---
layer: reference
lastUpdated: 2026-10-03
tags: [research, church, translations]
---

# "Church" in chapter III — Russian and three English translations

The passages in chapter III of *The Kingdom of God Is Within You* where Tolstoy argues about what "church" means: the word in the Gospels, the singular, heresy as the other side of the church, "churches as churches", and the churches' dilemma. Collected for the re-dive (see `annotations.md`, "Re-dive steer — 'the Church' is not the body of Christ"). The chapter mentions the church in 74 of its 133 paragraphs; these 15 are the ones that argue about the concept itself.

Sources: Russian, PSS 28 (TEI, `extract_tei.py --choice=reg`; ¶ = paragraph number within chapter III of that text). Wiener 1904 (Standard Ebooks; the wordings discussed in the notes checked against the text of the 1904 scan, `Complete Works/20.pdf`). Garnett 1894 (Project Gutenberg #43302, local copy in `primary-sources/project-gutenberg/`). Maude 1936 (Internet Archive `in.ernet.dli.2015.461988`, every quotation checked against the page images, printed pp. 68–101) — quoted only at the points of difference, as its US copyright status is unchecked. The Russian edition lowercases «церковь» throughout (Soviet convention), so capitals in the English are the translators'.

## What the comparison shows

- **The singular.** Tolstoy writes «церкви» ("churches") where he means the organisations, and argues that "the church" in the singular is the churches' own claim. Garnett and Maude both turn his plurals into "the Church" in places (¶33, ¶132); Wiener keeps them. Maude also capitalises "Churches" throughout, which lends the institutions a standing the lower-case Russian does not show.
- **Movement.** Tolstoy's thread is movement against immobility: heresy is "movement in the church", the churches are "immobility and death". Garnett loses it twice (¶76, ¶80) and drops "fulfilling" from "understanding and fulfilling the teaching".
- **Other slips.** Garnett: "miracles" for "hierarchy" (¶35), "the holy love of Christ" for "Christ's moral law" (¶101). Maude: "the *present* conception of the Church" (¶75), which softens the claim. Wiener: "unjust and bold" (¶33), and a garbled "true activity of Christ's teaching" (¶114).
- **On balance.** In this chapter Wiener is the most faithful of the three on church and churches — the reverse of the preface. Garnett stays the reading text, but these points want a footnote or a note in the reader edition.

## ¶33 — The Church "founded by Christ"

**Russian:** Но церковь свята, церковь основана Христом. Не мог бог предоставить людям толковать свое учение произвольно, и потому он установил церковь. Все эти положения до такой степени несправедливы и голословны, что совестно опровергать их. Нигде, ни по чему, кроме как по утверждению церквей, не видно, чтобы бог или Христос основывали что-либо подобное тому, что церковники разумеют под церковью. В Евангелии есть указание против церкви как внешнего авторитета, самое очевидное и ясное, в том месте, где говорится, чтобы ученики Христа никого не называли учителями и отцами. Но нигде ничего не сказано об установлении того, что церковники называют церковью.

**Wiener:** But the church is holy—the church was founded by Christ. God could not have left it to men to give an arbitrary interpretation to His teaching—and so He established the church. All these expositions are to such an extent unjust and bold that one feels some compunction in overthrowing them. There is nothing but the assertion of the churches to show that God or Christ founded anything resembling what the churchmen understand by church. In the Gospel there is an indication against the church, as an external authority, and this indication is most obvious and clear in that place where it says that Christ’s disciples should not call anyone teachers and fathers. But nowhere is there anything said about the establishment of what the churchmen call a church.

