? '' Resist not evil" mefxns, never resist, never oppose violence; or, in other words, never do an3'thing contrary to the law of love. If anyone takes advantage of this disposition and affronts you, bear the affront, and do not, above all, have recourse to violence. This Jesus said in words so clear and simple that it would be impossible to express the idea more clearty. How was it then, that believing or trying to believe these to be the words of God, I still maintained the impossibility of obeying them ? If my master says to me, " Go ; cut some wood," and I reply, "It is beyond my strength," I say one of two things : either I do not believe what my master says, or I do

14 MY BELIGION.

not wish to obey his commands. Should I then say of God's commandment that I could not obey it without the aid of a supernatural power ? Should I say this without having made the slightest effort of my own to obey ? We are told that God descended to earth to save mankind ; that salvation was secured by the second person of the Trinity, who suffered for men, thereby redeeming them from sin, and gave them the Church as the shrine for the transmission of grace to all believers ; but aside from this, the Saviour gave to men a doctrine and the example of his own life for their salvation. How, then, could I say that the rules of life which Jesus has formulated so clearly and simply for every one — how could I say that these rules were difficult to obey, that it was impossible to obey them without the assistance of a supernatural power? Jesus saw no such impossibility ; he distinctly declared that those who did not obey could not enter into the kingdom of God. Nowhere did" he say that obedience would be difficult ; on the contrary, he said in so many words, " My yoke is easy and my burden is light'' (Matt. xi. 30). And John, the evangelist, says, ^'' His commandments are not grievous'' (1 John V. 3). Since God declared the practice of his law to be easy, and himself practised it in human form, as did also his disciples, how dared I speak of the impossibility of obedience without the aid of a supernatural power ?

If one bent all his energies to overthrow any law, what could he say of greater force than that the law

MY E ELI Glow. 15

was essentially impracticable, and that the maker of the law knew it to be impracticable and unattainable without the aid of a supernatural power? Yet that is exactly what I had been thinking of the command, " Resist not evil.'' I endeavored to find out how it was that I got the idea that Jesus' law was divine, but that it could not be obeyed ; and as I reviewed my past history, I perceived that the idea had not been communicated to me in all its crudeness (it would then have been revolting to me) , but insensibly I had been imbued with it from childhood, and all my after life had only confirmed me in error. From my childhood I had been taught that Jesus was God, and that his doctrine was divine, but at the same time I was taught to respect as sacred the institutions which protected me from violence and evil. I was taught to resist evil, that it was humiliating to submit to evil, and that resistance to it was praiseworthy. I was taught to judge, and to inflict punishment. Then I was taught the soldier's trade, that is, to resist evil b}^ homicide ; the army to which I belonged was called "The Christophile Arm}'," and it was sent forth with a Christian benediction. From infancy to manhood I learned to venerate things that were in direct contradiction to the law of Jesus, — to meet an aggressor with his own weapons, to avenge m3'self by violence for all offences against my person, my famil}', or my race. Not only was I not blamed for this ; I learned to regard it as not at all contrary to the law of Jesus. All that surrounded me, my personal security and that of my family and my property — depencled then upon a law which Jesus reproved, — the law of " a tooth for a tooth." My spiritual instructors taught me that the law of Jesus was divine, but, because of human weakness, impossible of practice, and that the grace of Jesus Christ alone could aid us to follow its precepts. And this instruction agreed with what I received in secular institutions and from the social organization about me. I was so thoroughly possessed with this idea of the impracticabilitj' of the divine doctrine, and it harmonized so well with m}- desires, that not till the time of awakening did I realize its falsity. I did not see how impossible it was to confess Jesus and his doctrine, ^'•Resist not evil," and at the same time deliberately assist in the organization of property, of tribunals, of governments, of armies ; to contribute to the establishment of a polity entirely contrary to the doctrine of Jesus, and at the same time pray to Jesus to help us to obey his commands, to forgive our sins, and to aid us that we resist not evil. I did not see, what is very clear to me now, how much more simple it would be to organize a method of living conformable to the law of Jesus, and then to pray for tribunals, and massacres, and wars, and all other things indispensable to our happiuess.

