I had formerly considered these words as explaining, amplifying, and giving more emphasis to, nay, even exaggerating, the doctrine of non-resistance. But having already found the simple, definite, and applicable sense of each of the preceding texts which begin by a reference to the ancient law, I had a presentiment that I should find some fresh meaning here also. I had observed that a commandment was annexed to each reference to the ancient law, and that each verse of the commandment had its own import, and could not be turned aside; and I was sure that would prove to be the fact here also. The last words which we repeated in the Gospel according to St. Luke say that, as God makes no distinction between men, but pours down His blessings upon all, so should we be like our Father in heaven, and make no distinction between men; not acting as the heathen do, but loving all men, and doing good to all: these words were very clear; they seemed to me an explanation and commendation of some clearly defined precept, but what that precept precisely was I could not for a long time make out. ' Love one's enemy.' That was impossible. It was one of those beautiful utterances which cannot be considered otherwise than as presenting an unattainable moral ideal. It was either too much or it meant nothing. We may avoid wronging our enemy, but to love him is impossible. Christ cannot have commanded what we cannot fulfil. Moreover, the very first words in reference to the ancient law, * It hath been said, Hate thine enemy,' were dubious. In the preceding passages Christ quotes the exact, authentic words of the Mosaic law; but in this one He cites words which were never used. He seems to calumniate the ancient law.
The various commentaries on the Gospel which I consulted helped me no more than they had done in my former doubts. All commentators acknowledge that the words 'hate thine enemy' do not stand in the Mosaic law; but by none of them is there any explanation of the incorrect quotation given. They tell us that it is hard to love one's enemies — the wicked; and, commenting on Christ's words, they add, that though a man cannot love his enemy, yet he may neither wish him evil, nor actually wrong or injure him. It is persistently instilled into us that it is our bounden duty to denounce evil-doers, i.e, to oppose our enemy; and the various steps are mentioned by which this virtue may be attained; and thus, according to the interpretation given by the Church, the final conclusion is that Christ, without any ostensible reason, quotes the words of the Mosaic law incorrectly, and has uttered many beautiful, but in themselves useless and impracticable, sayings.
It seemed to me that this could not be a true statement of the case. I felt sure that there was as clear and definite a sense in these words as I had found in the first four commandments. In order to comprehend the real meaning of the text, I endeavoured, first of all, to take in the sense of the incorrect reference to the Mosaic law: 1 Ye have been told, Hate thine enemy.' It is not without some distinct purpose that, before giving each of His own precepts, Christ quotes the words of the old law, 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'thou shalt not commit adultery,' etc., and places His doctrine in opposition to them. Now, if we do not comprehend what meaning Christ attached to the words He quotes, neither can we comprehend the duty which He enjoins. It seemed to me that the first point it was necessary to make out was, for what purpose Christ had cited words which are not found in the Mosaic law.
Here we find two precepts set in opposition to each other: ' Ye have been told, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy;' so it is obvious that the basis of the new commandment must be the very difference between these two precepts of the ancient law. In order to see the distinction more clearly, I asked myself, 1 What do the words " neighbour " and "enemy" mean, in the language of the Gospel?' And on consulting the dictionary and other passages of the Bible, I found that the word ' neighbour ' in the Hebrew language always signifies ' a Hebrew.' In the Gospel, a similar definition of the word 'neighbour' is given in the parable of the good Samaritan. According to the Hebrew lawyer's question, 1 Who is my neighbour?' a Samaritan could not be his neighbour. The same definition of the word ' neighbour ' is given in the Acts of the Apostles, vii. 27. The word ' neighbour,' as used in the Gospel, signifies a ' fellowcountryman,' one who belongs to the same nation. And I hence conclude that the antithesis used by Christ in this passage, when quoting the words of the law, 'Ye have been told, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy,' places a ' fellow-countryman 1 in opposition to ' a stranger.-' I then asked myself what the word ' enemy ' meant, according to the Hebrews. It is almost always used, in the Gospel, in the sense, not of a private, but of a common enemy a national enemy: Luke i. 71; Matthew xxii. 44; Mark xii. 36; Luke xx. 43, and elsewhere. The use of the word 1 enemy ' in the singular number, in the text, 'hate thine enemy,' made it clear to me that the words referred to a national enemy. The singular expresses an enemy taken in a collective sense. In the Old Testament the word ' enemy/ when used in the singular, always implies a national enemy.
No sooner did I comprehend this than my difficulty in understanding how it was that Christ, who always quoted the original words of the law, in this instance inserts the words, ' Ye have been told, Thou sJialt hate thine enetnyl which are not in the Mosaic law, was solved. To remove all doubts as to the meaning of the passage, we have only to take the word 'neighbour' as meaning a 'fellow-countryman.' Christ speaks of the Mosaic regulations concerning a national enemy. He combines in the single expression 'to hate, to wrong an enemy,' all the various precepts dispersed through the Scriptures by which the Hebrews are enjoined to oppress, kill, and destroy other nations. And He says: ' Ye have been told that ye shall love your own people, and hate the enemies of your nation; but I say unto you, that ye love all, without distinction of their nationality.'
And no sooner had I understood this than the second and chief difficulty, i.e., how the words 'love thine enemies ' were to be understood, was removed. It is impossible to love our personal enemies. But we can love men of another nation as we do those of our own people. I saw clearly that by the words, ' Ye have heard that it hath been said, Love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies,' Christ asserts that all men are accustomed to consider their fellow-countrymen as their neighbours and men of other nations as their enemies, and this He forbids our doing. He says that, according to the law of Moses, a distinction was made between him who was a Hebrew and him who was not, but was considered as a national enemy; and then He commands that no such distinction should be made between them. Indeed, in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke we find that, immediately after this precept, He says that all are equal before God, that the same sun shines on all, the same rain falls upon all. God makes no distinction between men, and does equal good to all; ought not men to do likewise, without recognising distinctions of nationality?
Thus I again found ample confirmation of the simple and practicable sense of Christ's words. Instead of an indistinct and indefinite philosophy, I discovered a clear definite precept, which all have it within their power to fulfil. To make no distinction between one's own and other nations, and so to avoid the natural results of these distinctions, such as being at enmity with other nations, going to war, taking part in war, arming for war, etc., and to treat all men, whatever nation they belong to, as we do our fellowcountrymen, was the requirement of Christ. All this was so simple and so clear that I was surprised I had not understood it at once.
The hindrance in my way was the same that had prevented my comprehending the prohibition of courts of law and oaths. It is difficult to conceive that the very courts of law, which are inaugurated with Christian prayer, and consecrated by those who regard themselves as the fulfillers of Christ's law, are incompatible with the Christian faith, and are in direct opposition to Christ's doctrine. Nor is it easier to conceive that the oath of allegiance, which all men are made to take by the keepers of Christ's law, is expressly forbidden by that very law. And it is hardest of all to conceive that, to uphold what is considered not only as necessary and natural, but even grand and. glorious, as love of one's native land — its defence, its aggrandizement, war against an enemy, and so on — is not only sinning against the law of Christ, but even abjuring it. We have become so estranged from the doctrine of Christ, that this very estrangement is now the chief obstacle to our understanding it. We have turned a deaf ear to His words, and forgotten all He taught us of the life we are to lead; how that we should not kill, nor even bear malice against a fellow-creature; that we should never defend ourselves, but turn our cheeks to be smitten; that we should love our neighbour, etc. We have grown so used to call 'a Christ-loving army' the men who devote their lives to murder; who put up prayers to Christ for victory over the enemy; whose pride and glory are in murder; and who have raised the symbol of murder, i.e., the sword, into something almost sacred, so that he who is deprived of that symbol is considered as having been disgraced; we have grown so used to all this, I repeat, that it now appears to us that Christ did not forbid war; and that, if He had intended to do so, He would have expressed His meaning more clearly.
We forget that Christ could never have thought it possible that men who believe in His doctrine of humility, love, and universal brotherhood would calmly and consciously institute the murder of their brethren.
Christ cannot have supposed it possible, and therefore He could no more have forbidden a Christian to make war, than could a father, while admonishing his son to live honestly, without injuring or defrauding others, exhort him not to cut men's throats on the high road.
Not one of the Apostles, not one of Christ's disciples, could have supposed it necessary to forbid a Christian's committing murder, which is miscalled war. See what Origen says in his answer to Celsus, chapter 63:
' Celsus exhorts you to help the sovereign with all your strength, to take part in his duties, to take up arms for him, to serve under his banner, if necessary to lead out his army to battle. Moreover, we may say, in answer to those who, being ignorant of our faith, require the murder of men of us, that even their high-priests do not soil their hands in order that their God may accept their sacrifice. No more do we.' And concluding by the explanation that Christians do more good by their peaceful lives than soldiers do, Origen says: 'Thus we fight better than any for the safety of our sovereign. We do not, it is true, serve tinder his banners, and we should not, even were he to force us to do so.'
It was thus that the first Christians regarded war and thus their teacher spoke when addressing the great men of this world, at the time when hundreds and thousands of martyrs were perishing for the Christian faith.