**Garnett:** But the Church is holy; the Church was founded by Christ. God could not leave men to interpret his teaching at random--therefore he founded the Church. All those statements are so utterly untrue and unfounded that one is ashamed to refute them. Nowhere nor in anything, except in the assertion of the Church, can we find that God or Christ founded anything like what Churchmen understand by the Church. In the Gospels there is a warning against the Church, as it is an external authority, a warning most clear and obvious in the passage where it is said that Christ's followers should "call no man master." But nowhere is anything said of the foundation of what Churchmen call the Church.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 68):** “Nowhere, nor in anything but in the Church’s assertion, is it shown that God or Christ founded anything at all resembling what churchmen understand by the Church.”

**Notes:** «кроме как по утверждению церквей» is plural, "the churches' assertion". Wiener keeps it ("the assertion of the churches"); Garnett ("the assertion of the Church") and Maude ("the Church's assertion") make it one Church. «несправедливы и голословны» ("untrue and unfounded"): Wiener's "unjust and bold" is weak; Garnett "untrue and unfounded", Maude "unjust and unfounded". Wiener splits the Russian paragraph in three.

## ¶34 — The word "church" in the Gospels

**Russian:** В Евангелиях два раза употреблено слово «церковь». Один раз в смысле собрания людей, разрешающего спор; другой раз в связи с темными словами о камне — Петре и вратах ада. Из этих двух упоминаний слова «церковь», имеющего значение только собрания, выводится то, что мы теперь разумеем под словом «церковь».

**Wiener:** In the gospels the word “church” is used twice—once, in the sense of an assembly of men deciding a dispute; the other time, in connection with the obscure words about the rock, Peter, and the gates of hell. From, these two mentions of the word “church,” which has the meaning of nothing but an assembly, they deduce what we now understand by the word “church.”

**Garnett:** The word church is used twice in the Gospels--once in the sense of an assembly of men to decide a dispute, the other time in connection with the obscure utterance about a stone--Peter, and the gates of hell. From these two passages in which the word church is used, in the signification merely of an assembly, has been deduced all that we now understand by the Church.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 68–69):** “In the Gospels the word ‘church’ is used twice. … From these two mentions of the word ‘church’ (meaning merely an assembly) what is now meant by the word ‘Church’ has been deduced.”

**Notes:** All three faithful. Garnett and Maude capitalise the second "Church" — what is meant now, the institution — and keep the Gospel word lower case.

## ¶35 — Christ could not have founded it

**Russian:** Но Христос никак не мог основать церковь, т. е. то, что мы теперь понимаем под этим словом, потому что ничего подобного понятию церкви такой, какую знаем теперь с таинствами, иерархией и, главное, с своим утверждением непогрешимости, не было ни в словах Христа, ни в понятиях людей того времени.

**Wiener:** But Christ could certainly not have founded a church, that is, what we now understand by the word, because neither in Christ’s words, nor in the conceptions of the men of that time, was there anything resembling the concept of a church, as we know it now, with its sacraments, its hierarchy, and, above all, its assertion of infallibility.

**Garnett:** But Christ could not have founded the Church, that is, what we now understand by that word. For nothing like the idea of the Church as we know it now, with its sacraments, miracles, and above all its claim to infallibility, is to be found either in Christ's words or in the ideas of the men of that time.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 69):** “…nothing resembling our present conception of the Church — with its sacraments, its hierarchy, and especially its claim to infallibility…”

**Notes:** Garnett has "sacraments, miracles" where the Russian has «таинствами, иерархией» ("sacraments, hierarchy"): the hierarchy drops out. Wiener and Maude have "hierarchy".

## ¶36 — The same word for something else

**Russian:** То, что люди назвали то, что сложилось потом, тем же словом, которое Христос употреблял о чем-то другом, никак не дает им права утверждать того, что Христос основал единую истинную церковь.

**Wiener:** The fact that men named what was formed later by the same word which Christ had used in respect to something else, does in no way give them the right to assert that Christ established the one, true church.

