CHRISTIAN NON-RESISTANCE by Adin Ballou

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 1\t

________________________________________

Explanatory Definitions

Different kinds of Non-Resistance – The term Non-Resistance – The term Force – The term injury – The term Christian Non-Resistance and its derivation – The key text of Non-Resistance – Necessary applications of Non-Resistance – What a Christian Non-Resistant cannot consistently do – The principle and sub-principle of Non-Resistance – The conclusion.

Different Kinds of Non-Resistance

What is Christian Non-Resistance? It is that original, peculiar kind of non-resistance, which was enjoined and exemplified by Jesus Christ, according to the scriptures of the New Testament. Are there other kinds of non-resistance? Yes. 1. Philosophical non-resistance of various hues, which sets at naught divine revelation, disregards the authority of Jesus Christ as a divine teacher, excludes all strictly religious considerations, and deduces its conclusions from the light of nature, the supposed fitness of things, and the expediency of consequences. 2. Sentimental non-resistance, also of various hues, which is held to be the spontaneous dictate of man’s higher sentiments in the advanced stages of his development, transcending all special divine revelations, positive instructions, ratiocinations, and considerations of expediency. 3. Necessitous non-resistance, commonly expressed in the phrase, “passive obedience and non-resistance,” imperiously preached by despots to their subjects, as their indispensable duty and highest virtue, also recommended by worldly prudence to the victims of oppression when unable to offer successful resistance to their injurers. With this last mentioned kind, Christian non-resistance has nothing in common. With philosophical and sentimental non-resistance it holds much in common; being, in fact, the divine original of which they are human adulterations, and embracing all the good of both without the evils of either. This treatise is an illustration and defense of Christian non-resistance, properly so designated.

The Term Non-Resistance

The term non-resistance itself next demands attention. It requires very considerable qualifications. I use it as applicable only to the conduct of human beings towards human beings – not towards the inferior animals, inanimate things, or satanic influences. If an opponent, willing to make me appear ridiculous, should say, “You are a non-resistant, and therefore must be passive to all assailing beings, things and influences – to Satan, men, beasts, birds, serpents, insects, rocks, timbers, fires, floods, heat, cold and storm,” I should answer, “Not so”. My non-resistance relates solely to conduct between human beings. This is an important limitation of the term. But I go further, and disclaim using the term to express absolute passivity, even towards human beings. I claim the right to offer the utmost moral resistance, not sinful, of which God has made me capable, to every manifestation of evil among mankind. Nay, I hold it my duty to offer such moral resistance. In this sense my very non-resistance becomes the highest kind of resistance to evil. This is another important qualification of the term. But I do not stop here. There is an un-injurious, benevolent physical force. There are cases in which it would not only be allowable, but in the highest degree commendable, to restrain human beings by this kind of force. Thus, maniacs, the insane, the delirious sick, ill natured children, the intellectually or morally non compos mentis, the intoxicated, and the violently passionate are frequently disposed to perpetrate outrages and inflict injuries, either on themselves or others, which ought to be kindly and un-injuriously prevented by the muscular energy of their friends. And in cases where deadly violence is inflicted with deliberation and malice aforethought, one may nobly throw his body as a temporary barrier between the destroyer and his helpless victim, choosing to die in that position, rather than be a passive spectator. Thus another most important qualification is given to the term non-resistance. It is not non-resistance to animals and inanimate things, nor to Satan, but only to human beings. Nor is it moral non-resistance to human beings, but chiefly physical. Nor is it physical non-resistance to all human beings, under-all circumstances, but only so far as to abstain totally from the infliction of personal injury, as a means of resistance. It is simply non-resistance of injury with injury – evil with evil.
The opponent will exclaim, “This is no non-resistance at all; the term is mischosen!” I answer. So said the old opponents of the Temperance Reformation, respecting the term “total abstinence.” They began by insisting that the term must be taken unqualifiedly, and pronounced total abstinence an absurdity. It was replied, “We limit its application to the use of ardent spirits and intoxicating liquors.” “Then you exclude these substances from the arts and from external applications, do you?” rejoined the opponents. ‘“No,” replied the advocates of the cause, “we mean total abstinence from the internal use – the drinking of those liquors.” “ But are they not sometimes necessary for medical purposes,” said the opponents, “and then may they not betaken internally?” “Certainly, with proper precautions,” was the reply. “We mean by total abstinence, precisely this and no more – the entire disuse of all ardent spirits and intoxicating liquors, as a beverage.” “That,” exclaimed the objectors (despairing of a reductio ad absurdam), “is no total abstinence at all; the term is mischosen!” Nevertheless, it was a most significant term. It had in it an almost talismanic power. It expressed better than any other just what was meant, and wrought a prodigious change in public opinion and practice. The term non-resistance is equally significant and talismanic. It signifies total abstinence from all resistance of injury with injury. It is thus far non-resistance – no farther.
The almost universal opinion and practice of mankind has been on the side of resistance of injury with injury. It has been held justifiable and necessary, for individuals and nations to inflict any amount of injury that would effectually resist a supposed greater injury. The consequence has been universal suspicion, defiance, armament, violence, torture, and bloodshed. The earth has been rendered a vast slaughter-field – a theatre of reciprocal cruelty and vengeance – strewn with human skulls, reeking with human blood, resounding with human groans, and steeped with human tears. Men have become drunk with mutual revenge; and they who could inflict the greatest amount of injury, in pretended defense of life, honor, rights, property, institutions, and laws, have been idolized as the heroes and rightful sovereigns of the world. Non-resistance explodes this horrible delusion; announces the impossibility of overcoming evil with evil; and, making its appeal directly to all the injured of the human race, enjoins on them, in the name of God, never more to resist injury with injury; assuring them that by adhering to the law of love under all provocations, and scrupulously suffering wrong rather than inflicting it, they shall gloriously “overcome evil with good,” and exterminate all their enemies by turning them into faithful friends.

continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 1\t

________________________________________

Explanatory Definitions

Different kinds of Non-Resistance – The term Non-Resistance – The term Force – The term injury – The term Christian Non-Resistance and its derivation – The key text of Non-Resistance – Necessary applications of Non-Resistance – What a Christian Non-Resistant cannot consistently do – The principle and sub-principle of Non-Resistance – The conclusion.

The Term Force

Having thus qualified and defined the term non-resistance, it would seem proper to do the same with several others, frequently made use of in the discussion of our general subject. One of these terms is force. Non-resistants, like others, have been in the habit of using this and similar terms too loosely; thereby giving needless occasion for misunderstanding, on the part of the uninformed, and misrepresentation on the part of interested opponents. The word force is thus defined by Walker: “strength, vigor, might, violence, virtue, efficacy, validness, power of law, armament, warlike preparations, destiny, necessity, fatal compulsion.” Now if we should use the word force, as the contrary of non-resistance, without any qualification, the idea would be conveyed that non-resistance was identical with absolute passivity, and that it necessarily excluded all kinds and degrees of force, under all circumstances whatsoever. The generic meaning of the term force is “strength, vigor, might,” whether physical or moral. Thus we may speak of the force of love, the force of truth, the force of public opinion, the force of moral suasion, the force of non-resistance. Or we may speak of the force of gravitation, the force of cohesion, the force of repulsion, etc. Or, in relation to the muscular force of human beings, we may speak of benevolent force, kind force, un-injurious force; meaning thereby, various applications of muscular strength for the purpose of preventing human beings committing on themselves or others some injury; in which prevention no personal injury is inflicted, but real kindness and benefit done to all parties concerned. As non-resistance is not identical with absolute passivity but allows, implies and requires various kinds and degrees of moral and physical “strength,” according to circumstances, the term force must not be used as its converse unless it is with such qualifications, or in such a connection, as will give it some one of its conventional significations, so that it shall mean violence, warlike force, positive vengeance, destructive force – in other words, INJURIOUS FORCE. Injurious force of all kinds and degrees, between human beings, is incompatible with non-resistance. Such are the qualifications with which the term force will be used in this work. The term moral force will be understood, from the preceding remarks, as synonymous with moral power – the effective influence of moral “strength, vigor, might.” Physical force, as distinguished from moral force, is a term used to express the idea of material force, the action of one body on another, compelling the weaker to yield to the stronger by mere animal strength or mechanical power. As moral force may be either good or evil, injurious or un-injurious, according to its kind, its object, its spirit, or its manner of application; so may physical force be good or evil, injurious or un-injurious, according to the same considerations. When a licentious man corrupts the mind of an innocent youth by bad examples, bad counsel, bad maxims, and other evil influences, in which there is no physical force, he exerts a most injurious moral force. He demoralizes the principles and habits of one, whom he ought to encourage and confirm in virtue. When a good man converts a sinner from the error of his ways, by good examples, counsels, maxims, and other purifying influences, he exerts a most beneficent and salutary moral force. So when a man by physical force destroys or impairs the life, intellect, moral sentiment, or absolute welfare of a human being, he uses an injurious physical force. But in restraining a madman from outrage, or holding a delirious sick person on the bed, or compelling an ill-natured child to desist from tearing out the hair of a weaker brother, or interposing his body and muscular strength to prevent rape, or any similar act, wherein he does no one a real injury, while he renders to some or all the parties concerned a real benefit, he uses a rightful, un-injurious, physical force.

continued:

NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 1\t

________________________________________

Explanatory Definitions

Different kinds of Non-Resistance – The term Non-Resistance – The term Force – The term injury – The term Christian Non-Resistance and its derivation – The key text of Non-Resistance – Necessary applications of Non-Resistance – What a Christian Non-Resistant cannot consistently do – The principle and sub-principle of Non-Resistance – The conclusion.