But in our times the question whether a Christian ought to take part in war never seems to occur to any. Youths brought up according to the Church law, which is called the Christian law, go every autumn, at fixed periods, to the conscription halls, and, with the assistance of their spiritual pastors, there renounce the law of Christ. A short time ago a peasant refused to enter the military service, grounding his refusal on the words of the Gospel. The clergy all tried to persuade the man that his view, of the matter was erroneous; and as the peasant still believed in Christ's words, and not in theirs, he was cast into prison, and kept there till he denied Christ. And this takes place although we, Christians, received 1800 years ago a perfectly clear and definite commandment from our God, which said, ' Never consider men of another nation as thine enemies; look upon all men as brethren, and behave towards all men as thou dost towards thy fellowcountrymen; therefore shalt thou not kill those whom thou callest thine enemies; love all and do good to all.'
And when I had understood these simple, definite commandments, which admit of no other interpretation, I asked myself, What would the world be if all Christians believed that these commandments must be fulfilled, in order to attain happiness, instead of treating them only as commandments which must be sung or read in churches, in order that we may find favour in the eyes of God? What would the world be if people did but as firmly believe in the obligatory character of these commandments as they now do in the necessity of daily prayer; of attending public worship every Sunday; of eating ' fast-food ' on Fridays, and receiving the Sacrament every year? What would the world be, if all men did but as firmly believe in these commandments as they do in the prescriptions of the Church? And I pictured to myself men and women, in Christian society, living up to these commandments, and instilling the same into new generations; ourselves and our children no longer taught, both by word and deed, that man must maintain his own dignity, must defend his own rights (which cannot be done without humbling or offending others), but, instead, taught that no man has any rights, that none can be superior or inferior to another, that only he who tries to rise above all others is lower and more degraded than others, — that there is no feeling more debasing for a man to cherish than that of anger against another, — that the seeming insignificance or foolishness of a man can never justify either anger or enmity. Instead of our present social adjustments — from the show-glasses of shops to theatres, novels, and millinery — whose tendency is but to sensuality, I pictured to myself that we, and our children, were taught, by word and deed, that the pleasures of sensational books, theatres, and balls was the basest kind of pleasuse; that every action whose aim was the embellishing or showing-off of our persons was base and disgusting. Instead of our present social adjustments, by which it is considered necessary, and even in a sense right, that a young man should ' sow his wild oats ' before marriage, — instead of a life in which separation between husband and wife is regarded as an ordinary thing, — instead of the acknowledged necessity for the existence of a class of women who serve to pamper depravity, — instead of the permission and authorization of divorce, I pictured to myself that we were taught, both by precept and by example, that a single, unmarried state, for a man in all his virility, was an anomaly and a shame, — that a man's leaving the woman he was united to, or taking another in her place, was not only as unnatural a proceeding as incest, but a cruel and inhuman deed. Instead of our lives being based upon violence, instead of each of us being either chastened himself or chastising others from childhood to old age, I pictured to myself that we were taught, both by precept and by example, that vengeance is but a base instinct; that violence is not only shameful, but deprives man of his true happiness; that the proper joys of life are only those which need no violence to protect them; that it is not he who despoils others, or keeps what is his own out of the hands of others, and makes others serve him, who is the most deserving of respect, but, rather, he who gives most, and who helps others most. Instead of considering it very right and lawful that each man should take an oath, and thus give away the most precious of his possessions, i.e., his whole life into the keeping of another, I pictured to myself that we were taught to regard the intelligent will of man as that ' holiest of holies ' which no man can ever give away; and that to promise anything with an oath is to renounce one's own rational self, and is an outrage against all that is most holy in man. I pictured to myself that instead of the enmity towards other nations which is instilled into us under a semblance of patriotism — instead of the praise of murder or war, which we, from our childhood, look upon as a glorious thing — there was instilled into us the dread and scorn of all those diplomatic or military institutions which serve to disunite men; that to admit the existence of states, laws, frontiers, countries, etc., is but a proof of the most brutal ignorance; that to go to war, i.e., to kill men who are complete strangers to us, without any reason, is the most horrid crime, of which only a lost and depraved man, degraded to the rank of a wild beast, is capable. I pictured to myself that all men believed in this, and I asked myself, ' What would the world be then?'
Formerly I had more than once asked myself what the fulfilment of the doctrine of Christ, as I then understood it, would lead to, and the involuntary answer had been, 1 To nothing at all.' We shall all go on praying, receiving the Holy Sacrament, believing in our redemption and salvation, in the redemption and salvation of the whole world through Christ, and still this salvation will not be brought about by ourselves; but Christ will come again, in His appointed time, to judge the quick and the dead, and then the kingdom of God will be established on earth, independently of the life which we have led. But the doctrine of Christ, as I now understand it, has another signification: the establishing of the kingdom of God on earth depends upon ourselves. The fulfilment of
Christ's doctrine, as expressed in the five commandments, establishes this kingdom of God. The kingdom of God on earth is peace amongst all men. Peace among men is the highest earthly bliss which man can attain. It was thus that the Hebrew prophets pictured the kingdom of God to themselves. And it is thus that each human heart ever has and ever will picture it.
The substance of the entire doctrine of Christ is the establishing of the kingdom of God on earth, and that brings peace to all men. In the Sermon on the Mount, in His conversation with Nicodemus, in the mission given by Him to the disciples, in all His teachings, He speaks of what causes division among men, and prevents their living in peace, and entering the kingdom of God. All Christ's parables are definitions of the kingdom of God — they all seek to instil into us that it is only by loving our brethren, and being at peace with them, that we can enter the kingdom. John the Baptist, the precursor of Christ, says that the kingdom of God is at hand, and that Jesus Christ will give it unto the world.
Christ says that He brings peace on earth (John xiv. 27): ' Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.'
These five commandments of Christ do indeed give peace to men. The tendency of all the five commandments is to procure peace amongst men. Let men but believe in the doctrineof Christ, and obey it, and there will be peace on earth; not the peace established by man, which is fleeting and transitory, but general, inviolable, eternal peace.
The first commandment says: Be at peace with all men, nor consider any man as worthless or foolish (Matt. v. 22). If peace be destroyed, use thy utmost endeavours to re-establish it. The service of God is the annihilation of all enmity (Matt. v. 23, 24). Let the least disagreement be followed by immediate reconciliation, less thou swerve from the true life. This commandment includes all in itself. But Christ foresees the temptations of the world which destroy peace among men, and gives a second commandment against the seductions of sexual relations which are destructive of peace: Do not consider carnal beauty to lust after it; avoid the temptation (28, 30); let each man have one wife, and each woman one husband; and let them never leave each other, under any pretext whatsoever (32). Another temptation is the taking of oaths, for it leads men into sin. Know, therefore, that to do so is to sin, and consequently never make any vow (34, 35). The third temptation is to vengeance, which is called human justice; never take vengeance on any man; nor seek to excuse thyself by saying thou hast received injury at the hands of another; bear the wrong done thee, and return not evil for evil (38, 42). The fourth temptation arises from the distinction made between nations, the enmity between races and states. Know that all men are brethren, and sons of the same God, and never destroy peace in the name of national interests (43, 48). Let men leave but one of these commandments unfulfilled, and peace will be destroyed. Let men fulfil all these commandments, and the kingdom of peace will be established on earth. These commandments exclude all evil from the relationships of men.
The fulfilment of Christ's commandments will make the lives of men such as each human heart seeks and longs for. All men will be brethren; each will be at peace with the other, and each will be free to enjoy all the blessings of this world during the term of life allotted to him by God. Men will turn their ' swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks.' And on earth will be established the kingdom of God; the kingdom of peace that was promised by the prophets, which drew nearer with John the Baptist, and which Christ announced in the words of Isaiah: ' The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord/
The simple and clear commandments of peace, given by Christ, by which all causes of dissension are foreseen and turned aside, reveal the kingdom of God on earth to men. Thus Christ is truly the Messiah.
VII.
Why does man not do the things which Christ enjoins, and which can give him the highest earthly felicity — the felicity he has ever longed to attain? The answer as usually given, with slight variations of expression, is that the doctrine of Christ is indeed sublime, and its fulfilment would establish the kingdom of God on earth, but it is difficult, and therefore impracticable.
It is in the nature of man to strive after what is best. Each doctrine of life is but a doctrine of what is best for man. If men have pointed out to them what is really best for them, how come they to answer that they wish to do what is best, but cannot?
Human intellect, ever since man has existed, has been directed towards discovering what is amongst all the demands that are made both in individual and in social life. Men struggle for land, for any object that they may want, and then end by dividing all amongst themselves, each calling what he may get his 'personal property'; they find that though difficult of adjustment, it is better arranged thus, and they keep to their own property. Men fight to get wives for themselves, and then come to the conclusion that it is better for each to have his own family; and though it may be hard to maintain a family, men keep to their property, their families, and all else they are said to possess. No sooner do men find it best for themselves to act in a particular way, than they proceed to act in that way, however hard it may be. Then what do we mean by saying the doctrine of Christ is sublime, a life in accordance with His doctrine would be a better one than the one we now lead, but we cannot lead the life that would be best for us, because it is hard to do so?
If 'hard' mean that it is hard to give up the momentary satisfaction of our desires for some great and good end, why do we not say, as well, that it is hard to plough the ground in order to have bread; to plant apple-trees in order to have apples? Every being endowed with the least germ of reason knows that no great good can be attained without trouble and difficulty. And now we say that though Christ's doctrine is sublime, we can never put it in practice, because it is hard to do so. Hard, because its observance would deprive us of what we have always possessed. Have we never heard that it may be better for us to suffer and to lose, than never to suffer and always to have our desires satisfied?