**Garnett:** The fact that men called what was formed afterward by the same word as Christ used for something totally different, does not give them the right to assert that Christ founded the one, true Church.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 69):** “The fact that people called an institution established later, by a name Christ had used to designate something quite different, in no way gives them the right…”

**Notes:** All three faithful.

## ¶43 — "Church" in the singular

**Russian:** Обыкновенно, говоря о происхождении христианства, люди, принадлежащие к одной из существующих церквей, употребляют слово «церковь» в единственном числе, как будто церковь была и есть только одна. Но это совершенно несправедливо. Церковь, как учреждение, утверждающее про себя, что она обладает несомненной истиной, явилась только тогда, когда она была не одна, а было их по крайней мере две.

**Wiener:** Speaking of the origin of Christianity, men who belong to one or the other of the existing churches generally use the word “church” in the singular, as though there has been but one church. But this is quite untrue. The church, as an institution which asserts of itself that it is in possession of the unquestionable truth, appeared only when it was not alone, but there were at least two of them.

**Garnett:** Ordinarily, when speaking of the rise of Christianity, men belonging to one of the existing churches use the word church in the singular, as though there were and had been only one church. But this is absolutely incorrect. The Church, as an institution which asserted that it possessed infallible truth, did not make its appearance singly; there were at least two churches directly this claim was made.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 71):** “Usually when speaking of the origin of Christianity people belonging to one of the existing Churches use the word ‘Church’ in the singular, as though there were and had been only one Church.”

**Notes:** All three faithful. Maude capitalises even the plural, "existing Churches".

## ¶44 — The one church came from the quarrel

**Russian:** Пока верующие были согласны между собою, и собрание было одно, ему незачем было утверждать себя церковью. Только тогда, когда верующие разделились на противоположные, отрицающие друг друга партии, явилась потребность каждой стороны утверждать свою истинность, приписывая себе непогрешимость. Понятие единой церкви возникло только из того, что, при разногласии и споре двух сторон, каждая, называя другую сторону ересью, признавала только свою сторону непогрешимою церковью.

**Wiener:** So long as the believers agreed among themselves, and the assembly was one, it had no need of asserting that it was the church. Only when the believers divided into opposite parties, which denied one another, did there appear the necessity for each side to assert its authenticity, ascribing infallibility to itself. The concept of the one church arose only from this, that, when two sides disagreed and quarrelled, each of them, calling the other a heresy, recognized only its own as the infallible church.

**Garnett:** While believers were agreed among themselves and the body was one, it had no need to declare itself as a church. It was only when believers were split up into opposing parties, renouncing one another, that it seemed necessary to each party to confirm their own truth by ascribing to themselves infallibility. The conception of one church only arose when there were two sides divided and disputing, who each called the other side heresy, and recognized their own side only as the infallible church.

**Notes:** All three faithful (Maude not checked word by word).

## ¶47 — Only many assemblies, historically

**Russian:** Как действительное историческое явление существовали и существуют только многие собрания людей, утверждающие каждое про себя, что оно есть единая, основанная Христом церковь, а что все другие, называющие себя церквами, суть ереси и расколы.

**Wiener:** As an actual, historical phenomenon there have existed only many assemblies of men, each of which has asserted that it is the one church, established by Christ, and that all the others, which call themselves churches, are heresies and schisms.

**Garnett:** As a real historical fact there has existed, and still exist, several bodies of men, each asserting that it is the one Church, founded by Christ, and that all the others who call themselves churches are only sects and heresies.

**Notes:** «ереси и расколы» ("heresies and schisms"): Garnett "sects and heresies"; Wiener "heresies and schisms".

## ¶60 — True movement was in the heresies

**Russian:** Как ни странно это кажется для нас, людей воспитанных в ложном учении о церкви как о христианском учреждении и в презрении к ереси, — но только в том, что называлось ересью и было истинное движение, т. е. истинное христианство, и только тогда переставало быть им, когда оно в этих ересях останавливалось в своем движении и так же закреплялось в неподвижные формы церкви.

