For the hierarchy to have something to teach and to have disciples, it must not renounce the teaching. But, to clear itself and its illegitimate union with the power, it must by every cunning device conceal the essence of the teaching, and so transfer the centre of gravity of the teaching from the essence of the teaching to its external side. That is precisely what is done by the hierarchy, the source of that deception of faith which is preached by the church. The source is the union of the hierarchy, under the name of the church, with the power and with violence. The source of people’s wishing to teach the faith to others is that the true faith arraigns them, and they are obliged to substitute their own invented faith for the true faith in order to be justified.
The true faith may be anywhere, except where the faith is obviously false such as in the nature of violence; it cannot be in the state religion. True faith may be in all so-called schisms and heresies, but certainly cannot be where it has united with the state. Strange to say, the appellations, “Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant faith,” as established in common speech, mean nothing but “faith united with the temporal power,” state religion, and so these appellations are false.
The concept of the church – the agreement of many, of the majority – and at the same time its nearness to the source of the teaching in the first two centuries of Christianity, was only one of the poor external proofs. Paul said, “I know from Christ Himself.” Another said, “I know from Luke.” And all said, “We think correctly, and the proof that we do is that there is a large assembly of us, ecclesia, the church.” But it is only with the Council at Nicaea, which was established by the emperor, that for a part of those who professed the same teaching there began the direct and palpable deception.
“It seemed good to us and to the Holy Ghost,” they began to say then. The concept of the church not only remained a poor argument, but also even became a power for some people. It united with the temporal power and began to act as a power. And everything that united with the temporal power and fell under its sway stopped being faith and became a deception.
What does Christianity teach, regarding it as a teaching of any church or of all the churches? Analyze it by mixing or subdividing it as you please, and the whole Christian teaching
immediately divides up into two distinct parts. The first is the doctrine of the dogmas, beginning with the divine Son, the Holy Ghost, the relation between these persons, and ending with the Eucharist with wine or without wine, leavened or unleavened bread, and the moral teaching. The second is the doctrine of meekness, abstinence from litigation, bodily and spiritual purity, non-condemnation, liberation from the fetters of slavery, and love of peace. No matter how much the teachers of the church tried to mix these two sides of the teaching, they never did mingle, just as butter separating from water always keeps apart as large and small drops.
The difference between these two sides of the teaching is clear to anybody. Anybody may observe the fruits of either side of the teaching in the lives of the nations, and may from these fruits conclude which side is more important and, if we are allowed to speak of “more true,” which is more true. Looking upon the history of Christianity from this side, one is horror-struck.
Without exception, from the very beginning to the very end, up to our own time, no matter what dogma we may view, even beginning with the first, the dogma of Christ’s divinity, down to the folding of the fingers, the communion with wine and without wine, the fruits of all these mental labors, used for the elucidation of the dogmas, are: malice, hatred, executions, expulsions, the murder of women and children, the stake, and torture. Looking upon the other side of the moral teaching, from the removal to the wilderness for the purpose of communing with God to the custom of distributing white loaves in the prisons, we find the fruits of this to be: all our concepts of goodness, all that leads to joy and comfort, and all that serves us as a guiding light in history.
It was possible for those people to err before whose eyes the fruits of either had not yet become evident, and it was even impossible not to err. It was even possible for those to err who were sincerely drawn into these disputes about the dogmas, without noticing that with these dogmas they were only serving the devil, and not God, without noticing that Christ had expressly said that he came to destroy all dogmas. It was also possible for those to err who, having inherited traditions about the importance of these dogmas, received such a perverse mental education that they could not see their error.
It is possible for those ignorant people to err, to whom these dogmas mean nothing but words or fanciful representations. But for us, to whom the first meaning of the Gospel, which denies all dogmas, is revealed – for us who have before our eyes the fruits of these dogmas in history – for us it is impossible to err. History is for us a verification of the authenticity of the teaching; it is even a mechanical verification.
Is the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin necessary, or not? What came from it? Malice, curses, and scoffing. Has it been of any use? None. Is the doctrine about not punishing the harlot necessary, or not? What came from it? Thousands and thousands of times men have been softened by this reminder.
Again, do all men agree on any of the dogmas? No. Do all agree that understanding should be given to him who asks? Yes.
Now, the first, the dogmas – on which all men do not agree, which are of no use to anyone, which ruin men – are what the hierarchy has been giving out as faith. The second, the virtues – what all men agree upon, what all men need, and what saves men – are what the hierarchy, without daring to deny it, has not dared to advance as the genuine teaching, because this teaching denies the hierarchy itself.
1882
The End
