The Kingdom of God Is Within You; What I Believe

his brother, speaketh evil of the law,' and the question involuntarily arises, How so? In speaking evil of my brother, I do not speak evil of the law of man. No; but if I accuse and sit in judgment over my brother, I evidently condemn the doctrine of Christ; i.e. у I look upon the doctrine of Christ as insufficient, and thus judge and condemn the law of God. It clearly follows that I do not fulfil this law, but I become myself a judge. 'A judge,' Christ says, 'is he that can save.' Then how can I, being unable to save, be a judge, and punish?

This whole text speaks of human judgment, and rejects it. The whole of this epistle is penetrated with the same idea. In the same epistle of James (chap. ii. i -13) he says, (1) 'My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.' (2) ' For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place, and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or Sit here under my footstool, are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?' (5) ' Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which He hath promised to them that love Him?' (6) ' But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment-seat?' (7) ' Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?' (8) ' If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Levit. xix. 18), ye do well.' (9) 1 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.' (10) ' For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (n) 'For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law ' (Deut. xxii. 22; Levit. xxviii. 17-25). (12, 13) 'So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that has showed no mercy: mercy triumphs over the law! (The last words, 'mercy triumphs over the law,' have often been translated thus: ' Mercy is extolled in judgment/ and are cited as meaning that the existence of human judgment may be admitted, provided it be merciful.)

James exhorts his brethren to make no difference between men. If you make any difference, then you Ьсаекріѵете, become partial, and are like judges with evil thoughts. You judge the beggar as being less worthy than the rich man. On the contrary, the rich man is the less worthy one. It is he who oppresses you and draws you before the judgment-seat. If you live according to the law of love and mercy (which James calls the royal law to distinguish it from the other), you do well. But if you have respect of persons, and make a distinction between rich and poor, you are transgressors of the law of mercy. James, bearing in mind the case of the adulteress who was brought before Christ to be stoned, or perhaps speaking of adultery in general, says that he who punishes an adulteress with death is guilty of murder, and transgresses the eternal law, because the same eternal law that forbids adultery forbids murder. He says: ' And do like men who are judged by the law of liberty; because there is no mercy for him who is himself without mercy, and therefore mercy destroys judgment'

Can anything be more clear and definite? Every distinction between men is forbidden; every judgment by which we consider the one as good and the other as bad; human justice is distinctly pointed out as being evil; it is clearly shown that judgment sins by punishing for crime, and that all judgment is annihilated by the law of God — mercy.

I read the epistle of Paul the Apostle, who had himself suffered from courts of law; and in his first chapter to the Romans the Apostle warns them against their vices and errors, and speaks against their courts of law (v. 32): 'Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.'

Chapter ii., verses 1-11: (1) ' Therefore thou art inexcusable, О man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.' (2) ' But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.' (3) ' And thinkest thou this, О man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?'

(4) 1 Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?'

The Apostle Paul says, while fully aware of the just judgment of God, men act unjustly themselves, and they teach others to do the same; therefore the man who judges another cannot be justified. Such is the opinion I find in the epistles of the Apostles in reference to courts of law. We all know that, during the whole course of their lives, human courts of law could never have been considered by them otherwise than as an evil — a trial which was to be endured with firmness and submission to the will of God.

On reviewing the position of the early Christians amidst the heathens, we clearly perceive that men who were themselves persecuted by human courts of law could never have dared openly to forbid them. They could only occasionally allude to them as an evil, the basis of which they could not admit.

I examine the writings of the earliest teachers of Christianity, and I find that they all consider the precept never to use force, never to condemn or execute, as the one which distinguishes their doctrine from all others (Athenagarus, Origen). They only submit to the tortures inflicted upon them by human justice. The martyrs all confessed the same, not only in word, but in deed.

I find that all true Christians, from the disciples up to the time of Constantine, regarded courts of law as evils which had to be endured with patience; and the possibility of a Christian's taking any part in judging another never occurred to any one of them.

All this convinced me that the words 'judge not and condemn not ' apply to courts of law; and yet these words are so generally understood as meaning only 1 speak no evil of thy neighbour/ that courts of law flourish, so boldly and with such assurance, in all Christian states, and are so openly upheld by the Church. It was some time before I could feel quite convinced that my interpretation was the right one.

' If all have till now interpreted the words as referring to evil speaking, and have consequently instituted these courts of law, they must have some good grounds for acting thus,' said I to myself, ' and I must be in the wrong.'

And I turned to the commentaries of the Church. In all of them, from the fifth century to the present day, I found that these words are considered as signifying to condemn in word — i.e., to speak evil of our neighbour. Now if these words be understood as meaning nothing else, does not the question immediately arise, How can we help judging others? We must condemn (blame) what is evil? Thus the point on which all comments turn is: What may we condemn, and what may we not condemn? We are told that these words cannot be considered as forbidding the servants of the Church to judge — that the Apostles themselves judged (Chrysostom and Theophilactus). We are told that these words of Christ probably applied to the Hebrews, who often used to accuse their neighbours of trifling sins, while committing greater ones themselves.

But nowhere is there a word said about our human institutions of courts of lavy, or of the reference which this precept not to judge may have to them. Does Christ forbid them, or does He approve of them? This question, which arises so naturally in our minds, is left unanswered, as if there could not be the slightest doubt that, when once a Christian has taken his seat in the judgment-hall, he has a right, not only to judge his neighbour, but even to condemn him to death.

I consulted the Greek, Catholic, and Protestant theologians, as well as the works of the Tubingen school, and I found that even the most liberal interpreters considered these words as meaning ' not to speak evil of.' Not one of them solves the question why so narrow an interpretation is given, and why they are not considered as prohibiting the institution of courts of law; or why Christ, while forbidding our speaking evil of a fellow-creature — which each of us may often do inadvertently — does not consider as wrong, and does not forbid, the same condemnation when given consciously, and accompanied by violence against the condemned man. That the word ' condemn' may apply to judiciary condemnation, from which millions suffer, is not even hinted at. Nor is this all. By means of these very words, 'judge not and condemn not,' the form of judiciary condemnation is set altogether apart, and fenced round. Our theological interpretations say that the existence of courts of law in Christian states is necessary, and is not contrary to the law of Christ.

This made me doubt the sincerity of these interpretations, and I applied myself to a closer examination of the translation of the words 'judge' and

' condemn,' which is the thing I ought to have begun with.

The different renderings of these words increased my doubts, and I asked myself what the Greek word кріѵш, used in both the above-mentioned Gospels, could really mean, and what was the true signification of the word катаВіка^ш, which is used by Luke the Evangelist, who wrote, according to the opinion of all able scholars, in good Greek? If a man who knew nothing about the Gospel, and the interpretations given it, were to have this saying placed before him, how would he translate it?

I consulted the common dictionary, and I found that the word кріѵш has many different meanings, and amongst others is very often used in the sense of ' condemning by judgment,' executing, but never in that of 1 evil-speaking.' I consulted the glossary of the New Testament, and I found that this word is often used there in the sense of condemning by judgment. It is sometimes used as meaning ' to choose,' but never as ' to speak evil of.' And so I saw that the word кріѵсо may be rendered in several ways, but that a translation which renders it as ' speaking evil of is the furthest from the original.

I looked for the word катаЬіка^м, added to the word кріѵсо, which has several meanings, evidently for the purpose of explaining the sense in which the first is taken by the writer himself. I looked in the common dictionary for the word кагаЬіка^ш, and I found that this word never had any other meaning than to 'condemn by judgment ' or to ' execute.' I consulted the glossary of the New Testament, and I found that this word is used in the New Testament four times, and every time in the sense of 1 condemn,' ' execute.' I consulted the context, and I found that this word is used in the Epistle of James, chapter v., verse 6, in which it is said: ' Ye have condemned and killed the just* The word 'condemned' is the same word, ката8іка£(0, which is used in reference to Christ, who was condemned to death; and in no other way and in no other meaning is this word used, either in the whole New Testament or in any Greek dialect.

What can this mean? What a state of idiocy have I fallen into! All of us, when reflecting on the destiny of man, have been struck with terror at the sufferings and evils which our human criminal laws have brought into our lives — evils both for those who judge and for those who are judged, from the executions of Tshingis- Han-in the second half of the 12th century and the revolutions to those of the present day.

No man of feeling has escaped the impression of horror, and doubt concerning ' good,' produced by the recital, if not by the sight, of men executing their fellow-men by rods, the guillotine, or the gallows.

In the Gospels, every word of which we esteem sacred, it is said clearly and distinctly, ' You have the criminal law — a tooth for a tooth; and I give you a new one — resist not the evil man. Fulfil this commandment all of you; return not evil for evil; always do good to all; forgive all.'

And farther on we read, ' Judge not;' then, in order to render all doubt impossible as to the meaning of His words, Christ adds, 'condemn not to punishment by courts of law.' My heart says clearly, distinctly, ' Do not execute.' Science says, < Do not execute; the more you execute, the more evil there will be.' Reason says, 1 Do not execute; you cannot put a stop to evil by evil.' The Word of God, which I believe in, says the same. I used to read the whole doctrine. I read these words, ' Judge not, ye shall not be judged; condemn not, ye shall not be condemned; forgive, ye shall be forgiven.' I acknowledged that these were God's words, and I thought they meant that we are not to gossip or slander, and I continued to consider courts of law as Christian institutions, and myself as a judge and a Christian! I was shocked at the grossness of the error I was indulging.

