excommunicated him. On the part of so good and great a man, it was argued, a little divergence from orthodoxy should have been tolerated. Perhaps it should; but it may be as well, before definitely committing ourselves to the opinion, to ascertain how far Tolstoy's divergence from orthodoxy extends. We may do this by reading two of the most recent tracts, the Appeal to the Clergy and The Overthrow of Hell and its Restoration.

66

The latter pamphlet is an allegory in which the Devil is represented as arranging" the miracles," inventing" the Church, and suggesting the sacraments. The former denounces, in plain and simple language, almost every doctrine that any branch of the Christian Church has ever taught.

First of all it is the Bible that Tolstoy dismisses with scorn:

We speak of harmful books! but does there exist in the Christian world a book that has done more harm to men than this dreadful book called The Scripture History of the Old and New Testaments?

Then follows the assault upon what are commonly called "the Christian mysteries":

If the Trinity, the immaculate conception, the redemption of the human race by the blood of Jesus, are possible, then everything is possible, and the demands of reason are not obligatory. If you insert a wedge between the boards of a partition in a granary, then, however much grain you may pour into that section, it will not hold. In the same way, when the wedge of the Trinity, or of God having become man and saving the human race by His sufferings, and then again flying into the skies, has been knocked into a mind, then that mind cannot retain any rational or steadfast lifeconception.

Finally, the sacraments are spoken of in what may fairly be described as the language of vulgar abuse :

They teach that if one puts a few scraps of bread into some wine and pronounces certain words over these scraps, then the bread becomes flesh and the wine blood, and that to eat this bread and drink this wine is very profitable for the salvation of one's soul. People believe in this and sanctimoniously eat this sop, and when they fall into our hands they are astonished that the sop has not helped them," concluded the devil in the cape, and turning up his eyeballs, he grinned from ear to ear.

This is very good," said Beelzebub, and smiled, and all the devils joined in roars of laughter.

One could easily quote more; but that suffices. Our question concerning it is not Is it right? but Is it Christianity? Obviously it is not, except on the assumption that contrary propositions are identical, or that Christianity means anything to which anybody chooses to apply the name; and the teaching of Tolstoy, on its destructive side, differs very little, if it differs at all, from the teaching of Charles Bradlaugh.

Nor is it true to say that Tolstoyism is derived from

66

Christianity by any logical, or even plausible, process of deduction. The Tolstoyans-or some of them-make a great point of the fact that Tolstoy learnt Greek and Hebrew in order that he might read the oracles of God in the original. For any use, worthy of the respect of logicians, that he has made of his knowledge, he might just as well have left the languages unlearnt, and the oracles themselves unread. There are some drawbacks," says Mr. Crosby, naïvely, “in his methods. For instance, when he does not like a verse he simply leaves it out.' Which means that he approaches Christianity, not as a disciple, but as a critic-with the intention, that is to say, of agreeing with Christ only when Christ agrees with him. This is not exegesis but jugglery-an attempt, not to understand or interpret the Gospels, but to supersede them while retaining their phraseology, and their authority, as buttresses to support the commentator's own evangel. Obviously, for the body of doctrine thus constructed, not Christ but Tolstoy must be held responsible.

This brings us to the doctrine itself, and to the questions: Is it a sound doctrine? Is it a new doctrine? Do the Tolstoyans really hold it? Our conclusion will indubitably have to be that, in so far as it is sound, it is not new, that, in so far as it is new, it is not sound, and that the only points in the teaching that are really accepted by the Tolstoyans are the points that are not specially characteristic of Tolstoy. Let us take the points seriatim and see. The precepts consist, as all the world knows, in insistence on the specific, literal (or perhaps one should say Tolstoyan) application of certain selected texts of Scripture. The principal texts concerned are these:

1. Resist not evil.

2. Swear not at all.

3. Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already with her in his heart.

All the three texts are, of course, accepted by all Christians, subject to certain qualifications. Tolstoy accepts and preaches them without any qualifications at all. "Christ," he tells us, "was not exaggerating. Christ meant what he said." Christ meant, that is to say, that the wrongdoer must be allowed a free hand to rob, to murder, and to ravish; that there must be no armies, no police force, no government machinery of any kind; that we ought all to live celibate lives. Christ also meantthough the authority for this is not so clear-that we must all be teetotalers, non-smokers, and vegetarians. That is the thesis on which two comments present themselves.

The first comment is that there is no reason to suppose that Christ meant anything of the kind, seeing that He "came eating

and drinking," accepted an invitation to a marriage feast, and there turned water into wine. The second comment is that Christ's meaning, whatever it may have been, is, from the strict Tolstoyan point of view, immaterial. Tolstoy, as has already been pointed out, only agrees with Christ when Christ agrees with him. "Ego et Christus meus" is the order of ideas to which his eclecticism commits him; and his teaching must stand or fall on its own merits. Does it stand? Are the Tolstoyans standing behind it? Or do they merely accord it a sentimental, rhetorical support on general principles, while letting it collapse. whenever the pressure of a particular case is found inconveniently hard?

Very likely they accept and observe the simpler austerities; but these are hardly of the essence of the system. It is easy for the vegetarian or the teetotaler so to order his life that no difficult question in casuistry will ever be raised by his selfimposed rules of abstinence. These virtues, if virtues they be, are purely self-regarding. Similarly with the precept that we ought to avoid taking any office which involves the swearing of allegiance to any organised government. It is quite easy not to be a soldier, or a policeman, or a civil servant-as easy as the French critic said that it was not to write a tragedy in five acts. Consistency in act here presents no embarrassing difficulties, and inconsistency in thought, even if it exists, may evade detection. So far, therefore, the teaching of Tolstoy, though eccentric, is of no great theoretical interest or practical importance. We only reach the heart of the subject when we come to consider the doctrines of non-resistance, and universal continence-doctrines which do really strike at the roots of society, and threaten to destroy it. What, then, have the Tolstoyans to say on these branches of the subject? Let us first examine their attitude towards the doctrine of non-resistance in its bearing, not only upon the conduct of individuals, but also upon the policy of nations.