The Term Injury

I use this term in a somewhat peculiar sense, to signify any moral influence or physical force exerted by one human being upon another, the legitimate effect of which is to destroy or impair life, to destroy or impair the physical faculties, to destroy or impair the intellectual powers, to destroy, impair or pervert the moral and religious sentiment, or to destroy or impair the absolute welfare, all things considered, of the person on whom such influence or force is exerted, whether that person is innocent or guilty, harmless or offensive, injurious or un-injurious, sane or insane, compos mentis or non-compos, adult or infant. Some of the lexicographers define an “injury” to be “hurt, harm or mischief, unjustly done to a person”; thereby implying that any hurt, harm or mischief done to one who deserves nothing better, or can be considered as justly liable to it, is no injury at all. I reject entirely every such qualification of the term. I hold an injury to be an injury, whether deserved or undeserved, whether intended or unintended, whether well meant or ill meant, determining the fact in accordance with the foregoing definition. But, says the inquirer, “What if it can be proved justifiable, by the law of God, to inflict personal injury in certain cases on the offensive and guilty?” Then, of course, it will be proved that non-resistance is a false doctrine. “What if it can be proved that the infliction of small injuries may prevent much greater evils?” Then it will be proved that we may do evil that good may come, which will forever keep the world just where it is. “What if it can be shown that the person who inflicts an injury honestly intended it for a benefit?” That will only prove him honestly mistaken, and so undeserving of blame. “What if a man inflicts death or any other injury according to established human laws, but does it without malice, or revenge, or any malevolent intent?” Then he does an anti-Christian act, without conscience as to its real nature. The act must be condemned; he must be credited for his motives; due allowance must be made for his misapprehension of duty; and light poured into his mind to superinduce a better conscience, that he may be brought to act the Christian part. But in no case must we lose sight of the inquiry, whether an injury has been done. And in determining this, we must not ask whether the recipient were guilty or innocent, whether the thing done were well or ill intended, whether it were done in a right or a wrong spirit. If it is in fact an injury, it is contrary to the doctrine of Christian non-resistance; and no person knowing it to be such can repeat it under any pretext whatsoever, without violating the law of God. This is the sense and signification of the terms injury, injurer, injurious, etc., as used in these pages. The objector may here interpose critical queries, with a view to test the soundness of my definition. He may suppose that a man’s leg, hand or eye, is so diseased as to require amputation in order to save his life. But such member is one of his physical faculties, which must not be destroyed or impaired, because that would be an injury. I answer. The diseased member is already lost. The question is not whether the friendly surgeon shall destroy or impair it, but only whether he shall amputate it, in order to preserve the life and remaining faculties. No injury, but an absolute benefit is proposed. This case is clear. But suppose the minister of the law is ordered to amputate a sound leg, hand, or eye, as a punishment, or for an example to deter others from the commission of crime. This is absolute injury, done under good pretexts indeed, but on that account none the less an injury. Again, a child dangerously sick requires some medical application, very disagreeable, yet indispensable to his recovery, which can only be applied by physical force. Or an insane adult is in the same circumstances. Or a person infected with hydrophobia, and subject to terrible paroxysms of the disease, needs to be confined; and yet for want of judgment, even in his intervals, refuses to be. Or a man subject to violent impulses of propensity or passion, rendering him dangerous to all around him when excited, needs to be excluded from general society, or otherwise watched and restrained by keepers in order to prevent serious mischief to others; and yet he resents and resists all entreaties to submit to such restriction. Or a wicked man is exceedingly alarmed, disturbed, and offended by a truthful exposure of his iniquitous proceedings, or by the faithful remonstrances and rebukes of some good man. Now in all such cases the will must be crossed, the personal freedom abridged, and the feelings pained. Must it not be an injury to coerce, restrain, expose, and reprove such persons, however necessary to their and the public good, and however kindly executed? Is it not generally more intolerable to be crossed in one’s will, and wounded in one’s feelings, than to be beaten, maimed and otherwise maltreated? Answer. It is not man’s imaginations, thoughts, and feelings that determine what is or is not injurious to him. Love itself may “heap coals of fire on a man’s head.” Truth may torment his mind. The most benevolent restraint may be painful to his feelings. He may be made, for a while, quite unhappy by crossing his evil will. He may prefer to be smitten and mutilated, rather than be exposed in his secret iniquities, or endure the faithful reproof of the upright. Such persons often prefer an injury to a benefit. They are not, for the time being, in a state of mind to understand and choose what is best for them. Therefore their wills, feelings, and opinions are not the indices of their own good – much less that of others. Is it good for a capricious, obstinate child to be indulged in opposing a necessary medical application? Is it good for an insane or delirious, sick adult to have his own will, even to the commission of murder and self-destruction? Is it good for a man to have unlimited freedom, when he will almost certainly make it a curse to himself and others, by gross involuntary outrage, or uncontrollable passion? Is it good for a wicked man, under specious hypocritical disguises, to perpetrate the most atrocious mischief, unexposed and unreproved? These things are not good for mankind. On the contrary, it is good for them to be crossed, restrained, coerced, and reproved, by all un-injurious moral and physical forces, which benevolence prompts and wisdom dictates. To cross their wills, and pain their feelings, by such means, under such circumstances, is not an injury, but a substantial good, to them and to all who are connected with them. It may be said, “These things cannot be done un-injuriously. It would be impracticable.” Cannot unreasonable children be nursed, delirious adults controlled, dangerously distempered people prevented from doing themselves and others harm, outrageous non-compos persons restrained, hypocrites exposed, and sinners reproved without inflicting injury on them? Then nothing good be can done without doing evil. Imperfection is indeed incidental to all human judgment and conduct; and therefore it is probable that some mistakes and some accidental injuries might happen. But the reason and common sense of mankind, once fairly pledged to the true principle of action, would seldom fail to discharge all these duties to general satisfaction. Still it may be asked, “What is to be done if un-injurious force should prove inadequate? May life be sacrificed, limbs broken, the flesh mangled, or any other injuries allowed in extreme cases?” Never. The principle of non-injury must be held inviolable. It is worth worlds, and must be preserved at all hazards. What cannot be done un-injuriously must be left undone. But these extreme cases are mostly imaginary. The truth is, that what cannot be done un-injuriously can scarcely ever be done at all. Or if done, had better have been let alone. Experience in the case of the insane has already proved that incomparably more can be done by un-injurious forces, scrupulously and judiciously employed, than by any admixtures of the injurious element. Presuming that my definition and use of the terms injure, injury, injurer, injurious, etc. cannot be misunderstood, I pass on.

continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 1\t

________________________________________

Explanatory Definitions

Different kinds of Non-Resistance – The term Non-Resistance – The term Force – The term injury – The term Christian Non-Resistance and its derivation – The key text of Non-Resistance – Necessary applications of Non-Resistance – What a Christian Non-Resistant cannot consistently do – The principle and sub-principle of Non-Resistance – The conclusion.

The Term Christian Non-Resistance

Whence originated the term Christian non-resistance? Non-resistance comes from the injunction, “Resist not evil,” Matt. 5:39. The words “resist not,” being changed from the form of a verb to that of a substantive, give us non-resistance. This term is considered more strikingly significant than any other associated with the principle involved, and the duty enjoined in our Savior’s precept, hence its adoption and established use. It is denominated Christian non-resistance, to distinguish it, as the genuine primitive doctrine, from mere philosophical, sentimental, and necessitous non-resistance. Literally, then, Christian non-resistance is the original non-resistance taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ; the bearings, limitations, and applications of which are to be learned from the scriptures of the New Testament.
And what are those bearings, limitations, and applications? I have already given an imperfect view of them in the previous definitions. But I will be more explicit. What I aim at is to carry the obligations of non-resistance just as far and no farther than Jesus Christ has done. It is easy to go beyond, or to fall short of his limits. Ultra radicals go beyond him. Ultra conservatives fall short of him. Even those of both these classes, who profess to abide implicitly by his teachings, construe and interpret his language so as to favor their respective errors. The ultra radicals seize on strong figurative, hyperbolic, or intensive forms of expression, and make him seem to mean much more than he could have intended. The ultra conservatives ingeniously fritter away and nullify the very essence of his precepts, in such a manner as to make him seem to mean much less than he must have intended. There is, however, a general rule for such cases, which can scarcely fail to expose the errors of both classes, in respect to any given text. It is this: “Consider the context; consider parallel texts; consider examples; consider the known spirit of Christianity.” Any construction or interpretation of the recorded language of Christ, or of his apostles, in which all these concur, is sound. Any other is probably erroneous.