**Wiener:** However strange it may seem to us people educated in the false doctrine about the church as a Christian institution, and in the contempt for heresy, it was only in what is called heresy that there was true motion, that is, true Christianity, and it ceased to be such when it stopped its motion in these heresies and became itself arrested in the immovable forms of the church.

**Garnett:** Strange though it may seem to us who have been brought up in the erroneous view of the Church as a Christian institution, and in contempt for heresy, yet the fact is that only in what was called heresy was there any true movement, that is, true Christianity, and that it only ceased to be so when those heresies stopped short in their movement and also petrified into the fixed forms of a church.

**Notes:** Wiener and Garnett faithful.

## ¶75 — Heresy is the other side of the church

**Russian:** Так почти 200 лет тому назад понималось уже значение ереси, и, несмотря на то, понятие это существует до сих пор. Оно и не может не существовать до тех пор, пока существует понятие церкви. Ересь есть обратная сторона церкви. Там, где есть церковь, должно быть и понятие ереси. Церковь есть собрание людей, утверждающих про себя, что они обладают несомненной истиной. Ересь есть мнение людей, не признающих несомненность истины церкви.

**Wiener:** Thus, nearly two hundred years ago, was the significance of heresy understood, and yet this conception continues to exist until the present time. Nor can it fail to exist, so long as there is a concept of the church. Heresy is the reverse of the church. Where there is the church, there is also heresy. The church is an assembly of men asserting that they are in possession of the indisputable truth. Heresy is the opinion of people who do not recognize the indisputableness of the church truth.

**Garnett:** Thus, almost two hundred years ago, the real meaning of heresy was understood. And notwithstanding that, the same conception of it has gone on existing up to now. And it cannot fail to exist so long as the conception of a church exists. Heresy is the obverse side of the Church. Wherever there is a church, there must be the conception of heresy. A church is a body of men who assert that they are in possession of infallible truth. Heresy is the opinion of the men who do not admit the infallibility of the Church's truth.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 80):** “It is bound to exist as long as the present conception of the Church exists. Heresy is the obverse side of the Church.”

**Notes:** Maude adds "present": «пока существует понятие церкви» is "as long as the concept of the church exists" — no "present". With it, another conception of the church would seem to be fine, which softens the claim. Wiener ("so long as there is a concept of the church"; "the reverse of the church" as printed in 1904 — Standard Ebooks modernises it to "flip-side") and Garnett ("so long as the conception of a church exists") are faithful.

## ¶76 — Heresy is movement in the church

**Russian:** Ересь есть проявление движения в церкви, есть попытка разрушения закоченевшего утверждения церкви, попытка живого понимания учения. Всякий шаг движения вперед, понимания и исполнения учения совершался еретиками: еретики были и Тертуллиан, и Ориген, и Августин, и Лютер, и Гус, и Савонаролла, и Хельчицкий и др. Оно и не могло быть иначе.

**Wiener:** Heresy is a manifestation of motion in the church, an attempt at destroying the ossified assertion of the church, an attempt at a living comprehension of the teaching. Every step of moving forward, of comprehending and fulfilling the teaching has been accomplished by the heretics: such heretics were Tertullian, and Origen, and Augustine, and Luther, and Huss, and Savonarola, and Chelčický and others. Nor could it be otherwise.

**Garnett:** Heresy makes its appearance in the Church. It is the effort to break through the petrified authority of the Church. All effort after a living comprehension of the doctrine has been made by heretics. Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, Luther, Huss, Savonarola, Helchitsky, and the rest were heretics. It could not be otherwise.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 81):** “Heresy is a manifestation of movement in the Church… Every step of progress towards an understanding and fulfilment of the teaching has been made by heretics.”

**Notes:** Garnett's "Heresy makes its appearance in the Church" drops «проявление движения» ("a manifestation of movement"), and "All effort after a living comprehension of the doctrine" drops «исполнения» ("fulfilling") — understanding without doing — and turns "teaching" into "doctrine". Wiener and Maude faithful.