Now I understood what Christ meant when He said, ' Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. And I say unto you, resist not evil.' Christ means, ' You have been taught to consider it right and rational to protect yourselves against evil by violence, to pluck out an eye for an eye, to institute courts of law for the punishment of criminals, to have a police, an army, to defend you against the attacks of an enemy; but I say to you, do no violence to any man, take no part in violence, never do evil to any man, not even to those whom you call your enemies.'

I now understood that, in this doctrine of nonresistance, Christ not only tells us what the natural result of following His doctrine will be, but by placing this same doctrine in opposition to the Mosaic law, the Roman- law, and the various codes of the present time, He clearly shows that it ought to be the basis of our social existence, and should deliver us from the evil we have brought on ourselves. He says, ' You think to amend evil by your laws, but they only aggravate it. There is one way by which you can put a stop to evil; it is by indiscriminately returning good for evil. You have tried the other law for thousands of years; now try Mine, which is the very reverse/ Strange to say, I have had frequent opportunities lately of conversing with men of divers opinions on this doctrine of non-resistance. I have met with some who agreed with me, though these have been few. But there are two orders of men who always refuse to admit, even in principle, a direct understanding of this doctrine, and warmly uphold the justice of resisting evil. They are men belonging to two extreme poles: our Christian conservative patriots, who consider their Church as the true orthodox one; and our revolutionary atheists. Neither the former nor the latter will give up their right to resist by violence what they consider as evil. Even their cleverest, most learned men close their eyes to the simple, self-evident truth, that if we admit the right of one man to resist by violence what he considers as evil, we cannot refuse another the right to resist by violence what he in his turn may consider as evil. A short time ago I met with a correspondence particularly instructive as bearing on this very point. It was carried on between an orthodox Slavophil and a Christian revolutionist. The former excused the violence of war in the name of his oppressed Sclavonian brethren, and the latter vindicated the violence of the revolution in the name of his oppressed brethren, the Russian peasants. Both admit the necessity for violence, and both ground their reasoning on the doctrine of Christ.

Each of us gives the doctrine of Christ an interpretation of his own, but it is never the direct and simple one which flows out of His words.

We have grounded the conduct of our lives on a principle which He rejects; we do not choose to understand His teaching in its simple and direct sense. Those who call themselves ' believers ' believe that Christ-God, the second Person of the Trinity, made Himself man in order to set us an example how to live, and they strictly fulfil the most complicated duties, such as preparing for the sacraments, building churches, sending out missionaries, naming pastors for parochial administration, etc.; they forget only one trifling circumstance — to do as He tells them. Unbelievers, on the other hand, try to regulate their lives somehow or other, but not in accordance with the law of Christ, feeling convinced beforehand that it is worthless. Nobody ever tries to fulfil His teaching'. Nor is that all. Instead of making any effort to follow His commandments, both believers and unbelievers decide beforehand that to do so is impossible.

Christ says that the law of resistance by violence, which you have made the basis of your lives, is unnatural and wrong; and He gives us instead the law of non-resistance, which, He tells us, can alone deliver us from evil. He says, 'You think to eradicate evil by your human laws of violence; they only increase it. During thousands and thousands of years you have tried to annihilate evil by evil, and you have not annihilated it; you have but increased it. Follow the teaching I give you by word and deed, and you will prove its practical power.'

Not only does He speak thus, but He remains true to His own doctrine not to resist evil in His life and in His death.

Believers take all this in with their ears, hear it read in churches, calling it the Word of God. They call Him God, and then they say, ' His doctrine is sublime, but the organization of our lives renders its observance impossible; it would change the whole course of our lives, to which we are so used and with which we are so satisfied. Therefore, we believe in this doctrine only as an ideal which mankind must strive after — an ideal which is to be attained by prayer, by believing in the sacraments, in redemption, and in the resurrection of the dead.' Others, unbelievers, the free interpreters of Christ's doctrine, the historians of religion — Strauss, Renan, and others — adopting the interpretation of the Church, that this doctrine has no direct application to life, and is only an ideal teaching which can but serve to console the weak-minded, say, very seriously, that the doctrine of Christ was all very well for the savage population of the deserts of Galilee, but that we, with our civilisation, can only consider it as a lovely reverie ' du charmant Docteur/ as Renan calls Him. According to their opinion, Christ could not attain the height of understanding all the wisdom of our civilization and refinement. If He had stood on the same scale of civilization as these learned men, He would not have uttered those pretty trifles about the birds of the air, about letting one's cheek be smitten, and about taking no care for the morrow. Learned historians judge Christianity according to what they see in our Christian society. Now the Christian society of our times considers our life as a good and holy one, with its institutions of solitary imprisonment, of alcazars, manufactories, journals, brothels, and parliaments, while it only borrows from the doctrine of Christ what is not against these habits of life. And as Christ's teaching is in direct opposition to all this, nothing is taken from that teaching but its mere words. The learned historians see this, and not having the same interest in concealing the fact as the so-called believers have, they subject this, for them, meaningless doctrine of Christ to a profound analysis, argue against it, and prove on good grounds that Christianity never was anything but the dream of an idealist. And yet it seems to me that before pronouncing an opinion upon the doctrine of Christ, we ought clearly to understand what it is, and in order to decide whether His teaching be rational or not, it is necessary first of all to believe that He meant exactly what He said. This is just what neither the interpreters of the Church nor freethinkers do, and the reason why is not far to seek.

We know very well that the teaching of Christ, as we have received it, embraces all the errors into which humanity has fallen, all the ' toga,' empty idols, the existence of which we try to justify by calling them church, government, culture, science, arts, civilization, thinking thus to exclude them from the rank of errors. But Christ warns us against them all, without excluding any ' toga.'

Not only Christ's words, but those of all Hebrew prophets, of John the Baptist, of all the truly wise men that have ever lived, have referred to this same church, this same government, culture, civilization, etc., calling them evils and the causes of man's perdition.

For instance, suppose an architect were to say to the owner of a house, 1 Your house is in a bad state; it must be wholly rebuilt/ and were then to go on giving all the necessary details about the kinds of beams that would be required, how they were to be cut, and where placed. If the owner were to turn a deaf ear to the architect's words about the ruinous condition of the house and the necessity for its being rebuilt, and were only to listen with a feigned interest to the secondary details concerning the proposed repairs, the architect's counsels would evidently appear but so much useless talk; and if the owner happened to feel no great respect for the builder, he would call his advice foolish. This is exactly what occurs with the teaching of Christ.

I used this simile for want of a better one, and I remember that Christ, while preaching His doctrine, used one very like it. He says, 1 1 will destroy your temple, and within three days I will build up another.' He was crucified for these words. His doctrine is crucified for the same up to the present time.

The least that can be required of those who judge another man's teaching is, that they should take the teacher's words in the exact sense in which he uses them. Christ does not consider His teaching as some high ideal of what mankind should be, but cannot attain to, nor does He consider it as a chimerical, poetical fancy, fit only to captivate the simple-minded inhabitants of Galilee; He considers His teaching as work — a work which is to save mankind. His suffering on the cross was no dream; He groaned in agony and died for His teaching. And how many people have died, and will still die, in the same cause? Such teaching cannot be called a dream.

Every doctrine of truth is a dream for those who are in error. We have come to such a state of error, that there are many among us who say, as I did myself formerly, that this doctrine of Christ is chimerical because it is incompatible with the nature of man. It is incompatible with the nature of man, they say, to turn the other cheek when he has been smitten; it is incompatible with the nature of man to give up his property to another — to work, not for himself, but for others. It is natural to man, they say, to protect himself, his own safety, that of his family, and his property — in other words, it is the nature of man to struggle for life. Learned lawyers prove scientifically that the most sacred duty of a man is to protect his rights — i.e., to struggle.

We need only for one moment cast aside the idea that the present organization of our lives, as established by man, is the best and most sacred, and then the argument that the teaching of Christ is incompatible with human nature immediately turns against the arguer. Who will deny that it is repugnant and harrowing to a man's feelings to torture or kill, not only a man, but even a dog, a hen, or a calf? I have known men, living by agricultural labour, who have ceased entirely to eat meat only because they had to kill their own cattle. And yet our lives are so organized, that for one individual to obtain any advantage in life another must suffer, which is against human nature. The whole organization of our lives, the complicated mechanism of our institutions, whose sole object is violence, are but proofs of the degree to which violence is repugnant to human nature. No judge will ever undertake to strangle with his own hands the man whom he has condemned to death. No magistrate will himself drag a peasant from his weeping family in order to shut him up in prison. Not a single general, not a single soldier, would kill hundreds of Turks or Germans, and devastate their villages — nay, not one of them would consent to wound a single man, were it not in war, and in obedience to discipline and the oath of allegiance.

That cruelty is only exercised (thanks to our complicated social machinery) which can be so divided amongst a number that none shall bear the sole responsibility, or recognise how unnatural all cruelty is. Some make laws, others apply them; others, again, drill their fellow-creatures into habits of discipline— i.e., of senseless passive obedience; and these same disciplined men, in their turn, do violence to others — kill without knowing why or wherefore. But let a man even for a moment shake off in thought the net of worldly institutions which so ensnares him, and he will see what is really incompatible with his nature.