The Key Text of Non-Resistance

Now let us examine Matt. 5:39. “I say unto you, resist not evil…” This single text, from which, as has been stated, the term non-resistance took its rise, if justly construed, furnishes a complete key to the true bearings, limitations and applications of the doctrine under discussion. This is precisely one of those precepts that may be easily made to mean much more, or much less, than its author intended. It is in the intensive, condensed form of expression, and can be understood only by a due regard to its context. What did the divine Teacher mean by the word “evil,” and what by the word “resist?” There are several kinds of evil: 1. pain, loss, damage, suffered from causes involving no moral agency, or natural evil; 2. sin in general, or moral evil; 3. temptations to sin, or spiritual evil; and 4. personal wrong, insult, outrage, injury – or personal evil. Which of these kinds of evil does the context show to have been in our Savior’s mind when he said, “Resist not evil?” Was he speaking of fires, floods, famine, disease, serpents, wild beasts, or any other mere natural evil agent? No. Then of course he does not prohibit our resisting such evil. Was he speaking of sin in general? No. Then of course he does not prohibit our resisting such evil by suitable means. Was he speaking of temptations addressed to our propensities and passions, enticing us to commit sin? No. Then of course he does not prohibit our resisting the devil, withstanding the evil suggestions of our own carnal mind, and suppressing our evil lusts. Was he speaking of personal evil, injury personally inflicted by man on man? Yes. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’; but I say unto you that ye resist not evil,” i.e. personal outrage, insult, affront – injury. The word “evil” necessarily means, in this connection, personal injury or evil inflicted by human beings on human beings.
But what did Jesus mean by the words “Resist not”? There are various kinds of resistance, which may be offered to personal injury, when threatened or actually inflicted. There is passive resistance – a dead silence, a sullen inertia, a complete muscular helplessness, an utter refusal to speak or move. Does the context, show that Jesus contemplated, pro or con, any such resistance in his prohibition? No. There is an active, righteous, moral resistance – a meek, firm remonstrance, rebuke, reproof, and protestation. Does the connection show that Jesus prohibits this kind of resistance? No. There is an active, firm, compound, moral and physical resistance, un-injurious to the evil-doer, and only calculated to restrain him from deadly violence or extreme outrage. Was Jesus contemplating such modes of resisting personal injury? Does the context show that he intended to prohibit all resistance of evil by such means? No. There is a determined resistance of personal injury by means of injury inflicted; as when a man deliberately takes life to save life, destroys an assailant’s eye to save an eye, inflicts a violent blow to prevent a blow; or, as when, in retaliation, he takes life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc.; or, as when, by means of governmental agencies, he causes an injurious person to be punished by the infliction of some injury equivalent to the one he has inflicted or attempted. It was of such resistance as this that our Savior was speaking. It is such resistance as this that he prohibits. His obvious doctrine is: Resist not personal injury with personal injury. I shall have occasion to press this point more conclusively in the next chapter, when presenting my scriptural proofs. Enough has been said to determine the important bearings and limitations of the general doctrine. It bears on all mankind, in every social relation of life. It contemplates men as actually injured, or in imminent danger of being injured by their fellow men; and commands them to abstain from all personal injuries, either as a means of retaliation, self-defense, or suppression of injury. If smitten on the one cheek, they must submit the other to outrage, rather than smite back. If the life of their dearest friend has been taken, or an eye or a tooth thrust out, or any other wrong been done to themselves or their fellow men, they must not render evil for evil, or railing for railing, or hatred for hatred. But they are not prohibited from resisting, opposing, preventing, or counteracting the injuries inflicted, attempted or threatened by man on man, in the use of any absolutely un-injurious forces, whether moral or physical. On the contrary, it is their bounden duty, by all such benevolent resistances, to promote the safety and welfare, the holiness and happiness of all human beings, as opportunity may offer.

continued:

HE_Reigns wrote:
Brother, I'm gonna be straight with you here.

When you started the Peace thread, I was really pleased to pieces and began downloading it.

That was last year. Then you started posting more on this non-resistance stuff and more and more ... Ha!

At first I couldn't figure out why. I've never told you that.

But anyway, the LORD finally showed me why.
I didn't want to ask you - I wanted HIM to show me why.

I was against killing. Granted. But I never realized just how much I needed to see all of these that you kept posting, even though I haven't read them all, they were still working in and on me.

At first - like I said - I didn't understand why they kept coming and then the Lord hit me smack dab right between the eyeballs. Pow! He said, "Hatred and Anger are equivalent to murder".

AND, that what is Coming upon the earth will cause many to respond in Anger, tempt us to HATE and some may even attempt murder.

Wow. Then I thought of Corrie Ten Boon.

Brother, it's what's in the heart that God is trying to deal with with these. And to speak for myself only here - He's still got more chizeling away to get me to where I don't feel anger.

I know He got angry and does get angry but none of us are Him.

Keep taming the tiger brother - because I couldn't possibly be the only one who needs it, but I know I really do.

Most everyone here believes persecution is coming and if our hearts are not prepared now to turn the other cheek - it may be too late then.

Well, Bless God. So now you know what a slow learner I am. Better late than never? :-D

Thanks!

Dear Sister,

When the Lord first revealed to my heart that He meant exactly what He said about not resisting, the whole concept seemed strange and beyond my understanding.
I was trained in the service to take a life, with weapon or bare handed, swiftly, unquestioning and without remorse; kill, kill, kill was the spirit of everything we did, nothing was done without the word kill being involved. While in the service and for a time after being discharged; with some to this day, (thank God, the Lord has forgiven my past) a reputation followed me as being one not to mess with “he will hurt you” was often a part of the conversation. Not saying this to boast but to show the term ‘non-resistance’ was very foreign to me.
After I truly gave my life to the Lord Jesus Christ, as I was reading the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ these words jumped out and grabbed my heart:

Matthew 5:3-16
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [4] Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. [5] Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. [6] Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. [7] Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. [8] Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. [9] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [10] Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [11] Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. [12] Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
[13] Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. [14] Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. [15] Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. [16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 5:38-48
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: [39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. [41] And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. [42] Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
[43] Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. [44] But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; [45] That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. [46] For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? [47] And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? [48] Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

It seemed as He was saying this, right then, to me and telling me to proclaim it from the house tops.
I began to read and study all the scripture dealing with non-resistance and as I continued to do so a trust began to develop that gave me assurance and peace to simply trust and obey His Word.
One day I said to my dear wife, I have no choice but to do and say what Jesus has taught me through His Word to do; she looked at me and said “it will not be easy, people will hate us and call us all manner of things”, that is when I said yes Lord, no matter what the cost, I will do as you ask, and by His grace we have.
As Peter and John answered, so we have chosen to do.

Acts 4:19-20
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. [20] For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

Most everyone here believes persecution is coming and if our hearts are not prepared now to turn the other cheek - it may be too late then.

Dear Sister, it will be more than worth everything we have suffered, that if by proclaiming this message, His people will hear and see and turn their cheek when the enemy of our souls makes his move to tempt us to fight him with carnal weapons. The day is no longer approaching it is here, now is the day of decisions and I pray daily that we all choose to fight the fight of faith in Christ Jesus.

2 Cor. 10:3-6
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: [4] (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) [5] Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; [6] And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Romans 13:8-14
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. [9] For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [10] Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [11] And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. [12] The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. [13] Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. [14] But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Well, Bless God. So now you know what a slow learner I am. Better late than never?

I believe we all can confess this and then pray the prayer,

Lord, have Mercy on our stubbornness and help us to:

“make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.”

In His Love
pastorfrin

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 1\t

________________________________________

Explanatory Definitions

Different kinds of Non-Resistance – The term Non-Resistance – The term Force – The term injury – The term Christian Non-Resistance and its derivation – The key text of Non-Resistance – Necessary applications of Non-Resistance – What a Christian Non-Resistant cannot consistently do – The principle and sub-principle of Non-Resistance – The conclusion.