Man may be but an animal, and nobody will find fault with him for being such; but a man cannot reason that he chooses to be only an animal; no sooner does he reason than he admits himself to be a rational being, and, making this admission, he cannot help recognising a distinction between what is rational and what is irrational. Reason does not command, it only enlightens.
While groping about in the darkness in search of the door, I bruise my hands and knees. A man comes with a light, and I see the door. I can no longer bruise myself against the wall now that I see the door, still less can I assert that, though I see the door and feel convinced the best plan would be to enter it, it is hard to do so, and I prefer bruising my knees against the wall.
There must evidently be some strange misconception in the argument, that the doctrine of Christ is good, and conducive of good to the world, but man is weak, man is bad, and, while wishing to act for the best, he acts for the worst, and therefore he cannot do what he knows is best for himself.
This notion must be the result of some false assumption. It is only by assuming that what is — is not, and that what is not — is, that man can have arrived at so strange a negation of the possibility of fulfilling a doctrine which, as he himself admits, would give him happiness.
The assumption which has brought mankind to accept this notion is based on the dogmatical Christian creed — the creed which is taught to all members of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Churches, from their earliest childhood.
This creed, according to the definition given by believers, is an acknowledgment of the existence of things that seem to be (a definition given by St. Paul and repeated in works on divinity and catechisms as the best definition of faith). It is this belief that has brought mankind to the singular conviction that the doctrine of Christ is good, but cannot be put in practice.
The doctrine of this creed is literally as follows: God eternal, Three Persons in one God, chose to create a world of spirits. The bountiful God created that world of spirits for their happiness; but it chanced that one of the spirits grew wicked, and therefore unhappy. Some time passed away, and God created another world, a material world, and created man, likewise for happiness. God created man happy, immortal, and sinless. Man was happy because he enjoyed all the blessings of life without labour; immortal, for he was always to live thus; sinless, for he knew not evil.
Man was tempted in Eden by the spirit of the first creation, that had grown wicked; and from that time man fell, and other fallen men like him were born into the world; men laboured, sickened, suffered, died, struggled morally and physically; i.e., the imaginary man became the real man, such as we know him to be; and we have no grounds for imagining him ever to have been otherwise. The state of man who labours, suffers, strives after good, avoids evil, and dies; this state, which is real, and beyond which we can imagine no other, is not the true state of man, according to this orthodox belief, but it is a temporary, accidental state, unnatural to him.
And though, according to this teaching, this state of man has continued for all men from the expulsion of Adam out of Eden, i.e., from the beginning of the world to the birth of Christ, and has continued in the same way since that time, believers are bound to think that this is only an accidental, temporary state. According to this teaching the Son of God, God Himself, the Second Person of the Trinity, was sent down from heaven by God, ana was made man, to save men from this accidental, temporary state, unnatural to them, to deliver them from the curse laid upon them by the same Gcd for the sin of Adam, and to re-establish them in their former natural state of perfect happiness, i.e., of health, immortality, innocence, and idleness. According to this teaching, again, the Second Person of the Trinity, redeemed the sin of Adam by the fact that men crucified Him, and thus put an end to the unnatural state of man, which had lasted from the beginning of the world. And from that time man believed in Christ, and became again such as he was before the fall, immortal, healthy, sinless, and idle.
The orthodox teaching does not dwell at any length upon the consequent results of the redemption, according to which, after the death of Christ, the earth should have begun to yield up her fruits to believers without labour, sickness should have ceased, and mothers should have given birth to their offspring without suffering; for, however great be their faith, it is difficult to instil into those who find labour hard, and sickness painful, that labour is not hard/ and suffering is not painful. Great stress, however, is laid on that part of the teaching, which says that 1 death and sin are no more.'
It is confidently asserted that the dead live. And as the dead cannot possibly tell us whether they be dead or alive, any more than a stone can tell whether it can speak or not, this absence of all denial is taken as a proof of the assertion that those who are dead are not dead. And with yet greater solemnity and assurance is it asserted that, after the coming of Christ on earth, man is delivered from sin by his faith in Him, i.e., that man has no need of reason to enlighten his path in life, and has no need to strive after what is best for Himself; he has only to believe that Christ redeemed him from sin to become sinless, i.e., perfectly good. Thus, according to this doctrine, men must think their intellect impotent, and that therefore they are sinless, i.e., cannot err.
The true believer murt fancy that ever since Christ came into the world, the earth yields fruit without labour; that children are brought into the world without suffering; that there is no sicknesss, no death, no sin — i.e., no errors. He must imagine that what is not, is; and what is, is not.
Such is the teaching of our strictly logical theory of theology.
This teaching seems innocent in itself. But a deviation from truth can never be innocent; it entails consequences, more or less important, according to the importance of the subject of the untruth. In this case the subject of the untruth is the whole life of man.
This teaching calls an individual blissful, sinless; and eternal life the true life, i.e., a life which nobody has ever seen, and which does not exist. And the life which is, the only one which we know, which we lead, and which mankind has ever led, is, according to this teaching, a fallen, wicked life.
The struggle between the intellectual and animal nature of man, which lies in the soul of each, and is the substance of the life of each man, is entirely set aside. The struggle is made to refer to what befel Adam at the creation of the world. And the question: ' Am I to eat the apples which tempt me?' according to this teaching, no longer applies to man. The question was solved in the negative, once and for ever, by Adam in Paradise. Adam sinned, that is, Adam erred, and we all fell irrevocably, and all our endeavours to live rationally are useless, and even godless. I am irrevocably bad, and I must know it. My salvation does not lie in the fact that I can order my life by my reason, and, having learnt to know good from evil, do what is best. No, Adam sinned once for all, and Christ has, once and for ever, set the evil right; and all that is left me to do, is to mourn over the fall of Adam, and rejoice in my salvation through Christ.
According to this teaching, not only are the love of good and truth, which are innate in man, his endeavours to enlighten by his reason the various phenomena of life, and his spiritual life, deemed unimportant, but they are all vain-glory and pride.
Our life here on earth, with all its joys, with all its charms, with all its struggles between light and darkness, the lives of all those who lived before, my own life with its inward struggles and consequent victories of reason, is not the true life, but is a hopelessly spoiled, fallen life; the true life, the sinless life, according to this teaching, lies only in faith, i.e., in fancy, i.e., in madness.
Let a man but set aside the teaching he has imbibed from his childhood, let him transfer himself in thought into a new man, not brought up in that doctrine, and then let him imagine in what light this teaching would appear to him. Would he not deem it complete insanity?
Strange and awful though it was to think thus, I was forced to admit that it was even so, for only thus could I explain to myself the strikingly inconsistent, senseless arguments, which I heard all around me, against the possibility of fulfilling the doctrine of Christ. ' It is good and would lead to happiness, but men cannot fulfil it.
It is only the assumption that what does not exist exists, and what exists does not exist, that can have brought mankind to so surprising an inconsistency. And I found that false assumption in the so-called Christian faith, which has been preached during 1500 years.
Believers are not the only persons who say that the doctrine of Christ is good, but impracticable. Unbelievers, men who either do not believe, or think that they do not believe, in the dogmas of the fall and the redemption, say the same. Men of science, philosophers, and men of cultivated minds in general, who consider themselves perfectly free from superstition, likewise argue the impracticability of Christ's doctrine. They do not believe, or at least think that they do not believe, in anything, and therefore consider themselves as having nothing to do, either with superstition, the fall of man, or with redemption. I thought so too, formerly. I also thought that these learned men had other grounds for denying the practicability of the doctrine of Christ. But, on examining closer into the basis of their negation, I clearly saw that unbelievers had the same false idea, that life is not what it is, but what it seems to be; and that this idea has the same basis as the idea of believers. Men who call themselves 1 unbelievers ' do not, it is true, believe either in God, in Christ, or in Adam; but they believe in the fundamental false assumption of the right of man to a life of perfect bliss, just as firmly as theologians do.
However privileged science, with her philosophy, may boast of being the judge and the guide of intellect, she is, in reality, not its guide, but its slave. The view taken of the world is always prepared for her by religion; and science only works in the path assigned her by religion. Religion reveals the meaning of life, and science applies this meaning to the various phases of life. And, therefore, if religion give a false meaning to life, science reared, in this religious creed, will apply this false meaning to the life of man.
The teaching of the Church gave, as the basis of life, the right of man to perfect bliss — bliss which is to be attained, not by the individual efforts of man, but by something beyond his own control; and this view of human life became the basis of our European science and philosophy.
Religion, science, public opinion, all unanimously tell us that the life we lead is a bad one; but that the doctrine which teaches us to endeavour to improve, and thus make our life itself better, is impracticable.
The doctrine of Christ, as an improvement of human life by the rational efforts of man, is impracticable, because Adam sinned, and the world is full of evil, says religion.
Christ's doctrine is impracticable, because human life is governed by certain laws, which are independent of the will of man, says philosophy. Philosophy and science say, in other words, exactly the same as religion does in its dogmas of original sin and redemption.
In the doctrine of redemption there are two fundamental theses on which all is grounded: (i) man has a right to perfect bliss, but the life of this world is a bad one, and cannot be amended by the efforts of man; (2) we can only be saved by faith.
These two theses have become first truths, both for the believers and the unbelievers of our so-called Christian society. Out of the second thesis arose the Church, with its institutions. Out of the first arose our social opinions, and our philosophical and political theories.
All the political and philosophical theories which justify existing order, Hegelism and its offspring, are based on this thesis.