If once we cease to affirm that the evil we are so used to, and profit by, is an immutable divine truth, we may see clearly which is the more natural to man — violence, or the law of Christ. Which is better — to know that the comfort and safety of myself and family, all my joys and pleasures, are obtained at the price of the misery, depravity, and suffering of millions, by yearly executions, by hundreds of thousands of suffering prisoners, and by millions of soldiers, policemen and sergeants (урядниковг) torn from their homes and half stupefied by military discipline, who protect my idle pleasures by keeping starving men at a distance with their loaded pistols;* to know that every dainty morsel I put into my mouth, or give my children, is obtained at the price of all the suffering, which is inevitable, in order to obtain these dainties; or to know that my fare is my own, for nobody suffers for the want of it, and nobody has suffered in procuring it for me?

It is sufficient to comprehend, once for all, that, in our present organization of life, every joy, every moment of peace, is bought at the cost of the privations and sufferings of thousands, who are only restrained by violence, in order to see clearly what is natural to man; i.e., not only to the animal nature of man, but to his rational nature as well. It is sufficient to understand the doctrine of Christ in all its high import and with all the consequences it entails, to see that it is not inconsistent with human nature, but that, on the contrary, His whole doctrine throws aside what is inconsistent with human nature — the delusive human teaching of resistance of evil, which is the chief cause of all human misery.

The doctrine of Christ, which teaches us not to resist evil is — a dream! But the sight of men in whose breasts love and pity are innate, spending their lives in burning their brethren at the stake, scourging them, breaking them on the wheel, lashing, slitting their nostrils, putting them to the rack, keeping them fettered, sending them to the galleys or the gallows, shooting them, condemning to solitary confinement, imprisoning women and children, organizing the slaughter of tens of thousands by war, bringing about periodical revolutions and rebellions; the sight of others passively fulfilling these atrocities, the sight of others again writhing under these tortures or avenging them — this is no dream!

When once we clearly understand the teaching of - Christ, we see that it is not the world given by God to man for his happiness which is a dream, but the world such as men have made it for their own de- struction which is a wild terrific dream — the delirium of a madman — a dream from which it is enough to awake once, never to return to it.

God came down from heaven — the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, became man, to redeem us from the punishment entailed by the sin of Adam. We think that this God must speak in some mysterious, mystical way, difficult to be understood; indeed, that His Word can only be understood through faith and God's grace; and yet God's words are so simple, so clear. He says: ' Do no evil to each other, and there will be no evil.' Is it possible that the revelation of God is so simple? Can this be all? All this is so familiar to us.

The prophet Elias having fled from the haunts of men, and concealed himself in a rock, had it revealed to him that he should see God at the entrance of the cavern. A tempest arose — the trees were rent asunder. Elias thought God was there and looked, but God was not there. The earth quaked, fire issued out of it, the rock was split in twain, the mountains fell. Elias looked, but God was not there. Then all grew still and calm, a light breeze wafted the fragrance of the freshened fields towards him. Elias looked, and lo! God was there. It is thus with the simple words of God: 1 Resist not evil.'

They are very simple, but they contain in themselves the sole and eternal law of God and man. This law is eternal, and if in history we find any progress made towards the annihilation of evil, it is due to those who truly understood the doctrine of Christ, who suffered evil without resisting by violence. The progression of mankind towards good is brought about by martyrdom, not by tyranny. Fire cannot extinguish fire; no more can evil extirpate evil. Good, meeting with evil and remaining untainted by it, can alone conquer evil. There is a law in the heart of each man immutable as the law of Galileo — still more immutable. Men may turn aside from it, conceal it from others, nevertheless it is the only path that leads to true happiness. Each step which has brought us nearer to this great end was taken in the name of the doctrine of Christ: ' Resist not evil.' It is with greater confidence even than Galileo, that the follower of Christ can say, in defiance of all the temptations around him and the threats held out to him: ' It is not by violence but by doing good that you will eradicate evil.' And if the progress made be slow, it is only because the clearness, simplicity and rationality of the teaching of Christ and its inevitable absolute necessity are concealed from the eyes of men in the most crafty and dangerous manner; concealed under a spurious teaching, falsely called His.

Everything tended to convince me that I had now found the true interpretation of Christ's doctrine. But it was a long while before I could get used to the strange thought that after so many men had professed the doctrine of Christ during 1,800 years, and had devoted their lives to the study of His teachings, it was given me to discover His doctrine as something altogether new. It seems strange, nevertheless so it was, Christ's doctrine of ' non-resistance ' seemed to rise before me as something hitherto unknown and unfamiliar to me. And I asked myself how this could be. Had some false conception of Christ's doctrine prevented my understanding it?

When I first began to read the Gospel I was not in the position of one who heard the teaching of Christ for the first time. I had already a complete theory concerning the sense in which it was to be taken. Christ did not appear to me as a prophet, come to reveal the law of God to man, but rather as an expounder and amplifier of the indubitable divine law well known to me. I already possessed a complete, definite, and very complicated doctrine concerning God, the creation of the world and of man, as well as concerning the commandments of God, as transmitted to us through Moses.

In the Gospel I found the words: ' Ye have been told, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil.' The precept 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth/ was the commandment given by God to Moses. The precept, ' I say unto you, That ye resist not evil/ was a new commandment which reversed the first.

Had I considered the doctrine of Christ simply, without the theological theory I had imbibed from my earliest childhood, I should have understood the true sense of these simple words. I should have seen that Christ sets aside the old law and gives a new one. But it had been instilled into me that Christ did not reject the law of Moses — that, on the contrary, he confirmed it to the least jot and tittle, and amplified it.

The seventeenth and eighteenth verses of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, which seem to confirm that assertion, had, in my former studies of the Gospel struck me by their obscurity, and had raised doubts in my mind.

On reading the Old Testament, especially the last books of Moses, in which so many trivial, useless and even cruel laws are laid down, each preceded by the, words, 1 And God said to Moses/ it seemed passing strange to me that Christ should have confirmed such laws; His doing so seemed incomprehensible. But I then left the problem unsolved. I blindly believed the teaching of my childhood, that these commandments were inspired by the Holy Ghost; that they were in perfect harmony with each other; that Christ confirmed the law of Moses; and that He amplified and completed it. I could, indeed, never clearly explain to myself wherein the amplification lay, nor how the striking opposition, so obvious to all, between the verses 17-20 and the words ' but I say unto you* could be harmonized. But when I at last really understood the clear and simple meaning of Christ's doctrine, I saw that these two commandments were in direct opposition to each other; that there could be no question of harmony between them, or of the one being an amplification of the other; that it was necessary to accept either the one or the other, and that the interpretation of the verses 17-20 of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, which, as I have already said, had struck me by their want of clearness, was erroneous.

On a second reading of the same verses 17-20, which had seemed so unintelligible to me, their meaning flashed full upon me.

This again was not the result of my having discovered anything new, or having made any alteration of the words; it was due solely to my having cast aside the false interpretation which had been given them.

Christ says (Matthew v. 17-19): 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or (the teaching of) the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle (the least particle) shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.'

And (verse 20) he adds: ' Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.'

Christ means by these words: ' I am not come to destroy the eternal law, for the fulfilment of which your books and prophecies are written; but I am come to teach you how to fulfil that eternal law. I do not speak of the law which your teachers, the Pharisees, call the law of God, but of the eternal law, which is less liable to change than heaven and earth.'

I here give the meaning of the text in other words, solely for the purpose of drawing the mind away from the incorrect interpretation usually offered. If this incorrect interpretation did not exist, we should see that the idea of Christ could not be better or more definitely expressed than by these words.

The interpretation that Christ does not reject the Mosaic law is based on the fact that in this passage, without any ostensible reason (except the comparison of the jot of the written law), and contrary to the true sense, the word ' law ' is treated as meaning the ' written law,' and not the eternal law. But Christ does not here speak of the written law. If Christ, in this passage, had spoken of the written law, He would have used the word ' the law and the prophets,' as He always does in speaking of the written law; but He uses a very different expression: ' the law or the prophets.' Had Christ meant to speak of the written law, He would have used the words 1 the law and the prophets ' in the next verse, which is but the continuation of the preceding one; but there He uses the word ' law ' alone.

Moreover we find, in the Gospel according to St. Luke, that Christ uses the same words in a manner that leaves no doubt as to their true meaning (Luke xvi. 15). Christ says to the Pharisees, who thought to justify themselves by the written law: 'Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16th v.: The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.' And immediately after this, in the 17th verse, we read: 'And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.' The words ' the law and the prophets, until John,' annul the written law. The words 'it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail,' confirm the eternal law. In the first text Christ says * the law and the prophets,' i.e, the written law; in the second He uses the word ' law ' alone, i.e. the eternal law. It is obvious, therefore, that the eternal law is here set in opposition to the written law, and that exactly the same occurs in the context of the Gospel of St. Matthew, where the eternal law is expressed by the words ' the law or the prophets.'*

The history of the different renderings of this text (v. 17, 18) is very curious. In most of the transcripts the word ' law ' is not followed by the words ' and the prophets.' In this case there can be no doubt of its signifying ' the eternal law.' In other transcripts, as, for instance, in those of Tischendorf and the canonical transcripts, the word 1 prophets ' is added, not with the conjunction and, but with the disjunctive or: 'the law or the prophets,' which likewise excludes the meaning of 'the written law,' and confirms that of the 'eternal law.'