Necessary Applications of Non-Resistance

The necessary applications of the doctrine are to all cases in human intercourse where man receives aggressive injury from man, or is presumed to be in imminent danger of receiving it – i.e., to all cases wherein the injury of man upon man is either to be repelled, punished or prevented. There are four general positions in which human beings may stand to resist injury with injury: 1. as individuals; 2. as a lawless combination of individuals; 3. as members of allowable voluntary associations; and 4. as constituent supporters of human government in its state or national sovereignty. Standing in any of these positions, they can resist injury with injury, either in immediate self-defense, in retaliation, or by vindictive punishments. As individuals, they may act immediately by their own personal energies, or they may act through their agents – persons employed to execute their will. Connected with a lawless combination, they may act directly in open co-operative violence, or clandestinely, or through select agents, or in a more general manner through their acknowledged leaders. As members of allowable voluntary associations, they may exert a powerful influence, without any deeds of violence, by means of speech, the press, education, religion, etc., to delude, corrupt, prejudice, and instigate to evil the minds of mankind one toward another. Thus designedly to stimulate, predispose and lead men to commit personal injury, under pretence of serving God and humanity, is essentially the same thing as directly resisting injury with injury by physical means. The mischief may be much greater, the moral responsibility certainly no less. As constituent supporters of human government (whether civil, military, or a compound of both), in its state or national sovereignty, men are morally responsible for all constitutions, institutions, laws, processes, and usages which they have pledged themselves to support, or which they avowedly approve, or which they depend upon as instrumentalities for securing and promoting their personal welfare, or in which they acquiesce without positive remonstrance and disfellowship. Thus if a political compact, a civil or military league, covenant or constitution, requires, authorizes, provides for, or tolerates war, bloodshed, capital punishment, slavery, or any kind of absolute injury, offensive or defensive, the man who swears, affirms or otherwise pledges himself to support such a compact, league, covenant or constitution, is just as responsible for every act of injury done in strict conformity thereto, as if he himself personally committed it. He is not responsible for abuses and violations of the constitution. But, for all that is constitutionally done, he is responsible. The army is his army, the navy his navy, the militia his militia, the gallows his gallows, the pillory his pillory, the whipping post his whipping post, the branding iron his branding iron, the prison his prison, the dungeon his dungeon, and the slaveholding his slaveholding. When the constitutional majority declares war, it is his war. All the slaughter, rapine, ravages, robbery, destruction, and mischief committed under that declaration, in accordance with the laws of war, are his. Nor can he exculpate himself by pleading that he was one of a strenuous anti-war minority in the government. He was in the government. He had sworn, affirmed, or otherwise pledged himself, that the majority should have discretionary power to declare war. He tied up his hands with that anti-Christian obligation, to stand by the majority in all the crimes and abominations inseparable from war. It is therefore his war, its murders are his murders, and its horrible injuries on humanity are his injuries. They are all committed with his solemn sanction. There is no escape from this terrible moral responsibility but by a conscientious withdrawal from such government, and an uncompromising protest against so much of its fundamental creed and constitutional law, as is decidedly anti-Christian. He must cease to be its pledged supporter, and approving dependent.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 1\t

________________________________________

Explanatory Definitions

Different kinds of Non-Resistance – The term Non-Resistance – The term Force – The term injury – The term Christian Non-Resistance and its derivation – The key text of Non-Resistance – Necessary applications of Non-Resistance – What a Christian Non-Resistant cannot consistently do – The principle and sub-principle of Non-Resistance – The conclusion.

What a Christian Non-Resistant Cannot Consistently Do

It will appear from the foregoing exposition, that a true Christian non-resistant cannot with deliberate intent, knowledge or conscious voluntariness, compromise his principles by any of the following acts:
1. He cannot kill, maim, or otherwise absolutely injure any human being, in personal self-defense, or for the sake of his family, or anything he holds dear.
2. He cannot participate in any lawless conspiracy, mob, riotous assembly, or disorderly combination of individuals, to cause or countenance the commission of any such absolute personal injury.
3. He cannot be a member of any voluntary association, however orderly, respectable or allowable by law and general consent, which declaratively holds as fundamental truth, or claims as an essential right, or distinctly inculcates as sound doctrine, or approves as commendable in practice, war, capital punishment, or any other absolute personal injury.
4. He cannot be an officer or private, chaplain or retainer, in the army, navy, or militia of any nation, state, or chieftain.
5. He cannot be an officer, elector, agent, legal prosecutor, passive constituent, or approver of any government, as a sworn or otherwise pledged supporter thereof, whose civil constitution and fundamental laws, require, authorize or tolerate war, slavery, capital punishment, or the infliction of any absolute personal injury.
6. He cannot be a member of any chartered corporation or body politic, whose articles of compact oblige or authorize its official functionaries to resort for compulsory aid in the conducting of its affairs, to a government of constitutional violence.
7. Finally, he cannot do any act, either in person or by proxy; nor abet or encourage any act in others; nor demand, petition for, request, advise or approve the doing of any act, by an individual, association or government, which act would inflict, threaten to inflict, or necessarily cause to be inflicted, any absolute personal injury, as herein before defined.
Such are the necessary bearings, limitations, and applications of the doctrine of Christian non-resistance. Let the reader be careful not to misunderstand the positions laid down. The platform of principle and action has been carefully founded, and its essential peculiarities plainly delineated. Let it not be said that the doctrine goes against all religion, government, social organization, constitutions, laws, order, rules, and regulations. It goes against none of these things per se. It goes for them in the highest and best sense. It goes only against such religion, government, social organization, constitutions, laws, order, rules, regulations and restraints, as are unequivocally contrary to the law of Christ; as sanction taking “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” as are based on the assumption that it is right to resist injury with in jury, and evil with evil.

Continued:

Annie,

Why do you not just go ahead and tell folks you were in the Navy? If you don't, maybe I will! LOL People might take a longer look at what you are saying...?

Really now, non-resistance begins where I live now in my interactions with people: will I demand what is due me? Am I willing to be taken advantage of without retaliating? This is the training needed to prepare us for the 'big one' in the future. Lessons the LORD is working to teach us daily, if we would only listen and obey. At least for me...never get too old to learn, do we Annie?

Blessings,
ginnyrose

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 1\t

________________________________________

Explanatory Definitions

Different kinds of Non-Resistance – The term Non-Resistance – The term Force – The term injury – The term Christian Non-Resistance and its derivation – The key text of Non-Resistance – Necessary applications of Non-Resistance – What a Christian Non-Resistant cannot consistently do – The principle and sub-principle of Non-Resistance – The conclusion.

The Principle and Sub-Principle of Non-Resistance

This chapter may be profitably concluded with a brief consideration of the doctrine under discussion with respect to the principle from which it proceeds, to the sub-principle that is its immediate moral basis, and to the rule of duty in which all its applications are comprehended. What is the principle from which it proceeds? It is a principle from the inmost bosom of God. It proceeds from ALL PERFECT LOVE, that absolute, independent, unerringly wise, holy love, which distinguishes the Divine from all inferior natures, and which, transfused into the natural sentiment of human benevolence, superinduces the highest order of goodness. Of this it is said, “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” Or as the amiable John expressed it, “He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him.” This love is not mere natural affection, nor sentimental passion, but a pure, enlightened, conscientious principle. It is a divine spring of action, which intuitively and spontaneously dictates the doing of good to others, whether they do good or evil. It operates independently of external influences, and being in its nature absolutely unselfish, is not affected by the merit or demerit of its objects. It does not inquire, “Am I loved? Have I been benefited? Have my merits been appreciated? Shall I be blessed in return? Or, am I hated, injured, cursed and condemned?” Whether others love or hate, bless or curse, benefit or injure, it says, “I will do right; I will love still; I will bless; I will never injure even the most injurious; I will overcome evil with good.” Therefore its goodness is not measured by or adjusted to the goodness of others, but ever finds in itself a sufficient reason for doing good and nothing but good to all moral agents. Jesus, in whom flowed the full current of this divine love, the sublime efflux of the heavenly nature, laying hold of the great commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” drew it forth from the ark of the Mosaic Testament, all mildewed and dusky with human misapprehension, and struck from it the celestial fire. The true principle was in it, but men could not clearly perceive it, much less appreciate its excellence. He showed that the “neighbor” intended was any human being, a stranger, an enemy, a bitter foe – anyone needing relief, or in danger of suffering through our selfishness, anger or contempt – the greatest criminal, the worst wretch of our race. Hence, knowing that the entire wisdom of this world had justified injury to injurers, hatred to enemies, and destruction to destroyers, he reversed the ancient maxims, abrogated the law of retaliation, and proclaimed the duty of unlimited forbearance, mercy, and kindness. Imperfect religion, worldly minded philosophy, and vindictive selfishness had concurrently declared, “There is a point beyond which forbearance ceases to be a virtue.” He swept away this heartless delusion with a divine breath, and sublimely taught obedient and everlasting adherence to the law of love, as well toward offenders, injurers, and enemies, as toward benefactors, lovers, and friends. “I say unto you, take not life for life, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. Smite not the smiter to save thine own cheek. Give to him that asketh, and turn not the borrower away. Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father in Heaven. For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love, and salute, and do good to them that love you, what are ye better than the publicans?” Be like your Father in Heaven. Such is the true light radiated from the bosom of the Infinite Father, and reflected on this benighted world from the face of Jesus Christ. What are the puerile sentimentalisms of effeminate poets, or the gossamer elaborations of the world’s philosophers, or the incantations of solemn but vindictive religionists, compared with the divine excellence of truth, as it is distilled in the language of the Messiah?
All-perfect, independent, self-sustaining, unswerving love – DIVINE LOVE – is the principle from which Christian non-resistance proceeds. What is the sub-principle that constitutes its immediate moral basis? The essential efficacy of good, as the counteracting force with which to resist evil. The wisdom of this world has relied on the efficacy of injury, terror, and EVIL to resist evil. It has trusted in this during all past time. It has educated the human race to believe that their welfare and security depended mainly on their power to inflict injury on offenders. Hence it has been their constant endeavor to possess a sufficiency of injurious means to overawe their enemies, and terrify their encroaching fellow men. Their language has been, “Keep your distance; touch not my property; insult not my honor; infringe not my rights, assail not my person; be just and respectful; yield to my convenience, and be my friend; or I will let slip the dogs of war; you shall feel the weight of my vengeance; I will inflict unendurable injuries on you: death itself, torture, imprisonment in a loathsome dungeon, pains and penalties shall be your portion. I will do you incomparably greater evil, than you can do me. Therefore be afraid, and let me alone.” And so perfectly befooled are the children of this world, with faith in injury as their chief ultimate security, that scarcely one in a thousand will at first thought allow the non-resistance doctrine to be anything better than a proclamation of cowardice on one side, and of universal anarchy, lawlessness and violence on the other. As if all mankind were so entirely controlled by the dread of deadly, or, at least tremendous personal injury, that if this were relinquished a man’s throat would be instantly cut, his family assassinated, or some horrible mischief inflicted. Very few know how entirely they trust for defense and security in this grim and bloody god of human injury. They have enshrined him in the sword, the gibbet, and the dungeon. They worship him in armies, navies, militia organizations, battle-ships, forts, arsenals, penal statutes, judicial inflictions, pistols, daggers, and bowie knives. And if we propose to lay all these evils aside, and go for nothing but un-injurious beneficent treatment of mankind, never transcending, even with the most outrageous, the limits of firm but friendly personal restraint, lo, they cry out with alarm, “These have come hither that turn the world upside down!” “Torment us not before the time!” “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” “Great is the sword, the halter, the salutary power to kill or injure sinners at discretion! What would become of human society if war, capital, and other injurious punishments should be abolished!” On this altar they have sacrificed human beings enough to people twenty such planets as the earth, with no other success than to confirm and systematize violence throughout the whole habitable globe. And yet INJURY is their god, and at his gory altar of revenge and cruelty they are resolved forever to worship, amid the clangor of deadly weapons, and the groans of a bleeding world.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 1\t