Pessimism, which expects of life what it cannot give, and therefore denies life, is but the result of the same thesis.
Materialism, with its strange enthusiastic assertion that man is but a process, is the lawful child of this teaching which acknowledges that the life here below is a fallen life.
Spiritism, with its learned partisans, is the best proof that scientific and philosophical views are not free, but are based on the principle, inculcated by religion, that a blissful eternal life is natural to man.
This erroneous idea of the meaning of life has perverted the whole activity of man. The dogma of the fall and of the redemption of man has closed the most important and lawful domain of man's activity to him, and has excluded from the whole sphere of human knowledge the knowledge of what man must do to be happier and better. Science and philosophy fancy themselves the adversaries of so-called Christianity, and pride themselves upon the fact, while they, in reality, work for it. Science and philosophy treat of everything except the one important point: How man is to improve his condition and lead a better life. The teaching of morality, called ethics, has quite disappeared from our so-called Christian society.
Neither believers nor unbelievers ask themselves how we ought to live, and how we must use the reason which is given to us; but they ask themselves, 'Why is our life here not such as we fancied it to be, and when will it be such as we wish it to be?'
It is only through the influence of this false doctrine that we can explain how it is man has forgotten, that his whole history is but an endeavour to solve the contradictions between his rational and animal nature.
The religious and philosophical teachings of all nations (except the philosophical teachings of the socalled Christian world), Judaism, Buddhism, Brahminism, the teaching of Confucius, and of the sages of ancient Greece, have but one purpose in view — the regulation of life, and the solution of the problem, how man must strive to improve his condition and lead a better life. The teaching of Confucius deals with personal improvement; Judaism treats of man's following the covenant made with God; Buddhism teaches each how to escape the evils of life. Socrates taught personal improvement in the name of reason. The Stoics acknowledge rational liberty as the sole basis of the true life.
The rational activity of man has always lain in enlightening, by reason, his striving after good. Free will, says philosophy, is an illusion; and it prides itself on the audacity of the assertion. But free will is not only an illusion; it is a word which has really no meaning. It is a word invented by theologians and legislators; and to try to disprove its existence is but wrestling with a windmill.
Reason, which enlightens our life and forces us to modify our actions, is not an illusion, and cannot possibly be explained away. The following after reason in order to attain happiness was a doctrine taught mankind by all true teachers, and in it lies the whole doctrine of Christ.
The doctrine of Christ concerns the son of man, and is applicable to all men, i.e., it concerns the striving of all men after good; and it concerns human reason, which enlightens man in his search. (To prove that 1 the Son of Man ' signifies the son of man is superfluous. In order to consider the words, 'the Son of Man' as having any other meaning.it would be necessary to prove that Christ purposely used words which have another meaning to express what He wished to say. But even if, according to the positive teaching of the Church, the words, ' the Son of Man,' signify ' the Son of God,' the words, ■ the Son of Man/ still signify man, for Christ calls all men ' the sons of God.')
The doctrine of Christ concerning the son of man, the Son of God, which is the basis of the whole Gospel, is expressed in the clearest manner in His conversation with Nicodemus. ' Every man,' says He, 'in addition to his consciousness of an individual life, through his human parents, must admit that His birth is from above ' (John iii. 5, 6, 7). That which man acknowledges in himself as being free, is just what is born of the Eternal Being, of Him Whom we call God (18, 14). This Son of God in man, born of God, is what we must exalt in ourselves in order to obtain the true life (14, 17). The son of man is of the same nature as God (not begotten of God). He, who exalts in himself the Son of God over all the rest that is in him, he who believes that life is in himself alone, will not find himself in contradiction with life. The contradiction only results from men not believing in the light which is in them (18, 21); the light of which John the Evangelist speaks when he says, ' In him is life, and the life is the light of men.'
Christ teaches us to exalt above all else the son of man, who is the Son of God and the light of men. He says: ' When you lift up the son of man, you will know that I speak not of myself (John viii. 28). The Hebrews do not understand His words, and they ask: 1 The son of man must be lifted up. Who is this son of man?' (John xii. 34). He answers thus (John xii. 35): 'Yet a little while is the light in you.* Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you; for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.' On being questioned what the words: ' Lift up the son of man ' signify, Christ answers: ' To live according to the light which is in man.'
The son of man, according to the answer given by Christ, is the light in which man must walk while the light is in them.
* In all translations adopted by the Church, the passage has been purposely translated incorrectly; instead of ' in you ' (ev ѵщѵ) ' with you.'
Luke xi. 35: 'Take heed that the light which is in thee be not darkness.'
Matt, vl 23: 'If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness?' Christ speaks thus to all men.
Both before Christ and after Him have men said the same, viz., that there lives in man a divine light, sent down from heaven, and that light is ' reason '; and each must follow that light alone, seeking for good by its aid alone. This has been said by the Brahmin teachers, by the Hebrew prophets, by Confucius, Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, and by all truly wise men, who were not compilers of philosophical theories, but who sought the truth for their own good and that of all men.*
And now, according to the dogma of the redemption, we find that it is altogether unnecessary to think or speak of that light in man. Believers say, it is necessary to consider the nature of each person of the Trinity, and which of the sacraments must be observed;
* Marcus Aurelius says: ' Respect what is most powerful in the world — what turns all to profit and governs all. Respect what is powerful in thee likewise. It is like the first, because it profits by what is in thee and rules thy life.'
Epictetus says: ' God has sowed his seed not only in my father and grandfather, but in all beings who live on earth, particularly in rational beings, because they enter into communication with God through reason, by which they are united to him.'
In the book of Confucius it is said: ' The law of the great science lies in developing and raising the principle of the light of reason, which we have received from heaven.'
This thesis is repeated several times, and is the basis of the teaching of Confucius.
for the salvation of man will come, not of his own efforts, but through the Trinity, and by a regular observance of the sacraments. We must consider, say unbelievers, by what laws the infinitesimal particle of substance moves in the endless expanse of endless time; but it is not necessary to consider what reason requires of man for his own good, because the improvement of his state will not proceed from his own efforts, but from the general laws which we shall discover.
I am persuaded that, in a few centuries, the history of the so-called scientific activity in Europe during these latter ages will form an inexhaustible subject of laughter and pity for still later generations, who will report somewhat in this style: ' During several centuries the learned men of the small Western part of the great hemisphere were in a state of epidemic insanity, fancying that a life of eternal bliss was to be theirs; and were plunged in lucubrations of all kinds as to how, and according to what laws, that life was to begin for them, meanwhile doing nothing themselves, and never thinking of improving themselves.' And still more touching will this seem to the future historian when he finds that these men had a teacher who clearly and definitely explained to them what they were to do in order to be happier, but that the Teacher's words were taken by some to mean that He would come in a cloud to set all right, while others said that the words of the Teacher were perfect, but impracticable; for human life was not such as they wished it to be, and was not worth caring about; that human intellect was to be directed towards a study of the laws of this life, without any reference to the good of man.
The Church says that the doctrine of Christ is impracticable, because life here is but a suggestion of the true life; it cannot be good — it is all evil. The best way to live this life is to despise it, and to live by faith, i.e., by fancy, in a future life of eternal bliss. Philosophy, science, public opinion, say that the doctrine of Christ is impracticable, because the life of man does not depend on the light of reason, but on general laws; and that there is no need to enlighten life by our reason, to seek to be guided by reason, for we must live as we can, firmly believing that, according to the laws of historical and sociological progress, after we have lived badly very long, our life will grow very good of itself.
Men come to a farm, and find all they want there; a house with all necessary utensils, barns full of corn, cellars full of all kinds of provisions; in the yard are implements of husbandry, tools, harness, horses, cows, sheep, in a word all that is needful for living contentedly. Men crowd in and begin to use what they find, each mindful of himself alone, never thinking of leaving anything either for those who are with him in the house, or for those who are to come after him. Each wishes to have all for himself. Each hastens to take as much as he can, and a consequent destruction of everything ensues; all are struggling, fighting to possess themselves of the property; milch cows, and unshorn sheep about to kid, are killed for meat; the ovens are heated with benches and cars; the men fight for milk, for corn; and thus spill, spoil, and waste more than they use. Not one of them can eat a morsel in peace, each is snarling at his neighbour; a stronger man comes and takes possession of all, and he is despoiled in his turn.
At last these men, all bruised and exhausted with fighting and hunger, leave the farm. The master again makes ready the farm, that men may live there in peace. Again plenty fills the yard, and again passers-by come in, and the struggling and fighting are renewed; all is wasted once more, and the wornout, bruised, and angry men again leave the farm, abusing and hating their companions and the master too, for having so sparingly and so poorly provided for them. Once again the good master gets the farm ready, and the struggling returns over and over again. Now, one day, amongst the new comers appears a teacher who says: ' Brethren, we are all wrong. See what plenty there is here; see how carefully all is provided. There will be enough, not only for us, but for those who come after us, if we do but live wisely. Let us not despoil, but rather let us help each other. Let us sow, plough, breed cattle, and it will be well for us all. And it happened that some understood what the Teacher said, and they followed His advice; they ceased fighting and robbing each other, and they set to work. But some had not heard the Teacher's words, and others had heard, but did not believe Him, and they did not do what He enjoined, but continued to fight, as before, and, after wasting the master's property, they too left the farm. Those who obeyed the Teacher said — Do not fight, do not waste the master's property; it will be better for you if you do not act thus. Do asourTeacherbids us. Butthere were many who had not heard, or would not believe, and things went on in the old way. But it is said that the time came when all in the farm heard the Teacher's words, and not only understood them, but knew that God Himself spoke to them through the Teacher; that the Teacher was God; and all believed each word the Teacher said to be a true and sacred word. Yet it is reported that even after this, instead of all living according to the words of the Teacher, it came to pass that none forbore from violence; they all fell to struggling and fighting again. ' We are sure, now,' said they, 'that it must be so, that it cannot be otherwise.'