In some transcripts again, which are not adopted by the Church, we find the word 'prophets' preceded by the conjunction and, and not by or; in these transcripts, after the repetition of the word ' law,' the words ' and the prophets ' are again added. Thus the meaning given to the whole saying, by this remodelling, is, that Christ's words refer only to the written law.

* As if to dispel all doubt as to the law He means, He, immediately after, most decisively casts aside the Mosaic law for the Divine law, of which not one jot nor tittle can fail, by the most direct contradiction which we meet with in the Gospels, of the law of Moses. He says, Luke xvi. 18: 'Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery;' i.e., the written law permits divorce, but according to the eternal law it is a sin.

These variations give us the history of the various interpretations to which this passage has been subjected. One point is obvious: Christ speaks here, as He does in the Gospel according to St. Luke, of the eternal law; but we find men, amongst the transcribers of the Gospels, who have subjoined the words * and the prophets ' to the word ' law,' with the design of rendering the Mosaic law obligatory, and have thus altered the sense of the text.

Other Christians, again, who reject the Mosaic law, either leave out the word completely, or substitute the word r] (or), for the word каі (and). And thus the passage enters the canon with the disjunctive or. Yet though the text adopted by the canon is so indubitably clear, our canonical commentators continue to expound the passage in the spirit of the alterations which have not been adopted.

This passage has been treated by countless commentators, and as the less the expounder agrees with the simple, direct sense of the doctrine of Christ, the further his commentary must necessarily be from the true sense of that doctrine, the majority of expounders retain the apocryphal sense, which the text rejects.

In order to be convinced that Christ speaks in this verse only of the eternal law, it will suffice fully to understand the word which has given rise to these false interpretations. In Russian, it is ' законъ ' (law); in Greek, ѵоцоч; in Hebrew, 'torn.' This word has two principal meanings in the Russian, Greek, and Hebrew languages: the one, the unexpressed, unwritten law; the other, the written expression of what certain men call the law. Indeed, the difference exists in all languages.

In Greek, in the Epistles of Paul, the difference is sometimes marked by the use of the article. In speaking of the written law, the Apostle omits the article before the word law; and when he speaks of the eternal law, the article is prefixed.

The ancient Hebrews, the prophets and Isaiah, always use the word 1 tora ' (the law) to indicate the eternal, unwritten, but revealed, law of God. This same word ' tora' (the law) was first used by Ezra, and later we find it in the Talmud, as signifying the five books of Moses, which bear the general title ' tora ' in the same sense as our word ' Bible '; with this difference, however, that we distinguish the Bible from the law of God by two different denominations, while in the Hebrew language there is but one word for both.

Therefore Christ, using the word ' tora,' takes it in the two different acceptations of the word — either confirming it, as Isaiah and the other prophets do, in the sense of the law of God, which is eternal, or rejecting it, when He refers to the Mosaic law. But in order to make a distinction between the different meanings of the word, He always adds! and the prophets,' and the pronoun ' your,' in speaking of the written law.

When Christ says: ' As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise; this is the whole law and the prophets,' He refers to the written law. He tells us that the whole written law may be reduced to this sole expression of the eternal law; and, by these His words, He annuls the written law.

When He says (Luke xvi. 16), 'The law and the prophets until John the Baptist,' He refers to the written law, and by these words asserts that it is no longer obligatory.

When He says (John vii. 19), 'Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?' or (John viii. 17), 1 Is it not said in your law?' or again (John XV. 25), 'The word that is written in their law,' He refers to the written law — the law which He rejects— the law by which He was, soon after, sentenced to death. John xix. 7: ' The Jews answered Him: We have a law, and by our law He ought to die.' It is obvious that this law of the Hebrews, by which Christ Himself was sentenced to death, was not the law which He taught. But when Christ says, ' I come, not to destroy the law, but to teach you to fulfil it, for nothing can be altered in the law, but all must be fulfilled,' He does not speak of the written law, but of the Divine, eternal law.

It may be said that these proofs are controvertible; that I have skilfully assorted the contexts, and have carefully concealed all that could contradict my interpretation; that the commentaries given by the Church are very clear and convincing, and that Christ did not destroy the law of Moses, but He left it in full force. Let us suppose this to be the case. What, then, does Christ teach?

According to the commentaries of the Church, He taught men that He was the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God the Father j that He had come down from heaven to redeem mankind from the sin of Adam. But whoever has read the Gospel knows that Christ says nothing of this, or, at least, alludes to it in very ambiguous terms; the passages in which Christ speaks of Himself as being the Second Person of the Trinity, and of His redeeming mankind, are the shortest and the least perspicuous in the Gospels. In what, then, does the rest of Christ's teaching consist?

It is impossible to deny, what all Christians have always acknowledged, that the main point in Christ's doctrine consists in His rules of life — how men are to live together.

Now, if we admit that Christ taught a new system of life, we must form some definite idea of the men among whom He taught.

Take, for instance, the Russians, the English, the Chinese, the Hindoos, or even any wild insular tribe, and you will be sure to find that they all have their own rules of life, their own laws; and that no teacher could introduce new laws of life without destroying the former ones; he could not teach without infringing them. Such would be the case everywhere. The teacher would inevitably have to begin by destroying our laws, which have grown precious and almost sacred in our eyes.

Perhaps in our days it might happen that the teacher of a new doctrine of life would but destroy our civil laws, our government, our customs, without interfering with the laws which we call Divine, though this is hardly probable. But the Hebrews had only one law — a Divine law which embraced life in its minutest details. What could a preacher teach them if he began by declaring that the entire law of the people to whom he preached was inviolable?

But let us assume this is not regarded as a proof. Then let those who assert that Christ's words confirm the Mosaic law, explain to themselves who they were whom Christ denounced during His whole life; who did He speak against, calling them Pharisees, lawyers, and scribes?

Who was it that refused to follow the doctrine of Christ, and crucified Him.

If Christ acknowledged the Mosaic law, where were the true followers of that law, whom Christ must have approved of? Is there a single one? We are told that the Pharisees were a sect. The Hebrews do not say so. They call the Pharisees the true fulfillers of the law. But let us suppose they were a sect. The Sadducees were also a sect. Where, then, were the true believers — those who did not belong to any sect?

In the Gospel according to St. John, all the enemies of Christ are called Hebrews. They do not assent to Christ's doctrine; they oppose it only because they are Hebrews. But in the Gospel the Pharisees and Sadducees are not the only enemies of Christ; the lawgivers, who keep the Mosaic law, the scribes, who study it, and the elders, who are considered as the representatives of the popular wisdom, are likewise called the enemies of Christ.

Christ says, ' I did not come to call the righteous to repentance,' to a change of life, fierdvoia, 'but sinners.' Where were the righteous, and who were they? Surely Nicodemus was not the only one? And even Nicodemus is described as being a good man, but one who had gone astray.

We have grown so used to the singular interpretation given us, that the Pharisees and some wicked Hebrews crucified Christ, that the simple question never occurs to us, Where were the true Hebrews, who kept the law and who were neither Pharisees nor wicked men? No sooner does the question arise than all grows clear. Christ, be He God or man, brought His doctrine to a people who had already a law which gave them definite rules of life, and which they called the law of God. In what light could Christ have considered that law?

Every prophet — teacher of a faith — on revealing the law of God to a people, will find that they already possess a law which they consider as the Divine law> and he cannot avoid a twofold application of the word, as referring either to what men wrongly consider the law of God {your law) or as referring to the true eternal law of God. Moreover, not only is the preacher of the new doctrine unable to avoid the twofold use of the word, but it often happens that he does not even endeavour to do so, and purposely unites both ideas, in order to point out that the law confessed by those he tries to convert, though defective as a whole, is not devoid of some Divine truths. And it is just these truths, so familiar to his hearers* that every preacher will take as the basis of his preaching. Christ does so in addressing the Hebrews, who have the same word 1 tora' for both laws. Referring to the Mosaic law, and oftener still to the prophets, especially the prophet Isaiah, whom he often quotes,

Christ acknowledges that in the Hebrew law, and in the prophets, there are eternal truths, Divine truths which coincide with the eternal law; and He bases His doctrine upon them, as for instance in the saying, * Love God and thy neighbour.'

Christ expresses this idea on many occasions, e.g., Luke x. 26: ' He said unto him, What is written in the law? ho7u readest thou, f We may find the eternal truth in the law, if we can read. And He points out more than once that the precept contained in their law of love to God and their neighbour was a precept of the eternal law.

After the parables by which he explains his doctrine to His disciples, Christ says, as if in reference to all that had preceded: ' Therefore every scribe {i.e. every man that can read, and has been taught the truth) is like an householder who bringeth forth out of his treasure (indiscriminately) things old and new.' (Matthew xiii. 52.)

It is thus that St. Irenseus understands these words, and so does the Church, and yet, arbitrarily transgressing the true sense of the saying, they attribute to these words the meaning that the whole ancient law is sacred. The obvious meaning of the text is, that he who seeks for what is good, takes not only what is new, but what is old too, and that its being old is not a sufficient reason for throwing it aside. Christ means, by this saying, that He does not deny what is eternal in the ancient law. But when questioned concerning the law or its forms, He says: 'We do not pour new wine into old bottles.' Christ could not confirm the whole law, neither could He completely deny the law and the prophets; He could neither deny the law which says, ' Love thy neighbour as thyself/ nor the prophets, in whose words He often clothes His thought.

