OCR Text |
Show TOLSTOI AM) IGEnOLU - CoivOVEl, Ingebsolu in the current cur-rent number of the .Vwrfi .Inicrioan Review, is profuse in eulogies -of Count Tolstoi. The count, says the colonel, "is a Christian, a real believer be-liever in the Old and Jew Testa: ments, an honest follower of the Peasant InraleUne."Aud further: "He is not only a Christian, but has tho courage of his conviction and goes without hesitation tq the logical conclusion. He opposes the doctors, of divinity, because they darken and deform the teachings of the Master. He denounces the doctors of medlcioe, because liev depends de-pends on Providence and the prom Ues of Jesus Christ." There is, however, a peculiarity about the colonel's admiration of the Russian count. It is not meant to be oomrjllmentary. It is onr Introduced Intro-duced for the purpose of furnishing an crcujeforone of the periodically occurring aaultg upon the Savior, for which the colonel has earned lamenublc nolorlity. - Count Tolstoi appears to have been led astrsy on one of the vital questions of our time: The proper mutual relation of the' ttrxts. His philosophy Seems to have plunged him headlong don into the dark abyse of misanthropy. And from this point of view, it appears to him that there U no remedy againtt thecumnt tvll, thort .of the total extinction of the human race. In order to reach tills cud", one of the noblest feelings with which man has been endowed, love, must, so to speak, be crucified. The love of man for woman, and of woman wo-man for man, Is nothing but degradation. degra-dation. For two human beings to love each other as man and wife is to be partners in tho same crime. There neither Is ner can be any purity in love. It is at tx-t a delation dela-tion that after a short time must end in jealousy and hatred. Ingersoll has sense enough to per-ceIve,Uiit per-ceIve,Uiit these views aretlicillogic-al aretlicillogic-al reasonings of a dlieascd imagination. imagi-nation. "All this," he sa, , "1 to my mind a kind of Insanity; nature soured or withered deformed o that celibacy is mistaken for virtue." vir-tue." JJut although he denounces Tolstoi's philosophy In so strong terms, he thinks him-elf Justified In ascribing the whole matter to Jesus Christ and His doctrines, since he-represents he-represents Tolstoi is a devoted fol lower of the Savior, a valiant expounder ex-pounder of His doctrines as laid down in the Bible. In other words, he docs not hesitate, in this manner to designate Christianity as the philosophy of a maf man nnJ our blesscdTtedeemcras insane, striving to deform human nature into a kind of mental monstrosity. This, as is usual with Ingersoll Inger-soll when ho pours out his bitter gall against religion, Is without the slightest cause. That "Peasant of Palestine," who, by the way, Is the highest type of individual in-dividual being known lo earth, never taught one syllable from w hlch Tolstoi could reasonably deduct hU dark theories on the quo-tion cf wedded love. On the contrary, all that Christ ever said on this question, ques-tion, director Indirect, and all that God ever revealed on the sulject, whether in ancient times or In our own age, is directly oppo-cd to such philosophy. The Russian count Is in this particular point no more a follower of Jesus than is the lcaJIng American infidel, itolh are radically radi-cally wrong. The teachings of Christ wi'li re gard to this question are clear enough. Iteiue; asked by the Pharisees Phari-sees if it were lawful (as was nialn-talned nialn-talned by the dlnclplcs of JUbbi. HUleljtoseveVtheEicrttlflionds of' marriage "for every cause," he unhesitatingly un-hesitatingly answers iu the negative. God maJe his children, mile a;. d female and united them. "What, therefore, God hath jalned l-icther let not man put asunier." Ke further teaches the great trutu n hit li as never before accepted by the aagflofthe world, tins' woman i by the-t'reator Inten led lo ba ote wlttrher htnband, not the inferior. "For (being united together ii-cnrd-ingto the laws of Go 1) they are no mire two, but one flesh." (Math. 1.1,33). Our Savior, then, si far from teachiug that marriage is a degrading relatiuo.of ths sexes to each oilier announces the doctrine that their union is the only way in wrlicTi thechllirenofGod can fulfil ful-fil the- measure of their creation, can accomplish the purpose of their existence ex-istence on the earth. Paul has, understood his Master correctly when he, in lih letter to the branch of theChurehatCuilntti aiys: "Neither Ii the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man In the Lord" (I Cor. II, 11); that is, ths separate existence of thcLxo Is not, from