And so this power cannot want from us what is irrational and impossible—the establishment of our temporal, carnal life, the life of society or of the state. This power demands of us what alone is certain and rational and possible—our serving the kingdom of God, that is, our cooperation in the establishment of the greatest union of everything living, which is possible only in the truth, and, therefore, the recognition of the truth revealed to us, and the profession of it, precisely what alone is always in our power.
“Seek ye the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.” The only meaning of man’s life consists in serving the world by cooperating in the establishment of the kingdom of God; but this service can be rendered only through the recognition of the truth, and the profession of it, by every separate individual.
“The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
Endnotes
-
In The Non-Resistant, Vol. I, No. 4, Hopedale, Milford, Mass., Feb. 15, 1845. —Weiner ↩
-
Not a pamphlet, but an article in The Non-Resistant, Vol. I, No. 4, and very imperfectly quoted by Tolstoy. —Weiner ↩
-
To this Tolstoy adds, on his own responsibility: “Why must one, ten, one hundred men not violate God’s law, while very many may?” —Weiner ↩
-
Translated freely, with some omissions. —Tolstoy
I fail to find this Catechism in any of Ballou’s writings accessible in and about Boston. The nearest approach to these questions and answers is found scattered throughout his Christian Non-Resistance, in Its Important Bearings, Illustrated and Defended, Philadelphia, 1846. —Weiner ↩
-
Tolstoy’s translation from the English, which is generally loose, here departs entirely from the text. Tolstoy writes: “If a chief direct you to kill your neighbor’s child, or your father, or your mother, will you obey?” —Weiner ↩
-
A thorough search through bibliographies, catalogues, and libraries has failed to reveal such a book or such an author, and as Tolstoy speaks above of the book as being written, it may be that Tolstoy had a manuscript before him. —Weiner ↩
-
Spirit Wrestlers refers to the Doukhobors; Milkers to the Molokans. —S.E. Editor ↩
-
I know but one piece of writing, not a criticism in the strict sense of the word, but an article which treats the same subject, and which has my book in view, that departs from this common definition. It is Tróitski’s pamphlet (Kazán) The Sermon on the Mount. The author obviously recognizes Christ’s teaching in its real significance. He says that the commandment about nonresistance to evil means what it does, and the same is true of the commandment about swearing; he does not deny, as others do, the significance of Christ’s teaching, but unfortunately he does not make from this recognition those inevitable deductions, which in our life beg for recognition in connection with such a comprehension of Christ’s teaching. If it is not right to resist evil and to swear, every man will naturally ask: “How about military service?” And to this question the author gives no answer, though an answer is demanded. And if it cannot be answered, it is best not to speak at all, because silence produces error. —Tolstoy ↩
-
“The verdict of the world is conclusive.” —S.E. Editor ↩
-
The reference to “the charming doctor of Galilee” comes from Joseph Ernest Renan’s The Life of Jesus. —S.E. Editor ↩
-
“The church is the community of the faithful established by our Lord Jesus Christ, extending over the whole world and subject to the authority of legitimate ministers, principally our Holy Father—the Pope.” —S.E. Editor ↩
-
Khomyakóv’s definition of the church, which has some currency among Russians, does not mend matters, if we recognize with Khomyakóv that the Orthodox is the one true church. Khomyakóv asserts that the church is an assembly of men (of all, both the clergy and the congregation) united in love, and that the truth is revealed only to those who are united in love (Let us love one another, so that in agreement of thought, and so forth), and that such a church is the one which, in the first place, recognizes the Nicene Creed, and, in the second, after the division of the churches, does not recognize the Pope and the new dogmas. But with such a definition of the church there appears a still greater difficulty in harmonizing, as Khomyakóv wants to, the church which is united in love with the church which recognizes the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of Photius. Thus Khomyakóv’s assertion that this church, which is united in love and so is holy, is the church as professed by the Greek hierarchy, is still more arbitrary than the assertions of the Catholics and of the ancient Orthodox. If we admit the concept of the church in the sense which Khomyakóv gives to it, that is, as an assembly of men united in love and in truth, then everything a man can say in relation to this assembly is, that it is very desirable to be a member of such an assembly, if such exists, that is,