And so, instead of our understanding these clear and simple words as they were said, and in the sense which the whole doctrine of Christ confirms, an obscure interpretation is given us, which introduces inconsistency where there is none, and thus destroys the true sense of the doctrine, leaving nothing but words, and in reality re-establishing the Mosaic teaching with all its barbarous cruelty.

According to tfhe commentaries of the Church, and those of the fifth century in particular, Christ did not destroy the written law, but confirmed it. But we are not told how He confirmed it, nor how the law of Christ and the Mosaic law can be supposed to be united into one. We find nothing in these commentaries but a play upon words. We are told that Christ kept the Mosaic lazv by the prophecies concerning Himself being fulfilled; and that Christ fulfilled the law through us, through the faith of men in Him. No effort is made to solve the only question which is of essential importance to every believer, viz., how these two contradictory laws, referring to life, can be united into one. The inconsistency of the text which says that Christ does not destroy the law, with the one in which we read, 1 It hath been said... but I say unto you ' (indeed the contradiction between the whole spirit of the Mosaic law and the doctrine of Christ) remains in all its force.

Let everyone who is interested in this question examine for himself the commentaries on this passage given us by the Church, beginning from John Chrysostom to the present time. It is only after having read these that he will see clearly that, not only is no explanation of the contradiction given, but a contradiction has been skilfully inserted where there was none before. The impossible attempts at uniting what cannot be united are clear proof that this was not an involuntary mental error, but was effected with some definite purpose in view; that it was found necessary; and the cause of its having been found necessary is obvious.

Let us see what John Chrysostom says in answer to those who reject the Mosaic law (' Commentary of the Gospel according to St. Matthew,' vol. I, pp. 320, 321):

' On examining the ancient law which enjoins us to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the objection is raised, — How can He who speaks thus be righteous? What answer can we give? Why, that it is, on the contrary, the best token of God's love tozcards man. It was not that we should really take an eye for an eye that He gave us this law, but that we should avoid wronging others for fear of suffering the same at their hands. As, for instance, when threatening the Ninevites with destruction, His desire is not to destroy them (had He indeed decreed their destruction He would not have spoken of it); His purpose was only, by His menaces, to induce them to amend their lives, and, by so doing, turn His wrath aside. Thus likewise the hot-tempered, who are ready to put out their neighbours' eyes, are threatened with punishment, for the sole purpose of making their fears of punishment restrain them from injuring their fellow-creatures. If this be cruelty there is cruelty likewise in the commandment that forbids murder, or that interdicts adultery. But such an argument would only prove a man to have reached the last stage of madness. And I so dread calling these commandments cruel, that I should rather be inclined to consider a contrary law as wrong, according to plain common sense. Thou callest God cruel because He hath enjoined taking an eye for an eye; but I say that many would have had a greater right to call Him cruel, as thou dost, had He not given this commandment'

John Chrysostom plainly acknowledges the law of a tooth for a tooth to be the Divine law, and the reverse of that law — i.e. Christ's doctrine of non-resistence — to be wrong.'

Pages 322, 323: 'Let us suppose that the law is entirely cast aside,' says John Chrysostom further, 'that all fear of promised punishment is done away with, that the wicked are left to live according to their inclinations, without fear of punishment: adulterers, murderers, thieves, and perjurers. Would not all be overthrown; would not houses, marketplaces, cities, lands, seas, the whole universe be full of iniquity? This is obvious. For if even the existence of laws, fear and threats of punishment, can hardly keep the evil-intentioned within bounds, what would there then be to restrain men from evil deeds, if all obstacles were removed? What disasters would then rush in torrents into the lives of men! Cruelty does not lie in leaving the wicked free to act as they

please, but in letting the innocent man suffer without defending him. If a man were to collect a crowd of miscreants around him, and having furnished them with weapons, were to send them forth into the town to kill all those they met in the streets, could anything be more barbarous? And if another were to bind these armed men and imprison them, releasing the victims these miscreants had threatened with death, could anything be more humane?'

But John Chrysostom does not tell us by what the other is to be guided in his definition of the wicked. May he not himself be a wicked man, and imprison the good.

' Now apply this example to the law. He who gave the commandment "an eye for an eye" has bound the minds of the wicked in chains of fear, and may be compared to the man who bound the miscreants; but if no punishment were appointed for criminals, would it not be arming them with the weapons of fearlessness, and acting like him who gave weapons to the miscreants, and sent them forth into the town?'

If John Chrysostom does acknowledge the doctrine of Christ, he ought to have told us who is to take an ' eye for an eye,' or a ' tooth for a tooth/ and cast into prison. If He who gave the commandment, that is, God Himself, were to inflict the threatened punishment, there would be no inconsistency; but it must be done by men, the men who were forbidden to do so by the Son of God. God said, ' An eye for an eye;' the Son says, 'Do not act thus.' One of the two commandments must be acknowledged as just. John Chrysostom and the Church follow the commandments of the Father — i.e., the Mosaic law — and reject the commandments of the Son, while ostensibly professing His doctrine.

Christ rejects the Mosaic law, and gives His own in its stead. For him who believes in Christ there is no contradiction. He pays no heed to the Mosaic law, believes in Christ's doctrine, and fulfils it. Neither is there any contradiction for him who believes in the Mosaic law. The Hebrews do not consider the words of Christ valid, and they believe in the Mosaic law. There is a contradiction only for those who, while choosing to live according to the Mosaic law, try to persuade themselves and others that they believe in the doctrine of Christ; for those only whom Christ calls, 1 Ye hypocrites, ye generation of vipers.'

Instead of acknowledging one of the two — either the Mosaic law or the doctrine of Christ — we say that both are Divine truths.

But no sooner does the question touch upon life itself, than the doctrine of Christ is straightway cast aside, and the Mosaic law is acknowledged.

If we examine this false interpretation closely, we shall see in it one phase of the awful struggle between good and evil, light and darkness.

Christ appears amidst the Hebrews, who were entangled in countless minute rules, laid down by their Levites, and called by them the Divine law, each of which was preceded by the words, 1 And God said to Moses.'

Not only the relations in which man stands to God, but the sacrifices, feast-days, fasts, the relations between men — public, civil, and family relations — all the details of private life, circumcision, ablution of themselves and their cups, their clothes, all — even to the most trifling details — were encompassed by rules, and these were acknowledged as the commandments of God, the law of God. What could a prophet do — I do not say Christ-God — but what could a prophet, a teacher do, when teaching suchapeople,withoutfirst destroying the obligations of a law by which everything, down to the smallest detail of life, was thus regulated? Christ does what any other prophet would do. He takes from the old law, considered by the people as Divine, what is truly the law of God: He takes the basis principles, setting all the rest aside, and He adds to it His own revelation of the eternal law. Though all need not be cast aside, a law which is considered obligatory in all its minutest details must inevitably be violated. This is what Christ does, and He is accused of destroying the law of God; and He is crucified for this. But His teaching remains amongst His disciples, and passes on to other peoples. Yet, in the course of ages, and amongst the new peoples who receive Christ's truth, the same human interpretations and explanations shoot up. Again appear the shallow precepts of man, in place of the Divine revelation. Instead of the words, 'And God said to Moses/ we now read, 1 By the revelation of the Holy Spirit.' Again the letter rather than the spirit of the doctrine is preferred. It is a striking fact that the doctrine of Christ is united to all this * tora/ which He rejected. This 1 tora ' is said to be the revelation of the Spirit of Truth — i.e., of the Holy Ghost — and so Christ is taken in the meshes of His own revelation.

And now, after 1800 years, the strange duty has fallen to my lot to discover the sense of Christ's doctrine as something new.

It was no discovery that I had to make; I had to do what all those who seek to know God and His law have to do: to find out the eternal law of God from amidst the precepts that men call His law.

Now it has grown clear to me that Christ's law is truly His law, and not the mixed law of Moses and Christ. The claim of His doctrine distinctly repudiates the claim of the Mosaic law; and, consequently, instead of the obscurity, diffuseness, and inconsistency which I had previously found in the Gospels, they now combine to form an indissoluble whole; and the basis, or central maxim, of the entire doctrine is expressed in the simple, clear, and perfectly intelligible five commandments of Christ (Matt. v. 21-48) which I had hitherto failed to apprehend.

Mention is made in all the Gospels of the ' commandments of Christ,' and their fulfilment is enjoined.

All theologians speak of the commandments of Christ, but I never knew what these commandments were.

I supposed the commandment of Christ to be the exhortation to love God, and our neighbour as ourselves. I did not see that this could not be the commandment of Christ, seeing that it was a commandment given to the ancient Hebrews (see Deut. and Levit). On reading the words, 'Whosoever therefore shall break one of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be great in the kingdom of heaven ' (Matt. v. 19), I thought they referred to the Mosaic law. It never occurred to me that the new commandments of Christ were clearly and distinctly expressed in the verses 21-28 of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew. Nor did I notice that by the words, ' Ye have heard that it hath been said... but I say unto you,' Christ gives us new and most definite commandments; annexed to the five quotations of the Mosaic law (reckoning the two quotations which refer to adultery as one), we find five new and definite commandments of Christ.

I had often heard about the Beatitudes, and had met with the enumeration and explanation of them in the courseofthe religious instruction given me in my youth; but I never heard a word about the commandments of Christ. To my great surprise I had to discover them.