What could that mean? Even beasts know in what manner to eattheirfoodwithouttramplingit underfoot; and men who knew how to live better, who believed that God Himself had taught them how they were to live, lived worse, because, as they said, they could not live otherwise. These men must have fallen into some delusion. What could those men in the farm have imagined, to induce them to lead their former lives, despoiling each other, wasting their master's property, and ruining themselves while believing in the words of the Teacher? It was this — the Teacher had said to them, 'The life you lead here is a bad one, improve it and you shall be happy;' so they fancied that the Teacher condemned their life in the farm, and promised them another and better life, in some other place, and not in that farm. Whereupon they concluded that the farm was but an inn, and that it was not worth while trying to live well in it; and that the only thing necessary was to endeavour not to lose the good life promised them elsewhere. It is only thus that the strange conduct can be explained; for both those who believed that the Teacher was God, and those who acknowledged him to be a clever man and His words to be just, continued to live contrary to His instructions.
If men would but keep from ruining their own lives, and expecting someone from outside to come and help them — either Christ on the clouds, with the flourish of trumpets, or some historical law, or the law of the differentiation and integration of power! No one will help them, if they do not help themselves. And that is easily done. Let them expect nothing either from heaven or earth, and simply cease from ruining their own lives.
Granting, then, that the doctrine of Christ gives bliss to the world; granting that it is rational; and that man, as a rational being, has no right to renouce it; what can one man do alone, amidst a world of men who do not fulfil the law of Christ? If all would agree to practise the doctrine of Christ, its fulfilment would be possible; but what can the efforts of one man avail, if the whole world be against him? How often do we hear it said: ' If, amidst a whole world of men who do not fulfil the doctrine of Christ, I alone begin to follow it, by giving up what I love, by letting my cheek be smitten, or even by refusing to take an oath, or to have any part in war, I shall be robbed, and, if I do not starve, I shall be either beaten to death, or imprisoned, or shot; and I shall have destroyed the happiness of my whole life, and even my life itself, in vain.'
We often hear men argue thus, and I said the same myself, until I had entirely set aside the influence of Church teaching, which had prevented my taking in the full meaning of Christ's doctrine about life.
Christ gives His doctrine as the means of salvation from the corrupt life which those who do not follow His teaching lead, and yet I say that I should like to follow it, but cannot make up my mind to ruin my life! It would seem, then, that I do not consider my life as corrupt, but as something real and good, and something which is my own. It is just in the conviction that this earthly, individual life is something real, and something which actually belongs to us, that the misunderstanding lies, which prevents our comprehending the doctrine of Christ. Christ knows the delusion by which men consider their own individual lives as something real, and something to which they have a personal right; and He shows them, in a series of sermons and parables, that they have no claims on life, that they have, indeed, no life at all, until they attain true life, by renouncing the shadow which they call their life.
In order to understand Christ's doctrine of salvation, we must, first of all, comprehend what the prophets Solomon, Budda, and all the sages of the world have said concerning the individual life of man. We may, as Pascal says, live on without thinking of all this, holding a screen before our eyes, which hides from us the abyss of death, towards which we are all hastening; but we need only reflect upon what the individual life of man is, to be convinced that his entire life, if it be only the individual life, is of no importance for each separate man.
In order to understand the doctrine of Christ, we must first of all bethink ourselves, repent, so that in us may be fulfilled the /іетаѵош, which the precursor of Christ, John the Baptist, speaks of when preaching to men who, like ourselves, had gone astray. He says first of all, ' Repent ye/ i.e., bethink yourselves, 1 otherwise ye shall all perish.' He says, 1 The axe is already laid to the root of the tree to hew it down. Death and destruction are close at hand. Remember this, and alter your lives.' Christ begins His preaching with the same words, ' Repent, or ye shall all perish.'
Luke xiii. 1-5: Christ hears of the destruction of the Galileans, killed by Pilate, and He says: (2) • Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered thus? (3) I tell ye, Nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (4) Or think you that those eighteen men, upon whom the tower of Siloam fell and killed them, were sinners above all men that lived in Jerusalem? (5) I tell you, Nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.'
If Christ lived in our days, in Russia, He would have said — ' Suppose ye, that those who were burnt in the circus at Berditche, or who perished on the embankment near Koukouevo* were sinners above all others? Ye shall likewise perish if ye do not repent, if ye do not find that which is imperishable. The death of those who were crushed by the tower, who were burnt in the circus, fills you with awe, but death, awful and inevitable, awaits you too. And you endeavour in vain to forget it. If it come upon you unawares, it will be more awful still.'
He says (Luke xii. 54 — 57), 1 When ye see a cloud rise out of the west; straightway ye say there cometh a shower; and so it is. (55) ' And when the south wind blow, ye say there will be heat, and so it is. (56) ' Hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it that ye do not discern this time?' (57) 'Why even of yourselves judge ye not what must be?'
'You can judge, according to various signs, of what the weather will be, how is it then, that you cannot see what awaits you yourselves? You may try to escape peril; you may take the greatest care of your life, and still, if Pilate do not kill you, the tower will crush you, and if neither Pilate nor the tower destroy you, you will die in your bed in worse tortures.'
1 Make a simple calculation, as worldly men do when they begin any business, as, for instance, erecting a tower, going to war, or building a factory. They work with some rational end in view. (Luke xiv. 28 — 31). 'For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? (29) ' Lest haply after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold begin to mock him, (30) ' Saying, this man began to build and was not able to finish. (31) 'Or, what king going to make
war against another king sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able, with ten thousand, to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?'
' Is it not senseless to work at what will never be finished, however hard thou mayest try! Death will always come before thou hast built up the tower of thine earthly happiness. And if thou knowest beforehand that however thou mayest struggle against death, it will conquer thee, would it not be better, instead of struggling against it, not to put thy whole soul into what shall surely perish, but to seek some work, which cannot be destroyed by inevitable death?'
Luke xii. 22 — 27: 1 And He said unto His disciples: therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. (23) The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. (24) Consider the ravens; for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them; how much more are ye better than they? (25) And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature even one cubit? (26) If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? (27) Consider the lilies, how they grow; they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you that Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these.'
However much a man may care about body and food, he cannot add one hour to his life.* Then is it
0 These words have been incorrectly translated: the word t)\iKia means age, time of life; therefore the expression signifies: ' ye cannot add one hour to your life.' not foolish to trouble oneself about things that cannot be done?
While knowing that the end is death, you care only to assure your lives by gaining wealth. Life cannot be assured by wealth. Why will you not comprehend that you but delude yourselves with a ridiculous deception?
The purport of life, Christ says, does not lie in what we possess, and in what we gain, what is not ourselves; it must lie in something else than that. He says (Luke xii.) That the life of man, in spite of all his riches, does not depend upon his property. '(i6) The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully; (17) and he thought within himself, What shall I do? I have no room where to bestow my fruits. (18) And he said, this will I do: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there will I bestow all my corn and all my goods. (19) And I will say to my soul, Soul! thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry. (20) But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee; then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? (21) So it is with him who layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God.'
Death stands every moment over you. 1 Therefore (Luke xii. 35, 36, 38, 39, 40) 'let your loins be girded about, and your lights shining; (36) and ye yourselves be like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. (38) And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants. (39) And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. (40) Be ye therefore ready also; for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.'
The parable of the virgins awaiting the bridegroom, of the end of the age, and of the last judgment, all refer, according to the opinion of interpreters, not merely to the end of the world, but also to the peril in which every man hourly stands.
Death, death, death, attends us every second. Our lives are passed in the presence of death. While working individually for your future, you well know that the future will give you nought but death. And death will destroy all you worked for. Thus, it is clear that life for oneself can never have any meaning. If there be a rational life, it must be some other kind of life; it must be one, the purpose of which does not consist in securing one's own future. To live rationally, we must live so that death cannot destroy our life.
Luke x. 41: 'Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things. But one thing is needful.'
All the innumerable affairs that we transact for ourselves will be of no use to us in the future; all such things are but the illusion with which we deceive ourselves. ' But one thing is needful.'
The state of man from the day of his birth is such, that inevitable destruction awaits him, that is, a senseless life and a senseless death, if he do not find what alone is necessary for the true life. Christ reveals to men that which alone gives them the true life. He does not invent it, He does not promise to give it by His divine power; He only shows mankind that, besides the individual life, which is but a deception, there must be another life, which is truth, and no deception.
Christ, in his parable of the vine-dresser (Matt. xxi. 33-42), explains the source of human error, which hides the truth from men, and which makes them consider the shadow of life, their own individual life, as the true one.
Certain men, living in their master's cultivated garden, fancied themselves the owners of that garden; and that error leads to a series of irrational and cruel actions on the part of these men, ending in their banishment, their exclusion from that life in the garden. So likewise do we fancy that the life of each of us is his own, that we have a right to it, and that we can do as we like with it, without being responsible to any one. We cannot, therefore, avoid the same series of senseless and cruel actions and misfortunes, or escape the same exclusion from the life we misuse. As the vine-dressers fancied that the more cruel they were the better they would assure their own prosperity, by killing the servants and the master's son, so do we fancy that the more cruel we are the more independent we shall become.