## ¶79 — Churches as churches are hostile to Christ's teaching

**Russian:** Как ни странно это кажется, церкви, как церкви, всегда были и не могут не быть учреждениями не только чуждыми, но прямо враждебными учению Христа. Недаром Вольтер (Voltaire) называл ее l’infame (бесчестная); недаром все или почти все христианские так называемые секты признавали и признают церковь той блудницей, о которой пророчествует апокалипсис; недаром история церкви есть история величайших жестокостей и ужасов.

**Wiener:** No matter how strange this may seem, the churches, as churches, have always been, and cannot help but be, institutions that are not only foreign, but even directly hostile, to Christ’s teaching. With good reason Voltaire called the church “l’infâme”; with good reason all, or nearly all, the Christian so-called sects have recognized the church to be that whore of whom Revelation prophesies; with good reason the history of the church is the history of the greatest cruelties and horrors.

**Garnett:** Strange as it may seem, the churches as churches have always been, and cannot but be, institutions not only alien in spirit to Christ's teaching, but even directly antagonistic to it. With good reason Voltaire calls the Church _l'infâme_; with good reason have all or almost all so-called sects of Christians recognized the Church as the scarlet woman foretold in the Apocalypse; with good reason is the history of the Church the history of the greatest cruelties and horrors.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 81):** “…the Churches as Churches have always been and cannot fail to be institutions not only alien to, but directly hostile towards, Christ’s teaching.”

**Notes:** All three faithful; Maude capitalises "Churches".

## ¶80 — Two opposed principles

**Russian:** Церкви, как церкви, не суть некоторые учреждения, имеющие в основе своей христианское начало, хотя и несколько отклонившиеся от прямого пути, как это думают многие; церкви, как церкви, как собрания, утверждающие свою непогрешимость, суть учреждения противохристианские. Между церквами, как церквами, и христианством не только нет ничего общего, кроме имени, но это два совершенно противоположные и враждебные друг другу начала. Одно — гордость, насилие, самоутверждение, неподвижность и смерть; другое — смирение, покаяние, покорность, движение и жизнь.

**Wiener:** The churches, as churches, are not certain institutions which have at their base the Christian principle, though slightly deviated from the straight path, as some think; the churches, as churches, as assemblies, which assert their infallibility, are antichristian institutions. Between the churches, as churches, and Christianity there is not only nothing in common but the name, but they are two absolutely divergent and mutually hostile principles. One is pride, violence, self-assertion, immobility, and death; the other is meekness, repentance, humility, motion, and life.

**Garnett:** The churches as churches are not, as many people suppose, institutions which have Christian principles for their basis, even though they may have strayed a little away from the straight path. The churches as churches, as bodies which assert their own infallibility, are institutions opposed to Christianity. There is not only nothing in common between the churches as such and Christianity, except the name, but they represent two principles fundamentally opposed and antagonistic to one another. One represents pride, violence, self-assertion, stagnation, and death; the other, meekness, penitence, humility, progress, and life.

**Notes:** Wiener faithful. Garnett renders «движение» / «неподвижность» ("movement" / "immobility") as "progress" / "stagnation", which loses the thread of movement that runs through the heresy passages above.

## ¶101 — The Sermon on the Mount or the Creed

**Russian:** Нагорная проповедь или символ веры: нельзя верить тому и другому. И церковники выбрали последнее: символ веры учится и читается, как молитва и в церквах, а нагорная проповедь исключена даже из чтений евангельских в церквах, так что в церквах никогда, кроме как в те дни, когда читается всё Евангелие, прихожане не услышат ее. Да и не может быть иначе: люди, верующие в злого и безрассудного бога, — проклявшего род человеческий и обрекшего своего сына на жертву и часть людей на вечное мучение, — не могут верить в бога любви. Человек, верующий в бога Христа паки грядущего со славою судить и казнить живых и мертвых, не может верить в Христа, повелевающего подставлять щеку обидчику, не судить, прощать и любить врагов. Человек, верующий в боговдохновенность Ветхого Завета и святость Давида, завещающего на смертном одре убийство старика, оскорбившего его и которого он сам не мог убить, так как был связан клятвою (3-я Книга Царей, глава 2, стих 8), и тому подобные мерзости, которыми полон Ветхий Завет, не может верить в нравственный закон Христа; человек, верующий в учение и проповеди церкви о совместимости с христианством казней, войн, не может уже верить в братство всех людей.