________________________________________

Explanatory Definitions

Different kinds of Non-Resistance – The term Non-Resistance – The term Force – The term injury – The term Christian Non-Resistance and its derivation – The key text of Non-Resistance – Necessary applications of Non-Resistance – What a Christian Non-Resistant cannot consistently do – The principle and sub-principle of Non-Resistance – The conclusion.

The Conclusion

But the Son of the Highest, the great self-sacrificing Non-Resistant, is our prophet, priest, and king. Though the maddened inhabitants of the earth have so long turned a deaf ear to his voice, he shall yet be heard. He declares that good is the only antagonist of evil that can conquer the deadly foe. Therefore he enjoins on his disciples the duty of resisting evil only with good. This is the sub-principle of Christian non-resistance. “Evil can be overcome only with good.” Faith, then, in the inherent superiority of good over evil, truth over error, right over wrong, love over hatred, is the immediate moral basis of our doctrine. Accordingly, we transfer all the faith we have been taught to cherish in injury to beneficence, kindness, and un-injurious treatment, as the only all-sufficient enginery of war against evil-doers. No longer seeking or expecting to put down evil with evil, we lift up the cross for an ensign, and surmounting it with the glorious banner of love, exult in the divine motto displayed on its immaculate folds, “RESIST NOT INJURY WITH INJURY.” Let this in all future time be the specific rule of our conduct, the magnetic needle of our pathway across the troubled waters of human reform, until all men, all governments and all social institutions shall have been molded into moral harmony with the grand comprehensive commandment of the living God – “THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.” Then shall Love (God by his most sublime name) “be all in all.”

The earth, so long a slaughter-field,
Shall yet an Eden bloom;
The tiger to the lamb shall yield,
And War descend the tomb.
For all shall feel the Savior’s love,
Reflected from the cross;
That love, that non-resistant love,
Which triumphed on the cross.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 2\t

Scriptural Proofs

Matt. 5:38-41, a proof text – Evasive constructions of the text – Reason for noticing these evasions – Second proof, Matt. 5:43-48 – Third proof, forgiveness – Further important proofs – Apostolic testimonies – General view of the evidence – The primitive Christians – Testimony of Celsus and Gibbons.

The preceding chapter presents a clear statement and thorough explication of the doctrine of Christian non-resistance. This will present the scriptural proofs of its truth. It is affirmed to have been taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ. If this can be demonstrated, all who acknowledge Him as their Lord and Master should feel bound to receive the doctrine as divine. In determining such a question, the New Testament must be our principal textbook. From its records, fairly construed, we are to learn what Jesus Christ taught, what his examples were, and what is the essential spirit of his religion. The evangelists and apostles shall be our witnesses in the case.

Matthew 5:38-41, a Proof Text

In Matthew’s report of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus thus speaks: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” Matt. 5:38-41. What is the exact meaning of this language, and what does it teach? To whom does Jesus refer as having said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth?” To Moses and his expounders. Read the following passages. Speaking of injury done to a woman in pregnancy: “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Ex. 21:23-25. “If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him.” Lev. 24:19 20. In the case of a false witness: “And the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother, then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother; so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And thy eye shalt not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, foot for foot.” Deut. 19:18-21. Here we have a comprehensive view of the personal injuries authorized to be inflicted on injurers under the Mosaic code, from capital punishment down to the infliction of a stripe. And we have a strong expression of the design of those inflictions: “So shalt thou put the evil away from among you.” Now, did Jesus refer to these precepts of Moses, and to the enforcement of them? Who can doubt it? And if so, did he intend to confirm or to abrogate them? Certainly to abrogate them, for his words express positive opposition of sense: “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil.” How? As they do who take “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…” “But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Instead of smiting back and giving wound for wound, or going to the magistrate to get thy assailant punished, as the olden sayings authorize, endure to be smitten again and again. If under color of the law thy coat is taken from thee, withhold not thy cloak. Sue not back to recover thy spoiled goods. If men force thee to go whither they will, become their prisoner without turbulence. Resist not injury with injury. Inflict not evil in opposing evil. It has been so commanded in time past, as a means of suppressing and preventing evil among men, “but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil doing with inflictions of evil.” Nothing can be plainer than that, so far as Moses and his expounders enjoined the infliction of penal personal injuries in resistance of injuries, and for the suppression of evil doing, Jesus Christ prohibits the same. He enjoins his disciples never to resist evil with such inflictions. They are forbidden to render evil for evil, either directly as individuals, on their own responsibility, or as prosecutors at law. Is this a just and unobjectionable construction of the Savior’s language? If it is, the doctrine of non-resistance is already established, by a single quotation. But this will be contested.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 2\t

Scriptural Proofs

Matt. 5:38-41, a proof text – Evasive constructions of the text – Reason for noticing these evasions – Second proof, Matt. 5:43-48 – Third proof, forgiveness – Further important proofs – Apostolic testimonies – General view of the evidence – The primitive Christians – Testimony of Celsus and Gibbons.

Evasive Constructions of the Text

It will be said that the words of Christ, in the passage quoted, are extremely figurative and intensive in their form of expression; that there is danger of taking them too literally; and they must be duly qualified. I grant it and have construed them accordingly. I first ascertained their reference to the sayings of Moses, and then determined the prohibition to be exactly commensurate with the Mosaic requirement. That resistance of evil, which Moses sanctioned and enjoined, Jesus obviously repudiates and forbids. The prohibition is made precisely co-extensive in all its bearings with the allowances and injunctions of the olden code. This is the only fair construction that can be given to the great Teacher’s language. Should anyone affirm that Jesus prohibits all kinds and degrees of resistance to evil, he could sustain his affirmation only by insisting on the literal expression, and would make the Savior contradict himself, his own example, and the common sense of mankind. Should anyone affirm, on the other hand, that Jesus did not intend to abrogate and prohibit all the personal and judicial inflictions of evil on offenders, authorized by the previously cited sayings of Moses, he would find himself in an equally perplexing dilemma. I have seen distinguished opponents in this latter dilemma.

A First Evasion

One says, “I doubt if Jesus referred to the sayings of Moses, quoted from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. He must have referred to certain perverse Rabbinical glosses on the precepts of the law, and to common sayings among the people, pleaded in justification of frequent and extreme revenge.” Is there any proof of this? No, it is mere supposition. But if it were true, why did not Jesus give some intimation that he was prohibiting only abuses. And withal, what glosses or common sayings could go beyond the original sayings themselves? They express the lex talonis in its fullest extent: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, breach for breach, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” It would be hard glossing or overstraining such sayings. This plea is futile.