I shall now point out what led me to the discovery. In Matt. v. 21-28, we read: 'Ye have heard that it was said by them of old times, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment (Exodus xx. 23). (22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the judgment; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in dangerof hell-fire. (23) Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; (24) leave there thy gift before the altar, and

go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. (25) Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. (26) Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.'

On a clear comprehension of the doctrine of 'nonresistance/ it seemed to me that the text quoted above must have the same application to life as that doctrine. I had formerly considered these words as meaning that we were to avoid all anger against a fellow-creature, that we were never to use abusive language, and were to live at peace with all, not excepting any; but there stood a clause, in the text, which excluded all possibility of thus understanding it. It is said, ' whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause,' and the idea of unconditional peace is annulled by the last, italicized words. They puzzled me. I sought for a solution of my doubts in theological commentaries; but to my surprise I found that the interpretations of the Fathers of the Church were especially directed towards defining the cases in which anger may be excused and cannot be excused. Laying particular stress on the words 'without a cause,' commentators tell us the meaning of the text is that we are never to wound a man's feelings causelessly, nor use abusive language; but add that anger is not always unjust, and in support of that opinion they cite instances of the anger of the apostles and the saints.

I v/as obliged to acknowledge that, though contrary to the whole spirit of the Gospel, the interpretation of the Fathers, by which anger is accounted justifiable when, to use their own expression, it is 1 to the glory of God,' was consistent, being based on the words ' without a cause,' which we find in verse 23. This clause entirely altered the sense of the saying.

Be not angry without a cause. Christ exhorts us to forgive all, to forgive without end; Christ Himself forgave, and when led away to be crucified, reproved Peter for defending Him against Malchus; and yet it would seem that Peter had good cause for anger. And the same Christ exhorts all men not to be argry without a cause, thus justifying anger if there be a reason for it, if it be not causeless! Is it not as if Christ, who came to preach peace to all simpleminded men, had, on second thoughts, added the words 'without a cause ' to show that this precept did not apply to all cases indiscriminately — that anger might sometimes be justifiable? Commentators tell us that anger may be justifiable. ' But,' said I to myself, ' can any man be a fit judge of the reasonableness of his anger? Never yet have I seen an angry man who did not consider himself perfectly just in his anger. Each thinks his anger both lawful and necessary.' The words ' without a cause ' seemed entirely to destroy the meaning of the text. But they were in the Gospel, and I could not set them aside. And yet it came to much the same as if to the saying ' Love thy neighbour,' were added the words 1 thy neighbour that pleaseth thee.'

The words ' without a cause ' destroyed the import of the whole text for me. The verses 23, 24, in which we read that before praying we must be at peace with him that hath aught against us, which would have had a direct, obligatory sense without the words ' without a cause,' now acquired a conditional meaning.

It seemed to me that Christ must have meant to forbid all anger, all ill-will, and in order to suppress it, had enjoined each person, before he brought his gift to the altar — i.e., before he drew near to God — to bethink him whether there is any man who is angry with him. And if there is one such, he must be reconciled to him first, and then he may bring his gift to the altar, or he may pray. It seemed thus to me, but, according to all commentaries, the sense of the passage was conditional.

In all commentaries we are told that we must try to be at peace with all men; but if that be impossible, on account of the perversity of our adversary, we must be at peace with him in mind, in our thoughts, and then his enmity will be no barrier to our prayer. Moreover, the words that declare that whosoever shall say • Raca,' or ' Thou fool,' commits a great sin, always seemed most strange and unintelligible to me. If the words forbid abusive language, why are such weak epithets chosen, which can hardly be reckoned terms of abuse? And why was there so awful a threat against one who might, perhaps inadvertently, use as inoffensive a word as raca — i.e., a worthless fellow? This seemed incomprehensible to me.

I felt sure that there was the same misunderstanding here as I had found in the words 'judge not'; I felt sure that a simple, definite, and highly important commandment, which all have it in their power to fulfil, had been perverted, as in the preceding instance, into something almost incomprehensible. I felt sure that Christ had not used the words, ' be reconciled to thy brother,' in the sense now given them by our commentators — viz., 1 be reconciled to thy brother in mind.'

Reconciled in mind! what can that mean? I thought that Christ meant exactly what He expressed in the words of the prophet: ' I will have mercy ' — i.e., love to all men — 1 and not sacrifice.' And therefore, if thou dost wish to find favour in God's sight, before repeating thy morning and evening prayer, or before attending public worship, reflect whether any be angry with thee; and if such an one be found, go and be reconciled to him first, and then thou mayest come and pray. Let thy reconciliation not be 'in mind' only. I saw that the interpretation which destroyed the direct and clear meaning of the text was based on the words ' without a cause.' Their omission would render the whole perfectly clear; but the canonical Gospel, in which stand the words ' without a cause,' and all commentaries upon it, were contrary to my interpretation.

Had I chosen arbitrarily to alter the sense of this passage, I might have done so with any other text as well; and might not other interpreters have done so too? All the difficulty lay in one little clause. This clause removed, all would be clear. So I endeavoured to find some philological explanation of the words that should not destroy the sense of the text.

On consulting the dictionary, I saw the Greek word is ei^rj, and that it likewise means ' purposelessly, thoughtlessly.' I again read the text over attentively, to see if any other meaning could be given it, but found that the clause was evidently correct. I consulted the Greek dictionary, and the meaning given to the word was the same. I consulted the context, but the word is only once used in the Gospels — viz., in the passage in question. We find it several times in the Epistles. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians (xv. 2) it is used in the same sense. Therefore there seemed to be no other possible rendering of the text, and I found myself obliged to believe that Christ said, ' Be not angry without a cause.' I must confess that, to believe in Christ's having uttered so indefinite a saying — which admits of an interpretation that reduces it to a mere nothing — seemed to me equivalent to an entire renunciation of the Gospel itself. A last hope was left me: was this clause to be found in all the transcripts of the Gospel? I examined various translations. I looked in Griesbach's edition of the Gospels, in which he enumerates all the transcripts in which a similar expression is used; and I found, to my great joy, that there were several references attached to this particular text. I examined them, and found that they referred to the very words, ' without a cause.' In the greater number of the transcripts of the Gospel, and in the commentaries of the Fathers of the Church, these words are omitted. Thus, the majority understood the text as I do. I then consulted the first transcript of Tischendorf, but the words are not there. The shortest way to solve the problem would have been to look in Luther's translation of the Gospel; but the words are not to be found there either.

The clause which so entirely destroys the sense of Christ's doctrine was an addition made in the fifth century, and it is not to be found in any of the most trustworthy transcripts of the Gospel.

Some one had inserted the clause, and others had approved of it, and then tried to explain it.

Christ never could have added so monstrous a clause; and the simple, direct meaning of the text, which had -first struck me, and must strike others, is the true one.

Nor is this all; for, no sooner did I understand that Christ's words forbade anger against any person whatever, than the command not to call a fellow-creature *. raca,' or ' thou fool,' struck me in a new light, and I could no longer consider it as being intended to forbid the use of abusive language. The untranslated word raca opened my eyes to (he true sense. The word raca means 1 trampled upon, set at nought, made of no account;' the word rac is a word very generally used, and it signifies ' excepting,' ' only not.' Raca, therefore, means a man unworthy of the title of man. We find the plural, rekim, used in the Book of Judges (ix. 4) in the sense of ' lost.' So this is the word we are forbidden by Christ to use in speaking of a fellow-creature. In the same manner does He forbid our saying 1 Thou fool,' as being words by which we may consider ourselves justified in setting aside our duty towards our neighbour. We give way to anger, wrong others, and allege for our justification that the man who has excited our anger is a lost man or a fool. And these are the epithets that we are forbidden by Christ to apply to any man. He forbids our giving way to anger against our fellow-creatures; He forbids our justifying our anger by calling its object a lost man or a fool.

And now, in the place of an indistinct, indefinite, and insignificant expression, subject to countless arbitrary interpretations, the first simple, clear, and distinct commandment of Christ arose before rne, as contained in the verses 21-28: ' Be at peace with all men, and never consider thine anger as just. Never look upon any man as worthless or a fool, neither call him such ' (verse 22). 'Not only shalt thou never think thyself justified in thine anger, but -never shalt thou consider thy brother's anger as causeless; and therefore, if there be one who is angry with thee, be it even without a cause, before praying, go and be reconciled to him ' (verses 23, 24). ' Endeavour to destroy all enmity between thyself and others, that their enmity may not grow and destroy thee ' (verses 25, 26).

And now the second commandment of Christ, which also begins with a reference to the ancient law, grew clear to me also.

Matthew v. 27-30: ' Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery' (Exod. xx. 14-28). ' But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart ' (verse

28). ' And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell ' (verse 29). 1 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell ' (verse 30).

Matthew v. 31, 32: 1 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement ' (Deut. xxiv. 1). 'But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.'

I understood these words to signify that no man must ever admit, even in thought, the possibility of leaving the woman he was first united to for another a thing which is permitted by the Mosaic law.

As in His first commandment against anger, we are advised to stifle the feeling in its birth — the advice being further exemplified by the comparison of the man delivered up to the judge — so here Christ says that fornication is the consequence of men and women letting their thoughts dwell on sexual relations; and, to avoid this, we must set aside all that can excite such thoughts; and, when once united to a woman, we must never leave her, under any pretext whatever, because this opens the door to sinful indulgence.