**Wiener:** The Sermon on the Mount, or the creed of faith: it is impossible to believe in both. And the churchmen have chosen the latter: the creed of faith is taught and read as a prayer in the churches; and the Sermon on the Mount is excluded even from the Gospel teachings in the churches, so that in the churches the parishioners never hear it, except on the days when the whole Gospel is read. Nor can it be otherwise: men who believe in a bad and senseless God, who has cursed the human race and who has doomed His son to be a victim, and has doomed a part of humanity to everlasting torment, cannot believe in a God of love. A man who believes in God-Christ, who will come again in glory to judge and punish the living and the dead, cannot believe in Christ, who commands a man to offer his cheek to the offender, not to judge, but to forgive, and to love our enemies. A man who believes in the divine inspiration of the Old Testament and the holiness of David, who on his deathbed orders the killing of an old man who has offended him and whom he could not kill himself, because he was bound by an oath, and similar abominations, of which the Old Testament is full, cannot believe in Christ’s moral law; a man who believes in the doctrine and the preaching of the church about the compatibility of executions and wars with Christianity, cannot believe in the brotherhood of men.

**Garnett:** The Sermon on the Mount, or the Creed. One cannot believe in both. And Churchmen have chosen the latter. The Creed is taught and is read as a prayer in the churches, but the Sermon on the Mount is excluded even from the Gospel passages read in the churches, so that the congregation never hears it in church, except on those days when the whole of the Gospel is read. Indeed, it could not be otherwise. People who believe in a wicked and senseless God--who has cursed the human race and devoted his own Son to sacrifice, and a part of mankind to eternal torment--cannot believe in the God of love. The man who believes in a God, in a Christ coming again in glory to judge and to punish the quick and the dead, cannot believe in the Christ who bade us turn the left cheek, judge not, forgive those that wrong us, and love our enemies. The man who believes in the inspiration of the Old Testament and the sacred character of David, who commanded on his deathbed the murder of an old man who had cursed him, and whom he could not kill himself because he was bound by an oath to him, and the similar atrocities of which the Old Testament is full, cannot believe in the holy love of Christ. The man who believes in the Church's doctrine of the compatibility of warfare and capital punishment with Christianity cannot believe in the brotherhood of all men.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 91):** “…cannot believe in Christ’s moral law.”

**Notes:** Garnett's "cannot believe in the holy love of Christ" replaces «нравственный закон Христа» ("Christ's moral law"). Wiener and Maude have "moral law".

## ¶114 — Every church, in so far as it is a church

**Russian:** Церковь как церковь, какая бы она ни была — католическая, англиканская, лютеранская, пресвитерианская, всякая церковь, насколько она церковь, не может не стремиться к тому же, к чему и русская церковь, к тому, чтобы скрыть настоящий смысл учения Христа и заменить его своим учением, которое ни к чему не обязывает, исключает возможность понимания истинного, деятельного учения Христа и, главное, оправдывает существование жрецов, кормящихся на счет народа.

**Wiener:** The church, as a church, no matter what it may be, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian—every church, insomuch as it is a church, cannot help but tend toward the same as the Russian Church—toward concealing the true meaning of Christ’s teaching and substituting in its place its own doctrine, which does not put a person under any obligations, excludes the possibility of understanding the true activity of Christ’s teaching, and, above all else, justifies the existence of priests who are living at the expense of the nation.