A Second Evasion

Another insists that Christ was only inculcating the importance of executing legal penalties, and of using lawful inflictions of injury against assailants, in a right spirit. “He does not prohibit the act, but only a vindictive, revengeful spirit in performing it. Life ought to be taken for life, and various evils inflicted on evil-doers, as a just punishment; and self-defense ought to be maintained, even to the infliction of death in extreme cases; but all should be done without revenge, without unnecessary cruelty and in pure love to the offender, as well as with a sacred reverence for the law.” In this way Jesus is smoothly construed to have really said nothing at all – practically nothing that Moses and the ancients had not said. Did they authorize personal hate, malice, revenge, and wanton cruelty in executing the penalties of the law? Did they not positively prohibit all such feelings and conduct? “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people.” “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt in anywise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.” “In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.” Lev. 19. “If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man is worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed, lest if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.” Deut. 25:1-3. See Deut. 16:18,20; 17:2-12; 19:15. Ex. 23:1-8. From these and other passages in the writings of Moses, it will be seen that, notwithstanding the severity of his code, he did not authorize individual hatred, revenge, and wanton cruelty in punishing the wicked. To make Christ prohibit only a personal, spiteful, malicious, cruel spirit in executing the punishments of the law, is to make him the mere echo of Moses and his expounders; whereas he goes absolutely against the deed – the act of inflicting evil on the persons of offenders. And by killing the body of the thing, he banishes the spirit of it. A pretense of love only renders the infliction of death or torture on offenders more abhorrent to Christian sensibility. It is too much like a mother kissing, while at the same time she presses her child to death; or a beautiful damsel, with all her charming airs, embracing, and at the same time slowly thrusting a fine stiletto into the bosom of her admirer. Death is death, torture is torture, and injury is injury, however gently and politely it is inflicted. And there is a kind of fitness in having stern hearted, severe-natured persons to execute such sentences.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 2\t

Scriptural Proofs

Matt. 5:38-41, a proof text – Evasive constructions of the text – Reason for noticing these evasions – Second proof, Matt. 5:43-48 – Third proof, forgiveness – Further important proofs – Apostolic testimonies – General view of the evidence – The primitive Christians – Testimony of Celsus and Gibbons.

A Third Evasion

Another pleads that Jesus was inculcating the duty of referring all punishments to magistracy and the government; that he prohibited a resort to private revenges, and only meant to teach his disciples to seek redress for the injuries done them in courts of law. This is a still lamer shift than the other. The passage gives no intimation whatever that this was his design. On the contrary, he enjoins non-resistance alike in respect to personal assault and legal wrong. “If a man smite thee on thy right cheek, offer the other. If he sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. If he make thee a prisoner, and force thee to go with him, resist not.” This does not look like teaching men to go to law for redress of grievances, or encouraging them to make magistrates the avengers of their wrongs. He does not say “Ye have heard that it hath been said, let every man take vengeance on his own offenders, and redress his own grievances; but I say unto you look to the government, complain to the magistrates, carry all your causes into the courts for adjudication.” Not a word of this. And not a word of it is to be found in any part of the New Testament. Jesus Christ never sued or taught his followers to sue men at the law. It would have sunk his divine dignity to contempt had he exhibited such folly.

A Fourth Evasion

Another presumes he intended to discountenance all petty vindictiveness, retaliation, and litigation, but not to forbid these things in extreme cases, on a great scale, and where important interests are at stake. This is very accommodating but very fallacious. Who shall draw the line between the great and the small, the frivolous and the important, in these matters? The injured party, of course. It is for him to say whether the wrongs done him are of sufficient moment to justify litigation, retaliation, or personal resistance; and the consequence is that small offences, insults, and injuries are rare. Nearly all are too great to be endured. Jesus gives not the slightest intimation that he is drawing a line of distinction between great and small evils; and that he forbids his followers to resist ordinary personal injuries, while great ones are left to the law of resistance and retaliation. Such pleadings are only so many attempts of a worldly mind to procure itself indulgence under the Christian name in practices upon which, root and branch, the Son of God has placed the seal of prohibition

A Fifth Evasion

Another presumes to assert that Jesus never intended the precept, “Resist not evil…” for a general rule, “but that it was given to his early followers as their guide when wronged by the tyrants under whom they lived. To resist then would be of no avail; it was better therefore patiently to endure.” What a despicable expediency does this ascribe to the Savior! What a skulking prudence! Resist not evil when unable to do so! Submit to irresistible tyranny and outrage; offer the other cheek; crawl like spaniels when you cannot help yourselves! But fight like dragons when you have a fair prospect of overcoming your enemies! To a mind capable of drawing such a meaning from the words of Christ, I should think the text would furnish a general rule, i.e. “submit when you must, but resist (violently) when you can.” If it were not utterly derogatory to the character of Jesus, and utterly unsupported by a single hint in the context, it might be worthwhile to attempt its sober refutation. As it is, the mere statement sufficiently explodes it.

A Sixth Evasion

Still another argues that Jesus, though he preached strict non-resistance as to the duty of his followers in all strictly religious matters, he nevertheless left them perfectly free in secular matters to resist, litigate, and make war at discretion. That is, while attending purely to religious duties, and propagating Christianity by divinely appointed means, they must suffer all manner of personal abuse, insult, outrage, persecution, and violence, without offering the least resistance, either by individual force of arms or prosecutions at law. But as men of the world, politicians, merchants, tradesmen, money-getters, etc. they are at full liberty to follow the dictates of worldly expediency, and to resist even unto death all who threaten their lives, liberty, or property. This stands on the same sandy foundation with the others, and cannot be sustained by one single decent looking reason. Indeed, its bare statement ought to be its sufficient refutation.

Continued:

NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 2\t

Scriptural Proofs

Matt. 5:38-41, a proof text – Evasive constructions of the text – Reason for noticing these evasions – Second proof, Matt. 5:43-48 – Third proof, forgiveness – Further important proofs – Apostolic testimonies – General view of the evidence – The primitive Christians – Testimony of Celsus and Gibbons.

A Final Evasion

Finally, another declares that he does not know what Jesus did really mean to teach in the passage under consideration; but he is sure it cannot have been the prohibition of life-taking, penal inflictions on criminals, defensive war, or personal self-defense under severe assault.
This is because Jesus himself had before declared in the same discourse,
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, until all shall be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 5:18-20.

And what is the deduction from these words?
It is, that if Moses commanded men to take
“life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,”
Jesus does not abrogate or invalidate such commandment, and cannot have intended any such thing, whatever else he meant; since one jot or tittle of the least of the commandments in the law and the prophets was not to be destroyed, or left unfulfilled.
In answer to this, I may remark that it is rather a cavil than a candid objection, and would sound much better from the lips of an infidel than from those of a professed Christian. It is alleging an apparent self-contradiction of Jesus. He says,
“Ye have heard that it hath been said (i.e., by Moses and his expounders) an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you that ye resist not evil (thus); but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek (rather than smite him) turn unto him the other also.”
Then on the contrary he says,
“Whosoever therefore, shall break one of the least of these commandments (even the one which requires eye to be taken for eye and tooth for tooth) and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven…”
Thus the opponent urges a self-contradiction.
Well, if there is a contradiction, and if it weighs anything at all in the case at issue, is it not worth as much for non-resistance as against it? Is not Jesus as good an authority against himself for the abrogation of the commandment, as for its confirmation? Certainly. But if it would invalidate his testimony, then it only furnishes food for the infidel.
Such is not the object, for I have heard this identical cavil from the lips of a venerable Hopkinsian clergyman. What then does it avail? If it proves anything against my construction of Matt. 5:38-41, it certainly proves a great deal too much. It would carry us back, and bind us hand and foot to Judaism, with its every
“jot and tittle.”
It would re-enact the whole ceremonial as well as moral and penal code of the Mosaic dispensation! Circumcision, sacrifices, and all the commandments, least as well as greatest, would be made binding on us. No Christian would admit anything like this for a moment.
Many commandments have been abrogated. Jesus and Paul are explicit on this point. But it does not follow that any one of them has been absolutely destroyed or left unfulfilled. Many have emerged from the shadow into the substance, from types and figures into the reality. Others have been lost in the letter, and more than preserved in the spirit.
All have done their work, or are still doing it in the essence of Christianity.
Did not Jesus mean to be understood in this sense, when he declared he had not
“come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them”?
Was it to preserve them in the mere letter and form – in the type and shadow – or rather in their essence – in the absolute reality of their spiritual excellence? Clearly, the latter.

When he abolished the oath, did he abolish the truth? Did he relax the obligations of men to speak the truth? Did he weaken the sanctions of truth? No, he enhanced them. He exalted the truth. In prohibiting his disciples from all inflictions of injury in resistance of evil, did he absolve them from one iota of the law of love – the obligation to love their neighbors as themselves – the doing unto others as they would that others should do unto them?
Did he weaken that great law? Did he not exalt and perfect its power and sanctions? If his professed followers should faithfully obey his instructions, in respect to this heavenly treatment of offenders, would they become worse, or would offenses increase? Let the tongue of blasphemy alone presume to say it! We know the contrary.
In a word, we know that this self-same doctrine of Christian non-resistance, as we deduce it from the passage before us, is the righteousness of the law and the prophets in its perfection and true glory; and therefore is in strict harmony with the doctrine taught in the 18th, 19th, and 20th verses. The cavil is silenced.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 2\t

Scriptural Proofs

Matt. 5:38-41, a proof text – Evasive constructions of the text – Reason for noticing these evasions – Second proof, Matt. 5:43-48 – Third proof, forgiveness – Further important proofs – Apostolic testimonies – General view of the evidence – The primitive Christians – Testimony of Celsus and Gibbons.