As it was with the vine-dressers, who, after refusing others the fruits of the garden, were driven out themselves by their master, so is it with men, who fancy that life for self is the true life. Death expels them, and others take their place; not as a punishment, but merely because those men did not understand life. As the men in the garden either forgot, or would not admit, that the garden had been only entrusted to their care, that it was already cultivated and fenced around, and somebody had previously been working in it for them, and therefore expected them to work too, for the sake of others; so do men, while living for themselves, forget, or fail to recognise, all that had been done by others before their birth, and all that is done during their lifetime; and that, therefore, something is expected of them too; they choose to forget that all the blessings of life, which they enjoy, were entrusted and are entrusted to them, and must, therefore, either be transferred or given up.
This improved view of life, this fierdvoia, is the corner-stone of the doctrine of Christ, as He says at the end of the parable. According to Christ's doctrine, the vine-dressers, who lived in the vineyard which they had not cultivated themselves, should have known and felt that they were deeply indebted to the master; and so should men likewise understand and feel that, from the day of their birth to the day of their death, they owe a heavy debt to those who lived before them, to those who still live, and to those who are to live after them. They should understand that every hour of the life they continue to live that debt grows heavier; and that, therefore, the man who lives for himself, and does not acknowledge the obligation which binds him to life and to the principle of life, deprives himself of life: he should understand that by living thus he destroys his life, while desirous of saving it.
The true life is but a continuation of past life, and works for the good of the present life, as well as for that of the future.
To be a sharer of that life man must renounce his own will, and fulfil the will of the Father of life, who gave it to the son of man.
John viii. 35: 'The servant who does his own will, and not that of his master, does not abide for ever in the house of his master; only the son, who fulfils the will of the father, abideth ever,' Christ says, expressing the same idea in another sense.
The will of the Father of life is not the life of individual man, but of the ' son of man/ that lives in men; and therefore a man keeps his life only when he considers it as a trust given to him by the Father, in order to serve unto the good of all; and he really lives, when he lives not for himself, but for the ' son of man.'
Matt. xxv. 14-46: A householder gave each of his servants a share of his property, and left them, without any instructions. Some of the servants, though they had not received any orders from their master concerning the way in which they were to use their share of the master's property, understood that it was not theirs, but his, and that the property was to grow; they, therefore, worked for the master. And the servants who had worked for the master became shareholders of the master's business; while those who had not worked were deprived of what had been given them.
The lifeof the son of man is given toall men, and they are not told why it is given them. Some understand that life is not their own, but is a trust, and that it must serve the lifeof the ( son of man? Others, under the pretext that they do not understand the purport of life, do not live up to that high aim. Those who do, are united to the source of life; and those who do not, are deprived of life. And, from the verses 31 to 46, Christ tells us what is meant by serving the ' son of man,' and in what the reward of that service consists.
The son of man, according to the words of Christ, will say (v. 34) as the king did, 'Come, ye blessed of the Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you: for I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; ye clothed, visited, and comforted me for I am the same in you, and in the least of those whom you took pity on, and to whom you have done good. You lived, not for yourselves, but for the ' son of man,' and therefore shall ye have eternal life.
Christ speaks only of that eternal life throughout the Gospel. And strange as it may seem to say so of Christ, who Himself rose from the dead, and who promised to raise all men, He never, by a single word, confirmed the belief in individual resurrection, in individual immortality beyond the grave, but He even attached to" the raising up of the dead in the kingdom of the Messiah, as taught by the Pharisees, a meaning which excluded the idea of individual resurrection.
The Sadducees disputed the raising up of the dead. The Pharisees acknowledged it, as all true believers amongst the Jews still do. The raising up of the dead (not the resurrection, as the word has been erroneously translated) will, according to the Jewish belief, be accomplished at the coming of the Messiah, and the establishing of the kingdom of God on earth. And Christ, on meeting with this belief in a temporary, local, and carnal resurrection, rejects it, and sets in its place His doctrine of the restoration to eternal life in God.
When the Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection, and supposed that Christ agreed in opinion with the Pharisees, asked Him, ' Whose wife shall she be, of the seven?' He gives a clear and definite answer to both questions.
He says (Matt. xxii. 29-32, Mark xii. 24-27, Luke xx. 34-38), ' You do err, not knowing the Scripture nor the power of God/ And in refutation of the belief of the Pharisees, He says, ' The raising up of the dead is neither carnal nor individual. Those who are raised from the dead, become the sons of God, and live like angels (the powers of God) in heaven (with God), and there can no question for them whose wife she will be, because, being one with God, they lose all individuality.' Concerning the raising up of the dead, He continues, in reply to the Sadducees, who acknowledged only an earthly life, and nothing but an earthly carnal life, ' Have you not read what God said unto you? The Scripture saith, that God said to Moses, from the bush, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. If God said to Moses that He was the God of Jacob, then Jacob is not dead; for God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. With God all are living.
And therefore, if there be a living God, the man who is one with God lives too.'
In reply to the Pharisees, Christ says that the raising from the dead cannot be carnal and individual. In reply to the Sadducees, He says that, besides an individual and temporary life, there is another life in communion with God.
Denying individual and carnal resurrection, Christ asserts that the raising from the dead lies in the transfusion of man's life into God. Christ preaches salvation from individual life, and sets that salvation in the exaltation of the son of man and a life in God. Connecting His doctrine with that of the Hebrews, as far as concerns the coming of the Messiah, He speaks to them of the raising up of the son of man from the dead, thereby meaning, not a personal carnal rising from the dead, but an awakening to life in God. Of individual carnal resurrection He never speaks. The best proof that Christ never preached the resurrection of men from the dead is found in the very two texts quoted by theologians in confirmation of His doctrine of resurrection. These two texts are the following: — Matt. xxv. 31-46, and John v. 28, 29. In the first He speaks of the coming, that is, the raising up, the exaltation, of the son of man (we find the same in Matt. x. 23), and the greatness and power of the son of man are likened to those of a king. In the second text, Christ speaks of the raising up of true life here on earth, as expressed in the 24th verse.
It needs but a closer consideration of the meaning of Christ's doctrine of eternal life in God; it needs but to re-establish in our minds the teaching of the
Hebrew prophets, to enable us to comprehend that if Christ had wished to preach the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which, at that time was being embodied in the Talmud, and was a subject of dispute, He would have done so, clearly and definitely; yet, on the contrary, He not only forbore preaching that doctrine, but even refuted it; nor do we find a single passage in the Gospel to confirm it. The two above-mentioned texts have a very different meaning.
Strange as the assertion may seem to those that have not studied the Gospel, never, in a single passage, does Christ speak of His own personal resurrection. If, as theologians maintain, the basis of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Christ, the least we could expect would be that Christ, knowing He would rise from the dead, and that upon His rising the chief dogma of the faith would be founded, should at least once have said so, clearly and definitely. Yet He never does; nor do we find any mention made of His resurrection throughout the whole canonical Gospel. The doctrine taught is the exaltation of the ' son of man,' or, in other words, of the substance of life in man; and this is to acknowledge one's self to be the son of God. In Himself, Christ personifies man, who acknowledges himself to be the son of God. Matt. xvi. 13-20. He asks the disciples what men say of Him, the son of man. The disciples answer, that some think Him to be John, miraculously raised from the dead; some think Him a prophet; some Elias, come down from heaven. 'And what think ye of me V He asks. And Peter, thinking of Christ as he himself did, answers, 1 Thou art Messias, the son of the living
God.' And Christ says, 'Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but our Father which is in heaven,' or, 1 Thou hast understood, not because thou hast believed the words of men, but because, knowing thyself to be the son of God, thou hast understood me.' And having explained to Peter that true faith lies in our knowing ourselves to be the sons of God, Christ says to the other disciples (v. 20) that they should, in future, tell no man that He, Jesus, is the Messiah. And then Christ says, that though He will be put to torture and death, the son of man, knowing Himself to be the son of God, will be raised up, and will triumph over all. And yet these words are interpreted as foretelling His resurrection.
John ii. 19-22, Matt. xii. 40, Luke xi. 20, Matt. xvi. 21, Matt. xvi. 4, Mark viii. 31, Luke ix. 22, Matt. xvii. 23, Mark ix. 31, Matt. xx. 19, Mark x. 34, Luke xviii. 33, Matt. xxvi. 32, Mark xiv. 48. These fourteen texts are all supposed to prove that Christ foretold His resurrection. In three of these texts He speaks of Jonas in the belly of the whale; and in one, of the raising of the temple. In the other ten texts, Christ says that the son of man cannot be destroyed for ever; but nowhere do we find one word concerning His resurrection.
Indeed, in the original, the word 1 resurrection'' does not occur in any one of these texts. Give a man, unacquainted with theological interpretation, but with some knowledge of Greek, these texts to translate, and he will never render their meaning in the way our translators of the Gospel have done. There are, in the original, two different words in these texts: the one is аѵічтщіі, the other is tyeip<o. One of these words signifies ' to raise;' the other signifies 'to rouse or waken,' or it might be to awaken, to rise. But neither of them can possibly mean ' rise from the dead.' In order to be quite sure that these Greek words, and the Hebrew equivalent ' count' cannot signify 'to rise from the dead,' it will suffice to compare the texts in which these words are used; for they very often occur, but never in the sense of ' rise from the dead.'