the Ird'o point of view, the intended condition; It takes the sacred union to mVe their existencdjCO'llDltteZ, " 1 The Apostle illustrate this point -most beautifully, avhen" he (Eph." 5,22-31) compares the relationship of man and wife lo that pf Christ and the. Church. Human language cannot In clearer terms describe the tanctlly of that divine institution marriage nor can a more exalted ideal of the true relation of man and wife to each other be formed. Man and woman according to this, arc no marc Intended to lead each a separate separ-ate existence than are Chri'tand the Church. Both are, as it were, existing for and through each other. And while the wives are expected lo "submit" themselves to their husbands, yet this submission is not that of a slave, nor that of ; servant to a master, but it is a submission similar to that of the Church to the lord, the voluntary submission prompted and made sweet by pure affection. In the same way hus bands are expected to love their "wives as Christ loved the cliurch. And they are to show this love as Christ did. He "gave himself for the church, that be might sanctify and cleanse it" This is given as tiie reason why the husband has been made the "head of lh wife:" that he. Christlike, may sacrifice himself him-self for his wife and by his sacrifice j obtain the honor of being. the-"sa -lor Of the body" a Christ Is the Baviorofthe Church. (Ef. 5:23.) Thus in strong terms do the ancient an-cient Scriptures show us the necessity neces-sity of marriage and the noble nature na-ture of that institution. Nor are the revelations given in this lastdls-tnsation lastdls-tnsation upon the subject less clear. Through Joseph, the Prophet, God says: "! say untoyou.thal whoso who-so forbid Jeth to marry, is not ordained or-dained of God, for marriage is ordained or-dained of God unto man; wherefore it is lawful that he should have one wife, and the twain shall tie one flcih, and all this thai the rth might answer the en J of its creation. (Doc and Cov Sec. ii: 15, 16 )-Those )-Those who, like Tolstoi, would4 for-bldjnarrlage, for-bldjnarrlage, arc not of God, are on this point not followers of Chrietb even if Ingetsoli ventures the assertion as-sertion that they are. For Christ never taught anybody to dishonor what His Father has instituted. Having shown that Christianity ncvef favored celibacy, we will now merely stato that ' Tolstoi's Ideas upon this subject are neither original nor very modern in their origin. Before Christ,. Jewish ect existed which held Tolstoi's doctrine as one of their most pnamlucnt features. We refer to the Esscnes. I.'glitfoot in describing the tenets of this sect says. 'The boporable, and c en eaajjer-atcd eaajjer-atcd estimate of marriage. wblchwas characteristic of the Jew, and of the Pharistyxei the typleat Jew (from the rabbis of this Urns we have the saying, say-ing, that a Jew who Is not inarriadU 'ho man,) found no favor with the Essene.1-' Marriage wai to him an abomination. Tboso Enes who lived tothor as members nf an order, and In whom the principles of the sect wre carried lo their logical cons-qnenccs, cons-qnenccs, eschew! It altogether. To semro too cunUnUanco of their brotherhood broth-erhood they adop od children, whom they brought up in tbe doctrines and practice of the community. Then were others, however, who took a different view. Tdey accepted marriage mar-riage as necessary for tho precervation of the race. Yet even with them It seems to bare boon regarded only as an inovitabie evil. They fenced Ii off by aMngent rules, demanding a throo years' proba'ion, and enjoining varl-oct varl-oct purificatory riles. The conception of marriage, as quickening and edn-oa'Ing edn-oa'Ing tbe affections and thai exalting and refining human life, was wbollv foreign to their minds. Woman was a mere iostmmrnt of temptation In tbelrryer; deceitful, fiUh!e,Ml(Wj, Jealous, -misled and misleading by her ravions." TIicso ilark delusions gradually found way Into some branches of the apwtolie churehe-, and led In after years rome church fathers to do-nuine-o marriage, borne deluded individuals tied to tho deserts in ordtr to avoid "lemrtations." Others fo-med "brotherhoods" and "sisterhoods" for the same purpoM-. Jlul these doctrines and the practices prac-tices founded thereon were never countenasccd by those who understood under-stood Christ 'd teachings. They were denounced as '"damnable heresies." here-sies." They are foretold as one of thedoetrinisofan apoctate church (1 TJm.-J. 3.) From this source Tolstoi's Ideas are detlred. They may appropriately appropri-ately bo called "damnable heresy," but they can netrbe called Christianity. |