Reason for Noticing All These Evasions

I have been particular to notice these various constructions of our Lord’s words, these attempts to avoid the legitimate force of Matt. 5:38-41, and to disallow it as a proof text of the doctrine before us; not because I thought them really worthy of it in them selves; but because I have known them all urged and relied on by clergymen and reputable professing Christians, of various sects, in their struggle to withstand the truth. It is remarkable how very incongruous all these anti-non-resistant constructions, objections, and cavils are. Yet I have heard them put forth with great confidence, even by different clergymen of the same general sect, and repeatedly pleaded with apparent sincerity and earnestness as a sufficient invalidation of our leading proof text. It is important to explode them, in order to secure the conviction of an order of minds, at once conscientious and intelligent, but liable to be misled by the confident special pleadings of those from whom they have been accustomed to receive their religious opinions. When we pretend to prove a doctrine, we ought not only to quote passages that sound well to the ear, but also to demonstrate that those passages cannot fairly be construed in any other sense than that in which we take them. To have demonstrated Matt. 5:38-41 to be an undeniable proof text of our doctrine is no small achievement in this department of my work. This once established, I can accomplish the rest with little difficulty. What I insist on, then, is that I have adduced one fundamental proof from the highest scripture authority. If this cannot be invalidated; if it must be admitted; if the passage cannot fairly be construed to mean anything else than I have shown, the probability is that I shall find ample corroborative proof all the way through the New Testament. I therefore proceed to make a further quotation from the same chapter and discourse.

Second Proof, Matthew 5:43-48

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy,’ but I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.” Matt. 5:43-44. This is plainly in the same strain, and of the same import with the other. It is clear, explicit, significant, and forcible. By whom the saying, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy,” had been literally uttered, I cannot with certainty learn. Probably it had long since passed into a common maxim. But in its nature and origin it was kindred with the preceding saying, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” It derived its principal sanction from the Mosaic injunctions respecting capital criminals and doomed national enemies. Read the following passages. “If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and hath withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; then thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God, and it shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again.” Deut. 13:12-16. “But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.” Deut. 20:16-17. “Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them.” Deut. 7:2. In accordance with these sentiments, David utters the following language: “Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me; fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for my help. Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me; say unto my soul, I am thy salvation… Let them be as chaff before the wind, and let the angel of the Lord chase them. Let their way be dark and slippery, and let the angel of the Lord persecute them.” Psalm 35:1-8.
With equal abhorrence of idolatry, and of all the crimes of those who are held to be outlaws and doomed enemies under the Old Testament, but in striking contrast with the authorized hatred and vengeance exercised towards them, Jesus says, “love, bless, do good to, and pray for them, even though they are your bitter foes and persecutors.” He includes among enemies, haters and persecutors, all injurers, whether personal, social, religious, or national. His words are equally irreconcilable with all hatred, all persecution, all cruelty, all war, and all injury which one man, one family, one community, or one nation can do to another. The truly Christian individual could not devise, execute, or abet any injury against an offending fellow man. What then would a truly Christian family, neighborhood, community, state, or nation do? Could they act any other than the non-resistant part toward their foes and injurers? If they loved, blessed, benefited, and prayed for the worst of aggressors and offenders, what a spectacle would be presented! What a conquest would be achieved over all evil-doers! Does not Jesus enjoin this sublime love and heavenly practice? Can he mean anything less than appears upon the beautiful face of his words! What professed Christian can erect the gibbet, or light the faggot, or draw out the rack, or contrive any injurious punishment, or gird on any weapon of war, or give his sanction to any cruelty, by individuals or society, and yet plead that he is in the spirit and practice of this his Lord’s commandment? Does that man love his enemies, bless those who curse him, do good to those that hate him, and pray for his injurers, who hangs, or shoots, or tortures, or stones them, or holds himself sworn to inflict any such evils? But let us hear the Savior urge his own precepts. “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them (only) who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Verses 45-48. Your Father loves his enemies, blesses those that curse him, and does good to them that hate him. Else the sun would not shine as it does on the evil, nor the rain fall upon the unjust, nor salvation descend from heaven for the lost. Imbibe the spirit of your Father. Imitate his goodness to the unthankful and evil. Put on his moral character. Be his children. Be not content barely to love them that love you. Love, forbear with, benefit, and seek to save even the guilty and undeserving. Else what higher are ye in the moral scale than the publicans? Salute and befriend, not only your own kindred, friends, and intimate associates, but also all men, however strange or hostile to you. Aspire continually to be perfectly, independently good to all, as your Father in heaven is. What can be plainer than this? What can be more pure, sublime, spiritually excellent, or morally beautiful? It is Christian non-resistance; or rather that perfect love, of which true non-resistance is a distinguishing fruit. But let us proceed.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 2\t

Scriptural Proofs

Matt. 5:38-41, a proof text – Evasive constructions of the text – Reason for noticing these evasions – Second proof, Matt. 5:43-48 – Third proof, forgiveness – Further important proofs – Apostolic testimonies – General view of the evidence – The primitive Christians – Testimony of Celsus and Gibbons.

Third Proof – Forgiveness

He enjoins the duty of forgiveness on the same general principle. “After this manner, therefore, pray ye… Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors… For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Matt. 6:9,12,14-15. “Then came Peter to him, and said, ‘Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?’ Jesus saith unto him, ‘I say not unto thee, until seven times, but until seventy times seven.’” Matt. 18:21-22. See also the illustrating parable at the end of the chapter. “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any, that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses; but if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” Mark 11:25-26. “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.” Luke 6:37.
The idea in all these passages is that the injured party claims a right to punish the injurer on account of some actual offence. Jesus is not speaking of mere envious grudges, causeless resentment, or ill will. He presupposes a real injury done, which, according to the common law, “an eye for an eye…” or, in other words, according to strict natural justice, might rightfully be punished by the infliction of an equivalent evil on the offender. He does not palliate the offence, nor deny that the guilty party deserves punishment, nor require that his wrong should be considered right. He addresses the injured party, the rightful complainant, and commands him to forgive his injurer; i.e. not to exact the infliction of the deserved punishment, not to hold the offender punishable on his account, but to leave him as an object of pity, even though he is one of dread, uninjured – a subject of the same kindness as if he had committed no offence. He is to inflict no evil upon him on account of his trespass. This is human forgiveness, as enjoined by Jesus on all his followers. To enforce this he declares that our Father in heaven will forgive the forgiving, but will not forgive the unforgiving. He reminds us that we have all sinned against our Father, and are justly punishable at his hands; that the only ground of our acceptance with him, and of his continued benefactions, is his grace, not our merit; and that we are perpetually entreating him to bless us in spite of our evil deserts. Therefore he enjoins that we forgive our fellow men their trespasses against us, as we beseech God to forgive us the sins we have committed against him. He requires that we do unto others as we would that God should do unto us. He commands us to refrain from punishing our offenders, and still to do them good, as we would that God should continue to forbear with and do us good, notwithstanding our sins. And if we freely forgive while we pray to be forgiven, this will attest our sincerity, and fit our spirits for the reception of the divine forgiveness. God will accept and commune with us, for we shall then present no insuperable bar to his inflowing love and mercy. But if, while we sue for mercy, we exercise none towards the guilty; if while we pray for forgiveness, we meditate vengeance against our offenders; if while we ask to be treated infinitely better than we deserve, we hold those who have trespassed against us punishable at our hands according to their deserts; we at once betray our own insincerity, offer mockery to God, and present an impassable bar of hardheartedness to his love and mercy. He is essentially a forgiving Father, but he will not, indeed cannot, communicate his forgiveness to us. Our spirit is in opposition to his spirit; we do not worship him in spirit and in truth; we stand self-excluded from his presence – alike unforgiving and unforgiven. We cannot be at peace with him, nor worship him acceptably, nor taste the richness of his grace, so long as we desire to punish our offenders. It is only in the spirit of human forgiveness that we can receive and enjoy the divine forgiveness. Such is the doctrine of Jesus. How blessed a doctrine is it to the broken-hearted, merciful and meek? How terrible a one to the iron-hearted, who delight in rigorous human punishment! Here the whole superstructure of piety and religion is baptized in the waters of non-resistance. We cannot even pray in a punishing spirit without insulting a forgiving Father, and imprecating on our heads all the deserts of our own transgression. If we forgive not, but persist in punishing them that trespass against us, and yet pray to be forgiven of God as we forgive, we only call on God to be as severe and punitive towards us, as we are towards our fellow men. How tremendous a thought is this! Yet who can evade it? Jesus has brought it as a live coal from off the altar of God, and laid it on our consciences. Can the utmost ingenuity of man avoid the conclusion that these precepts of Christ, respecting forgiveness, are thus shown to warrant? I think not. Yet millions of professing Christians, authorize, aid, and abet war, capital punishment, and the whole catalogue of penal injuries. Still they daily pray God to forgive their trespasses as they forgive!! The language of the prophet Isaiah, in his 58th chapter, seems applicable to them. “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins. Yet they seek me daily and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness and forsook not the ordinance of their God. They ask of me the ordinances of justice. They take delight in approaching to God.” See the subsequent verses. This drawing near to God with the lips, while the heart is far from him, is as common as it is reprehensible. And in no respect is it more so, than in meditating and executing punishment for offenses against ourselves, while in humble supplication we plead for the divine forgiveness of our own transgressions.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 2\t

Scriptural Proofs

Matt. 5:38-41, a proof text – Evasive constructions of the text – Reason for noticing these evasions – Second proof, Matt. 5:43-48 – Third proof, forgiveness – Further important proofs – Apostolic testimonies – General view of the evidence – The primitive Christians – Testimony of Celsus and Gibbons.

