1 The introduction to this work was published by me in the first three chapters of my "Theoretical Philosophy."
xix b 2
xx SOLOVIEV
and which provided me with the simplest medium for the expression of the thoughts I was desirous of communicating. This form of drawing-room dis- cussion is a sufficient proof in itself that neither a scientifico-philosophical examination nor an ortho- dox sermon should be looked for in this work. My object in it was rather apologetic and polemic :I endeavoured, as far as I could, to set out clearly and prominently the vital aspects of Christian truth, in so far as it is connected with the question of evil, and to disperse the fog with which everybody seems to have been trying lately to enwrap it.
Many years ago I happened to read about a new religion that was founded in the eastern provinces of Russia. The religion, the followers of which called themselves "Hole-drillers," or "Hole- worshippers," was very simple; a middle-sized hole was drilled in a wall in some dark corner of a house, and the men put their mouths to it and repeated earnestly: "My house, my hole, do save me!" Never before, I believe, has the object of worship been reduced to such a degree of simplicity. It must be admitted, however, that though the worship of an ordinary peasant's house, and of a simple hole made by human hands in its wall, was a palpable error, it was a truthful error; those men were abso- lutely mad, but they did not deceive anybody; the house they worshipped they called a house, and the hole drilled in the wall they reasonably termed merely a hole.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxi
But the religion of the hole-worshippers soon underwent a process of "evolution," and was sub- jected to "transformation." It still retained in its new form its former weakness of religious thought and its narrow character of philosophic interests, its former terre-à-terre realism, but it completely lost its past truthfulness. The " house " now was termed "the Kingdom of God on Earth," and the "hole" received the name of " the new Gospel," whilst the distinction between the sham gospel and the true one (and this is the most distressing fact about it), a distinction which is exactly similar to that exist- ing between a hole drilled in a beam, and complete living tree—this essential distinction was either neglected or confused by the new evangelists.
Of course, I do not assert a direct historical or "genetic" connection between the original sect of hole-worshippers and the teaching of the sham Kingdom of God and the sham Gospel. Neither is it important for my object, which is only to show clearly the essential identity of the two "teachings" with that moral distinction which has been stated above. [The identity here lies in the purely negative and void character of both "doctrines." It is true, the "educated" hole-worshippers do not call them- selves by this name, but go under the name of Christians, and their teaching is also passed as the Gospel, but Christianity without Christ, and the Gospel, i.e., the ''message of good," without the only good worth announcing, viz., without the real
xxii SOLOVIEV
resurrection to the fulness of blessed life—these are as much a hollow space as is the ordinary hole drilled in a peasant's house. There would not be any need to speak about this at all were it not for the fact that over the rationalist hole the Christian flag is flown, tempting and confusing many of the "little ones." When the people who believe and cautiously declare that Christ has become obsolete and has been superseded, or that He never existed at all, and that His life is a myth invented by Paul, at the same time persistently call themselves "true Christians" and screen their teaching of hollow space by distorted quotations from the Gospel, is well-nigh time to put aside our indifference to, and our condescending contempt for, their opinions. The moral atmosphere is contaminated with systematic falsehoods, so the public conscience loudly demands that the evil work should be branded by its real name. The true object of polemics would in this case be not the confuting of sham religion but the showing up of the actual fraud.
This fraud has no excuse. Between me, as the author of three books, banned by the ecclesi- astic censorship on the one side, and these pub- lishers of numerous foreign books, pamphlets, and leaflets on the other side, the question of external obstacles for an unreserved frankness in these matters does not seriously arise. The restraints of religious freedom, existing in our country, cause the greatest pain to my heart, for I see and feel to what
AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxiii
a great extent these external restrictions bring harm to and impose burdens not only on those whom they directly hit, but mainly on the cause of Christianity in Russia, consequently on the Russian nation, con- sequently, again, on the Russian State.
No external situation can prevent a man who is honestly convinced in his opinions, stating them fully. If it is impossible to do so at home, one can do it abroad, and no one has availed himself of this opportunity to a greater extent than the teachers of the sham Gospel have done when the matters con- cerned have been the practical questions of politics and religion. Whilst as regards the main, the essential question there is no need even to go abroad in order to refrain from insincerity and artifice : the Russian censorship never demands that anybody should pronounce opinions that he does not hold, to simulate a faith in things he does not believe in, or to love and revere what he despises and hates. To maintain an honest attitude towards the known his- torical Person and His Work, the preachers of hollowness had only one thing to do in Russia : they should merely have "ignored" Him. But here is the strange fact: in this matter these men refuse to avail themselves either of the freedom of silence which they enjoy at home or of the freedom of speech which they enjoy abroad. Both here and there they prefer to show their allegiance to the Gospel of Christ; both here and there they decline to reveal honestly their real attitude to the Founder
xxiv SOLOVIEV
of Christianity either by a resolute word or by an eloquent silence, i.e., to show that He is entirely alien to them, is for no object required and is only a hindrance in their way.
From their point of view the things they preach are of themselves clear, desirable and salutary for everybody. Their " truth " is self-supporting, and if a certain historical person happens to agree with it, so much is it the better for him, though this fact does not endow him with any special authority in their eyes, particularly when it is remembered that this person had said and done many things which for these people are nothing but a "temptation" and "madness."
Even supposing that these moralists in their very human weakness feel an irresistible desire to sus- tain their beliefs as well as their own " reason " by some historical authority, why, I ask, do they not look in history for another who shall be a more suit- able representative? There has for a long time been one waiting for such recognition—the founder of the widely-popular religion of Buddhism. He did really preach what they required: non-resistance, impossibility, inactivity, sobriety, etc., and succeeded even without a martyrdom to "make a brilliant career" for his religion. The sacred books of the Buddhists do really proclaim hollowness, and to make them fully agree with the new teaching of the same matter they would require only a little sim- plification in detail. On the contrary, the Scriptures
AUTHOR'S PREFACE xxv
of the Jews and Christians are filled and permeated throughout by a positive spiritual message which denies both ancient and modern emptiness, so that to be able to fasten the teaching of this latter to