Thus I came to understand the source of error into which I had fallen. I had confessed Jesus with my lips, but my heart was still far from him. The command, " Eesist not evil,'' is the central point of Jesus' doctrine ; it is not a mere verbal affirmation ;

it is a rule whose practice is obligatory. It is verily the key to the whole mystery ; but the ke}^ must be thrust to the bottom of the lock. When we regard it as a command impossible of performance, the value of the entire doctrine is lost. Why should not a doctrine seem impracticable, when we have suppressed its fundamental proposition? It is not strange that unbelievers look upon it as totally absurd. When we declare that one may be a Christian without observing the commandment, " Resist not evil,'' we simply leave out the connecting link which transmits the force of the doctrine of Jesus into action.

Some time ago I was reading in Hebrew, the fifth chapter of Matthew with a Jewish rabbi. At nearly ever}^ verse the rabbi said, " This is in the Bible," or "This is in the Talmud," and he showed me in the Bible and in the Talmud sentences very like the declarations of the Sermon on the Mount. When we reached the words, " Resist not evil,'' the rabbi did not say, " This is in the Talmud," but he asked me, with a smile, " Do the Christians obey this command ? Do they turn the other cheek ? " I had nothing to say in reply, especially as at that particular time, Christians, far from turning the other cheek, were smiting the Jews upon both cheeks. I asked him if there were anything similar in the Bible or in the Talmud. " No," he replied, " there is nothing like it ; but tell me, do the Christians obey this law ? " It was only another way of saying that the presence in the Christian doctrine of a com-

18 M7 BELIGION.

mandment wMch no one observed, and which Christians themselves regarded as impracticable, is simply an avowal of the foolishness and nulhty of that law. I could say nothing in reply to the rabbi. ,

Now that I understand the exact meaning of the doctrine, I see clearly the strangely contradictory position in which I was placed. Having recognized the divinity of Jesus and of his doctrine, and having at the same time organized a life whollj' contrar}^ to that doctrine, what remained for me but to look upon the doctrine as impracticable ? [In words I had recognized the doctrine of Jesus as sacred ; in actions, I had professed a doctriue not at all Christian, and I had recognized and reverenced the anti- Chiistian customs which hampered my life upon every side. ^ The persistent message of the Old Testament is that misfortunes came upon the Hebrew people because they believed in false gods and denied Jehovah. Samuel (I. viii. -xii.) accuses the people of adding to their other apostasies the choice of a man, upon whom Xh^y depended for deliverance instead of upon Jehovah, who was their true King. ' ' Turn not aside after tolm^ after vain things," Samuel says to the people (I. xii. 21) ; "turn not aside after vain things, which cannot profit nor deliver ; for they are tohu^ are vain." '•Fear Jehovah and serve him. . . . But if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your king" (I. xii. 24, 25). And so with me, faith in toliu^ in vain things, in empty idols, had concealed the truth from me. Across the path which led to the truth, tohu., the idol of vain things, rose before me, cutting off the light, and I had not the strength to beat it down.

On a certain day, at this time, I was walking in Moscow towards the Borovitzk}^ Gate, where was stationed an old lame beggar, with a dirty cloth wrapped about his head. I took out my purse to bestow an alms ; but at the same moment I saw a young soldier emerging from the Kremlin at a rapid pace, head well up, red of face, wearing the State insignia of military dignity. The beggar, on perceiving the soldier, arose in fear, and ran with all his might towards the Alexander Garden. The soldier, after a vain attempt to come up with the fugitive, stopped, shouting forth an imprecation upon the poor wretch who had established himself under the gateway contrary to regulations. I waited for the soldier. When he approached me, I asked him if he knew how to read.

" Yes ; why do you ask?"

" Have you read the New Testament?"

"Yes."

''And do you remember the words, 'If thine enemy hunger, feed him. . .'?"

I repeated the passage. He remembered it, and heard me to the end. I saw that he was uneasy. Two passers-by stopped and listened. The soldier seemed to be troubled that he should be condemned for doing his duty in driving persons away from a place where they had been forbidden to linger. He thought himself at fault, and sought for an excuse.

Suddenly his eye brightened ; he looked at me over his shoulder, as if he were about to move away.

" And the military regulation, do you know anything about that? " he demanded.

"No," I said.

" In that case, you have nothing to say to me," he retorted, with a triumphant wag of the head, and elevating his plume once more, he marched away to his post. He was the only man that I ever met who had solved, with an inflexible logic, the question which eternallj^ confronted me in social relations, and which rises continually before every man who calls himself a Chiistian.