The word 1 resuscitate,' 1 auferstehen,' ' ressusciter,' does not exist either in the Greek or in the Hebrew languages, any more than did the idea itself, which the word implies. In order to express the idea of resurrection in Greek or in Hebrew, a periphrasis must be made use of — either ' he rose from the dead/ or ' he awoke from the dead.' It is thus in Matt. xiv. 2, where we read that Herod supposed that John the Baptist had risen from the dead; the expression is, ' woke up from the dead.' We find the same in the Gospel according to St. Luke xvi. 31, in the parable of Lazarus. Christ says, that even if a man rose from the dead they would not believe him. We again find, in this text, the words 'risen from the dead.' In the texts where the words ' to rise ' or to ' wake up,' are used without the addition of the words 'from the dead,' they never did signify, and never can be supposed to signify, 'resurrection.' When Christ speaks of Himself in the abovementioned passages, which are considered as proofs that He foretold His resurrection, He never once subjoins the words, ' from the dead.'
Our idea of resurrection is so far from the Hebrews' ideas of life, that we cannot even imagine Christ could have spoken to them of resurrection and of an eternal, individual life common to all men. The idea of a future individual life has not been transmitted to us, either through the teaching of the Hebrews or through the doctrine of Christ. It made its way into the teaching of the Church from a very different source. Strange as it may sound, it must be confessed that a belief in a future individual life is the lowest and grossest conception, based only on a confusion of sleep with death, which is common to all barbarous nations. The teaching of the Hebrews, however, stood immeasurably higher than that conception.
We feel so convinced that this superstition is a very exalted one, that we very seriously allege, as a proof of the superiority of our doctrine over all others, the fact that we uphold that superstition, while others, as for instance, the Chinese and the Hindoos, do not. This is maintained, not only by theologians, but by free-thinking learned historians of religion, such as Tille, Max Miiller, and others. Classifying the various religions, they assert that the religions which keep to that superstition are superior to those which do not. The freethinker, Schoppenhauer, calls the Hebrew religion the most contemptible {iiiedertrdchstigste) of all, because it contains no idea {keine idee) of the immortality of the soul. And, indeed, in the Hebrew religion, neither the meaning nor the word expressive of it exists. Eternal life in the Hebrew language is Чіаіеогіот.' The word 1 oilom ' signifies, 1 endless, immutable.' ' Oilom ' likewise signifies ' world ' — cosmos.
Life in general, and especially eternal life, Jiaieo'ilom, is, according to the Hebrews, proper to God alone. God is the God of life — the living God. Man, according to the Hebrew belief, is always mortal. God alone lives for ever. In the five books of Moses we find the words 'eternal life' used twice. Once in Deuteronomy xxxii. 39, 40, God says, ' See now that I am I, and there is no other God but Me. I kill and I make alive, I wound and I heal, neither is there any that can be delivered from Me. I lift up my hand to heaven and say, / live for ever' In the book of Genesis iii. 22, God says, ' Behold the man hath eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and hath become as one of us; and now lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever! These are the only two cases in which the words ' eternal life ' are used in the Old Testament — excepting one chapter of the apocryphal gospel of Daniel — and they clearly define the idea the Hebrews had both of life in general and of eternal life. Life itself, according to the Jewish belief, is eternal, and it is such in God; man is always mortal — such is his nature.
The Old Testament does not tell us, as our Bible histories do, that God breathed an immortal soul into man, nor that the first man was immortal until he sinned. According to the Book of Genesis (i. 26), God created man, as He did all other living creatures, male and female, and commanded them to increase and multiply. God spoke of man just as he spoke of beast. In the second chapter it is said that man learned to 'know good and evil.' But we are told too, that God ' drove man out of Eden, and barred his way to the tree of life.' Thus man did not eat of the fruit of the tree of life, and thus he did not attain the haieo'ilom, i.e., eternal life, but remained mortal.
According to the Jewish doctrine, man is mortal. Life for him is but a life which continues in the people, from generation to generation. Only the people, according to the Jewish doctrine, can live. When God says you shall live and not die, he speaks to the people. The life breathed by God into man is but a mortal life for each individually, but it continues from generation to generation if men fulfil their covenant with God, if they keep the conditions laid down by God.
After expounding the laws, and declaring that these laws were not in heaven, but in their own hearts, Moses says (Deut. xxx. 15), 'See, I now set before you life and good, death and evil, exhorting you to love God and to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, that ye may live/ And verse 19: ' I call heaven and earth to record against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; choose life, that thou and thy seed may live, loving God, obeying Him and cleaving to Him; for He is thy life and the length of thy days.'
The principal difference between our idea of human life and that of the Hebrews is that, according to us, our mortal life — which passes on from generation to generation — is not the true life, but a fallen one, a temporary corrupt life; while, according to the Hebrews this life is the true one, it is the highest blessing given man, and given him on the condition that he fulfils the will of God. From our point of view, the transition of that fallen life from generation to generation is the continuation of the curse. From the Hebreiu point of view it is the highest blessing man can attain, and he attains it by fulfilling the will of God.
It is on this idea of life that Christ bases his doctrine concerning the true or eternal life, which He opposes to mortal, individual life. ' Search the Scriptures,' Christ says to the Hebrews (John v. 39), 'for in them ye think ye have eternal life.'
A young man asks Christ (Matt, xix.) what he should do to have eternal life. In answer to his question Christ says, 1 If thou wilt enter into life' (He does not say life eternal, but 'life'), 'keep the commandments.' He says the same to the lawyers, 'This do, and thou shalt live' (Luke x. 28); and again He says ' live ' without adding ' eternally.' In both these cases Christ defines what each man should understand by the words ' eternal life.' In using these words He says to the Hebrews what is more than once said in their law, viz., that fulfilling the will of God is eternal life.
Christ opposes to a temporary, personal, individual life the eternal life, which, according to Deuteronomy, God promised to Israel, with the only difference that, according to the Hebrews, eternal life was to continue only amongst the chosen people of Israel, and that it was necessary, in order to attain that life, to keep the laws given by God exclusively to Israel; but, according to the doctrine of Christ, eternal life continues in the son of man, and, in order to keep it, it is necessary to fulfil the laws of Christ, which teach what the will of God is for all mankind.
It is not a life beyond the grave that Christ opposes to individual life, but a life bound up with the present past, and future of all mankind — the life of the 'son of man.'
Individual life was redeemed from perdition, according to the Hebrews, only by fulfilling the will of God, expressed in the commandments given by God to Moses. It was only thus that life was not destroyed, but was to pass from generation to generation, among the chosen people of God. Individual life is saved from perdition, according to the doctrine of Christ, likewise by fulfilling the will of God, expressed in the commandments of Christ. It is only thus that individual life does not perish, but becomes eternal in the son of man. The only difference between the two doctrines is that, according to Moses, serving God meant the serving Him of but one people; whereas, according to Christ, the serving of God the Father means the serving of God by all mankind. Life could hardly continue through long generations amongst one people; for the nation itself might disappear off the face of the earth, and its continuation would depend upon the increase or diminution of posterity. But endless life, according to the doctrine of Christ, is sure, for it is transferred into the son of man living up to the will of the Father.
Let us suppose that Christ's words concerning the day of judgment and the end of the world, as well as the words we read in the Gospel of St. John, do promise a life beyond the grave for the souls of the dead, yet there can be no doubt that His doctrine of the light of life, of the kingdom of God, has a meaning as intelligible to us as it was to his hearers; i.e., that true life is but the life of the son of man, according to the will of the Father. This can be the more easily admitted,as the doctrine concerning true life, according to the will of the Father of Life, includes the idea of immortality and a life beyond the grave. It would perhaps be more just to infer that man after a life passed in following his own will in this world will enjoy an eternal individual life of bliss in paradise, that would perhaps be more just, but to think thus, to believe in eternal bliss awaiting me as a reward for the good I have done, and eternal torment as the punishment of my evil deeds, does not lead to a clear comprehension of Christ's doctrine. To think thus is on the contrary to do away with the ground-work of Christ's doctrine.
The whole purport of Christ's doctrine is to teach His disciples that individual life being but a delusion they should renounce it, and transfer their individual lives into the life of all humanity, into the life of the son of man. The doctrine of the immortality of each soul does not require of us to renounce our lives, but, on the contrary, confirms their individuality for ever.
According to the ideas of the Hebrews, the Chinese, the Hindoos, and of all those who do not believe in the dogmas of the fall of man and the redemption, the life we have is life. Man lives, has children, educates them, grows old, and dies. His children grow up and continue his life, which goes on without intermission from generation to generation, existing just as all else in the world exists — stones, metals, plants, beasts, and all else. Life is life, and we must make the most of it. To live for self alone is irrational.
And, therefore, since man has first existed on the earth, each one seeks some aim in life beyond his own individual life: he lives for his children, his family, his nation, for humanity, for all that does not die with his individual life.
Now, according to the teaching of our Church, life, the greatest blessing known to us, is only a part of that life which is kept from us for a time. According to the Church, our life is not the life God wished to give us, not the life God ought to have given us; but a corrupt, bad, fallen life, only an imperfect specimen of what life should be.