I was struck by the wisdom of the saying. It tends to do away with all the evils resulting from sexual relations. Men and women are to avoid all that can excite sensuality, being fully aware that nothing is more conducive to dissensions in the world than carnal pleasures, and knowing also that the law of nature is that the race should live together in couples, • united in bonds that cannot be dissolved.

In the Sermon on the Mount the words, ' saving for the cause of fornication,' which had always seemed strange to me, struck me still more forcibly when I saw that they were considered as permitting divorce if the wife had committed adultery.

Besides there being something unworthy in the very way the idea is expressed, and in this strange exception standing side by side with the most important principles which the sermon contained — like a regulation in some code — the exception itself was in direct opposition to the fundamental idea of Christ's teaching.

I consulted the commentators of the Gospels, and all of them (John Chrysostom, page 365), and even theological critics like Reuss, affirm that these words mean, that Christ permits divorce if the wife have committed adultery; that in Christ's prohibition of divorce, in the nineteenth chapter, where we read 1 saving for the cause of fornication,' the words have that meaning. I read the thirty-second verse over and over again, and came to the conclusion that this interpretation of the words was erroneous. In order to verify my opinion, I examined the context, and found, in the Gospel according to St. Matthew xix. Mark x., Luke xvi., and in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, a similar declaration of the indissolu- bility of the marriage tie, without exception of any kind.

In the Gospel according to St. Luke, xvi. 18, we read: 1 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.'

In the Gospel according to St. Mark, x. 4-12, we read: ' For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same matter. And He saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.'

WTe find the same teaching in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, xix. 4-9.

In the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, vii. 1-12, the statement that depravity may be prevented by husbands and wives never forsaking each other, nor defrauding each other of their rights, is enlarged upon; and it is distinctly said that neither shall the husband in any case forsake his wife for another woman,nor the wifeleave her husband for another man.

Thus we see that, according to the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Epistle of Paul, divorce is wholly forbidden. According to the interpretation that husband and wife are one flesh, joined together by God, which we find repeated in two of the Gospels, divorce is forbidden. According to the sense of the whole doctrine of Christ, who exhorts us to forgive all, not excluding the wife who has gone astray, it is forbidden. According to the sense of the whole text, which clearly points out that a man's leaving his wife brings depravity into the world, it is forbidden.

Whence, then, is the conclusion drawn that a wife who has committed adultery may be divorced, and on what is it grounded? On the very words of Matt. v. 32, which had so strangely struck me. It is alleged that these words prove that Christ permits divorce if the wife have committed adultery; and they are also repeated in the nineteenth chapter in numerous transcripts of the Gospel, and by many of the Fathers of the Church, instead of the words, 1 except it be for fornication.'

I read the words over and over again, and it was long before I could understand them. I saw that there was probably something incorrect in the translation and interpretation, but could not for some time make out what it was. That there was a mistake was obvious. Placing his commandment in opposition to that of the Mosaic law, which says that if a man hate his wife he may put her away, giving her a writing of divorcement, Christ says: ' But I say unto you, That whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.' There is no opposition in these words, and no mention made of the possibility or impossibility of divorce.

We are only told that he who putteth away his wife causes her to commit adultery. And then comes a clause which excepts the wife guilty of adultery. This exception is altogether strange and unexpected; it is indeed absurd, as it destroys even the dubious sense of the words. It is stated that the putting away of a wife causes her to commit adultery, and then the husband is exhorted to put away his wife if she be guilty of adultery; as if the wife who was guilty of adultery would not commit adultery!

Moreover, on a closer examination of the text, I saw that it was even grammatically incorrect, It is said: 1 Whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery,' or, if we translate the word тгарефточ literally,' besides; fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.' The words refer to the husband who causes his wife to commit adultery by putting her away. Then why is the clause 'cause of fornication ' inserted? If it were said that the husband who puts away his wife, besides being guilty of fornication, commits adultery, the sentence would be grammatically correct. But as the text stands, the noun 'husband' has one predicate — ' causes her,' etc. — and how does the phrase 'saving for the cause of fornication ' refer to it? ' Cannot cause her to commit adultery, saving for the cause of adultery?' Even if the words ' wife ' or ' her ' were added, which is not the case, the words could have no reference to the predicate 'causes her/ According to the accepted interpretation, these words are considered as referring to the predicate ' putteth away '; but the verb ' putteth away ' is not the predicate of the principal sentence, for that is, ' causeth her to commit adultery.' Therefore, for what purpose are the words 1 saving for (or besides) the cause of fornication' inserted? Be the wife guilty of adultery or not, by putting her away the husband causes her to commit that sin.

The sentence would have a meaning if in the place of the word ' fornication ' we found the words ' lasciviousness,' ' debauchery/ or some similar word expressing, not an action, but a quality or a state.

Does it not mean, said I to myself, that he who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery, and is besides guilty of debauchery himself? (For if a man divorce his wife, it is but in order to take to himself some other woman.) If the word used in the text be found to mean 'debauchery/ then the sense will be clear.

And again, as in the preceding instances, the text confirmed my surmise in a manner that left no room for doubt. What first struck me on reading the text was, that the word тгорѵеіа, which is, in all translations except the English, rendered as 'adultery,' in the same way as [Moixuv^at, is, in reality, quite another word. Perhaps the two words are synonymous, or are used in the Gospel in the same sense, I thought. So I referred both to the common dictionary and to the evangelical glossaries, and found that the word iropveia, which is equivalent to the Hebrew £zono,' the Latin ' fornicatio,' the German ' Hurerei,' the Russian ' распутство ' (lewdness), has its own definite meaning, and in no dictionary is it considered as signifying adultery; ' adultere,' ' Ehebruch/ as it has been translated by Luther. It properly implies a depraved state or disposition, and not an action, and cannot therefore be translated by the word 'adultery.' Moreover, I saw that the word ' adultery ' is always expressed in the Gospel, and even in the above-named verses by another word, iioiyiw. And no sooner had I corrected this evidently intentional perversion of the text than I saw that the sense given to the context of the nineteenth chapter, and by our commentators, was altogether impossible; I saw that there could be no doubt about the word тгорѵеіа referring only to the husband.

Every Greek scholar will construe the passage thus: 1 Паре)(тд<;, besides; \6yov, the matter; iropveias, of lewdness; iroiel, causes; аьтгр, her; p^oL^aa^ai, to commit adultery;' therefore the text stands word for word thus: ' He who divorces his wife, besides the sin of lewdness, causes her to commit adultery.'

We find exactly the same in the nineteenth chapter. No sooner is the incorrect translation of the word iropvela amended, as well as that of the preposition eVt, which has been translated ' for '; no sooner is the word ' lewdness ' placed instead of 'adultery/ and the preposition ' by ' instead of ' for/ than it grows perfectly clear that the words el iirj Irrl iropveia can have no reference to the wife. And as the words ттаре-утдч \ayov тгорѵеіач can have no other meaning than ' besides the sin of lewdness of the husband,' so the words el p.r) еш тгорѵеіа, which we find in the nineteenth chapter, can have no reference to anything except the lewdness of the husband. It is said, el p.rj eirl iropveia, which, being translated literally, is, 'if not by lewdness/ 'if not out of lewdness/ And thus the meaning is clear that Christ in this passage refutes the notions of the Pharisees that a man who put away his wife, not out of lewdness, but in order to live matrimonially with another woman, did not commit adultery; Christ says that the repudiation of a wife, even if it be not done out of lewdness, but in order to be joined in bonds of matrimony to another woman, is adultery. And thus the sense is simple, clear, perfectly consistent with the whole doctrine, and both logically and grammatically correct.

It was with the greatest difficulty that I at last discovered this clear and simple meaning of the words themselves, and their harmony with the whole doctrine of Christ. And, in truth, read the words in the German or French versions, where it is said, 1 pour cause d'infidelite,' or ' a moins que cela ne soit pour cause d'infidelite,' and you will hardly be able to guess that the text has quite another meaning. The word тгаре^точ, which according to all dictionaries means ' excepte,' ' ausgenommen,' is translated in the French by a whole sentence, 'a moins que cela ne soit.' The word iropveia is translated ' infidelite,' ' Ehebruch/ 'adultery.' And on this intentional perversion of the text is based an interpretation which destroys the moral, religious, grammatical, and logical sense of Christ's words.

And once more I received a confirmation of the truth that the meaning of Christ's doctrine is simple and clear. His commandments are definite, and of the highest practical importance; but the interpretations given us, based on a desire to justify existing evils, have so obscured His doctrine that we can with difficulty fathom its meaning. I felt convinced that had the Gospel been found half burnt or half obliterated, it would have been easier to discover its true meaning than it is now; that it has suffered from such unconscientious interpretations, which have purposely concealed or distorted its true sense. In this last instance the special object of justifying the divorce of some Ivan the Terrible* which thus led to the misrepresentation of the Christian doctrine of matrimony, is more obvious than in the preceding cases to which reference has been made.

No sooner are all these interpretations thrown aside than vagueness and mistiness fade away, and the second commandment of Christ rises plainly before us: 'Take no pleasure in concupiscence; let each man if he be not an eunuch have a wife, and each woman a husband; let a man have but one wife, and a woman one husband, and let them never under any pretext whatsoever dissolve their union.'

