though by common consent, preserve an obstinate silence in regard to them. Thus every attempt to explain the true meaning of Christ's doctrine goes for nothing.

And more astonishing still is the ignorance concerning two works whose existence was made known to me after

the publication of my own book. One is a work by Dymond, "On War," printed for the first time in London in 1824, and the other by Daniel Musser, entitled "Nonresistance Asserted," was written in 1864.

The ignorance in regard to these books is amazing; the more so, that apart from their merit, both treat, not so much of the theory as of its practical application to life; of the relations of Christianity to military service, which is particularly interesting in view of the system of conscription. It may be asked, perhaps, what action is befitting for a subject who believes that war is incompatible with religion when his government calls upon him for military service?

One would take this to be a vital question, whose answer, in view of our present system of conscription becomes one of serious importance. All men, or th majority of mankind, are Christians, and every mal is required to do military duty. How man, in h Christian character, is to meet this demand, Dymon gives the following reply:

"It is his duty, mildly and temperately, yet firmly, t refuse to serve.

"There are some persons who, without any deter minate process of reasoning, appear to conclude tha responsibility for national measures attaches solely those who direct them; that it is the business of gove ments to consider what is good for the community, that, in these cases, the duty of the subject is merg in the will of the sovereign. Considerations like th are, I believe, often voluntarily permitted to beco opiates of the conscience. I have no part, it is said the councils of the government, and am not, theref responsible for its crimes. We are, indeed, not res sible for the crimes of our rulers, but we are respon for our own; and the crimes of our rulers are our

D'

A

11

1-1

n

se

his liberty like a condemned convict, is made to endure
every kind of indignity and suffering. Four such cases
have come to my knowledge. The doctors generally re-
lease the man from the insane hospital, and then every
underhanded and crafty device is employed to delay the
accused, because his release might encourage others to
follow his example. He is not allowed to remain among
the soldiers lest they discover from him that conscrip-
tion is not, as they are taught to believe, in accordance
with the law of God, but opposed to it. The most sat-
isfactory arrangement for a government would be either
to execute the delinquent, or beat him with rods until
he died, as was done in former times. But it is awk-
ward to condemn a man to public execution because
he is true to the doctrine which we all profess to be-
lieve. Nor is it possible to take no notice of a man
when he refuses to obey. So the government either
tortures the man in order to compel him to deny Christ,
or tries to rid itself of him by some means which will
hide both the man and the crime from the eyes of the
world, rather than resort to public execution.
All sorts
of cunning manoeuvers and tricks are employed to tor-
ment the man. He is either banished to some remote
province, or exasperated to disobedience and then im-
prisoned, or sent to the reform battalion, where he may
be subjected to torture without publicity or restriction;
or he is pronounced insane and locked up in the insane
asylum. For instance, one was exiled to Tashkent; that
is to say, a pretense was made of transferring him thither.
Another was sent to Omsk, a third was court-martialed
for disobedience and imprisoned, and a fourth was put
into a house for the insane. The same thing is repeated
on every side. Not only the government, but the major-
ity of liberal free-thinkers, as though by preconcerted
agreement, carefully avoid alluding to what has been
said, written, or done in this matter of denouncing
the inconsistency of violence, as embodied in its most
shocking, crude, and striking form, in the person of
a soldier, this readiness to commit murder, not
onlyth the precepts of Christianity, but with the

dictates of mere humanity, which the world professes to obey.

Hence all the information that I have gathered concerning what has been accomplished, and what is still going on in this work of explaining the doctrine of Christ and the light in which it is regarded by the ruling powers of Europe and America, has confirmed me in the conviction that a spirit inimical to true Christianity dwells in these authorities, exhibited chiefly by the conspiracy of silence with which they enshroud any manifestation of it.

NOTE

"The publication of this book (The Net of Faith') was ended [completed] by the Academy in the last months of the present year (1893)."-Note received by the Publisher from Count Tolstoi while this work was going to press.