The chief problem of life, according to this thesis, does not consist in leading the mortal life which is given us, as the giver of it wishes us to do; not in our considering it eternal from generation to generation, as the Hebrews do; nor in uniting it to the will of the Father, as Christ taught us to do, but in persuading ourselves that after this life the true life will begin.
Christ says nothing of that imaginary life. The theories of the fall of Adam, of eternal life in paradise, and of the immortal soul breathed by God into Adam, were unknown to Christ, and therefore He does not mention them, nor even allude to them.
Christ speaks of the life that is, and that always will be. We speak of an imaginary life, which never did exist. Then how are we to understand the doctrine of Christ?
Christ could never have supposed so strange an idea among His followers. He supposes all men to understand that individual life must inevitably perish; and He reveals a life which cannot perish.
Christ comforts those who are in trouble; but His doctrine can give nothing to those who are convinced that they have more than Christ can give.
Suppose I were to exhort a man to work, assuring him that he would thereby earn food and clothing, and that man were suddenly to discover he was already a millionaire, is it not obvious that he would not heed my words.
It is thus with the doctrine of Christ. Why should I work, when I can be rich without doing so? What profit shall I have of living up to the Commandments of God, when I am convinced that, whether I do or not, I shall live for ever, individually.
We are taught that Christ-God, the second person of the Trinity, saved mankind by being incarnate, and by taking upon Himself the sin of Adam and of all mankind; that He redeemed man from sin and the wrath of the first person of the Trinity, and that He instituted the Church and the sacraments for our salvation; that we have but to believe this to be saved, and to attain an eternal, individual life beyond the grave. But we cannot deny that Christ likewise saved men by warning them of their inevitable destruction, and still saves them by the same; and that His words — ' / am the way, the life, and the truth ' — point out to us the true path of life, instead of the wrong path of individual life which we trod before.
There may be men who doubt the existence of life beyond the grave, and of salvation being based on redemption, but no one can doubt the salvation of all men in general, and of each individually, through their being warned of the inevitable destruction brought on by individual life, and through being shown that the true way to salvation lies in the fusion of their will with the will of the Father. Let any rational being ask himself what are life and death as applied to himself personally. Let him try to attach any other meaning to life and death than that which Christ pointed out.
Every idea of individual life, if it be not based on the renouncing of self for the service of man, of mankind, of the son of man, is an illusion that vanishes at the first touch of reason. I cannot doubt that, though my individual life be perishable, the life of the world according to the will of the Father can never be destroyed; and that a fusion with it alone makes salvation possible for me. But that is so little, compared to the elevated religious faith in a future life! Little, I grant, but it is sure. I lose my way in a snowdrift. A man assures me that he sees lights in the distance; that there is a village near by. He thinks he sees the lights, and so do I; but it only seems to us that we see them because we desire to see them, for we tried to reach these same lights before, and could not find them. One of us walks on through the snow, and in a short time comes out on to the road and cries, ' Do not go on, the lights you see are but in your fancy; you will lose your way and perish! I stand on firm ground, follow me, this road will lead us out!'
That is but little. While believing in the lights which glimmered before our dazzled eyes, we saw ourselves in fancy already in the village, in a warm hut, in safety and at rest, while here there was but firm ground. Yes; but if we follow the man who spoke first we shall inevitably freeze to death; if we mind the second, we shall reach the good road.
And what shall I do, if I alone have understood the doctrine of Christ and believe in it, among all those who do not understand and will not fulfil it?
What shall I do? Shall I live as all do, or live according to Christ's doctrine? I understand His commandments, and I see that the fulfilling of them will lead me, and all men, to perfect happiness. I understand that it is the will of the Author of all things, the will of Him from whom I have life, that these commandments should be fulfilled.
I understand that, whatever I may do, I shall inevitably perish, as will all those around me, after a senseless life and death, if I do not fulfil the will of the Father; and that the only possibility of salvation lies in fulfilling it.
By acting as others do, I act against the good of all men, I act contrary to the will of the Father of life, and I deprive myself of the only possibility of bettering my hopeless state. By doing what Christ teaches me I shall ensure the good of all men; of those who live at present, and of those who are to live after me. I do what He that gave me life desires me to do. I do what can alone save me.
The circus in Berditcheff is on fire. All crowd towards the door, crushing each other in their efforts to open the door, which opens inwards. A saviour comes and says to them, f Move further from the door, turn back; the closer you all stand to the door, the less hope of safety there is for you. If you turn back you will find an issue, and you will be saved!'
Whether I alone hear the words and believe, matters but little; but having heard and believed, can I do otherwise than turn back and call upon the others to follow the voice of him who comes to save them? I shall, perhaps, be smothered, crushed, killed; but the sole hope of safety is in my going towards the only issue. A saviour must be a saviour indeed, i.e., must save. And the salvation of Christ is salvation indeed. He appeared, spoke, and mankind is saved.
The circus burnt a whole hour; and it was necessary to make haste, else all could not have been saved. But the world has been burning eighteen hundred years; burning from the time Christ said, 1 1 come to send fire on the earth; and how do I languish, till it be kindled.' And it will burn till men be saved. Was not man created, and does not the fire burn, only that the happiness of man might be saved from it?
I know there is no other door, either for myself or for those who suffer with me in this life. I know that neither I nor those around me can be saved, except by fulfilling the commandments of Christ, which give the highest bliss to all mankind.
I may have more to suffer: I may die earlier, through fulfilling Christ's doctrine. I fear neither suffering nor death. He who does not see how senseless and perishable his individual life is, he who thinks that he will not die, may fear. But, knowing that life for individual happiness alone is foolish to the highest degree, and that the end of that foolish life will be but a foolish death, I cannot fear it. I shall die, as all do, as those who do not fulfil Christ's doctrine do; yet my life and death will have some meaning for myself and for all. My life and death will minister to the salvation and lives of all men; and that is what Christ taught us.
WERE all to fulfil Christ's doctrine, the kingdom of God will be on earth. If I fulfil it, I do what is best for all mankind and for myself. I should be helping on the coming of that kingdom.
But where shall I find the faith that will enable me to obey Christ's teaching, to practise it, and never to swerve from it? 'I believe, Lord; help Thou my unbelief
The Apostles begged Christ to confirm their faith. ' I desire to do good, yet I do evil,' says Paul the Apostle.
' It is hard to be saved this is what each says and thinks.
A drowning man calls for help. A rope is thrown him. It could save him; but the drowning man cries, ' Confirm my belief that this rope can save me.' ' I believe,' says the man, 1 that it can save me; but help my unbelief.'
What does that mean? If a man does not take hold of what alone can save him, does it not prove that he is unaware of the danger he is in?
How can a Christian who professes to believe in the divinity of Christ and of His doctrine say that he would believe rf he could? God Himself, when on earth, said, ' Ye are on the eve of eternal torment, fire, of complete, eternal darkness. I bring you salvation; do as I tell you, and ye shall be saved.'
Can a Christian reject the salvation offered him — remain unmindful of his Saviour's words, and say, ' Help my unbelief?
If a man spoke thus, would it not seem as if he not only refused to believe that destruction awaited him, but was convinced he should not perish?
Some children have leaped overboard into the water. They are, for a time, upheld by the current, before their clothes are entirely soaked through. They swim about, unconscious of danger. A rope is thrown them from the ship. They are entreated by those on board to take hold of the rope. (We find the same meaning in the parables of the woman who had found a farthing; of the shepherd who found the sheep that was lost; in the parables of the supper and of the prodigal son.) But the children will not believe; not because they think the rope is an unsafe one, but because they do not believe that they are about to perish. Thoughtless children, like themselves, have told them that they will go on bathing merrily, even when the ship sails away. The children do not believe that the time is near when their clothes will be wet through, their little arms tired out; when they will begin to lose breath, and that then they will choke and drown. They do not believe that, and therefore they do not believe in the rope of salvation.
Men are like the children who have jumped overboard, and are sure they will not perish, therefore do not take hold of the rope. They believe in the immortality of the soul, are convinced that they will not perish, and therefore they do not fulfil the doctrine of Christ-God. They do not believe in what is indubitable, only because they believe in what is beyond all possibility of belief.
And they cry, ' Confirm our belief that we are not perishing,'
But that is impossible. For them to believe they will be saved, they must cease to do what brings destruction, and begin to do what will save them; they must take hold of the rope of salvation. But they do not choose to do this; they wish to be assured that they are not perishing, though their companions perish, one after the other, before their eyes. And that desire to grow sure of what is not they call ' faith.' No wonder, then, that they have little faith, and that they long for more.
It was only when I understood Christ's doctrine that I saw that what such men call ' faith ' is not faith: it is but that false faith which the apostle James opposes in his Epistle. That Epistle was not accepted by the Church for a long time; and when it was, it underwent several changes. Some words were removed, others transposed or incorrectly translated. I here give the accepted translation, only correcting what is inexact, according to Tischendorf 's text:
James ii. 14: ' What does it profit, my brethren, if a man suppose that he hath faith, and have not works? Faith cannot save him. (15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, (16) and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? (17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. (19) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (20) But wilt thou know, О vain man, that faith without works is dead? (21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? (22) Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? (23)... (24) You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone. (25)... (26) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.'
The apostle says that the only proof of faith is in the works which proceed from it; and that faith from which no works proceed is but a word, with which we can neither feed any, nor justify ourselves and be saved. And therefore the faith which is not accompanied by works is not faith: it is only a wish to believe; it is only a mistaken assertion that I believe when I do not really believe.