In so far as the policy of nations is concerned, Mr. Crosby gives away the whole case in the opening sentences of his chapter entitled "The Christian Teaching in Practice." "Are the injunctions of Christ (that is to say, of Tolstoy) practicable? We can only answer that they have often proved so.' Perhaps. But a doctrine which is to be of universal application must be practicable not only "often" but "always." A single contrary instance is sufficient to destroy the force of a generalisation. This naïve use of the word "often" is by itself a refutation of Tolstoy-by a Tolstoyan; and, if we want to supplement the refutation, we have only to analyse the affirmative instance which

Mr. Crosby triumphantly adduces. He cites the case of William Lloyd Garrison-" a non-resistant and one of the most extreme -and he asks: "Is it a mere coincidence that this typical nonresistant should have been the man who, in the history of America, has, without any exception, accomplished the most for humanity?"

The suggestion is, of course, that William Lloyd Garrison, without striking a blow, effected the emancipation of the slaves. It is perfectly true that the blacks were emancipated, and it is also perfectly true that William Lloyd Garrison took no part in the fighting. But there was nevertheless plenty of fighting as the result of William Lloyd Garrison's burning words; and, if there had been no fighting, the blacks would not have been emancipated. Mr. Crosby's argument requires that not only William Lloyd Garrison but also General Grant should have been a non-resister. But Grant was nothing of the kind; and, just as we see Mr. Crosby refuting Tolstoy by his use of the word "often," so we may see Grant refuting Mr. Crosby at the Battle of the Wilderness.

Indeed, the Tolstoyan appeals to history can always without difficulty be refuted by the historian. Even when the instances which they select do not, under close inspection, disprove their points instead of proving them, alternative instances pointing to opposite conclusions can invariably be cited. One of their favourite texts, quoted by them from Tolstoy, and by Tolstoy from the Bible, is: "He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword." And to this they add their gloss: Great aggressive military Empires, like that of Napoleon, have ended in humiliation. Weak States, like the Republic of San Marino, which have thrown themselves on the mercy of their enemies, have preserved their independence. Perhaps. But we knew already that o'erweening ambition might o'erleap itself, and that the weak consult their best interests by not giving provocation to the strong; and that is all that these examples prove. On the other hand, the case of the Incas of Peru demonstrates that a nation of non-resisters may be exterminated; and the case of the Swiss Confederation proves that resistance may build up a stable and prosperous State. On this side of the subject, it is clear that, if the Tolstoyans will only go as far as history takes them, they cannot go all the way that Tolstoy wants to lead them. They can scarcely be said to do so when they content themselves with asking, as Mr. Crosby does: "Would it not be better to forget Alsace and Lorraine than once again to sow the fratricidal seed that has so often filled Europe with a bloody harvest?" No doubt it would; but there is nothing essentially

Tolstoyan in that sentiment. Essential Tolstoyism condemns a good deal besides the idea of the revanche-the oath on Grütli, for example, and the battles of Morgarten and Sempach, and the "embattled farmers," and "the shot heard round the world." Do the Tolstoyans really admire the friends of humanity who stayed at home on those occasions?

Apparently they do not. Mr. Stead-one of the first Englishmen to draw attention to the sacro-sanctity of Tolstoy-has lately been calling upon us to add Dreadnought to Dreadnought. Mr. Crosby practically evades the issue by looking forward to a time when it will become as impossible for a Christian to . . . fire a bombshell... as it would be now for him to indulge in an act of cannibalism." It may be so. But the word "become," like the word "often," gives the case away. We are all agreed that, in a world in which nobody resisted evil, there would be no evil to resist. To say that, however-and to say no moreis to substitute prophecy for exhortations; and the Tolstoyans who do that are not merely following Tolstoy at a distance, but are separated from him by a gulf. Tolstoyism is not a prediction but a code of conduct-a code which, so far as the affairs of nations are concerned, no Tolstoyan outside a lunatic asylum seems to endorse.

Do they even accept the precept of non-resistance as an infallible guide to the duty of the individual in his relations with bad men? Some of them certainly try very hard to do so. They are not satisfied, with other Christians, to denounce vindictiveness. They agree-Mr. Crosby at any rate agrees that landlords should not evict their tenants, and that creditors should not go to law to recover their debts. They can easily avoid the temptation to do so by conducting their businesses on a cash basis, and by not investing their capital in land or house property; but these, for that very reason, are not test cases. One test case occurred when an American magazine published a garbled version of something that Tolstoy had written; and, on that occasion, the appeal to Cæsar was threatened by Tolstoyans. A still more crucial test can easily be propounded.

A Tolstoyan, let us imagine, is taking a country walk. He hears a cry for help. Running up, he discovers that a tramp is endeavouring to commit a criminal assault upon a woman. Is he to interfere? Or is he to pass by on the other side, treating the matter as no concern of his? The doctrine, "Resist not evil," literally interpreted, clearly prescribes the latter course; and Tolstoy has as clearly laid down that the doctrine. must be literally interpreted, because Christ "was not exaggerating," but "meant what he said." Are the Tolstoyans at one