**Garnett:** The Church as a church, whatever it may be--Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian--every church, in so far as it is a church, cannot but strive for the same object as the Russian Church. That object is to conceal the real meaning of Christ's teaching and to replace it by their own, which lays no obligation on them, excludes the possibility of understanding the true teaching of Christ, and what is the chief consideration, justifies the existence of priests supported at the people's expense.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 95):** “…substituting its own doctrine which puts men under no obligation, excludes the possibility of understanding the true and vital teaching of Jesus…”

**Notes:** «истинного, деятельного учения Христа» ("the true, active teaching of Christ"): Maude "true and vital"; Garnett drops "active" ("the true teaching"); Wiener garbles it ("the true activity of Christ's teaching").

## ¶132 — The churches' dilemma

**Russian:** Ужасно то, что делают над людьми церкви, но если вдуматься в их положение, то тем людям, которые составляют учреждение церквей, иначе поступать нельзя. Перед церквами стоит дилемма: нагорная проповедь или Никейский символ — одно исключает другое: если человек искренно поверит в нагорную проповедь, Никейский символ неизбежно потеряет для него смысл и значение и вместе с ним церковь и ее представители; если же человек поверит в Никейский символ, т. е. в церковь, т. е. в тех, которые называют себя представителями ее, то нагорная проповедь станет для него излишняя. И потому церквам нельзя не употреблять всех возможных усилий для затемнения смысла нагорной проповеди и для привлечения к себе людей.

**Wiener:** What the churches do to people is terrible, but if we reflect on their condition, we shall find that those men who form the institution of the churches cannot act otherwise. The churches are confronted with a dilemma—the Sermon on the Mount, or the Nicene Creed—one excludes the other: if a man sincerely believes in the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed, and with it the church and its representatives, inevitably lose all meaning and significance for him; but if a man believes in the Nicene Creed, that is, in the church, that is, in those who call themselves its representatives, the Sermon on the Mount will become superfluous to him. And so the churches cannot help but use every possible effort to obscure the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount and to attract people toward itself. Only thanks to the tense activity of the churches in this direction has the influence of the churches held itself until now. Let a church for the shortest time arrest this action upon the masses by means of hypnotizing them and deceiving the children, and people will understand Christ’s teaching. But the comprehension of the teaching destroys the churches and their significance. And so the churches do not for a moment interrupt the tense activity and hypnotization of the adults and the deception of the children. And it is this activity of the churches, which instills a false comprehension of Christ’s teaching in men, and serves as an obstacle in its comprehension for the majority of so-called believers.

**Garnett:** It is terrible to think what the churches do to men. But if one imagines oneself in the position of the men who constitute the Church, we see they could not act differently. The churches are placed in a dilemma: the Sermon on the Mount or the Nicene Creed--the one excludes the other. If a man sincerely believes in the Sermon on the Mount, the Nicene Creed must inevitably lose all meaning and significance for him, and the Church and its representatives together with it. If a man believes in the Nicene Creed, that is, in the Church, that is, in those who call themselves its representatives, the Sermon on the Mount becomes superfluous for him. And therefore the churches cannot but make every possible effort to obscure the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount, and to attract men to themselves. It is only due to the intense zeal of the churches in this direction that the influence of the churches has lasted hitherto.

**Maude (at the point of difference, p. 101):** “What the Church does to men is terrible, but if we consider the condition of those who form the Church institutions we see that they cannot act otherwise.”

**Notes:** Both sentences are plural in Russian: «что делают над людьми церкви» ("what the churches do to people"), «учреждение церквей» ("the institution of the churches"). Wiener keeps both. Garnett keeps the first but makes the second "the men who constitute the Church"; Maude makes the first "What the Church does" and half-keeps the second ("the Church institutions"). Garnett's paragraph also runs on into the next Russian paragraph.