CHAPTER II

OPINIONS OF BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS IN REGARD TO NON-RESISTANCE

The fate of the book," My Religion"-The evasive answers of religious critics to the questions propounded in that book- Ist answer, Violence does not contradict Christianity - 2d answer, Necessity of violence for the purpose of repressing evil-doers - 3d answer, Necessity of violence for the defense of one's neighbor-4th answer, The violation of the commandment of Non-resistance regarded as a weakness - 5th answer, Evasion of the answer by a pretense that this matter has long since been decided ―The cloak of church authority, antiquity, the holiness of religious men, explain for many the contradictions between violence and Christianity, in theory as well as in life - Usual attitude of the clergy and authorities in regard to the profession of true Christianity. General character of Russian secular writers Foreign secular critics Incorrectness of the opinions of the former and the latter caused by a failure to understand the true meaning of the doctrine of Christ.

ALL the criticisms of the statements contained in my own book have given me a similar impression of a wish to ignore the subject.

As I had anticipated, no sooner was the book pubished than it was prohibited, and should, according to

law, have been burned. But instead of being consumed by the flames, every copy was taken by the government officials and circulated in large numbers, both in manuscript and in the lithographed sheets, as well as in translations which were published abroad. It was not long before criticisms began to appear, not only from the clergy, but from the secular world, which the government, so far from forbidding, took pains to encourage. Hence the very refutation of the book, the existence of which they assumed to be unknown, was made the theme of theological controversy.

These criticisms, both foreign and domestic, may be divided into two classes, religious and secular; the former by persons who consider themselves believers, and the latter by free-thinkers. I shall begin by considering the former. In my book I accuse the clergy of inculcating doctrines contrary to the commandments of Christ, plainly and clearly expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, and particularly in regard to the commandment of non-resistance to evil, thereby depriving the doctrine of Christ of all its significance. Do the ministers of the gospel believe the Sermon on the Mount, including the commandment of non-resistance, to be of divine origin? Having felt themselves obliged to review my book, it would seem as if they must first of all answer the principal charge, and declare at once whether they do or do not consider the Sermon on the Mount and the commandment of non-resistance obligatory upon a Christian. Instead of making the usual reply, couched in words such as, "Though one cannot deny, neither can one affirm, the more so as," etc., let them give a categorical answer to my question: Did Christ practically require his disciples to do that which he taught in the Sermon on the Mount, and therefore may a Christian appeal to a legal tribunal, either for defense or prosecution, and still remain a Christian? May he consistently take a part in a government which is the instrument of violence? And that most important question, which, since the introduction of the general conscription, concerns us all: May a Christian remain a Christian and

still disobey the direct command of Christ; may he promise to conduct himself in a manner directly opposed to the doctrine of Christ, by entering into military service and putting himself in training to be a murderer?

The questions are put plainly and directly, and would seem to call for plain and direct answers. But no; my book has been received just as all previous denunciations have been, those denunciations of the clergy who have deviated from the law of Christ, with which history abounds since the time of Constantine the Great. Many words have been expended in noting the errors of my interpretation of this or that passage of the Scriptures, of how wrong I am in referring to the Trinity, the Redemption, and the Immortality of the soul, but never a word of that vital question: How are we to reconcile those lessons of forgiveness, humility, patience, and love toward all mankind, our neighbors as well as our enemies, taught us by the Teacher, which dwell in the heart of each of us, with the necessities caused by military aggressions against our own countrymen as well as against foreigners? All that deserves the name of a response to these questions may be summed up under five headings. I have endeavored to bring together in this book not only the criticisms upon my book, but everything that has ever been written on this subject.

The first criticisms with which I deal come mostly from men of high position, either in Church or State, who feel quite sure that no one will venture to combat their assertions; should any one make the attempt, they would never hear the arguments. These men, intoxi

cated for the most part by their authority, have forgotten that there is a Christianity in whose name they hold their places. They condemn as sectarian all that which is truly Christ-like in Christianity, while on the other hand, every text in both Old and New Testaments which can be wrested from its meaning so as to justify an anti-Christian or pagan sentiment - upon these they establish the foundation of Christianity. In order to confirm their statement that Christianity is not opposed to violence, these men generally quote, with the greatest