Further Important Proofs

Another important class of proof texts, corroborative of those already cited, is the following: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence.” John 18:36. Compare this with Matt. 10:16. “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” Also with Luke 22:24-26. “And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, ‘The Kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.’” In the same group we may include the following: “And they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, ‘Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from Heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?’ But he turned and rebuked them, and said, ‘Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’” Luke 9:52-56. “Then came they and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And, behold, one of them who were with Jesus, stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, ‘Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels.’” Matt. 26:50-53. See also John 8:3-11, the case of the woman taken in adultery, and brought to Jesus to see whether he would condemn her to be stoned to death, according to the law of Moses. After her accusers had declined to execute the penalty, Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn thee (i.e. to death), go and sin no more.”
These and similar passages are impressive practical comments on the positive doctrinal precepts of the Savior. His kingdom is not of this world, and therefore excludes all military and warlike defenses. His ministers are sent forth unarmed, like sheep in the midst of wolves. They are therefore to be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. All things must be conducted on the non-resistant principle. There must be no political strife for the highest place, no patronizing lordship, no Gentile love of dominion; but they that really occupy the highest place must prove themselves worthy of it by an entire willingness to take the lowest, by governing only through the influence of useful service. Government must doff its worldly insignia, its craft and its prerogative to punish, and be vested in real worth – unglorified, unpampered, and undistinguished by exclusive privileges. This is Christian government. He and his followers might be treated inhospitably, as by the Samaritans, but no injury must be returned – even though fire could be commanded from heaven by a miracle. No such spirit might be indulged, because the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. Therefore non-resistance of evil with evil must be the invariable rule of action for his disciples forever. They must never destroy men’s lives but endeavor to save them. Even the holy one, at his betrayal into the hands of a mob, might not be defended with the sword by Peter because, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” “The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” Evil cannot be overcome with evil.
How is it possible to contemplate such clear, striking, mutually sustaining, irrefragable evidence of the scriptural truth of Christian non-resistance, without feeling the whole soul penetrated with profound conviction? But still the tide rises and flows on.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 2\t

Scriptural Proofs

Matt. 5:38-41, a proof text – Evasive constructions of the text – Reason for noticing these evasions – Second proof, Matt. 5:43-48 – Third proof, forgiveness – Further important proofs – Apostolic testimonies – General view of the evidence – The primitive Christians – Testimony of Celsus and Gibbons.

Apostolic Testimonies

The Apostles, having been gradually delivered from their early traditional and educational predispositions for a temporal and military kingdom, renounced all carnal weapons, and drinking in the heavenly inspiration, reiterated the non-resistance doctrine of their Master: “Be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” “Bless them which persecute you; bless, and curse not.” “Recompense to no man evil for evil.” “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves; but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ saith the Lord. Therefore, if thine enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Rom. 12:2,14,17,19-21. “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” “Now, therefore, there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another; why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” 1 Cor. 6:1,7. “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” 2 Cor. 10:3-5. “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” Gal. 5:22-25. “Be ye angry and sin not; let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.” Eph. 4:26,31. “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, and long-suffering.” Col. 3:12. “See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves and to all men.” 1 Thes. 5:15. “Let us run with patience the race set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” “For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds!” “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” Heb. 12:1-3,14. “My beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath, for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” James 1:19-20. “From whence come wars and fighting among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?” “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” James 4:1,7. “This is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience towards God, endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called; because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.” 1 Peter 2:19-23. “And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? But if ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye; and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled.” “For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well-doing, than for evil-doing. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust.” 1 Peter 3:13-14,17-18; 4:13-19. “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk, even as he walked. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now … and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his mind.” 1 John 2:6,11. “He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” 1 John 3:14-15. “No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.” “If a man saith, ‘I love God,’ and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 1 John 4:12,20.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

\tChapter 2\t

Scriptural Proofs

Matt. 5:38-41, a proof text – Evasive constructions of the text – Reason for noticing these evasions – Second proof, Matt. 5:43-48 – Third proof, forgiveness – Further important proofs – Apostolic testimonies – General view of the evidence – The primitive Christians – Testimony of Celsus and Gibbons.

General View of the Evidence

Is it possible to read these quotations without an irresistible conviction of their perfect harmony with the teachings of the Savior on this great subject? Can we doubt that they all proceeded from the same Divine source? And now what was the example of Jesus? What was the practice of the Apostles, after the resurrection of Christ, when fully endued with power and grace from on high? Did they ever slay any human being? Ever threaten to do so? Ever make use of any deadly weapon? Ever serve in the army or navy of any nation, state, or chieftain? Ever seek or accept any office, legislative, judicial, or executive, under the existing governments of their day? Ever make complaint to the magistrates against any offender or criminal, in order to procure his punishment? Ever commence any prosecution at law, to obtain redress of grievances? Ever apply to the civil or military authority to protect them by force of arms when in imminent danger? Or ever counsel others to do any one of these acts? Did they ever express, by word or deed, their reliance on political, military, or penal power to secure personal protection or to carry forward the Christianization of the world? I answer confidently, no. But let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind. Let the New Testament be thoroughly searched with reference to these questions. If it shall be found that I am correct, let the opponents of non-resistance make up their minds to yield, for if precept and practice, spirit and example, go together throughout the scriptures of the New Testament, the case is decided beyond controversy. I am aware of the objections urged with so much desperation from such texts as that which speaks of the scourge of small cords, that which mentions the direction of Jesus to buy swords, Paul’s appeal to Caesar, his notification of the chief captain when the forty men conspired to slay him, the thirteenth chapter of Romans, etc. Not any one of these, or all of them together, will serve the objector’s purpose, as I shall demonstrate in the next chapter. On the other hand, we are able to show a series of examples, indeed a life, conformable to the doctrine of non-resistance. And we are also able to show that this doctrine practically prevailed among the primitive Christians for a considerable time subsequent to the apostolic age.
Look at Jesus in the temptation. He was offered all the kingdoms of the world. But on what condition? Provided only he would fall down and worship the Tempter. Is not this essentially the condition on which his followers have ever been offered worldly political power? There is a spirit that animates and characterizes carnal human government. It is the destroying spirit – the angel of injury, the old serpent of violence. This is the grand controlling power underneath the throne, the dernier resort, the ultimate indispensable reliance of all mere worldly authority. And he is accounted a fool who supposes there can be any such thing as government among mankind without it. Consequently its solemn acknowledgment is now, as ever, the condition on which men must take the scepter, or assume the seals of office. He who would rule, must first worship this genius of violence – must swear to support his authority with sword and penal vengeance. Jesus chose the pain and shame of the cross in preference to the fame and glory of universal empire on such a condition. It was no inducement with him, that all the world should take his name, and verbally confess him Lord, while at heart and in practice they served the evil spirit. He would not be a king of nations, when he could not be a king of hearts and consciences. He would not do evil that good might come, because his kingdom was not of this world, but was essentially one of righteousness and peace. So he spurned an offered scepter, and left it in hands that he knew would ere long baptize him in his own non-resistant blood. For the same reason, when he perceived the determination of the people to proclaim him a king, he promptly placed himself beyond their reach. Nor would he be a “judge and a divider,” among the people. Nor when he alone stood up in innocence to pass a rightful condemnation on the adulterous woman, would he pronounce the deadly sentence or raise the destroying stone. When a violent multitude, led on by his betrayer, came to seize him in the prayerful solitude of Gethsemane, he raised not a weapon of defense. But he rebuked his mistaken disciple for drawing the sword, healed the wound he had inflicted, and taught him that all who take the sword must perish with it. So he suffered himself to be “led as a sheep dumb before the shearers,” and “as a lamb to the slaughter.” They stripped him of his raiment, attired him in a mock royal robe, crowned him with thorns, smote him, spit upon him, sentenced him without cause to death, nailed him to the cross between two malefactors, tormented him in his agonies, and followed him to the verge of life with all the venom of a murderous hate. Yet never a word of threatening, reviling, cursing, or bitterness escaped him. With a meek and sorrowful dignity he bore all; and at the moment when he could have summoned legions of angels to his rescue, and to the destruction of his foes, lo, he uttered that last victorious prayer, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” The mourning heavens in silence heard. Then came the expiring groan – not to seal the just perdition of a murderous world, but as the awful amen of the New Covenant, and the signal of complete triumph over hatred, sin, and death!

Continued: