 Chapter 3, Chapter 3, Scriptural Objections, Answered I devote the present chapter to the consideration of Scriptural Objections. Our doctrine is obviously sustained by the most abundant and convincing proofs from the scriptures of the New Testament. It forces a degree of conviction on many minds by no means prepared for the great practical change involved, or even for a cordial assent to the doctrine itself. Hence they fall back behind certain apparently formidable objections urged by more determined opponents from the scriptures. They demand that these should be satisfactory answered. It is only fair that it should be done. Objection 1, You Throw Away the Old Testament You quote exclusively from the scriptures of the New Testament to prove the non-resistance doctrine. Those of the Old Testament are unequivocally against it. They afford abundant precepts and examples in justification of war, capital punishment, and various forms of penal restraint on criminals. Is not the whole Bible the Word of God? Do you throw away and trample underfoot the Old Testament? If your doctrine were of God, it would be equally profitable from both Testaments. Answer It is true that I have quoted exclusively from the scriptures of the New Testament to prove the doctrine of Christian non-resistance, and I grant that those of the Old Testament, with a few unimportant exceptions, are unequivocally against it, i.e., taken independently of the Christian Revelation. I also admit the whole Bible, properly considered and interpreted, to be in a general sense the Word of God. But I do not admit the Old Testament to be as clearly, fully, and perfectly the Word of God as the New Testament, nor to be of equal authority with the latter, on questions of doctrine and duty, nor to be the rule of faith and practice for Christians. It is to be held in reverence as the prophecy and preparative of the New Testament, the foreshadow of better things to come. If I can prove this to be the true character and office of the Old Testament, I shall thereby silence the objection before us. Not only so, I shall demonstrate that I pay the highest respect to both Testaments, and that those who claim for the Old and equal authority with the New discredit both. At a subtlest point, the Scriptures of the two Testaments shall speak for themselves. What they say of each other must determine the matter. Voice of the New Testament. We will commence with the New Testament. God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. He bruised one versus one and two. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest of our profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, in as much as he that buildeth the house hath more honor than the house. Jesus verily was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after. But Christ as a son over his own house, whose house are we, etc. Hebrews 3 verses 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. For if perfection were by the Levitical priesthood for under it the people received the law, what further need was there that another priest should arrive after the order of Melchizedek and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law. There is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing purpose, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh to God. By so much was Jesus made the surety of a better testament. Hebrews 7 verses 11, 12, 18, 19, and 22. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry than they. By how much else so he is the mediator of a better covenant which was established upon better promises? For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them he saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, etc. After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people, etc. In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which Decayeth and Waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8 verses 6 and 13. C. 10 verses 1 and 2. Wherefore, then, serveth the law, it was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. But before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith, which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under his schoolmaster. Galatians 3 verses 19, 23, and 25. Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. Ephesians 3 verses 4 and 5. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter but of the Spirit, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory which excelleth. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech, and not as Moses, who put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. But their minds were blinded, for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament, which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Second Corinthians 3, verses 5 through 8, and 10 through 15. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both the small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. For as much as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you, saying, ye must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Acts 15, verses 24 and 29. And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Acts 13, verse 39. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren. Like unto me, him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall say unto you. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, have likewise foretold of these days. Acts 3, verses 22 and 24. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my word? John 5, verses 45 through 47. We have found him of whom Moses and the law and the prophets did right. John 3, verse 45. These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Luke 24, verse 44. The law and the prophets were unto John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Luke 16, verse 16. Among those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist, but he that is the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. Luke 7, verse 28. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He was not that light, but sent to bear witness to that light, the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. John bore witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, he that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1, verses 6-8, 15, 17, and 18. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven. He, Christ, must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all. For God giveeth not the spirit by measure unto him. John 3, verses 27, 31, and 34. Such is the testimony of the New Testament scriptures. The objector professes to hold them, at least, equally authority with those of the Old Testament, and to receive the entire Bible as the Word of God. Now, does he implicitly believe what is declared in the foresighted passages? Does he believe that Christ was counted worthy of more glory than Moses? That Moses was a servant, but Christ the Son over his own house? That perfection was not by the libidical priesthood? That Christ is the great high priest after the order of Melchizedek? That the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law? That the old law made nothing perfect? That Jesus was made the surety of a better testament, the mediator of a better covenant? That the old covenant was faulty? That it waxed old and was ready to vanish away? That the law was a mere schoolmaster to bring mankind to Christ? That the New Testament is not of the letter which killeth, but of the spirit which giveth life? That the law was a ministration of death, whose glory was to be done away? That the Christian dispensation excelleth in glory? That the end of the Mosaic dispensation was to be abolished? That a veil remaineth untaken away from a certain Judaizing class of minds in reading the Old Testament, which veil is done away in Christ? That Moses and the prophets wrote of Christ? That Moses wrote of him when he announced the future coming of a prophet whom the people should hear in all things? That the law and the prophets were until John the Baptist? And then the kingdom of God was preached? That John was greatest among prophets previously born, and yet inferior to the least in the Gospel kingdom? That Christ was before and above John, from heaven and above all, endowed with the spirit beyond measure, the true light of the world? If he believe all this, what becomes of his objection? If he believe it not, what becomes of the New Testament? Voice of the Old Testament. And what says the Old Testament? Does it contradict the testimony of the New? Does it represent itself as the perfect and final revelation of God respecting divine truth, human duty, and destiny? Does it claim a higher mission or more permanent authority than is ascribed to it in the New? Does not Moses predict Christ and enjoin that he shall be heard in all things? Do not the prophets foreshadow the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of a new covenant superior to that of Sinai? Do not all the types and shadows of the Old dispensation presuppose a new and more glorious one? Is there any need of my quoting texts from the Old Testament scriptures to this effect? No, the objector will not demand it. He will spare me the labor, for he must admit the obvious truth. To doubt it would be to doubt the divine inspiration of both testaments, and thus to do the very thing he so much deprecates, discredit the whole Bible. If then the New Testament claims to supersede the Old, and the Old, by prophecy, type, and shadow, announced beforehand the coming in of a more glorious dispensation than itself, vis the New, the point is settled forever. The New Testament supersedes the Old on all questions of divine truth and human duty. In affirming this, I only affirm what both testaments unequivocally declare respecting themselves and each other. To question it is virtually to question the credibility of both. To affirm the contrary is to charge falsehood on both. Instead therefore of throwing away the Old Testament, I receive its testimony and render it a just reverence. By looking to the New Testament and accepting it as my rule of faith and practice, I render the most honorable obedience to the teachings of the Old, whereas they who turn back from the perfection of the New to the imperfection of the Old, from the substance to the shadow, from sunlight to lamp light, to determine their Christian duty, trample on both testaments, and invalidate the whole Bible. They believe neither, they obey neither. In this view of the subject of the Old Testament, being in its nature and design a prophecy and foreshadow of the New, is not against but for non-resistance, not withstanding the anti-non-resistant character for the time of its particular precepts and examples. As it is on the whole for Christ and the supreme authority of his teachings, non-resistance included, it is for the New Testament with all its peculiarities and for the Excellency of the Glorious Gospel. Who can gain say this? Hence the professed Christians to quote its precepts and examples as applicable to the present dispensation is not only a gross perversion, but a kind of pious fraud, not to be tolerated for a moment. That man can be no friend to the Old Testament, who drags it into overbearing conflict with the New. He is the enemy of both. Nor is he the friend of Moses, who claims equality for him with Jesus Christ. It is no better than an attempt to turn a faithful herald into a rival of the king his master, whose approach he is commissioned to announce and prepare for. Yet there have never been wanting those who have set up Moses in superiority to Jesus. Moses predicted and instituted preparations for the coming of a prophet whom the Lord God should in due time rise up. That prophet was Christ. And what did Moses enjoy in respecting the reverence to be paid to Christ? Him shall ye hear and all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. Well the predicted one came into the world and spake as man never before had spoken, but he corrected some, modified others, and absolutely abrogated several of the sayings of Moses. Moses, for the hardness of the people's hearts, had authorized them to divorce their wives for ordinary causes of dislike, but Jesus imperatively forbade them to do so except for one cause, fornication. Moses sanctioned sacred and judicial oath-taking, and enjoined the most faithful performance of all vows. But I say unto you, swear not at all, is the injunction of Jesus. Moses said, Life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil, thus is the mandate of the new prophet. This very superiority of Jesus to Moses became an offense to the Jews. Who maketh thou thyself? said they contemptuously. We know that God spake unto Moses, as for this fellow we know not from whence he is. But Jesus said, If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me. Yet he became to them a stumbling stone and a rock of offense. They would not hear him in all things, even though solemnly enjoined by Moses to do so. The same stumbling still happens among professing Christians, when the plain non-resistant precepts of Jesus are urged upon them, and are demonstrated to be prescriptive requirements of the Gospel. They are counted hard sayings. The old law of retaliation is so sweet, and inflections of evil are so convenient, as means of resisting evil, that though unable to avoid the obvious non-resistant construction of the language in which those precepts are expressed, they retire behind the authority of Moses, and deny that Jesus abrogated his sayings. They do not know what Jesus really meant, but they effect to be certain that he left war, capital punishment, penal inflections, and personal resistance just where Moses did. Though Jesus expressly refers to the sayings of Moses, life for life, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, and revokes it, still they adhere to it. And this they do under pretense of extraordinary reverence for the Word of God, the whole Bible, alleging that non-resistance condemned Moses in the Old Testament, in the very act of receiving Jesus and the New Covenant, for what those precursors announced they should be. But the accusation returns upon their own heads. They are the contaminers of Moses and the Old Testament. For if they believed Moses and the prophets, they would believe in Jesus and the New Testament, as more excellent, glorious, and authoritative than their forerunners. But as it is, they receive neither the Old nor the New Testaments as the Word of God, in any such sense as each separately, and both mutually, purport to be. It is to be believed, then, that if they could summon Moses from the world of spirits, he would commend them for their adherence to his warlike and punitive precepts, regardless of Christ's non-resistant precepts. Would he thank them for overbearing and nullifying the laws of Jesus by perpetuating and enforcing his code? Would he not rebuke them for their unbelief and rebellion of soul? Would he not, like Elias, say, He that cometh after me is my dear than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear? He must increase, but I must decrease. He that is of the earth is earthly. He that cometh from heaven is above all. I fear him in all things. I consider the objection, under notice, fairly answered. Objection 2 The Scourge of Small Chords And Jesus went up to Jerusalem and found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money, sitting. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers money, and overthrew the tables, and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence, make not my father's house a house of merchandise, and his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up. Objection 2 Is not this transaction of Jesus directly contrary to your doctrine of non-resistance? Objection 2 Answer, whether the conduct of Jesus on this occasion was inconsistent with my construction of his non-resistance precepts depends very much on the particular facts of the case. Did Jesus injure or threaten to injure any person whom he expelled from the temple? Did he impair the life or health of any human being? Did he wantonly destroy property? Did he commit any injurious act on the body, mind, or rightful estate of any person concerned? If he did, his conduct was inconsistent with what I have defined to be Christian non-resistance. If he did not, it is perfectly reconcilable with my doctrine. That he displayed an extraordinary zeal for the religious honor of the temple is certain. That by some remarkable means he caused a considerable number of persons trafficking within the temple suddenly to remove from the same with their animals and other effects is granted. Let those persons had no right to occupy the temple for such purposes and ought to have voluntarily removed upon the remonstrance of Jesus will, I trust, be admitted on all sides. The precise point of inquiry is, did Jesus inflect any injury on the persons, estate, or morals of those who were caused to remove by his interference? If it is to be presumed that he inflicted blows on the men with his scourge of small cords and that he violently upset tables covered with coins scattering it in all directions, I should have to admit that he injured, more or less, those whom he drove out of the temple. But I want some proof that he touched a single person with his scourge, and that in overthrowing his money-changers tables he exhibited a single undignified gesture. He urgently and authoritatively commanded the intruders to remove those things thence, and probably assisted in pouring their money into such vessels as were at hand, and in removing the fixtures they had constructed for their convenience. In all this he was earnest and determined, no doubt. But was he violent, outrageous, or punitive? Are we to imagine him rushing furiously among the sacrilegious, smiting right and left to whomever he might reach with his scourge, knocking one thing one way and another the other way, tearing up and kicking over benches, tables and seats like the leader of a mob? Some minds seem to imagine such proceedings as these, and of course conclude that many grievous cuts of the scourge remained on the persons of the expelled, and that money and other property was wantonly destroyed or wasted, or at least lost to the owners. But as I have an equally good right to imagine how Jesus acted on the occasion, I shall presume that he did nothing unworthy of the principles, the character, and spirit which uniformly distinguished him. When he saw the temple occupied by such a mixed multitude of pretended worshippers, some really devout, some hypocritically observing their formalities, and many others, who, while professing to be promoting the service of God, were intent only on acquiring gain, crowding their cattle, fowls, and money-changing tables hard upon the sanctuary, so that the lowing of oxen, bleeding of sheep, cooing of doves, clinking of coin, and vociferations of the keepers, mingled confusedly with the prayers, hymns, recitations, and responses of the devoutes, his soul was filled with grief, loathing, and aberrance. A divine zeal fired his mind to testify against and suppress this gross confusion and sacrilegious disorder. Picking up from the pavement a few of those rushes, or pieces of small cord made of rushes, which chanced to lie about him, he fastened them together in the form of a scourge or switch, and holding it up as an emblem to the condemnation in which the multitude had involved themselves, he commenced rebuking them for corrupting the divine worship, and mocking the Almighty with such a medley of prayer and traffic. Laxing warmer in his denunciations, he assumed a high moral and religious tone of authority, and commanded the temple to be instantly cleansed of all those nuisances. The people, amazed and overawed by the truth, justice, earnestness, and uncompromising energy of his rebukes, shrunk backward from his presence, yielded to the impulse which his moral force imparted to them, almost involuntarily obeyed his directions, and in a short time were actively engaged in the work of removal. Jesus, waving the emblem of condemnation and reproach, but without harming either man or beast, followed up the retreating throng, urging forward the cattle, expediting the clearing and taking down of the money-changers' tables, and pouring forth with increasing fervor his rebukes and admonitions into the ears of the people, till the work was consummated. I take for granted that in this whole proceeding, spiritual and moral power was the all-controlling element, that Jesus used very little physical force, and that little unenduriously, that he acted in all respects, worthily, of his authority, dignity, spirit, and mission as the Son of God, that there was nothing of the mobacrat, fanatic, or police officer in his manner, and that he did no injury to any human being, nothing but good to all parties concerned. This is what I imagine respecting this affair. There is no positive proof, one way or the other, as to the particular facts, we are left to form the best judgment we can in view of the probabilities. These are all on the non-resistant side of the question. It is unnatural, absurd, and altogether improbable to suppose that Jesus drove out so large a number of persons by actually scourging or threatening to scourge their bodies, that he severely scourged their minds with just reproof, of which his rush scourge was a significant emblem, I willingly admit. And in this there is nothing inconsistent with non-resistance, as I have defined it. I insist, then, that it was neither mobacratic, military, political, or any mere physical force by which Jesus cleansed the temple, but divine, spiritual, and moral power. Therefore I throw the laboring oar upon the objector, and demand that he adduce some evidence other than mere inference or conjecture, that the Savior struck a single person with his scourge, or otherwise absolutely injured any human being. When something like this shall be proved, I will confess the force of the objection. Until then I shall consider it sufficiently answered. Objection 3, the Two Swords. According to the 22nd chapter of Luke, Christ directed his disciples to provide themselves swords. He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. Swords could be of no other use than as weapons of war or of self-defense. How can this be reconciled with your doctrine of non-resistance? Answer. There is one other use to which the sword might possibly be put. It might be employed on a memorable occasion as the significant emblem of injurious resistance, for the purpose of emphatically inculcating non-resistance. I will attempt to demonstrate that this was the special use to which Jesus intended to apply it in the case before us. He gave this direction to buy swords at the last Passover, just before his betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane. When he had given it, his disciples presently responded, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, it is enough. Verse 38. How could two swords be enough to arm 12 men for war or self-defense? This single fact shows that such was not the design of Jesus. He had a more sublime purpose. When Judas gave the traitorous kiss and the multitude approach to seize Jesus, his disciples demanded, saying, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote a servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. Verses 49 and 50. Matthew, chapter 16, verse 52, informs us how Jesus disposed of the sword. 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. So saying, he touched the wounded ear and restored it, suffering himself to be borne away by his enemies without resistance. Thus the sequel proved that he caused swords to be provided for that occasion, two only being enough, for the sole purpose of emphatically, finally, and everlastingly prohibiting the use of the instrument, even by the innocent in self-defense. Ever after this, those apostles, and for a long time the primitive Christians, conscientiously eschewed the use of the sword. These three facts proved my assertion. 1. Two swords were enough. 2. The moment one of these was wielded in defense of betrayed innocence, it was peremptorily stayed, the wound caused by it healed, and the sublime mandate given, put up thy sword again into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Chapter 3. The apostles and primitive Christians obeyed the injunction, never afterwards making the least use of such deadly weapons. This objection then ends in solid confirmation of the non-resistance doctrine, and may be appreciated accordingly. End of Chapter 3, Part 1. Chapter 3. Part 2. Of Christian Non-Resistance. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Chapter 3. Part 2. Of Christian Non-Resistance, in all its important bearings, illustrated and defended by Aidan Balu. Objection 4. Death of Ananias and Sapphira. The sudden death of Ananias and his wife Sapphira, for a deception practiced on the apostles, in keeping back a portfolio of their estate for private use, while pretending to consecrate the whole to the use of the church, seems to have been virtually an infliction of capital punishment. Is this reconcilable with your non-resistance? Answer. The death of those persons is not represented as the act of the apostles, or as in any manner procured or occasioned by them. It is recorded as the visitation of God, without any curse, imprecation, or wish of men. This will more fully appear from the record itself. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost. Three hours later, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in, Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husbander at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straight away at his feet, and yielded up the ghost. Acts 5, verses 1-5, 7-10. Is there any intimation in this account that Peter, or any of the other apostles, assumed judicial authority over those persons, or that they assumed any power, human or divine, over their lives, or that they caused occasioned, implicated, or desired their death? Certainly not. The case, then, is not one on which the objection can pertinently rest, I therefore dismiss it. Objection 5, Human Government, 13th Romans, etc. Human Government is recognized in the New Testament as the ordinance of God for good to mankind. Rulers are declared to be a terror, not to good works, but to the evil, ministers of God, and revengers, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Who bear not the sword in vain, and ought to receive tribute, custom, and honor at the hands of Christians? Not only for wrath, but also for conscience's sake. Paul pleaded his citizenship as a Roman to obtain an honorable discharge from prison, and on another occasion to save himself from the scourge. He applied for military protection to save his life from the forty conspirators, and appealed to Caesar to obtain justice in his defense against the accusations of the Jews. C. Romans 8, Verses 1-7, Acts 16, Verses 37, Acts 22, Verses 24-29, Acts 23, Verses 17, Acts 15, Verses 10-12, Titus 3, Verses 1, Verses Peter 2, Verses 13-14, and other passages. Now as human government, in all its various forms, with its military and penal terrors, is the ordinance of God for good to mankind, as its rulers are declared to be the ministers of God for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty, and as its requirements are to be respected with submission, it follows that Christians, instead of non-participating therein, on account of war, capital punishment, and penal inflections, ought to share in its responsibilities and be its firmest supporters, always conscientiously endeavoring to render it in the highest degree efficient for its divinely appointed purpose. Here, then, is an insuperable objection to your doctrine of non-resistance, certainly so as respects government, war, capital punishment, et cetera. Answer. This is by far the most plausible and seductive objection now urged against Christian non-resistance. It deceives and misleads more good minds, and is harder to be answered than any other, and yet it is essentially fallacious and invalid. This I will endeavor to demonstrate. Government is the bond of social order. It is that directing and regulating authority which keeps individuals in their proper relations to each other and the great whole. The intelligent Christian must contemplate it in three several characters. One, government per se. Two, government de jure. And three, government de facto. Government per se is authority exercise to maintain and promote moral order. Moral order, of course, presupposes rational social beings. When such beings are in a state of true moral order, they are right-minded, and being right-minded, gradually reduce all things physical to the right condition. Mind governs matter, and moral authority governs mind. Moral order involves all other order. Imperfect moral order leaves all things in a state of imperfect order. Moral disorder draws after it all manner of physical disorder. Therefore, all depends on a supreme moral authority or government. This must be inherently divine. It is original and self-existent in God only. Government per se, then, is essentially divine. It is of and from God. It is not original in any created being. Wherever it exists, it is derivable from God. If so, there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as human government. Man is always subordinate to God, and can have no right to enact any law, or to exercise any governmental power contrary to the divine law and government. If human nature possessed original independent governing authority, men could rightfully repeal or nullify the divine law. Now they cannot. Consequently, all law and government absolutely contrary to the law and government of God is morally null and void. But all law and government, in accordance with the divine law and government, is morally binding on every human being. This presents government in its second character, government de jure, or of absolute right, that all human governments ought to be conformed to the standard of the divine, none will deny. If they were thus conformed, they would cease to be human in their spirit and character. They would become mere incarnations and elaborations of the divine. But as the word human, when joined to the word government, may imply nothing more than a human manifestation in a well-regulated social organization, I will not discard its use. My meaning being understood. I will say then that Christian non-resistance, so far from conflicting with the government per se, or human government de jure, i.e. human government strictly subordinate and conformed to the divine government, holds the first supremely sacred and the last as its grand desideratum. And on this very account, it requires the disciples of Christ to keep themselves disentangled from all such human governments as are fundamentally repugnant to the divine government. All such as are not de jure, according to the law of God declared by Jesus Christ. This brings into view the third character in which non-resistance are obliged to contemplate government, these government de facto, as it is in fact. And what has human government ever been in fact, from the beginning to this day? Has it been identical with the divine government? Has it been radically government de jure, according to the law of the living God? Is the present government of the United States, with all its captivating professions and really good things, fundamentally a Christian government? Who will dare to say so? What then was human government de facto in the apostolic times? The government of Herod, Pilate, Nero, and the Roman Caesars, under whom oppression, injustice, tyranny, and cruelty rioted on human rights deluged the habitable globe with blood, crucified the Son of God, and made myriads of martyrs? Now a preliminary question to be settled is whether the Apostle Paul, in the 13th chapter of Romans, speaks of government per se, or of government de jure, or of government de facto. If only of the first or second, then is there no incompatibility of his words with non-resistance, and the objection falls to the ground. But if he speaks of human governments and rulers, such as they were in the Roman Empire, further investigation will be necessary to set the subject in a true light. I will take for granted that he was speaking of the governments and rulers under whom Christians then lived, for I can suppose nothing else. How the Apostles Viewed the Then Existing Governments Taking this ground, we wish to know precisely how he and the other Apostles viewed those governing powers, and how they counseled the disciples of Christ to feel and act with regard to them. If Christ and His Apostles regarded the Caesars and their subordinate kings, governors, and magistrates as moved and approved of God as His conscious ministers in carrying on the government of those times, if they really held the then existing governments of the earth to be ordained of God, in the same sense that their own spiritual, religious, and moral authority was, then is the objection before us unanswerable. Then, of course, I must admit that it is the duty of Christians to share in the responsibility of any government under which they may live, and to support its requirements in all things—war, capital punishment, persecution, idolatry, slavery, and whatever else it may exact. It would then be God's own law and voice, to be obeyed implicitly in all things. There could be no limitations or exceptions. Did the Apostles teach such doctrine as this? If they did, how happens it that they and the primitive Christians kept themselves so scrupulously aloof from the governments of their times? No, the objector will not contend for any such unqualified endorsement of human government by the Apostles. He will disclaim such extreme conclusions. He will admit the gross corruption, tyranny, and wickedness of those very governments which Paul declares to have been ordained of God. He will admit more than I shall stop to demand of horrible impiety, iniquity, and persecution on the part of those very rulers whom the Apostle declares to be the ministers of God, avengers to execute wrath on evil doers. He will not argue that such governments as those of the Herod's, the Pilates, and the Nero's were ordained of God, in the same sense that the Church of Jesus Christ was. Not that those bloody-minded rulers and their agents were ministers of God, consciously and approvably, as were the Apostles. He knows that Paul never intended to be so understood. Here, then, is the mischievous little catch of the objection. Words and phrases are taken in a false sense. There is a sense in which it is true that there is no power but of God, in which the powers that be are ordained of God, in which rulers, even the worst of them, are not a terror to good works but to the evil, in which they are the ministers of God for good, to the righteous, and the avengers to execute wrath on men of violence. Respects wherein government is ordained of God. I come, then, to the following conclusion. One, that government of some sort supplies a fundamental want of human nature, and must exist wherever men exist. In this respect, it is ordained of God. Two, that human governments de facto are barbarisms, corruptions, perversions, and abuses of the true government de jour, which God through Christianity aims to establish among mankind, and are therefore the nearest approaches which the massive men in their present low moral condition are capable of making to the true ideal. In this respect, government is ordained of God. Three, that the worst of governments are preferable to absolute anarchy, being the least of two evils, and rendering the condition of man on the whole more tolerable. In this respect, the powers that be are ordained of God. That human governments generally proclaim in sanction some great truths and duties, execute some justice, and intentionally maintain more or less wholesome order. That they are in many respects positively good in motive and deed, thus far conforming to the divine government. In this respect, they are ordained of God. Five, wherein human governments and their administrators are fundamentally tyrannical, selfish, oppressive, persecuting, unprincipled, and morally aberrant, they are overruled in the hand of God, as unwitting instrumentalities for the punishment and restraint of violence, and for quickening and purifying the moral sense of the righteous, to super-induce in them a holier, more devoted, and mightier activity in the great work of human reformation. In this respect, the powers that be are ordained of God, and rulers are administrators of God for good to the just, but of wrath to the children of wrath. Therefore Christians are to respect, submit, and render homage to the governments and rulers under whom they live, however anti-Christian and even persecuting, taking care to obey them in all well-doing, to conform to their requirements in all matters, not conflicting with the divine requirements, differing from them as peaceably as possible, suffering their wrongs patiently in hope, withstanding them only for righteousness' sake in things absolutely sinful, and then enduring their penalties with non-resistant meekness and submission. But at the same time, they are to be true to the kingdom of God, faithful in their allegiance to the great law of Christ, never departing from it for the sake of assuming the reigns of any human government, or obtaining its honors, emoluments, advantages, approbation, or protection. If they can enter into any government and carry their Christianity with them unadulterated and untrammeled, let them enter. If not, it is their imperative duty to remain out of it, peaceable, unoffending subjects. Their mission is a higher and nobler one than that of the worldly politician, statesman, or ruler. They must not desert, betray, or dishonor it. If they continue faithful, they will gradually draw up human government to the divine standard. If they lower themselves down by renouncing or compromising their principles for the sake of participating in any fundamentally anti-Christian government, hoping thereby to elevate the moral tone of such government, they will infallibly be disappointed. They will sink themselves, and with them the government will sink still lower than before. They must everlastingly insist on the principles and precepts of Jesus Christ, and whatever will not come to those, leave to it its own genius and doom. God will take care of all the rest, for there is no power but of God, and subject to his own sovereign disposal. The Christian has nothing to care for, but to be a Christian indeed, allowing himself never to be transformed into anything, or committed to any undertaking, essentially inconsistent with his sublime profession. If I have taken a correct view of this important but difficult subject, I have fairly removed the pending objection, so far as it rests on the 13th chapter of Romans, and similar passages. I am confident this view is substantially correct, and I do not believe the opposers of Christian non-resistance can give any other view which will harmonize decently, either with the plain tenor of the scriptures, or with their own doctrine, respecting the nature and functions of civil government. It remains only that I touch on that part of the objection, which asserts that Paul, in certain cases, reported to human government, idolatrous, warlike, and despotic as it then was, to secure immunity, protection, and justice. Paul's conduct in relation to government. This is a misapprehension, or at least a false view of the facts. Did Paul ever commence a persecution at law for the redress of injuries perpetrated on his person property or rights? Did he ever apply to the civil or military authorities for personal protection, when at large pursuing his usual applications? Never. Such a case is not on record. The cases cited all occurred when he was a prisoner in charge of the government officers. The first instance is mentioned in Acts 16, verse 37. Paul and Silas had been thrown into prison and cruelly beaten by orders of the magistrates of Philippi. The next morning, those magistrates sent directions to the jailer to let them go. But Paul said unto them, they have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison, and now do they thrust us out privily? Nay, verily, but let them come themselves and fetch us out. The result was that the magistrates, knowing that they had proceeded unlawfully, were glad to acknowledge their error and discharge the prisoners in honorable manner. This was all Paul demanded. He and Silas had done nothing, even according to the laws of the land, to merit such vile treatment, and knowing that they had a right as Roman citizens to redress, they meant that the magistrates and the public should understand the facts. They, however, brought no action for redress, but were content to forgive their injuries if only they might be regarded as the injured party and as such reputably discharged. This is just what every non-resistant ought to do under like circumstances. It would have been unworthy of the gospel for Paul and Silas to have crept off in a private manner, leaving the people to infer that they were culprits allowed to escape by mere indulgence. Christianity is as bold, faithful, and heroic in asserting its rights and sustaining its just reputation as it is non-resistant in respect to returning injury for injury. It is never mean and skulking, but always open, frank, dignified, and godlike. The next instance cited is mentioned in the 22nd chapter of Acts. The Jews had raised a mob and rushed on Paul to kill him. While they were cruelly beating him, the chief captain came upon them with his soldiers and made Paul his prisoner, causing him to be bound with two chains and to be conducted to the castle. Having reached the stairs of the castle, he asked permission to address the excited multitude. He was permitted and was heard for a short time with great attention. But on declaring that God had commissioned him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, the whole throng broke out into the most furious invectives, saying, away with such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit that he should live. And as they cried out and cast off their clothes and threw dust into the air, the chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle and bade that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know wherefore they cried so against him. This was an extraordinary state of things. An innocent man falsely accused and maliciously assailed by a crowd of bigoted and ferocious Jews, solely on account of his Christianity, was about to be cruelly scourged to exhort a confession of some suspected secret. Paul, being a freeborn Roman citizen, and knowing himself privileged by that single fact from such gross outrage, demanded, as they were binding him with thongs, is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is Roman and uncondemmed? This stayed the proceedings instantly. Take heed, said the centurion to the chief captain, what thou doest, for this man is a Roman. Tell me, art thou a Roman, said the captain? Paul said, yes. The captain answered, with a great sum obtained I this freedom. But I was freeborn, replied the prisoner. Then straight away they departed from him, which should have examined him. And the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him. Here was one remarkable excellency of the Roman law and authority. A Roman citizen must be treated with a certain degree of respect and fairly heard in his own defense, even though guilty of great crimes. He must be regularly condemned before being subjected to the treatment of a felon. This was nothing but a dictate of plain justice and common sense. But observe, Paul had not recently gone and purchased his privilege of Roman citizenship in order to provide against such contingencies as these. He was freeborn. All he did was to remind those who were about to violate the Roman law by scourging him and condemned of his rights. He threatens nothing. He only throws upon them their own responsibility. It was his right and privilege to be dealt with civilly. He is still fairly tried. He pleaded his rights in the most unassuming manner possible and left those who had his person in their power to act for themselves. How just, how honorable, how meek, how noble, how non-resistant was his conduct. There is nothing in which any non-resistant, in like circumstances, might not and ought to copy. The next instance followed soon after. It is recorded in the 23rd chapter of Acts. Paul, still a prisoner in the castle, received a partial hearing before the chief priests and their council. Meantime, 40 of his most violent enemies banded together under oath not to eat or drink till they had killed him. To find an opportunity for their deadly assault, they agreed to request the chief captain to bring Paul again before the council for further hearing, intending while he was imperfectly guarded to rush upon him and affect their purpose. Paul's sister's son, getting knowledge of this conspiracy, communicated it to his uncle who, thereupon, called one of the centurions and said, bring this young man unto the chief captain, for he hath a certain thing to tell him. The young man did his errand to the chief captain, who kindly sent him away under a charge of silence respecting the matter. To prevent bloodshed and all further violence, the chief captain ordered 460 of his soldiers to convey Paul during the night to Caesarea, to Felix the governor. Thus was the threatened mischief avoided. This is what some understand to be Paul's application for a military force to protect his person. Did Paul apply for protection? Did he demand a military escort? Did he ask anything or recommend anything, except barely that the centurion would conduct his nephew to the chief captain that he might communicate his message? No, nothing. He was a helpless prisoner, guarded by the chief captain's soldiers. It was the duty of that officer to afford him such personal protection as was due to all Roman citizens. Paul knew from his preceding conduct that the chief captain was desirous of discharging his duty according to law. He was apprised of the deadly conspiracy formed against him. Had he been his own man, non-resistance would have admonished him to escape the danger by flight. But he was a prisoner. He was to be brought within reach of his foes under treacherous pretenses of a desire to give him a further hearing, and then murdered in spite of his Roman guard. What could he or ought he to have done, either to save his own life or pay proper respect to the chief captain, less than to cause the simple facts to be communicated? Nothing. It was his duty. He would have been most criminal had he done otherwise. He meditated no counter-attack on the guilty. He sought no means of punishing them. He counseled no measures of violence. He recommended nothing, threatened nothing, demanded nothing. He caused the proper information to be conveyed to the captain and meekly left all to his discretion. And the captain proved his good sense, as well as specific disposition by so disposing of the prisoner as to prevent all violence and danger. In all this matter, Paul acted just as any Christian non-resistant in such circumstances should act, most unexceptionally. His appeal to Caesar followed in the train of these events. It is mentioned in the 25th chapter. What was the nature and design of that appeal? He had been falsely accused, subjected to a long imprisonment and partly tried for heresy and sedition. His trial was still pending after a two years delay of justice. Vestas, the new governor, found Paul still in bonds. The high priest and chief of the Jews now moved their suit afresh and requested that Paul might be sent to Jerusalem, lying in wait in the way to kill him. But not succeeding in this plot, the Jews went down to Caesarea to renew their accusations before the governor's judgment seat. Paul reaffirmed his innocence of all their charges and nothing could be made out against him. Vestas, the governor, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, asked Paul if he would go up to Jerusalem and there be judged of those things. Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat where I ought to be judged. To the Jews have I done no wrong as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender or have committed anything worthy of death I refuse not to die. But if there be none of these things whereof they accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar. How noble and Christian like this appeal, Jerusalem was no place for an impartial trial. It was only adding insult to injury to propose under such circumstances pretexts to take him back among those prejudiced and bloodthirsty men. If he must be further tried, he claimed his privilege to appear before a higher and more impartial court to go to Rome. God had directed him in a vision to do so for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel in that great city. His defense was in fact nothing but the defense of the gospel. He, therefore, appealed to Caesar. He was not the accuser but the accused. He had not come into court to complain of and procure the punishment of his enemies. He was not the prosecutor in this case, but a prisoner, falsely accused, detained in bonds unjustly and now laid under the necessity of going to Jerusalem or to Rome for the conclusion of his trial. He might have his choice. It was his acknowledged privilege and he availed himself of it as a duty to the cause of Christ. No less than as a right. And in this, as in the other instances, he acted just as he ought to have acted, just as any Christian non-resistant would be bound to act. Neither of the cases cited implies the slightest inconsistency of conduct with the doctrine to which they are brought as objections. Conclusion. Having thus thoroughly canvassed all the important objections to my doctrine, which I recollect ever to have seen presented out of the scriptures, I may now confidently appeal to the understanding and conscience of the Christian reader for a favorable verdict. Have I not triumphantly demonstrated that the holy scriptures teach the doctrine of non-resistance as defined in the first chapter of this work? Have I not fairly answered the objections urged from the scriptures against it? Is there any doctrine or duty taught in the Bible which can be sustained by more convincing testimony or that can be more satisfactorily freed from objections? It seems to me that candid minds, after seriously investigating the subject, can come to no other conclusion. I know that it is a momentous conclusion, drawing after it the most radical change of views, feelings, conduct, and character throughout Christendom and the world which can well be imagined. But will it not be a most glorious and salutary revolution when all who sincerely reverence the Bible as in any sacred sense the word of God to mankind, shall contemplate the Old Testament as the prophecy and preparative of the new, pointing forward to the perfect development of moral excellence under the reign of Jesus Christ, when they shall see his precepts, examples, and spirit, a perfect manifestation of the Divine Wisdom and Goodness, and shall feel that his righteousness, imbibed into the hearts and exhibited in the lives of mankind, is the only remedy for all the world's disorders. Fly swifter round ye wheels of time and bring the welcome day. End of Chapter 3, Part 2. Chapter 4, Part 1 of Christian Non-Resistance. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Chapter 4, Part 1 of Christian Non-Resistance in all its important bearings, illustrated and defended by Aidan Baloo. Chapter 4, Non-Resistance, Not Contrary to Nature. The opposers of non-resistance with one voice confidently assert that it is contrary to the known laws of nature and therefore must be false, however plausibly defended from the scriptures. It is the design of the present chapter to refute this confident assertion and to demonstrate that Christian non-resistance is in perfect accordance with the laws of nature considered in all their developments. I shall endeavor to do this with arguments sustained by numerous facts and illustrations drawn from real life. Nature and the laws of nature defined. What is nature and what are the laws of nature? These terms are in very common use with a certain class of persons, but they are more flippantly uttered than definitely understood. Doubtless they may properly be used with considerable latitude of meaning. In the present discussion, however, we must be definite and clear. I shall therefore take the term nature to mean the essential constituent elements, properties, qualities, and capabilities of any being or thing. The aggregate of these is the nature of any being or thing, whether the particular being or thing considered be ever so simple or ever so complex. Whatever, in or about a being or thing, is not an essential constituent element, property, quality, or capability thereof, is not an absolute necessary of it. And what is not generally an absolute necessary of a being or thing is not a part of its nature, but merely an incidental or factitious appendage. Take human nature as that particular division of universal nature, which we must consider in this discussion. There are elements, properties, qualities, and capabilities essential to the constitution of a human being. These are common to the race. We may say of them in general that they are the absolute inherent necessaries of man, i.e. his nature. But there are many incidental and factitious elements, properties, qualities, and capabilities in and about individuals and communities of the human race, which are the results of causes and circumstances, either temporary and transient in their operations or ultimately removable by human efforts. None of these are the essential constituents of human nature. They may all be reversed or removed without annihilating or perverting nature. Let this be well understood. Next, the laws of nature. I understand the laws of nature to be those forms, modes, or methods according to which it necessarily operates in its various developments. When any tendency or action of nature is observed to be uniform under given circumstances throughout the sphere of our knowledge, we infer that a certain law or necessity governs it. Consequently, we speak of all things as governed by some law of nature. What to us is uniform and universal, or nearly so, we regard as the result of nature's laws, a certain necessity of tendency and development, which determines the form, mode, or method of its manifestation. These laws are at best but imperfectly understood and are often or talked about than well conceived of. They are only secondary causes in a vast chain incomprehensible to finite minds and which we vaguely trace to a supreme first cause, the self-existent divine nature, God. What we can with any proprietary assume to know of those undefinable somethings, termed the laws of nature, is only the uniformity and universality of their results within the narrow sphere of our observation. It becomes us, therefore, to be humble and modest in pronouncing on these laws. We know some things perhaps beyond possibility of mistake. Many other things we know partially and imperfectly, concerning which it is our besetting weakness to presume that we know a vast more than we really do. Of the great whole we know comparatively next to nothing. Of the whole, even of those natures concerning which we know most, we are extremely ignorant. As a few thousand years of existence and continued observation would no doubt convince us. But let us reason as well as we can from what we know and learn what we may in the great future. Self-preservation, the first law of nature. It is reiterated that self-preservation is the first law of nature. I grant it, and then what follows? Self-defense against whatever threatens destruction or injury, says the opponent. I grant it, and what next follows? Generally, mutual personal conflict, injury, and in extremities, death. Hence, there are justifiable homicides, wars, injuries, and penal inflections. Nature impels them. Her law of self-preservation necessitates them. They are right in the very nature of things, and therefore, non-resistance must be as wrong as it is impracticable. It is contrary to nature and cannot be brought into practice. Let us examine these bold assertions. I have granted that self-preservation is the first law of nature. Also, that this law prompts to self-defense against whatever threatens destruction or injury. I also admit the fact that generally men, in common with the lower animals, in self-defense, or for something supposed to be necessary to self-preservation. In granting this last, I only grant that men are generally very foolish and wicked. What is the true method of self-preservation? For it remains to be seen whether this general method of self-preservation be the true method. Whether it be not a very bad method. Whether it be not a method which absolutely defeats its own designed object. Let us inquire. If it be the true method, it must on the whole work well. It must preserve human life and secure mankind against injury. More certainly and effectually than any other possible method. Has it done this? I do not admit it. How happens it that according to the lowest probable estimate, some 14,000 million of human beings have been slain by human means in war and otherwise? Here are enough to people 18 planets like the Earth with its present population. What inconceivable miseries must have been endured by these worlds of people and their friends in the process of those murderous conflicts which extinguished their earthly existence? Could all their dying groans be heard and their expiring throes be witnessed at once by the existing generation of men? Could their blood flow together into one vast lake mingled with the tears of their betrayed relatives? Could their corpses be seen piled up in one huge pyramid or their skeletons be contemplated in a broad Golgotha? Would it be deemed conclusive evidence that mankind had practiced the true method of self-preservation? Would it encourage us still to confide in and pursue the same method? Would it suggest no injuries whether there were not a more excellent way? Should we not be impelled to conclude that this method was the offspring of a purblind instinct, the cherished salvo of ignorance, the fatal charm of deluded credulity, the supposed preserver, but the real destroyer of human family? If this long-trusted method of self-preservation be indeed the best which nature affords to her children, their lot is most deplorable. To preserve what life has been preserved at such a cost renders life itself a thing of doubtful value. If only a few thousands or even a few millions had perished by the two-edged sword, if innocence and justice and right had uniformly triumphed, if aggression, injustice, violence, injury, and insult after a few dreadful experiences had been over-odd, if gradually the world had come into wholesome order, a state of truthfulness, justice, and peace, if the sort of self-defense had frightened the sort of aggression into its scabbard, there to consume in its rust, then might we admit that the common method of self-preservation was the true one. But now we have ample demonstration that they who take the sword perish with the sword. Is it supposable that if no injured person or party since the days of Abel had lifted up a deadly weapon or threatened an injury against an offending party, there would have been a thousandth part of the murders and miseries which have actually taken place on our earth? Take the worst possible view. Resolve all of the assailed and injured into the most passive non-resistance immanationable and let the offenders have unlimited scope to commit all the robberies, cruelties, and murders they pleased. Would as many lives have been sacrificed or as much real misery have been experienced by the human race as have actually resulted from the general method of self-preservation by personal conflict and resistance of injury with injury, he must be a bold man who affirms it. The truth is, man has stood in its own light. He has frustrated his own wishes. He has been deceived, deluded, betrayed, and all but destroyed by his own self-conceited evil imagination. He would not be taught of God. He would have his own way. He would be a fool, a spendthrift, a murderer, and a suicide. Yet his father still calls after him. He offers to make him wise, good, and happy. He offers to teach him the true method of self-preservation. It is found in the non-resistance of Jesus Christ. But he is wretchedly wedded to his old idols and will scarcely hear the voice of his only true friend. When he will hear, he shall live. A demirer of the objector. Judged by its fruits, the common and much-vaunted method of self-preservation by injurious resistance stands hopelessly condemned. But, says the opponent, you have judged it unjustly. You have charged upon it the destruction of 14,000 million of human lives. It is not answerable for a tithe of all this. It is answerable only for the loss of life, et cetera, in cases of justifiable homicide, war, injury, and penal inflection. All the rest is chargeable on the murderous wickedness of wanton aggressors. Nor do you give it credit for the lives it has actually preserved and the injuries it has prevented. Answer. I do not charge injurious resistance with causing all these murders. But I do charge it with occasioning most of them, and, above all, with being no adequate preventive of them, with not being the true method of self-preservation. It may have preserved many lives and prevented much injury in particular cases in certain localities, but what has it done on the whole, on the great scale, and what has it absolutely failed to do? It has absolutely failed to preserve human life to any great extent and to give peace to the world. The whole world is in arms after nearly 6,000 years close adherence to this method of self-preservation. It costs the human race more to maintain the various means of this method than for religion, government, and education together. There must be a delusion somewhere. If there were no such method in operation, the worst that could happen would be the murders, oppressions, and cruelties of unprovoked aggression. These would be dreadful enough, but they would be nothing in comparison with the results here too foreexperienced and would gradually shrink away from the moral majesty of a renovated public sentiment. Besides, it must be remembered that justifiable homicide, war, injury, et cetera, are pleaded on all sides with equal earnestness. After a few passes with the sword, a few rounds of musketry, a few assaults and retreats, it is all self-defense, all justifiable homicide, violence, and destruction. All parties are seeking only to conquer an honorable peace. One party has been wrong in point of honor, another in person, another in property, and another in imagination. All are standing on the defensive. All are for carrying out the first law of nature by the common method. There is no ultimate arbiter but the sword. Injury must be resisted with injury. There was a first aggression, but so many mutual wrongs have succeeded between the parties that none but God can determine which is most culpable. This is the confusion which attends the operation of the general method of self-preservation. It professes to eschew all aggression, but invariably runs into it. It promises personal security, but exposes its subjects not only to aggravated assaults, but to every species of danger, sacrifice, and calamity. It shakes the fist, brandishes the sword, and holds up the rod in terror rim to keep the peace, but constantly excites, provokes, and perpetuates war. It has been a liar from the beginning. It has been a Satan professing to cast out Satan, yet confirming the power and multiplying the number of demons which possess our unfortunate race. It does not conduce to self-preservation, but to self-destruction, and ought therefore to be discarded. The objector still persists. Analogy of the animals. But our opponent will not yield the point. It is the nature, says he, of all animals to fight for their lives and their rights. It is the nature of man to do so. He is a fighting character by the laws of his being. He always was so, and always will be, while there is aggression, assault, and abuse in the world. When all men are willing to leave off giving just cause of injurious resistance, there will be peace, never before. You may make the common method of self-preservation good or bad, a blessing or a curse, better than nothing or worse than nothing. Man will resist, will fight, will act out his nature, cost what it may. Answer. Not so. You assume too much. Your argument goes too far. Can I not prove by your own reasoning that man is an aggressor, an assailant, an offender, a robber, and a murderer by nature? He has been practicing all this aggression like some of the lower animals, the beasts and birds of prey, ever since the time of Cain. Is this a law of his nature as well as the other? Because he always has done these things, will he and must he forever continue doing them? You say injurious resistance, war, and bloodshed will never cease till aggression ceases. Will aggression ever cease? Can it cease? Is it not a necessary result of the laws of nature? What is the conclusion from such premises but this, that man's nature obliges him to aggress and resist just as he does, and there is no hope that he will ever cease doing either? None but an atheist ought to put forth such arguments. I deny that there is any law or necessity of nature obliging man to injure his fellow man, either offensively or defensively, any more than there is for his being a drunkard, offensive or defensive, to everlasting ages. He can cease to practice both. He can be cured of his war mania. He can be induced to abstain from committing injury by aggression and also from committing it in the way of resistance. The question is whether we shall preach non-resistance to the good as well as non-aggression to the bad or whether we shall insist only on non-aggression, leaving the comparatively good to resist injury with injury so long as aggression shall continue. The good wish the bad to reform. Will they return good for evil and thereby hasten their reform? Or will they return evil for evil and thereby frustrate that reform? God has ordered the work begun and prosecuted from both ends at once, the bad to cease aggressive injury and the good defensive injury, which shall take the lead in the great work of reform. Shall the good wait till the bad cease from aggression before they leave off inflicting injury and self-defense? Christianity says no. It bids them be the salt of the earth and the light of the world to suffer wrong rather than do wrong, to overcome evil with good. Is this possible? Or is there some irresistible necessity in the laws of nature compelling mankind to maintain an endless conflict of aggression and resistance? I deny that there is any such necessity. Common method of self-preservation certainly false. It is plain from the foregoing discussion that the general method of self-preservation by injurious and deadly resistance to aggression is a false method, that it has failed, that it has defeated its own designed object, that it has constantly run into the very wrongs it aimed to prevent, that it has made a bad matter incomparably worse, that it is not the dictate of absolute nature but a deplorable mistake of the human judgment as to ways and means, and that some other method must be substituted for it. It is equally plain that nature necessitates aggression as plainly as it does injurious resistance to aggression, that in fact it necessitates neither, and that non-resistance, as I have defined it, is no more contrary to nature than non-aggression. Both aggressive and resistant injury can be unlearned, abandoned, and forever eschewed without annihilating or perverting any essential constituent, element, property, quality, or capability of human beings. More than this, men brought up to that moral excellency will be more thoroughly and perfectly men than in any inferior state. Their whole nature, physical, mental, moral, and religious, will then be more symmetrically and gloriously developed than now. If so, non-resistance cannot be contrary to nature, nor if embraced and carried into practice, will it fail to ensure the most universal and complete self-preservation. It will prove to be the true method demanded by the first great law of nature. I now confidently proceed with the assertion that Christian non-resistance is in perfect accordance with the known laws of nature and absolutely necessary to harmonize their developments by correcting the untoward influence of many evil circumstances under which they have heretofore acted. Five great laws of human nature considered. Let us bring into view the prominent laws of human nature. I will mention five of the most fundamental. They are self-preservation, social affinity, religious and moral obligation, rational harmony, and progression. These may be pronounced universal and eternal. Under the law of self-preservation, which is substantially identical with self-love, man instinctively desires to exist and be happy. He dreads death, he guards against injury, he endeavors to keep what good he already has, and in a thousand ways drives to acquire more. He is constantly prompted by this law to take care of himself and ensure his supposed highest welfare. But the ways and means are neither dictated nor indicated by this law. These come from another law. Hence, it is not unfrequently happens that men ignorantly resort to ways and means of preserving and benefiting themselves which frustrate their object and even result in their destruction. Under the law of social affinity, the sexes unite, families are reared up, friendships contracted, communities, states and nations formed, and all the social relations, affections, sympathies, and bonds super-induced. Man is necessitated by this law to be a social being and to share the good and ill of life with others. But this law does not necessarily teach him the best method of social action, the true ways and means of the highest social usefulness and enjoyment. Hence, he often forms the most unsuitable connections and contributes to uphold the most perverse social institutions. But a social being, for better or worse, he always was and always must be. Under the law of religious and moral obligation, he confesses, worships, and serves a God, feels a sense of dependence, gratitude, and duty, is conscious that there is right and wrong in human conduct, that he can choose either, but that he is accountable for the choice he makes for his use or abuse of ability possessed, feels guilty when he does what he supposes to be wrong, and approves when he does what he believes to be right. Hence arises a perpetual conflict between the lower and higher portions of his nature. The carnal or mere animal mind goes for unrestrained indulgence. The spiritual continually says, do right, refrain from all else, however ardently desired. His propensities would run riot down the broad road to destruction. But his religious and moral sentiments connect him with God and eternity and forbid him all sensual indulgence which can endanger his spiritual welfare. He must do the will of God, must deny himself, must do right at all hazards. He must not even preserve his life or seek any good for himself by wrongdoing. Thus is he checked, straightened, restrained, and disciplined. But even this law, grand and powerful as it is, does not at once acquaint him with the true God, nor with the true right and wrong, the perfect righteousness. Hence millions have worshiped false gods, have been superstitiously religious, and verily thought many things were right, which were in fact utterly wrong. Yet man always was and always must be a religious and moral being in some way, to some extent. He cannot escape from this law of his nature. Next comes the law of rational harmony or consistency. This ever prompts men to delight in the harmony of things, the consistency and agreement of one thing with another, and of parts of things with their whole. He is uneasy, dissatisfied, disturbed, and restless, on account of incongruities, contradictions, incompatibilities, and hostilities in himself and all things around him. Hence his intellectual powers, and especially his reasoning faculties, are constantly on the stretch to detect and remove the causes of disturbance, the points of contradiction. If he can do nothing else, he finds fault, grumbles, and complains about this or that presumed evil. If farther advanced, he becomes a reformer and agitates the world. He may be a reformer in religion, morals, government, education, science, art, or whatever comes his way, theoretical or practical. And if he cannot construct what ought to be, he will at least destroy or modify what ought not to be. This restless activity of the human mind comes from a deep, undefinable, irresistible desire to get rid of contradictions and reduce things to harmony to consistency. This is the great desideratum. Contradiction and inconsistency is the infallible indication of falsehood and wrong. For truth and right must be harmonious. They cannot involve contradiction and discord, where they alone exist. Here, then, is a universal, irresistible law of our nature. It has done much to correct and reform the errors ensuing from human ignorance and depravity, but it has an infinite deal more to do. The fifth law is that of progression. This follows close on the heel of the others, or rather coexist with them. It is this which impels men to aspire after something higher and better than the present. Hence, he observes, imitates, learns, inquires, invents, hopes, and perseveres, improves, progresses, and will forever progress amid new wonders, and with new achievements of mind world without end. His nature will not permit him to become stationary. These laws radically harmonious. Now, all these fundamental laws of our nature must be radically agreeable to each other. There can be no essential incongruity or discord among them, and when they shall have had their perfect work, man must be a lovely and glorious being. The human family must be an affectionate, wise, holy, harmonious, happy family. Look at the legitimate results. The law of self-preservation or self-love will secure its desired object, just when the law of social affinity makes every fellow human being a second self, a co-self, never to be injured. This will take place when the law of religious and moral obligation completely subdues the propensities to the sense of duty attaches the soul indissolubly to the true God and renders right identical with the absolute highest good. And this will be hastened by the intense workings of the law of rational harmony, which will detect and expose error, reforms, abuses, revolutionize false opinions, maxims, institutions, customs, and habits, and bring to light in all things the most excellent way. There is a true God, and this law will never let man rest till he finds him. There is a real right and wrong, the eternal reality, and this law will at length bring all men to see and feel it. There is a consistency, an absolute harmony of things, and this law will turn and overturn till it be attained. All this is attainable under the law of progression. By this knowledge will be increased. Light will be added to light, truth to truth, and triumph to triumph. Ignorance, error, folly, sin will be left behind. Improvement will follow improvement in all that needs improvement till the jarring elements be reconciled and one's soft, sweet, supernal harmony consummate the happiness of the whole creation. This is the glorious result to which the declared will of God, the predictions of his holy prophets, and the prayers of saints through all past generations have ever pointed and do still look forward. Then there will be no war, no violence, no wrong, no sorrow. All crimes shall cease and ancient fraud shall fail. Returning justice lift aloft her scale. Peace o'er the world, her olive wand extend and white-robed innocence from heaven descend. There shall be none to hurt or destroy for all the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of God. Non-resistance in perfect unison with these laws. Now is the doctrine of Christian non-resistance contrary to these general laws of human nature? Is it contrary to the law of self-preservation? Does it propose to destroy or preserve life, to increase or diminish human injury, to make mankind more miserable or to render them infinitely more safe, secure, and happy? It proposes the very thing in which the law of self-preservation demands, vis the universal inviolability of human life, now held so cheap and sacrificed so recklessly. Is this doctrine contrary to the law of social affinity? The very reverse. It stretches forth the hand of love to the children of men and entreats them to consider themselves one great brotherhood, to refrain from murdering and persecuting each other, to love one another, to bear everything of one another sooner than kill or injure each other. Is not this just what the law of social affinity demands? Is the doctrine contrary to the law of religious and moral obligation? It is an integral part of the divine law declared and exemplified by the Son of God. It is the keystone in the arch of moral obligation. And to fulfill it in practice is the highest obedience to God, the purest devotion to eternal right. It is putting duty before all things. Is it contrary to the law of rational harmony? Surely not. It eschews all war, all violence, all injury, all social discord, all combating of wrong with wrong, evil with evil, and lays the only ample foundation deep on the rock of principle for the pacification and harmony of the world. If men would only restrain themselves from mutual injury, how soon would they be able to ascertain all important truths and to correct all essential errors of theory and practice? But now, instead of discussion and argument, brute force rises up to the rescue of discomforted error and crushes truth and right into the dust. Might makes right, and Hori Fali totters on in her mad career escorted by armies and navies. Is our doctrine contrary to the law of progression? It is a striking fruit and proof of that law. It takes for granted that man has been a noisy, fretful, buffeted child long enough that it is time for him to act like a reasonable being, that he ought to be and can be governed by moral power, that he has been carnally minded long enough and ought now to become spiritually minded, that he is quarreled, fought, and been flogged enough, that he is capable of acting from higher motives and better principles than resisting evil with evil, and that he can, if he will only try, overcome evil with good and thus approximate the angelic nature. It is emphatically a doctrine of glorious moral and spiritual progress of progress from barbarism to Christian perfection. Nothing can be more untrue than that non-resistance is contrary to the laws of nature. It is in perfect accordance with them. It is only contrary to the false, foolish, perverse, self-defeating methods, ways, and means by which man, in his ignorance and delusion, has heretofore attempted to execute the dictates of those laws. It is at war with man's ignorance, blind self-will, and vicious habits, but not with his welfare, nor the laws of his nature. As well might the inveterate drunkard bound to the intoxicating cup by long-confirmed habit plead that total abstinence was contrary to nature. It is, in fact, this very cup which is contrary to his nature, and though often resorted to for preservation and invigoration, it has crowded him to the brink of an untimely grave. Still he clings to it as his life and health. Just so are drunkards of injurious resistance. They can depend on nothing so confidently as the means of deadly resistance for self-preservation and personal security. They imagine that if they were to renounce these, their lives, rights, and happiness would have no protection left, but they will one day learn better. A law of universal nature, like begets its like. I will now introduce another law of nature, a law of universal nature, and including, of course, human beings in its scope. It is this that like must beget its like. Physical, mental, moral, spiritual. Is non-resistance contrary to this law of nature? Does it beget its like? Or does it beget resistance? This is a practical question and will settle the dispute. Either the true spirit of non-resistance begets a corresponding spirit, or it begets a violent and pugnacious spirit. Which is it? Either the practice of non-resistance tend to disarm and relax the fury of the assailing party, or to encourage, excite, and confirm him in his attack. Which is it? If the latter, it is contrary to that law of nature which necessitates the generation of like by like. If the former, it harmonizes with that law. And if this be true, it is the very doctrine necessary to fill the world with peace. It is worthwhile then to ascertain the truth on this point. Let me commence by asking if the very injury I am endeavoring to get discarded is not generated by injury. Why does the assailed person inflict injury on the offender? To defend himself, it will be said. But why defend himself by doing injury to the other party? Because that, and that only, will affect the object. How is this certain? What puts it into the heart or the head of the assailed party to repel injury with injury? It is like beginning its like, injury suggesting, prompting, and producing injury. No better way is thought of or desired than life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, blow for blow, force for force, injury for injury. I will do unto him as ye have done to me. It is good enough for him. He shall be paid in his own coin. He shall be taught better after his own fashion. This is the feeling and language of the resistant. Here is a proof that the disposition to injure begets a disposition to injure, and the act of injury induces a counter injury. What then will be the subsequent effect? If a man strike me violently and I return the blow with equal or greater violence, will not my blow call for a third and so on until the weaker party cries hold? This is the law of nature. Does the opponent plead that the aggressor being severely repelled and knowing himself in the wrong will retreat and learn to be civil? This will depend on which of the parties can strike the hardest and injure the worst. If the aggressor be the stronger party, he will only fight the harder till his antagonist is subdued. If, however, he be the weaker party, he will yield from necessity and not from principle. Retaining his impotent revenge in his heart to fester there till a better opportunity. If justice or conscience have anything to do in restraining him, they would work much more mightily on his soul if the injured party should refuse to strike back at all. So the argument in this case turns wholly in favor of my doctrine. General illustrations in common life. Let us now look into the common affairs of life, amid scenes familiar to common experience and observation. We see one man with very large combativeness and feeble counteracting predispositions. If this man meets with another of the same character, he is almost sure to fight, quarrel, or at least violently dispute. He is sure charged and throws off in all directions a sort of frenomagnetic fluid of war. No sooner does he come in contact with another like himself than they mutually infline each other. He carries strife and debate and violence with him wherever he goes. Even many who are usually civil and peaceable are presently provoked into a combat with him. He magnetizes to a certain extent every susceptible being with whom he meets. If he can live peaceably with any, it is those only from whom natural predisposition or moral principle are non-resistance toward him. These he will make uncomfortable, but by bearing with him and suffering some abuse with patience, they can keep him comparatively decent and may pass their lives near him without any serious outbreak. Who has not seen such persons? And who does not know that they can never be cured by violence and injurious resistance? They may be beaten and bruised half to death over and over again with no other result than to make them twofold more the children of wrath than before. This kind of evil is not cast out except by prayer, fasting, and abstinence from violence. Here is another man with overweening self-esteem. He is proud, haughty, disdainful and overbearing in all his ways. What happens when two such meet? Is there not a reciprocal inflammation of the irritable organs? Do they not mutually swell, defy, and repel each other? Each will accuse the other of the same fault and denounce such haughtiness as intolerable, never once suspecting that it is a reflection of his own face in the other which seems so detestable. Suppose one of these characters to move among those persons ordinarily humble and assuming. Let him treat them with marked neglect, scorn or indifference. And what will be the effect? Their moderate self-esteem will be excited, their attitude will become more perpendicular, their heads will poise backward and they will begin to mutter, he feels himself above common folks, but he shall never know that others are something as well as himself. We are not to be looked down by his contempt. Whence this sudden rising of self-esteem in their minds? It has been begotten or at least excited by the overcharged battery of the magnetizer. Like produces its like. Reverse the case. Suppose a person of great talents, wealth, or weight of personal influence. This character naturally commands great respect, but he is humble, unassuming, and particularly respectful to all around. To the poor as well as the rich, the unlearned as well as the learned, and persons in the lower walks of life as well as those in the higher. How is he beloved and esteemed by the majority of mankind? He is not proud, says one. He is not above anyone, says another. I always love to meet him and be with him, says another, because he is so kind, unassuming, and friendly with everybody. Even the envious and grumbling are half disarmed when they come in contact with such a person. Like begets its like as before. Yonder is a man excessively given to acquisitiveness. He must always have the best end of a bargain. He must skin something from everyone with whom he has dealings and is sure to get the half-cent whenever he makes change. He is never pleased, but when he is feathering his own nest. Yet no man complains of tight people more than he. He seldom meets with a person who in his opinion is entirely willing to do unto others as he would be done unto. What is the difficulty? This man's selfishness magnetizes those with whom he deals. His acquisitiveness excites theirs and they stand up for their own. They are not going to be shaved by him. They are determined not to indulge his rapacious avarice. They make it a point not to let him cheat them, filter away their property in a bargain or extort it in the shape of usury. They even become tenacious about the half-cent when they are settling with him. And many who would not otherwise stand for a trifle make it a point not to give him the least advantage. Let us look out for old hunks, they say. The half-cent is nothing, but he shall not have it. Like produces its like. Hence conflicts and resistance. Reverse the character. Suppose a generous and whole-sold man, always careful to give large measure and weight, always scrupulous not to exact more than his own and always sure to throw the trifle into the neighbor's scale rather than even seem to be small in his own favor. How many of the very same persons observed to be sharp and close with the acquisitive dealer relax their vigilance, become indifferent about small matters and even insist that they will not always take the half-cent of a man so willing to yield it. Is not this nature in everyday life? It is not so with a blaggard and a reviler. He assails a man with hard words, abusive epithets and reviling expressions. Unless the man be particularly on his guard or naturally of a very mild disposition or a well-principled non-resistant, he will be excited and tend to one return abroad side as terrible as he has received. His teeth are set on edge and his tongue is fired from beneath. He rails, abuses, reviles and curses too. But let the true Christian receive this storm of envenomed words and they strike his shield of self-composure only to rattle for a moment like hailstones on its surface and then fall harmlessly about his feet. A second and a third discharge succeed, but he still remains calm. The assailant is half-vext, quite confounded and soon grows ashamed of himself. He either quits the field or listens to reason and perhaps is constrained to beg pardon for his rudeness. At all events, he never remembers his abuse of a calm, kind-hearted, firm-minded man without particular mortification. And if every man who occupies a place in the better ranks of society would treat him in the same manner, he would ultimately be entirely cured of the bad humor about his tongue. So true is it that a soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger. These familiar workings of this law of nature ought to open the most unwilling eyes to the fact that non-resistance, instead of being contrary to nature, is in strict accordance with it. And if it is, confessedly, the object of good men to do away with violence, cruelty, murder, and all the great crimes which blast the happiness of humanity, they ought to know that it never can be done by rendering evil for evil, injury for injury. Like must produce its like, and unless we oppose the injuries of evil doers with the disposition and treatment to the very contrary of theirs, we shall only incite, confirm, and educate their evil hearts to worse and worse conduct. We shall only reproduce manifold the very evils we so strenuously resist. Though the injuries we do them are done only in resistance of aggression, still they follow the same law. They produce their like. They breed a fresh brood of injuries. If this be not strictly true in each individual case, it is true on the great whole. The effect will be produced directly or indirectly, sooner or later. End of chapter four, part one.