Immediately after the second commandment we find a new reference to the ancient law, and the third commandment is given. Matthew v. 33 — 37, ' Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths' (Levit. xix. 12; Deut. xxiii. 21). (34) ' But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne '; (35) ' nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.' (36) ' Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make * The Czar of Russia (1533-1584).

one hair white or black.' (37) ' But let your word be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.'

In my former readings of the Gospel this text had always puzzled me. Not by its obscurity, as the text referring to divorce did; nor by its inconsistency with other passages, as did the text which forbids anger only if it be ' without a cause nor, again, by the difficulty of fulfilling the commandment, like the text which enjoins our letting ourselves be smitten. It puzzled me, on the contrary, by its evident clearness and simplicity. Side by side with precepts, the depth and importance of which filled me with awe, I found an apparently useless, insignificant precept, very easy of fulfilment, and comparatively unimportant in its bearing upon myself or upon others. I had never sworn by Jerusalem, or by God, or by anything; and had never found any difficulty in abstaining from so doing; besides, it seemed to me that my swearing or not swearing could be of no importance to anyone. And longing to find some explanation of a precept which puzzled me by its simplicity, I consulted the commentaries on the Gospel. This once they helped me.

Commentators see in these words a confirmation of the third commandment of Moses, not to swear by God's name. They say that Christ, like Moses, forbids our taking God's name in vain. But they add besides that this precept given us by Christ is not always obligatory, and that in no case does it refer to the oath of allegiance to the existing powers, which every citizen is obliged to take. They choose out texts from Holy Scripture, not with the purpose of confirming the direct meaning of Christ's precept, but in order to prove that it is possible and even necessary to leave it unfulfilled.

It is affirmed that Christ Himself sanctioned the taking of an oath in courts of law, by His answer, ' Thou hast said,' to the High Priest's words: ' I conjure thee by the living God.' It is likewise affirmed that the Apostle Paul called upon God to bear witness to the truth of his words, and that this was obviously an oath. It is affirmed that oaths were enjoined by the Mosaic law, and that Christ did not abrogate them, and only set useless, pharisaically hypocritical oaths aside.

And when I saw the meaning and the true object of the interpretation, it grew clear to me that Christ's law against swearing was not as insignificant and easy of fulfilment as I had thought before I had come to regard the 'oath of allegiance' as one of those which are forbidden by Christ.

And I said to myself: ' Does it not mean that the oath, which is so carefully fenced round by the Church commentaries, is also forbidden? Do not Christ's words oppose the very oath without which the division of men into separate governments would be an impossibility — the oath without which a military class would be impossible? Soldiers are those who act by violence; and they call themselves ' sworn men ' (присяга). Had I asked the grenadier I mentioned in a preceding chapter, how he solved the problem of the inconsistency between the Gospel and the military code, he would have answered that he had taken an oath, i.e., sworn upon the Gospel.

All the military men I ever asked answered thus. Oaths are so essential in upholding the awful evils brought about by war and violence, that in France, where Christ's doctrine is entirely set aside, the oath of allegiance remains in full force. Indeed, had Christ not said, ' Swear not at all,' He ought to have said so. He came to destroy evil, and how great is the evil brought about in the world by the taking of oaths! Perhaps some may urge that this was an imperceptible evil in Christ's time. No assumption can be more gratuitous. Epictetus and Seneca enjoined all men to take no oaths. In the laws of Manou the same precept may be found. Why should I say that Christ did not see this evil, when He speaks of it so definitely and so forcibly?

He says: ' I say unto you, Swear not at all.' The saying is as clear, as simple, and as indubitable as the words, 'judge not,' 'condemn not;' and it gives as little scope for false interpretation, the less so as the words ' Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatever is more than these cometh of evil,' are subjoined.

Now if Christ by this teaching exhorts us always to fulfil the will of God, how dare a man swear to obey the will of man? The will of God may not always coincide with the will of man. Christ tells us so in this very text. He says (verse 36): ' Swear not by thy head, for not only thy head but every hair on it is subject to the will of God.' We find the same thing taught in the Epistle of James, who says (chapter v., verse 12): 'But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation.' The Apostle tells us why we are not to swear. Though the taking of an oath may be no sin in itself, he who swears falls into condemnation, and therefore shall no man swear. Can any language be more clear than the words of Christ and of this Apostle are?'

But my ideas on this point were in so confused a state that for some time I went on asking myself, with surprise, 1 Does the precept really mean this? How is it that all swear by the Gospel? It cannot be.'

But I had read the commentaries on the Gospel, and saw that what I deemed impossible had, nevertheless, been done. The same remark has to be made in reference to this as to the texts: 'Judge not,' ' Give not way to anger,' ' Never break the union of husband and wife.' We have set up our own institutions: we love them, and choose to consider them sacred. Christ, whom we acknowledge to be God, comes, and He says that our rules of life are bad. We acknowledge Him to be God, yet we do not choose to set our rules of life aside. What is left then for us to do? When, by inserting the words ' without a cause,' we turn the commandment against anger into a meaningless sentence; when, like crafty lawyers, we interpret the sense of the commandment in a manner which gives it a contrary meaning to that designed by Him who spake it, as we do if, instead of prohibiting altogether the putting away of a wife, we declare divorce to be lawful and just, we put our institutions in the place of truth. But if it be impossible to interpret the words otherwise than as I have indicated, in the treatment of the precepts 'Judge not,' 1 Condemn not/ ' Swear not at all,' then we boldly act in direct opposition to Christ's doctrine, while asserting that we strictly fulfil it, if we cleave to traditional interpretations.

The chief obstacle to our understanding that the Gospel wholly forbids our taking an oath is. that the so-called Christian teachers boldly insist upon men's taking oaths upon the Gospel; and in this acting contrary to the Gospel. How can it come into the head of a man who is made to take an oath on the Gospel, or the crucifix, that that crucifix is sacred for the very reason that He who forbade our swearing was crucified upon it? He who takes the oath, perhaps kisses the very passage which so clearly and definitely says, ' Swear not at all/

But such boldness no longer confounded me. I clearly saw that in the fifth chapter, verses 33-37, lay the third definite and practicable commandment of Christ, which may be thus stated: ' Never take an oath under any circumstances.' Every oath is extorted from men for evil.

After this third commandment stands a fourth reference to the Mosaic law, and then the fourth commandment is presented. Matthew v. 38-42: 1 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' (39) ' But I say unto ye that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' (40) 'And if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.'

(41) ' And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.' (42) 1 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.'

I have already spoken of the direct meaning of these words, and of our having no foundation whatever for interpreting them otherwise. The various commentaries upon them, from John Chrysostom to the present time, are truly surprising. We all admire the words, and each one tries to find some profound hidden meaning in them; but we usually fail to see that they mean exactly what they express. Ecclesiastical commentators, unmindful of the authority of Him they acknowledge as God, unhesitatingly limit the meaning of His words. They say: ' It is clearly understood that the precepts of long-suffering nonretaliation, being especially directed against the vindictiveness of the Hebrews, do not exclude either the right of setting limits to the progress of evil by the punishment of evil-doers, or private, individual endeavours to uphold the inviolability of truth, to amend the wicked, or to deprive evil-doers of the possibility of injuring others; the Divine commandments of the Saviour would otherwise be reduced to mere words, and would lead only to the progress of evil and the repression of virtue. The Christian's love should be like God's love; but as God's love limits and punishes evil only in proportion as it is more or less needful for the glory of God or the salvation of our brethren, so is it the duty of those in authority to limit the progress of evil by punishments ' (' Exposition of the Gospel/ by the Archim.

Michael, based on the Commentaries of the Fathers of the Church).

Neither do learned and free-thinking Christians scruple to correct the sense of Christ's words. They affirm that His sayings are sublime, but impracticable; that the application of the precept of non-resistance would destroy the whole organization of life, which we have set up so well; such is the opinion of Renan, Strauss, and other free-thinking commentators.

Yet if we treat the words of Christ in the same way that we do the words of any man who may chance to speak to us, i.e., if we suppose that He says what He means, all profound interpretations will become unnecessary. Christ says: 'I find that the way you have regulated your lives is both foolish and bad. I propose another way.' And then He gives us His precepts in the verses 38-42. Does it not seem right that, before correcting these words, they should at least be understood? And this is just what none of us choose to do. We decide beforehand that the present organization of our lives, which His words tend to destroy, is the sacred law of mankind.

I had not considered our way of living as either good or sacred, and therefore I came to understand this commandment before I did the others. And when I understood these words exactly in the sense in which they were uttered, I was struck by their truth, clearness, and force. Christ says: ' You think to destroy evil by evil. That is irrational. In order that there should be no evil, do no eviV And then, after enumerating all that is evil in our social adjustments, Christ exhorts us to act otherwise.

The fourth commandment, I have said, was the one which I understood first, and it opened up to me the true meaning of all the rest. The fourth clear, simple commandment, which it is within the power of all to obey, says: ' Never resist evil by violence; never return violence for violence. If anyone smites thee, bear it; if anyone take away what is thine, let him have it; if anyone makes thee labour, do so; if anyone wants to have what thou considerest to be thine own, give it up to him.'

And after this fourth commandment stands a fifth reference to the Mosaic law, and the fifth commandment. Matthew v. 43-48: ' Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy' (Levit. xix. 17-18). (44) 'But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you. do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.' (45) ' That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.' (46) 'For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?' (47) 'And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the heathens so?' (48) ' Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect'