Introduction to 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. Introduction to Christian Non-Resistance in All It's Important Bearings, illustrated and defended by Aidan Baloo. To the Reader. The accompanying work on Christian Non-Resistance by Aidan Baloo has been reprinted verbatim from the American edition, with the exception of some abbreviations in two of the chapters. The passages omitted are in relation to the bearing of the question on human governments, and, having more a special reference to the Constitution and circumstances of the United States, do not appear to be of general application. Has therefore been deemed best, for the sake of reducing the size of the volume, to suppress them in this edition? We have been impressed with the excellency of the matter contained in the work, and with the sound scriptural arguments of the talented author on this highly important question, and we trust the present edition, which has been got up for the purpose of disposal at cost price, without any view to profit, will be generally acceptable to the friends of the peace cause. We have carefully perused the work, and having weighed the sentiments which it contains, desire to express our firm conviction that they are entirely in accordance with pure Christianity, evidently proceeding from a mind richly imbued with love to God and man, desirous of prompting the advancement of the Redeemer's Kingdom upon the earth. John Wiggum Jr. William Miller Edinburgh 10th of 2nd month, 1848 Preface. Here is a little book in illustration and defense of a very unpopular doctrine. The author believes it to be as ancient as Christianity, and as true as the New Testament. But it is a doctrine little understood, and almost everywhere spoken against. He therefore entreats his readers to divest themselves as much as possible of prejudice, and patiently examine what he has here written. He does not expect everyone to be pleased with what he has presented in this volume, not even those who approve of it as a whole. But he desires friends and opposers to be candid, just, and generous, to treat the work as they would have one of their own on any important subject treated. He wishes no personal strain of panagiric from those who may think well of his treatise. Let all glory be given to the supreme source of wisdom and goodness. On the other hand, he hopes that those who may think ill of it will be manly enough not to condemn it merely on account of its authorship. Let it be approved or condemned solely on its own intrinsic merits or demerits. It is soberly and frankly addressed to the reason, conscience, and higher sentiments of mankind, not to their propensities and lower passions. May it be read and responded to accordingly. The honest inquirer will ask, is it in accordance with divine truth and righteousness? Search and see. Perhaps the controversial critic will look for its errors, fallacies, inconsistencies, and assailable points. If there are any such, let them be detected and exposed. This ought to be done, but let those who undertake it prove themselves workmen that need not be ashamed. Let them be sure that they understand the subject, that they understand precisely what is contended for in this work, and that they are competent to refute its fundamental positions by good and sufficient arguments. It is so plain, discriminating, and unequivocal in the style of its statements and reasonings, that serious misapprehension or misrepresentation of its meaning will hardly be excusable. It does not court controversy, but if subjected to it, it will be entitled to fair and honorable treatment. It is a book for the future rather than the present, and will be better appreciated by the public half a century hence than now. But a better future is even now dawning, and it is needed to help develop the coming age of love and peace. A great transition of the human mind has commenced, and the reign of military and penal violence must ultimately give place to that of forbearance, forgiveness, and mercy. Such a work as this will meet a deep-felled want of many minds scattered up and down Christendom. So strongly was the author persuaded of this fact by various indications that he felt impelled by a sense of duty to prepare this manual as a supply for that want. Providentially, the worthy friend, who assumes the pecuniary responsibility of its publication, generously came forward to facilitate the object, and thus by a concurrence of effort it has made its appearance. It is now sent forth on its mission of reconciliation. The author feels a comfortable assurance that the blessing of the Most High God will accompany it wherever it goes, that it will diffuse light among many that sit in darkness, and promote in some humble degree that glorious regeneration of the world for which the good men of all ages have constantly prayed and hoped. A. B. Hopedale, Massachusetts, April 1846. End of introduction. Chapter 1 Part 1 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 1 of Christian Non-Resistance All its important bearings, illustrated and defended, by Aidan Balu. Explanatory Definitions Different Kinds of Non-Resistance What is Christian Non-Resistance? It is that original, peculiar kind of non-resistance, which was enjoined and exemplified by Jesus Christ, according to the scripture of the New Testament. Are there other kinds of non-resistance? Yes. 1. The philosophical non-resistance of various hue, which sets at not divine revelation, disregards the authority of Jesus Christ as a divine teacher, excludes all strictly religious considerations, and deduces its conclusions from the light of nature, the supposed fitness of things, and the expediency of consequences. 2. Sentimental Non-Resistance Also of various hue, which is held to be the spontaneous dictate of man's higher sentiments in the advanced stages of their development, transcending all special divine revelations, positive instructions, ratiocination, and considerations of expediency. 3. Necessitous Non-Resistance Commonly expressed in the phrase, passive obedience and non-resistance, imperiously preached by the despots to their subjects, as their indispensable duty and highest virtue, also recommended by worldly prudence to the victims of oppression when unable to offer successful resistance to their injurers. With this last mention kind, Christian non-resistance has nothing in common. With philosophical and sentimental non-resistance, it holds much in common, being in fact the divine original of which they are human adulterations, and embracing all the good of both without the evils of either. This treatise is an illustration and defense of Christian non-resistance, properly so designated. 4. The Term Non-Resistance The term non-resistance itself next demands attention. It requires very considerable qualifications. I use it as applicable only to the conduct of human beings towards human beings, not towards the inferior animals, inanimate things, or satanic influences. If an opponent willing to make me appear ridiculous should say, you are a non-resistant and therefore must be passive to all assailing beings, things, and influence, to Satan, man, beast, birds, serpent, insect, rocks, timbers, fires, floods, heat, cold, and storm, I should answer, not so. My non-resistance relates solely to conduct between human beings. This is an important limitation of the term.  I claim the right to offer the utmost moral resistance, not sinful, of which God has made me capable to every manifestation of evil among mankind. Nay, I hold it my duty to offer such moral resistance. In this sense, my very non-resistance becomes the highest kind of resistance to evil. This is another important qualification of the term. But I do not stop here. There is an un-injurious benevolent physical force. There are cases in which it would not only be allowable, but in the highest degree commendable, to restrain human beings by this kind of force. Thus maniacs, the insane, the delirious sick, ill-natured children, the intellectually or morally non-composementous, the intoxicated, and the violently passionate are frequently disposed to perpetrate outrages and inflict injuries, either on themselves or others, which ought to be kindly and un-injuriously prevented by the muscular energy of their friends. And in cases where deadly violence is inflicted with deliberation and malice aforethought, one may nobly throw his body as a temporary barrier between the destroyer and his helpless victim, choosing to die in that position, rather than be a passive spectator. Thus another most important qualification is given to the term non-resistance. It is not non-resistance to animals and inanimate things, nor to Satan, but only to human beings. Nor is it moral non-resistance to human beings, but chiefly physical. Nor is it physical non-resistance to all human beings under all circumstances, but only so far as to abstain totally from the inflection of personal injury as a means of resistance. It is simply non-resistance of injury with injury, evil with evil. Will the opposer exclaim, No non-resistance at all. The term is mischosen. I answer. So said the old opposers of the temperance reformation, respecting the term total abstinence. They began by insisting that the term must be taken unqualifiedly and pronounced total abstinence and absurdity. It was replied, We limit its application to the use of ardent spirits and intoxicating liquors. Then you exclude these substances from the arts and from external applications, do you, rejoined the opposers? No replied the advocates of the cause. We mean total abstinence from the internal use, the drinking of those liquors. But are they not sometimes necessary for medical purposes? said the opposers. And then may they not be taken internally? Certainly, with proper precautions, was the reply. We mean by total abstinence, precisely this and no more, the entire disuse of all ardent spirits and intoxicating liquors as a beverage. That, exclaimed the objectors, despairing of a reductio ad absurdum, is no total abstinence at all. The term is mischosen. Nevertheless, it was the most significant term. It had in it an almost talismanic power. It expressed better than any other just what was meant, and wrought a prodigious change in public opinion and practice. The term non-resistance is equally significant and talismanic. It signifies total abstinence from all resistance of injury with injury. It is thus far from non-resistance, no farther. The almost universal opinion and practice of mankind has been on the side of resistance of injury with injury. It has been held justifiable and necessary for individuals and nations to inflect any amount of injury which would effectually resist a supposed greater injury. The consequence has been universal suspicion, defiance, armament, violence, torture, and bloodshed. The earth has been rendered a vast slaughter-field, a theater of reciprocal cruelty and vengeance, strewn with human skulls, reeking with human blood, resounding with human groans, and steeped with human tears.  Non-resistance explodes this horrible delusion, announces the impossibility of overcoming evil with evil, and, making its appeal directly to all the injured of the human race, enjoins on them, in the name of God, never more to resist injury with injury, assuring them that by adhering to the law of love under all provocations and scrupulously suffering wrong rather than inflicting it, they shall gloriously overcome with good and exterminate all their enemies by turning them into faithful friends. The term force, etc. Having thus qualified and defined the term non-resistance, it would seem proper to do the same with several others, frequently made use of in the discussion of our general subject. One of these terms is force. Non-resistance, like others, have been in the habit of using this and similar terms too loosely, thereby giving needless occasion for misunderstanding on the part of the uninformed and misrepresentation on the part of interested opposers. The word force is thus defined by walker. Strength, vigor, might, violence, virtue, efficacy, validness, power of law, armament, war-like preparation, destiny, necessity, fatal compulsion. Now, if we should use the word force as the contrary of non-resistance without any qualification, the idea would be conveyed that non-resistance was identical with absolute passivity and that it necessarily excluded all kinds and degrees of force under all circumstances whatsoever. The generic meaning of the term force is strength, vigor, might, whether physical or moral. Thus we may speak of the force of love, the force of truth, the force of public opinion, the force of moral swasion, the force of non-resistance, or we may speak of the force of gravitation, the force of cohesion, the force of repulsion, etc. Or in relation to the muscular force of human beings, we may speak of benevolent force, kind force, un-injurious force, meaning thereby various applications of muscular strength for the purpose of preventing human beings, committing on themselves or others some injury, in which prevention no personal injury is inflicted, but real kindness and benefit done to all parties concerned. As non-resistance is not identical with absolute passivity, but allows, implies, and requires various kinds and degrees of moral and physical strength, according to circumstances, the term force must not be used as its converse, unless it be with some qualifications, or in such a connection as will give it someone of its conventional significations, so that it should mean violence, war-like force, vengeance, destructive force, infine, injurious force. Injurious force of all kinds and degrees between human beings is incompatible with non-resistance. Such are the qualifications with which the term force will be used in this work. The term moral force will be understood from the preceding remarks as synonymous with moral power, the effective influence of moral strength vigor might. Physical force, as distinguished from moral force, is a term used to express the idea of material force, the action of one body on another, compelling the weaker to yield to the stronger by mere animal strength or mechanical power. As moral force may be either good or evil, injurious or un-injurious, according to its kind, its object, its spirit, or its manner of application, so may physical force be good or evil, injurious or un-injurious, according to the same considerations. When a licentious man corrupts the mind of an innocent youth by bad examples, bad counsel, bad maxims, and other evil influences, in which there is no physical force, he exerts a most injurious moral force. He demoralizes the principles and habits of one whom he ought to encourage and confirm in virtue. When a good man converts a sinner from the error of his ways by good examples, counsels, maxims, and other purifying influences, he exerts a most beneficent and salutary moral force. So when a man by physical force destroys or impairs the life, intellect, moral sentiment, or absolute welfare of a human being, he uses an injurious physical force.  The term injury.  Some of the lexicographers define an injury to be hurt, harm, or mischief, unjustly done to a person. Thereby implying that any hurt, harm or mischief done to one who deserves nothing better, or can be considered as justly liable to it, is no injury at all. I reject entirely every such qualification of the term. I hold an injury to be an injury, whether deserved or undeserved, whether intended or unintended, whether well meant or ill meant, determining the fact in accordance with the foregoing definition. But, says the inquirer, what if it can be proved justifiable of God to inflict personal injury in certain cases on the offensive and guilty? Then, of course, it will be proved that non-resistance is a false doctrine. What if it can be proved that the infliction of small injuries may prevent much greater evils? Then it will be proved that we may do evil that good may come, which will forever keep the world just where it is. What if it can be shown that the person who inflicts an injury honestly intended it for a benefit? That will only prove him honestly mistaken, and so undeserving of blame. What if a man inflicts death or any other injury according to established human laws, but does it with malice or revenge or any malevolent intent? Then he does an anti-Christian act, without conscience as to its real nature. The act must be condemned, he must be credited for his motives, due allowance must be made for his misapprehension of duty, and light poured into his mind to super induce a better conscience, that he may be brought to act the Christian part. But in no case must we lose sight of the injury, whether an injury has been done. And in determining this, we must not ask whether the recipient was guilty or innocent, whether the thing done were well or ill intended, whether it were done in a right or a wrong spirit. If it be in fact an injury, it is contrary to the doctrine of Christian non-resistance, and no person knowing it to be such can repeat it under any pretext whatsoever without violating the law of God. This is the sense and significance of the terms injury, injurer, injurious, etc., as used in these pages. The objector may here interpose critical queries, with a view to test the soundness of my definition. He may suppose that a man's leg, hand, or eye is so diseased as to require amputation in order to save his life. But such member is one of his physical faculties, which must not be destroyed or impaired, because that would be injury. I answer. The diseased member is already lost. The question is not whether the friendly surgeon shall destroy or impair it, but one whether he shall amputate it in order to preserve the life and remaining faculties. No injury, but an absolute benefit, is proposed. The case is clear. But suppose the minister of the law is ordered to amputate a sound leg, hand, or eye, as a punishment, or for an example to deter others from the commission of crime. An absolute injury, done under good pretexts indeed, but on that account nonetheless an injury. Again, a child dangerously sick requires some medical application, very disagreeable, yet indispensable to his recovery, which can only be applied by physical force. Or an insane adult is in the same circumstances. Or a person infected with hydrophobia and subject to terrible paroxysms of the disease needs to be confined, and yet for want of judgment even in his intervals refuses to be. Or a man subject to violent impulses of propensity or passion, rendering him dangerous to all around him when excited, needs to be excluded from general society, or otherwise watched and restrained by keepers, in order to prevent serious mischief to others. And yet he resents and resists all entreaties to submit to such restriction.  Or by the faithful remonstrances and rebukes of some good man. Now in all such cases the will must be crossed, the personal freedom abridged, and the feelings pained. Must it not be an injury to coerce, restrain, expose, and reprove such persons, however necessary to their and the public good, and however kindly executed? Is it not generally more intolerable to be crossed in one's will and wounded in one's feelings than to be beaten, maimed, and otherwise maltreated? It is not man's imaginations, thoughts, and feelings that determine what is or is not injurious to him. Love itself may heap coals of fire on a man's head. Truth may torment his mind. The most benevolent restraint may be painful to his feelings. He may be made for a while quite unhappy by crossing his evil will. He may prefer to be smitten or mutilated rather than be exposed in his secret iniquities or endure the faithful reproof of the upright. Such persons often prefer an injury to a benefit. They are not, for the time being, in a state of mind to understand and choose what is best for them. Therefore their wills, feelings, and opinions are not the indices of their own good, much less that of others. Is it good for a capricious obstinate child to be indulged in opposing a necessary medical application? Is it good for an insane or delirious sick adult to have his own will, even to the commission of murder and self-destruction? Is it good for a man to have unlimited freedom when he will almost certainly make it a curse to himself and others by gross involuntary outrage or uncontrollable passion? Is it good for a wicked man under specious hypocritical disguises to perpetrate the most atrocious mischief, unexposed, and unreproved? These things are not good for mankind. On the contrary, it is good for them to be crossed, restrained, coerced, and reproved by all uninjurious moral and physical forces, which benevolence prompts and wisdom dictates. To cross their wills and pain their feelings by such means under such circumstances is not an injury but a substantial good to them and all who are connected with them. It may be said these things cannot be done uninjuriously, it would be impracticable.  Then can nothing good be done without doing evil? Imperfection is indeed incidental to all human judgment and conduct, and therefore it is probable that some mistakes and some accidental injuries might happen. But the reason and common sense of mankind, once fairly pledged to the true principle of action, would seldom fail to discharge all these duties to general satisfaction. Still it may be asked, what is to be done if uninjurious force should prove inadequate? May life be sacrificed, limbs broken, the flesh mangled, or any other injuries allowed in extreme cases? Never. The principle of non-injury must be held inviolable. It is worth worlds and must be preserved at all hazards. What cannot be done uninjuriously must be left undone. But these extreme cases are mostly imaginary. The truth is that what cannot be done uninjuriously can scarcely ever be done at all, or if done, had better have been let alone. Experience in the case of the insane has already proved that incomparably more can be done by uninjurious forces, scrupulously and judiciously employed, than by any admixtures of the injurious element. Presuming that my definition and use of the terms injure, injury, injurer, injurious, etc. cannot be misunderstood, I pass on. The term Christian non-resistance Wenz originated the term Christian non-resistance. Non-resistance comes from the injunction Resist not evil, Matthew verse 39. The words resist not, being changed from the form of a verb to that of a substantive, give us non-resistance. This term is considered more strikingly significant than any other of the principle involved, and the duty enjoined in our Saviour's precept. Hence its adoption and established use. It is denominated Christian non-resistance to distinguish it as the genuine primitive doctrine from mere philosophical, sentimental, and necessitous non-resistance. Literally then, Christian non-resistance is the original non-resistance taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ, the bearing's limitations and applications of which are to be learned from the scriptures of the New Testament. And what are those bearing's limitations and applications? I have already given an imperfect view of them in the previous definitions, but I will be more explicit. What I aim at is to carry the obligations of non-resistance just as far and no farther than Jesus Christ has. It is easy to go beyond or to fall short of his limits. Ultra-radicals go beyond him. Ultra-conservatives fall short of him. Even those of both these classes who profess to abide implicitly by his teachings construe and interpret his language so as to favour their respective errors. The ultra-radicals sees non-strong figurative, hyperbolic, or intensive forms of expression and make him seem to mean much more than he could have intended. The ultra-conservatives ingeniously fritter away and nullify the very essence of his precepts in such a manner as to make him seem to mean much less than he must have intended. There is, however, a general rule for such cases which can scarcely fail to expose the errors of both classes in respect to any given text. It is this. Consider the context. Consider parallel texts. Consider examples. Consider the known spirit of Christianity. Any construction or interpretation of the recorded language of Christ or of his apostles in which all these concur is sound. Any other is probably erroneous. Chapter 1 Part 2 of Christian Non-Resistance in All Its Important Bearings Illustrated and Defended by Aidan Balu The Key Text of Non-Resistance Now let us examine Matthew verse 39. I say unto you resist not evil, etc. This single text from which, as has been stated, the term non-resistance took its rise if justly construed furnishes a complete key to the true bearings, limitations, and applications of the doctrine under discussion. This is precisely one of those precepts which may be easily made to mean much more or much less than its author intended. It is in the intensive, condensed form of expression and can be understood only by a due regard to its context. What did the divine teacher mean by the word evil? And what by the word resist? There are several kinds of evil. One, pain, loss, damage, suffered from causes involving no moral agency or natural evil. Two, sin in general or moral evil. Three, temptations to sin or spiritual evil. And four, personal wrong, insult, outrage, injury, or personal evil. Which of these kinds of evil does the context show to have been in our Saviour's mind when he said resist not evil? Was he speaking of fires, floods, famine, disease, serpents, wild beasts, or any other mere natural evil agents? No. Then, of course, he does not prohibit our resisting such evil. Was he speaking of sin in general? No. Then, of course, he does not prohibit our resisting such evil by suitable means.  No.  Was he speaking of personal evil, injury personally inflicted by man on man? Yes. Ye have heard it that have been said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you that ye resist not evil. i.e. personal outrage, insult, affront, injury.  But what did Jesus mean by the words resist not? There are various kinds of resistance which may be offered to personal injury when threatened or actually inflicted. There is passive resistance, a dead silence, a sullen inertia, a complete muscular helplessness, and utter refusal to speak or move. Does the context show that Jesus contemplated, pro-arcan, any such resistance in his prohibition? No. There is an active righteous moral resistance, a meek, firm remonstrance, rebuke, reproof, protestation. Does the connection show that Jesus prohibits this kind of resistance? No. There is an active, firm, compound, moral and physical resistance, un-injurious to the evil doer, and only calculated to restrain him from deadly violence or extreme outrage. Was Jesus contemplating such modes of resisting personal injury? Does the context show that he intended to prohibit all resistance of evil by such means? No. There is a determined resistance of personal injury by means of injury inflicted, as when a man deliberately takes life to save life, destroys in a silence eye to save an eye, inflicts a violent blow to prevent a blow, or as when in retaliation he takes life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc. Or as when by means of governmental agencies, he causes an injurious person to be punished by the inflection of some injury equivalent to the one he is inflicted or attempted. It was of such resistance as this that our Saviour was speaking. It is such resistance as this that he prohibits. His obvious doctrine is personal injury with personal injury. I shall have occasion to press this point more conclusively in the next chapter when presenting my scriptural proofs. Enough has been said to determine the important bearings and limitations of the general doctrine. It bears on all mankind in every social relation of life. It contemplates men as actually injured or in imminent danger or being injured by their fellow men and commands them to abstain from all personal injuries, self-defense, or suppression of injury. If smitten on the one cheek they must submit the other to outrage rather than smite back. If the life of their dearest friend has been taken, or an eye or a tooth thrust out, or any other wrong been done to themselves or their fellow men, they must not render evil for evil or railing for railing or hatred for hatred. But they are not prohibited from resisting, opposing, preventing, or counteracting the injuries inflicted, attempted, or threatened by man on man in the use of any absolutely un-injurious forces, whether moral or physical. On the contrary, it is their bound and duty by all such benevolent resistances to promote the safety and welfare the holiness and happiness of all human beings as opportunity may offer. Necessary Applications of Non-Resistance The necessary applications of the doctrine are to all cases in human intercourse where man receives aggressive injury from man, or is presumed to be an imminent danger of receiving it, i.e., to all cases wherein the injury of man upon man is either to be repelled, punished, or prevented. There are four general positions in which human beings may stand to resist injury with injury. One, as individuals. Two, as a lawless combination of individuals. Three, as members of allowable voluntary associations. And four, as constituent supporters of human government in its state or national sovereignty. Standing in either of these positions, they can resist injury with injury, either in immediate self-defense and retaliation or by vindictive punishments. As individuals, they may act immediately by their own personal energies, or they may act through their agents, persons employed to execute their will. Connected with a lawless combination, they may act directly in open cooperative violence, or clandestinely, or through select agents, or in a more general manner through their acknowledged leaders. As members of allowable voluntary associations, they may exert a powerful influence without any deeds of violence by means of speech, the press, education, religion, etc. To delude, corrupt, prejudice, and instigate to evil and lead to stimulate, predispose, and lead men to commit personal injury under pretense of serving God and humanity is essentially the same thing as resisting injury with injury by physical means. The mischief may be much greater, the moral responsibility certainly no less. As constituent supporters of human government, whether civil or military or a compound of both, in its state or national sovereignty, men are morally responsible for all constitutions, institutions, laws, processes and usages which they have pledged themselves to support, or which they avowedly approve, or which they depend upon as instrumentalities for securing and promoting their personal welfare, or in which they acquiesce without positive remonstrance and disfellowship. Thus, if a political compact, a civil or military league, covenant, or constitution requires, authorizes, provides for, or tolerates war, bloodshed, capital punishment, slavery, or any kind of absolute injury, offensive or defensive, the man who swears, affirms, or otherwise pledges himself to support such a compact, league, covenant, or constitution is just as responsible for every act of injury done in strict conformity thereto, as if he himself personally committed it. He is not responsible for abuses and violations of the constitution, but for all that is constitutionally done he is responsible. The army is his army, the navy his navy, the militia his militia, the gallows his gallows, the pillory his pillory, the whipping post his whipping post, the branding iron his branding iron, the prison his prison, the dungeon his dungeon, and the slave holding his slave holding. When the constitutional majority declare war, it is his war. All the slaughter, repine, ravages, robbery, destruction, and mischief committed under that declaration, in accordance with the laws of war are his. Nor can he exculpate himself by pleading that he was one of a strenuous anti-war minority in the government. He was in the government. He had sworn, affirmed, or otherwise pledged himself that the majority should have discretionary power to declare war. He tied up his hands with that anti-christian obligation to stand by the majority in all the crimes and abominations inseparable from war. It is therefore his war. Its murders are his murders.  They are all committed with his solemn sanction. There is no escape from this terrible moral responsibility, but by a conscientious withdrawal from such government, and an uncompromising protest against so much of its fundamental creed in constitutional law, as is decidedly anti-christian. He must cease to be its pledged supporter and approving dependent. What a Christian non-resistant cannot consistently do. It will appear from the foregoing exposition that a true Christian non-resistant cannot, with deliberate intent, knowledge, or conscious voluntariness, compromise his principles by either of the following acts. 1. He cannot kill, maim, or otherwise absolutely injure any human being in personal self-defense, or for the sake of his family, or anything he holds dear. 2. He cannot participate in any lawless conspiracy, mob, riotous assembly, or disorderly combination of individuals, to cause or countenance the commission of any such absolute personal injury. 3. He cannot be a member of any voluntary association, however orderly, respectable, or allowable by law and general consent, which declaratively holds as fundamental truth, or claims as an essential right, or distinctly inculcates as sound doctrine, or approves as commendable in practice, war, capital punishment, or other absolute personal injury. 4. He cannot be an officer or private, chaplain, or retainer, in the army, navy, or militia of any nation, state, or chieftain. 5. He cannot be an officer, elector, agent, legal prosecutor, passive constituent, or approver of any government, as a sworn or otherwise pledged supporter thereof, whose civil constitution and fundamental laws require, authorize, or tolerate war, slavery, capital punishment, or conviction of any absolute personal injury. 6. He cannot be a member of any chartered corporation, or body politic, whose articles of compact oblige or authorize its official functionaries to resort for compulsory aid in the conducting of its affairs to a government of constitutional violence. 7. Finally, he cannot do any act either in person or by proxy, nor a bet, or encourage any act in others, nor demand, petition for, request, advise, or approve the doing of any act, by an individual, association, or government which act would inflict, threaten to inflict, or necessarily cause to be inflicted any personal injury, as herein before defined. 8. Such are the necessary bearings, limitations, and applications of the doctrine of Christian non-violence. Let the reader be careful not to misunderstand the positions laid down. The platform of principle and action has been carefully founded, and its essential peculiarities plainly delineated. Let it not be said that the doctrine goes against all religion, government, social organization, constitutions, laws, order, rules, and regulations. It goes against none of these things, per se. It goes for them in the highest and best sense. It goes only against such religion, government, social organization, constitutions, laws, order, rules, regulations, and restraints as are unequivocally contrary to Christ, as sanction taking life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, as are based on the assumption that it is right to resist injury with injury, evil with evil. The principle and sub-principle of non-resistance. This chapter may be profitably concluded with a brief consideration of the doctrine under discussion, with respect to the principle from which it proceeds, to the sub-principle which is its immediate moral basis, and to the rule of duty in which all its applications are comprehended. What is the principle from which it proceeds? It is a principle from the inmost bosom of God. It proceeds from all perfect love, that absolute, independent, unerringly wise, holy love, which distinguishes the divine from all inferior natures, and which, transfused into the natural sentiment of human benevolence, superinduces the highest order of goodness. Of this it is said, love worketh no ale to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Or, as the amiable John expressed it, he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, in God in him. This love is not mere natural affection, nor sentimental passion, but a pure, enlightened, conscientious principle. It is a divine spring of action, which intuitively and spontaneously dictates the doing of good to others, whether they do good or evil. It operates independently of external influences, and being in its nature absolutely unselfish, it is not affected by the merit or demerit of its objects. It does not inquire, am I loved, have I been benefited, have my merits been appreciated, shall I be blessed in return, or am I hated, injured, cursed, and condemned? Whether others love or hate, bless or curse, benefit or injure, it says, I will do right, I will love still, I will bless, I will never injure even the most injurious. I will overcome evil with good. Therefore its goodness is not measured by or adjusted to the goodness of others. Forever finds in itself a sufficient reason for doing good and nothing but good to all moral agents. Jesus, in whom flowed the full current of this divine love, the sublime efflux of the heavenly nature, laying hold of the great commandment, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Jew it forth from the ark of the Mosaic Testament, all mildewed and dusky with human misapprehension, and struck from it the celestial fire. The true principle was in it, but men could not clearly perceive it, much less appreciate its excellency. He showed that the neighbor intended was any human being, a stranger, an enemy, a bitter foe, anyone needing relief, or in danger of suffering through our selfishness, anger, or contempt. The greatest criminal, the greatest stretch of our race, hence knowing that the entire wisdom of this world had justified injury to injurers, hatred to enemies, and destruction to destroyers, he reversed the ancient maxims, abrogated the law of retaliation, and proclaimed the duty of unlimited forbearance, mercy, and kindness. Imperfect religion, worldly-minded philosophy, and vindictive selfishness had currently declared, there is a point beyond which we swept away this heartless delusion with a divine breath, and sublimely taught obedience and everlasting adherence to the law of love, as well as toward offenders, injurers, and enemies, as toward benefactors, lovers, and friends. I say unto you, take not life for life, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, smite not the smiter to save thine own cheek. Give to him that ask it, and turn not the borrower away. Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, and hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your father in heaven, for he maketh his son to rise on the evil and the good, and send a thrain on the just and on the unjust, for if ye love and salute, and do good to them that love you, what are ye better than the publicans? Be like your father in heaven, such as the true light radiated from the bosom of the infinite father, and reflected on this benighted world as Jesus Christ. What are the purile sentimentalisms of effeminate poets, or the gossamer elaborations of the world's philosophers, or the incantations of solemn but vindictive religionists, compared with the divine excellency of truth, as it is distilled in the language of the Messiah? All perfect, independent, self-sustaining, unswervable love, divine love, is the principle from which Christian non-resistance constitutes its immediate moral basis, the essential efficacy of good, as the counteracting force with which to resist evil. The wisdom of this world has relied on the efficacy of injury, terror, evil to resist evil. It is trusted in this during all past time. It has educated the human race to believe that their welfare and security depended mainly on their power to inflict injury on offenders. Hence it has been their constant endeavor to possess a sufficiency and injurious means to over-other enemies and terrify their encroaching fellow-men.  I will do you incomparably greater evil than you can me. Therefore be afraid, and let me alone. And so perfectly befooled are the children of this world, with faith and injury as their chief ultimate security, that scarcely one in a thousand will at first thought allow the non-resistance doctrine to be anything better than a proclamation of cowardice on one side, in universal anarchy, lawlessness, and violence on the other, and mankind were so entirely controlled by the dread of deadly, or at least tremendous personal injury, that if this were relinquished, a man's throat would be instantly cut, his family assassinated, or some other horrible mischief inflicted. Very few know how entirely they trust for defense and security in this grim and bloody god of human injury. They have enshrined him in the sword, the gibbet, and the dungeon. They worship him in armies, navies, militia, organizations, arsenals, piano statutes, judicial inflections, pistols, daggers, and bowie-knifes. And if we propose to lay all these evils aside, and go for nothing but un-injurious, beneficent treatment of mankind, never transcending, even with the most outrageous, the limits of firm but friendly personal restraint, lo, they cry out with alarm. These have come hither that turn the world upside down, torment us not before the time. Great is Diana of the Ephesians.  What would become of society if war, capital, and other injurious punishments should be abolished? On this altar they have sacrificed human beings enough to people twenty such planets as the earth, with no other success than to confirm and systematize violence throughout the whole habitable globe. And yet injury is their god, and at his gory altar of revenge and cruelty they are resolved forever by the slinger of deadly weapons and the groans of a bleeding world. The conclusion. But the son of the highest, the great self-sacrificing non-resistant, is our prophet, priest and king. Though the maddened inhabitants of the earth have so long turned a deaf ear to his voice, he shall yet be heard. He declares that good is the only antagonist of evil, which can conquer the deadly foe. Therefore he enjoins on his disciples the duty of resisting evil only with good. This is the sub-principle of Christian non-resistance. Evil can be overcome only with good. Faith, then, is the inherent superiority of good over evil, truth over error, right over wrong, love over hatred is the immediate moral basis of our doctrine. Accordingly, we transfer all the faith we have been taught to cherish in injury to beneficence, kindness and un-injurious treatment as the only all-sufficient enginery of war against evil doers. No longer seeking or expecting to put down evil with evil, we lift up the cross for an ensign, and sur- mounting it with the glorious banner of love exalt in the divine motto displayed on its immaculate folds, Resist not injury with injury. Let this in all future time be the specific rule of our conduct, the magnetic needle of our pathway across the troubled waters of human reform, till all men, all governments and all social institutions shall have been molded into moral harmony with the grand comprehensive commandment of the living God, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Then shall love, God by his sublimest name, be in all. The earth so long a slaughter-field shall yet an Eden bloom, the tiger to the lamb shall yield and war descend the tomb, for all shall feel the Saviour's love reflected from the cross, that love that non-resistant love which triumphed on the cross. End of chapter one, part two. Chapter two, part one 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 two, part one of Christian non-resistance in all its important bearings illustrated and defended by Aidan Ballew. Chapter two, scriptural proofs. The preceding chapter presents a clear statement and thorough explication of the doctrine of Christian non-resistance. This will present the scriptural proofs of its truth. It is affirmed to have been taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ. If this can be demonstrated, all who acknowledge him, their lord and master will feel bound to receive the doctrine as divine. In determining such a question, the New Testament must be our witness. From its records, fairly construed, we are to learn what Jesus Christ taught, what his examples were, and what is the essential spirit of his religion. The evangelists and apostles shall be our witnesses in the case. Matthew verses 38 through 41, a proof text. In Matthew's report of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus thus speaks, ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye but I say unto you that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also, and if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also, and whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Matthew verses 38 through 41. What is the exact meaning of this language, and what does it teach? To whom does Jesus refer, as having said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth? To Moses and his expounders. Read the following passages. Speaking of injury done to a woman in pregnancy, and if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exodus 11 verses 23 through 25. If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him, breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him. Leviticus 14 verses 19 and 20. In the case of a false witness, and the judges shall make a diligent inquisition, and behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath falsely against his brother, then shall ye do unto him, as he hath thought to have done unto his brother, so shalt thou put the evil away from among you, and thine eye shall not pity, but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, foot for foot. Deuteronomy 19 verses 18 through 21. Here we have a comprehensive view of all the personal injuries authorized to be inflicted on injurers under the Mosaic Code and the capital punishment down to the infliction of a stripe. And we have a strong expression of the design of those inflictions. So shalt thou put the evil away from among you. Now, did Jesus refer to these precepts of Moses and to the enforcement of them? Who can doubt it? And if so, did he intend to confirm or abrogate them? Certainly to abrogate them. For his words express positive opposition of sense, that ye resist not evil. How? As they do who take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Instead of smiting back and giving wound for wound, or going to the magistrate to get thy assailant punished, as the olden sayings authorize, endure to be smitten again and again. If under color of the law thy coat be taken from thee, withhold not thy cloak, sue not back to recover thy spoiled goods. If men force thee to go wither they will, become their prisoner without turbulence, resist not injury with injury, inflict not evil in opposing evil. It hath been so commanded in time past as a means of suppressing and preventing evil among men, but I say unto you that ye resist not evil doing inflections of evil. Nothing can be plainer than that so far as Moses and his expounders enjoined the inflection of penal persecution injuries in resistance of injuries, and for the suppression of evil doing. Jesus Christ prohibits the same. He enjoins his disciples never to resist evil with such inflections. They are forbidden to render evil for evil, either directly as individuals on their own responsibility or as prosecutors at law. Is this a just and unobjectionable construction of the Saviour's language? If it is, the doctrine of non-resistance is already established by a single quotation. But this will be contested. Evasive constructions of the text. It will be said that the words of Christ in the passage quoted are extremely figurative and intensive in their form of expression. That there is danger of taking them to literally, and that they must be duly qualified. I grant it and have construed them accordingly. I ascertained first their reference to the sayings of Moses, and then determined the prohibition to be exactly commensurate with the mosaic requirement. That resistance of evil which Moses sanctioned and enjoined, Jesus obviously repudiates and forbids. The prohibition is made precisely co-extensive in all its bearings with the allowances and injunctions of the olden code. This is the only fair construction to be given to the great teacher's language. Should anyone affirm that Jesus prohibits all kinds and degrees of resistance to evil, he could sustain his affirmation only by insisting on the literal expression, and would make the Savior contradict himself, his own example, and the common sense of mankind. Should anyone confirm, on the other hand, that Jesus did not intend to abrogate and prohibit all the personal and judicial inflictions of evil on offenders, authorized by the Moses, he would find himself in an equally perplexing dilemma. I have seen distinguished opposers in this latter dilemma. Evasion First One says, I doubt if Jesus referred to the sayings of Moses, quoted from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. He must have referred to certain perverse rabbinical glosses on the precepts of the law, and to common sayings among the people pleaded in justification of frequent and extreme revenge. Is there any proof of this? No, it is mere supposition. But if it were true, why did not Jesus give some intimation that he was prohibiting only abuses? And with all, what glosses or common sayings could go beyond the original sayings themselves? They expressed the lex talionis in its fullest extent, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, breech for breech, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. It would be hard glossing or overstraining such sayings. This plea is futile. Evasion Second Another insists that Christ was only inculcating the importance of executing legal penalties, and of using lawful inflictions of injury against the salience in a right spirit. He does not prohibit the act, but only is indicative of the vengeful spirit in performing it. Life ought to be taken for life, and various evils inflicted on evildoers as a just punishment, and self-defense ought to be maintained even to the infliction of death in extreme cases. But all should be done without revenge, without unnecessary cruelty, and in pure love to the offender, as well as with the sacred reverence for the law. In this way, Jesus is smoothly construed to have really said nothing at all, practically nothing that Moses and the ancients had not said. Did they authorize personal hate, malice, revenge, and wanton cruelty in executing the penalties of the law? Did they not positively prohibit all such feelings in conduct? Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart. Thou shalt in anywise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor, Leviticus 19. If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed, lest if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee. Deuteronomy 25 verses 1 through 3. See Deuteronomy 16 verses 18 and 20, 17 verses 2 through 12, 16 verse 15, Exodus 23 verses 1 through 8. From these and other passages in the writings of Moses, it will be seen that, notwithstanding the severity of his code, he did not authorize individual hatred, revenge, and wanton cruelty in punishing the wicked. To make Christ prohibit only a personal, spiteful, malicious, cruel spirit in executing the authorized punishments of the law is to make him the mere echo of Moses and his expounders, whereas he goes absolutely against the deed, the act of inflicting evil on the persons of offenders. And by killing the body of the thing, he banishes the spirit of it. Seeming love only renders inflection of death or torture on offenders the more aberrant to Christian sensibility. It is too much like a mother kissing, while at the same time she presses her child to death, or a beautiful damsel with all her charming airs, embracing, and at the same time slowly thrusting a fine stiletto into the bosom of her admirer. Death is death, torture is torture, injury is injury, how gently and politely so ever inflicted. And there is a kind of fitness in having stern-hearted, severe-natured persons to execute such sentences. Evasion 3. Another pleads that Jesus was inculcating the duty of referring all punishments to magistracy and the government, that he prohibited a resort to private revenges, and only meant to teach his disciples to seek redress for the injuries done them in courts of law. This is a still-lamer shift than the other. The connection gives no intimation, whatever, that this was his design. On the contrary, he enjoins non-resistance alike in respect to personal assault and legal wrong. If a man smite thee on thy right cheek, offer the other. If he soothe yet the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. If he make thee a prisoner and force thee to go with him, resist not. Jesus does not look like teaching them to go to law for redress of grievances, or encouraging them to make magistrates the revengers of their wrongs. He does not say, ye have heard that it hath been said, let every man take vengeance on his own offenders and redress his own grievances. But I say unto you, look to the government, complain to the magistrates, carry all your causes into the courts of adjudication. Not a word of this. And not a word of it is to be found in any part of the New Testament. Jesus Christ never sued or taught his followers to sue men at the law. It would have sunk his divine dignity to contempt, had he exhibited such folly. Evasion fourth. Another presumes he intended to discount in its all petty vindictiveness, retaliation and litigation, but not to forbid these things in extreme cases, on a great scale, and where important interests are at stake. This is very accommodating, but very fallacious. Who shall draw the line between the great and the small, the frivolous and the important in these matters? The injured party, of course. It is for him to say whether the wrongs done him are of sufficient moment to justify litigation, retaliation or personal resistance. And the consequence is that small offenses, insults and injuries are rare.  Jesus gives not the slightest intimation that he is drawing a line of distinction between great and small evils, and that he forbids his followers to resist ordinary personal injuries, whilst great ones are left to the law of resistance and retaliation. Such pleadings are only so many attempts of a worldly mind to procure itself indulgence under the Christian name in practices on which, written branch, the Son of God has placed the seal of prohibition. Evasion fifth. Another presumes to assert that Jesus never intended the precept, resist not evil, etc., for a general rule, but it was given to his early followers as their guide, when wronged by the tyrants under whom they lived. To resist then would be of no avail. It was better therefore patiently to endure. What a despicable expediency does this ascribe to the Saviour. What a skulking prudence! Resist not evil when unable to do so? Submit to irresistible tyranny and outrage. Offer the other cheek. Crawl like spaniels when you cannot help yourselves. But fight like dragons when you have a fair prospect of over-matching your enemies. To a mind capable of drawing such a meaning from the words of Christ, I should think the text would furnish a general rule, i.e., submit when you must but resist when you can. If it were not utterly derogatory to the character of Jesus, and utterly unsupportable by a single hint in the context, it might be worthwhile to accept sober refutation. As it is, the mere statement sufficiently explodes it. Evasion 6 Still another argues that Jesus, though he preached strict non-resistance as to the duty of his followers in all strictly religious matters, nevertheless left them perfectly free in secular matters to resist, litigate, and make war at discretion. That is, while attending purely to religious duties and propagating Christianity to vitally appointed means, they must suffer all manner of personal abuse, insult, outrage, persecution, and violence without offering the least resistance, either by individual force of arms or persecutions at law. But as men of the world, politicians, merchants, tradesmen, money-getters, etc., they are at full liberty to follow the dictates of worldly expediency and to resist even unto death all those who threaten their lives, liberty, or property. This stands on the same anti-foundation with the others, and cannot be sustained by one single decent-looking reason. Indeed, its bare statement ought to be its sufficient refutation. Evasion final Finally, another declares that he does not know what Jesus did really mean to teach in the passage under consideration, but he is sure it cannot have been the prohibition of life-taking, penal inflections on criminals, defensive war, or personal self-defense under severe assault. Because Jesus himself had before declared in the same discourse, think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew verses 18 to 20. And what is the deduction from these words? It is that if Moses commanded men to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc., Jesus does not abrogate or invalidate such commandment, and cannot have intended any such thing. Whatever else he meant, since one jot or tittle of the least of the commandments in the law, and the prophets was not to be destroyed, or left unfulfilled. In answer to this I may remark that it is rather a cavill than a candid objection, and would sound much better from the lips of an infidel than from those of a professed Christian. It is alleging an apparent self-contradiction of Jesus. He says, you have heard that it hath been said, i.e. Moses and his expounders, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you that ye resist not evil thus, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, rather than smite him, turn unto him the other also. Then on the contrary, he says, whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these commandments, even the one which requires eye to be taken for eye, and tooth for tooth, and shall teach men so shall be called least in sight, etc. Thus the opposer urges a self-contradiction. Well, if there be a contradiction and it weigh anything at all in the case at issue, is it not worth as much for non-resistance as against it? Is not Jesus as good authority against himself for the abrogation of the commandment as for its confirmation? Certainly. But if it would invalidate his testimony, then it only furnishes food for the infidel. Such is not the object, for I have heard this identical cattle from the lips of a venerable Hopkinsian clergyman. What then does it avail? If it proves anything against my construction of Matthew v. 38-41, it certainly proves a great deal too much. It would carry us back and bind us hand and foot to Judaism with its every jot and tittle. It would reenact the whole ceremonial as well as moral and penal code of the mosaic dispensation. Circumcision, cases, and all the commandments, least as well as greatest, would be made binding on us. No Christian would admit anything like this for a moment. Many commandments have been abrogated. Jesus and Paul are explicit on this point. But it does not follow that anyone has been absolutely destroyed or left unfulfilled. Many have emerged from the shadow into the substance, from types and figures into the reality. Others have been lost in the letter and more than the spirit. All have done their work or are still doing it in the essence of Christianity. Did not Jesus mean to be understood in this sense when he declared he had not come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill them, etc.? Was it to preserve them in the mere letter and form in the type and shadow, or rather in their essence, in the absolute reality of their spiritual excellence? Clearly the latter. When he abolished the oath, did he abolish the truth? Did he relax the obligations of men to speak the truth? Did he weaken the sanctions of truth? No, he enhanced them. He exalted the truth. In prohibiting his disciples from all inflections of injury and resistance of evil, did he absolve them from one iota of the law of love, the obligation to love their neighbors as themselves, the doing unto others as they would that others should do unto them? Did he weaken that great law? Did he not exalt and perfect its power and sanctions? If his provessed followers should faithfully obey his instructions in respect to this heavenly treatment of offenders, would they become worse or would offenses increase? Let the tongue of blasphemy alone presume to say it. We know the contrary. In a word we know that this self-same doctrine of Christian non-resistance, as we deduce it from the passage before us, is the righteousness of the law in its perfection and true glory and therefore is in strict harmony with the doctrine taught in the 18th, 19th, and 20th verses. The cabal is silenced. Reason for noticing all these evasions. I have been particular to notice these various constructions of our Lord's words, these attempts to avoid the legitimate force of Matthew verses 38-41 and to disallow it as a proof text of the doctrine before us, not because I thought they were really worthy of it in themselves, but because I have known them all urged and relied on by clergymen and reputable professed Christians of various sects in their struggle to withstand the truth. It is remarkable how very incongruous all these anti-non-resistant constructions, objections, and cabals are. Yet I have heard them put forth with great confidence even by different clergymen of the same general sect and repeatedly pleaded with apparent sincerity and earnestness as a sufficient invalidation of our leading proof text. It is important to explode them in order to secure the conviction of an order of minds at once conscientious and intelligent but liable to be misled by the confident special pleadings of those from whom they have been accustomed to receive their religious opinions. When we pretend to prove a doctrine we ought not to quote passages which sound well to the ear, but to demonstrate that these passages cannot fairly be construed into any other sense than that in which we take them. To have demonstrated Matthew verses 38-41 to be an undeniable proof text of our doctrine is no small achievement in this department of my work. This once established I can accomplish the rest with little difficulty. What I insist on then is that I have adduced one fundamental proof from the highest scriptural authority. If this cannot be invalidated, if it must be admitted, if the passage cannot fairly be construed to mean anything else than I have shown, the probability is that I shall find ample corroborative proof all the way through the New Testament. I therefore proceed to make a further quotation from the same chapter and discourse.  This is plainly in the same strain and of the same import with the other. It is clear, explicit, significant, and forcible. By whom the saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy had been literally uttered, I cannot with certainty learn. Probably it had long since passed into a common maxim. But in its nature and origin was kindred a preceding saying, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It derived its principal sanction from the mosaic injunctions respecting capital criminals and doomed national enemies. Read the following passages. If Thou shalt hear say, in one of thy cities which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods which ye have not known. Then shalt Thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently, and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you, Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, and Thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every wit, for the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, and it shall be a heap for ever, it shall not be built again. Deuteronomy 13, verses 12 through 16, but of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but Thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Parasites, the Hittites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. Deuteronomy 20, verses 16 and 17, Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them, 7, verse 2. In accordance with these sentiments, David utters the following language, plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me, fight against them that fight against me, take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for my help. Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me. Say unto my soul I am thy salvation. Let them be as chaff before the wind, and let the angel of the Lord chase them. Let their way be dark and slippery, and let the angel of the Lord persecute them, Psalm 35, verses 1 through 8. With equal aberrance of idolatry, and of all the crimes of those who are holding to be outlaws and doomed enemies under the former Testament, but in striking contrast with the authorized hatred and vengeance exercised toward them, Jesus says, bless, do good to, and pray for them, even though they be your bitter foes and persecutors. He includes among enemies, haters and persecutors all injurers, whether personal, social, religious, or national. His words are equally irreconcilable with all hatred, all persecution, all cruelty, all war, all injury which one man, one family, one community, or one nation can do to another. The truly Christian individual could not devise, execute, or bet any injury against an offending fellow man. What then would a truly Christian family, neighborhood, community, state, or nation do? Could they act any other than the non-resistant part towards their foes and injurers? If they loved, blessed, benefited, and prayed for the worst of aggressors and defenders, what a spectacle would be presented? What a conquest would be achieved over all evil doers? Does not Jesus enjoy this sublime love and heavenly practice? Can he mean anything less than appears upon the beautiful face of his words? What professed Christian can erect the gibbet, or light the faggot, or draw out the rack, or contrive any injurious punishment, or gird on any weapon of war, or give his sanction to any cruelty by individuals or society, and yet plead that he is in the spirit and practice of this his Lord's commandment? Does that man love his enemies, bless those who curse him, do good to those that hate him, and pray for his injurers, who hangs, or shoots, or tortures, or stones them, or holds himself sworn to inflict any such evils? But let us hear the Saviour urge his own precepts. That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh his Son to rise on the evil and on the good, and he sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them only which love you, what reward have you? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Verses 45-48 Your Father loves his enemies, blesses those that curse him, and does good to them that hate him, else the Son would not shine as it does on the evil, nor the rain distill on the unjust, nor salvation descend from heaven for the lost. Inbide the spirit of your Father, imitate his goodness to the unthankful and evil, put on his moral character, be his children. Be not content barely to love them that love you, love for bear with, benefit, and seek to save even the guilty and undeserving. Else what higher are ye in the moral scale than the publicans? Salute and befriend not only your own kindred, friends, and intimate associates, but all men, however strangers or hostile to you.  What can be planer than this? What can be more pure or sublime, spiritually excellent or morally beautiful? It is Christian non-resistance, or rather that perfect love of which true non-resistance is a distinguishing fruit. But let us proceed. 3. Forgiveness He enjoins the duty of forgiveness on the same general principle. After this matter, therefore, pray ye. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6, verses 12, 14, and 15. Then came Peter to him and said, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus saith unto him. I say not unto the until seven times, but until seventy times seven. Matthew 18, verses 21, 22. See also the illustrating parable to the end of the chapter. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any, that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. Mark 11, verses 25 and 26. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged. Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned. Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Luke 6, verses 37. The idea in all these passages is that the injured party claims the right to punish the injurer on account of some actual offense. Jesus is not speaking of mere envious grudges, causeless resentment, or ill-will. He presupposes a real injury done, which, according to the common law, an eye for an eye, etc., or in other words, according to strict natural justice, might rightfully be punished by the inflection of an equivalent evil on the offender. He does not palliate the offense, nor deny the ill-desert of the guilty party, nor require that his wrong should be considered right. He addresses the injured party, the rightful complainant, and commands him to forgive his injurer, i.e., not to exact the same inflection of the deserved punishment, nor to hold the offender punishable on his account, but to leave him as an object of pity, even though he be one of dread, uninjured, a subject of the same kindness as if he had committed no offense. He is to inflict no evil upon him on account of his trespass. This is human forgiveness, as enjoined by Jesus on all his followers. To enforce this, he declares that our Father in heaven will forgive the forgiving, but will not forgive the unforgiving. He reminds us that we have all sinned against our Father, and are justly punishable at his hands, that the only ground of our acceptance with him, and of his continued benefactions, is his grace, not our merit, and that we are perpetually in treating him to bless us in spite of our evil deserts. Therefore he enjoins that we forgive our fellow offenses against us, as we beseech God to forgive us the sins we have committed against him. He requires that we do unto others as we would that God should do unto us. He commands us to refrain from punishing our offenders, and still to do them good, as we would that God should continue to forbear and do us good, notwithstanding our sins. And if we freely forgive while we pray to be forgiven, this will attest our sincerity, and fit our spirits for the reception of the sins. God will accept and commune with us, for we shall then present no insuperable bar to his inflowing love and mercy. But if, while we sue for mercy, we exercise none towards the guilty, if while we pray for forgiveness, we meditate vengeance against our offenders, if while we ask to be treated infinitely better than we deserve, we hold those who have trespassed against us punishable at our hands according to their deserts, we at once betray our own sincerity, offer mockery to God, and present an impassable bar of hard-heartedness to his love and mercy. He is essentially a forgiving father, but he will not, indeed cannot, communicate his forgiveness to us. Our spirit is in opposition to his spirit. We do not worship him in spirit and in truth. We stand self-excluded from his presence, alike unforgiving and unforgiven. We cannot be at peace with him, nor worship him acceptably, nor taste the richness of his grace, so long as we desire to punish our offenders. It is only in the spirit of forgiveness that we can receive and enjoy the divine forgiveness, such as the doctrine of Jesus. How blessed the doctrine it is to the broken-hearted, merciful, and meek. How terrible a one to the iron-hearted, who delight in rigorous human punishment. Here the whole superstructure of piety and religion is baptized in the waters of non-resistance. We cannot even pray in a punishing spirit without insulting a forgiving father and imprecating on our heads all the desserts of our own transgression. If we forgive not, but persist in punishing them that trespass against us, and yet pray to be forgiven of God as we forgive, we only call on God to be as severe and punitive towards us as we are towards our fellow men. How tremendous a thought is this! Yet who can evade it? Jesus has brought it as a live coal from off the altar of God, created on our consciences. Can the utmost ingenuity of man avoid the conclusion which these precepts of Christ, respecting forgiveness, are thus shown to warrant? I think not. Yet millions of professing Christians authorize aid and abet war, capital punishment, and the whole catalog of penal injuries. Still they daily pray God to forgive their trespasses as they forgive. The language of the prophet Isaiah in the 58th chapter seems not inapplicable to them. Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins. Yet they seek me daily and delight to know my ways as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God. They ask of me the ordinances of justice. They take delight in approaching to God, see the subsequent verses. This drawing near to God with the lips, while the heart of the kingdom is as common as it is reprehensible. And in no respect is it more so than in meditating and executing punishment for offenses against ourselves, while in humble supplication we plead for the divine forgiveness of our own transgressions. Further important proofs Another important class of proof texts, corroborative of those already cited is the following. My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should be delivered to the Jews. But now is my kingdom not from hence John 18 verse 36. Compare this with Matthew 10 verse 16. Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves, be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Also with Luke 12 verses 24 through 26. And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, the kings of the Gentiles take over them. And they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so. But he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief as he that doth serve. In the same group we may include the following. And they went and entered into a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would not go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John Jesus they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, even as Elias did. But he turned and rebuked them, and said, ye not know what manner of spirit ye are of.  Luke 9 verses 52 through 56. Then came they and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And behold, one of them which were with Jesus, stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest, and smoked off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, put up against thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of the angels, Matthew 26 verses 50 through 53. See also John 8 verses 3 through 11, the case of the woman taken in adultery, and brought to Jesus to see whether he would be stoned to death according to the law of Moses. After her accusers had declined executing the penalty, Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee, i.e. to death, go and sin no more. These and similar passages are impressive practical comments on the positive doctrinal precepts of the Saviour. His kingdom is not of this world, and therefore excludes all military and war-like defenses. His ministers are sent forth unarmed, like sheep in the midst of wolves. They are therefore to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. All things must be conducted on the non-resistant principle. There must be no political strife for the highest place, no patronizing lordship, no gentile love of dominion. But they that really occupy the highest place must prove themselves worthy of it, by an entire willingness to take the lowest, by governing only through the influence of useful service. Government must doff its worldly insignia, its craft, and its prerogative to punish, and be vested in real truth, unglorified, un-pampered, and undistinguished by exclusive privileges. This is Christian government. He and his followers might be treated inhospitably, as by the Samaritans, but no injury must be returned, not even though by a miracle fire could be commanded from heaven. No such spirit must be indulged.  They must never destroy men's lives, but endeavor to save them. Even the holy one, at his betrayal into the hands of a mob, might not be defended with the sword by a Peter, because all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Evil cannot be overcome with evil. How is it possible to contemplate such clear, striking, mutually sustainable, irrefragable evidence of the scriptural truth of Christian non-resistance, without feeling the whole soul penetrated with profound conviction? But still the tide rises and flows on. End of Chapter 2 Part 1 Chapter 2 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 2 Part 2 of Christian non-resistance in all its important bearings, illustrated and defended by Aidan Baloo Apostolic Testimonies The Apostles having been gradually delivered from their early traditionary and educational predispositions for a temporal and military kingdom, renounced all carnal weapons, and drinking in the heavenly inspiration reiterated the non-resistance doctrine of their master. Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, unacceptable, and perfect will of God. Bless them which persecute you. Bless and curse not. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, sayeth the Lord. Therefore, if thine enemy hunger feed him, if he thirst give him drink. For in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12, verses 2, 14, 17, and 19 through 21. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the ingest, and not before the saints. Now, therefore, there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 1 Corinthians 6, verses 1 and 7. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations, and everything that exalted itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. 2 Corinthians 5, verses 3 through 5. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Against such there is no law. And they that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the Spirit. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Galatians 5, verses 22 through 25. Be ye angry and sin not. Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.  Ephesians 4, verses 26 and 31. Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long suffering. Galatians 3, verse 12. See that none render evil for evil unto any man, but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves and to all men. 1 Thessalonians 5, verse 15. Let us run with patience the race set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Follow peace with all men and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Hebrews 12, verses 1, 2, 3 and 14. My beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. James 1, verses 19 and 20. From whence come wars and fightings among you?  Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. James 4, verses 1 and 7. This is thankworthy if a man from conscience towards God, you are grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it if when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if when ye do well and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even here unto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow his steps. Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, who was when he was reviled, again, when he suffered he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judges righteously? 1 Peter 2, verses 19 through 23. And who is he that will harm you if ye be followers of that which is good? But if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye, and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust. 1 Peter 3, verses 13, 14, 17, and 18. Also, 1 Peter 4, verses 13 through 19. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked. He that saith he is in the light and hateeth his brother is in darkness even until now and walketh in darkness and knoweth not whether he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his mind. 1 John 2, verses 6 and 11. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateeth his brother is a murderer and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3, verses 14 and 15. No man hath seen God at any time if ye love one another God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us. If a man say I love God if his brother he is a liar for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 1 John 4, verses 12 and 20. Is it possible to read these quotations without an irresistible conviction of their perfect harmony with the teachings of the Savior on this great subject? Can we doubt that they all proceeded from the same divine source? And now what was the example of Jesus? What was the practice of the apostles after the resurrection of Christ when fully imbued with power and grace from on high? Did they ever slay any human being? Ever threatened to do so? Ever make use of any deadly weapon? Ever serve in the army or navy of any nation, state, or chieftain? Ever seek or accept any office, legislative, judicial, or executive under the existing governments of their day? Ever make complaint to the magistrates against any offender or criminal to procure his punishment? Ever commence any prosecution at law to obtain redress of grievances? Ever apply to the civil or military authority to protect them by force of arms when in imminent danger? Or ever counsel others to do any one of these acts? Did they ever express by word or deed their reliance on political, military, or penal power to secure personal protection or to carry forward the Christianization of the world? I answer confidently no. But let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Let the New Testament be thoroughly searched with reference to these questions. If it shall be found that I am correct, let the opposers of non-resistance make up their minds to yield. For if precept and practice, spirit and example go together throughout the scriptures of the New Testament, the cases decided beyond controversy. I am aware of the objections urged with so much desperation from such texts as that which speaks of the scourge of the small cords, that which mentions the direction of Jesus to buy swords. Paul's appeal to Caesar is notification of the chief captain when the forty men conspired to slay him, the thirteenth chapter of Romans, etc. Neither of these, nor all of them together, will serve the objector's purpose, as I shall demonstrate in the next chapter. On the other hand, we are able to show a series of examples, indeed, a life conformable to the doctrine of non-resistance. And we are also able to show that this doctrine practically prevailed among the primitive Christians for a considerable time subsequent to the apostolic age. Look at Jesus in the temptation. He was offered all the kingdoms of the world. But on what condition? Provided only he would fall down and worship the tempter. Is not this essentially the condition on which his followers have ever been offered worldly political power? There is a spirit which animates and characterizes carnal human government. It is the destroying spirit, the angel of injury, the old serpent of violence. This is the grand controlling power underneath the throne, the durnier resort, the ultimate indispensable reliance of all mere worldly authority, and he is accounted a fool who supposes there can be any such thing as government among mankind without it. Consequently its solemn acknowledgement is now, as ever, the condition on which he must take the scepter or assume the seals of office. He who had rule must first worship this genius of violence, must swear to support his authority with sword and penal vengeance. Jesus chose the pain and shame of the cross in preference to the fame and glory of universal empire on such a condition. It was no inducement with him that all the world should take his name and verbally confess him Lord while at heart and in practice he would not be a king of nations when he could not be a king of hearts and consciences. He would not do evil that good might come, because his kingdom was not of this world, he was essentially one of righteousness and peace. So he spurned an offered scepter and left it in hands which he knew would air long baptize him in his own non-resistant blood. For the same reason, when he perceived the determination of the people to proclaim him a king, he promptly placed himself beyond their reach. Nor would he be a judge and a divider among the people. Nor when he alone stood up in innocence to pass a rightful condemnation on the adulterous woman, would he pronounce the deadly sentence or raise the destroying stone. When a violent multitude, led on by his betrayer, came to seize him in the prayerful solitude of Gethsemane, he raised not a weapon of defense, but he rebuked his mistaken disciple for drawing the sword, healed the wound he had inflicted, and taught him that all who take must perish with the sword.   Yet never a word of threatening, reviling, cursing, or bitterness escaped him. With a meek and sorrowful dignity he bore all, and at the moment when he could have summoned legions of angels to his rescue, and to the destruction of his foes, low, he uttered that last victorious prayer, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. The morning heavens in silence heard. Then came the expiring groan, not to seal the just perdition of a murderous world, but as the awful amen of the new covenant, and the signal of complete triumph over hatred, sin, and death. The Primitive Christians If we enter among the evangelists and apostles of the crucified, and inquire how they lived and died, what will be the response? God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed unto death, for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place. Being reviled we bless, being persecuted we suffer it, being defamed we entreat. We are made as the filth of the world, the offscarring of all things. Stephen was stoned to death, calling on the Saviour to receive his spirit, and with the holy prayer on his lips. Lord, lay not the sin to their charge. James was slain with the sword, Peter crucified, Paul beheaded, and innumerable martyrs brought to seal their testimony with their blood. But in those days they suffered all things for the sake of the cross, and inflicted nothing. Always heroic for the truth, yet meek, patient, and non-resistant, they exemplified in a wonderful manner the depth and strength of their Christian principles. Never do we find firing to places of power, never distinguishing themselves in the army, never weedling and coaxing the worldly great to shed on them the renown of their official influence, never engaged in rebellions, riots, tumults, or seditions, never trusting in carnal weapons for the security of their persons, not even in the most barbarous and ruffian-like society, never cursing, reviling, or insulting even their persecutors. Such were the apostles and primitive Christians. They had learned of Jesus, and non-resistance for the first two centuries was the practical orthodoxy of the church. Justin Marder, early in the second century, declared the devil to be the author of all war. Tertullian denounced the bearing of arms, saying, shall he who is not to avenge his own wrongs be instrumental in bringing others into chains, imprisonment, torture, death? Lactantius declares, it can never be lawful for a righteous man for whose warfare is in righteousness itself. We find, says Clarkson, from Athenagoras and other early writers, that the Christians of their times abstained when they were struck from striking again, and that they carried their principle so far as even to refuse to go to law with those who injured them. The language of those primitive Christians was in this strain. One says, it is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms. Another, because I am a Christian I have abandoned my profession of a soldier. A third, I am a Christian and therefore I cannot fight. A fourth, Maximilian, I cannot fight, if I die I am not a soldier of this world, but a soldier of God. And in his fidelity he died by the hands of military tyranny. Testimony of Celsus and Gibbon Celsus, a heathen philosopher, wrote an elaborate work against the Christians of the Second Century. One of his grave allegations was in the following words, you will not bear arms in the service of the empire when your services are needed, and if all the nations should act upon this principle the empire would be overrun by the barbarians. Gibbon, the popular English historian of the declining Roman Empire, a skeptic as to Christianity, incidentally confirms the fact that the early Christians were unequivocal, non-resistance. In the early Christians and property they knew not how to reconcile with the patient doctrine that enjoined an unlimited forgiveness of past injuries and commanded them to invite fresh insults. Their simplicity was offended by the use of oaths, by the pomp of magistracy, and by the act of contention of public life. Nor could their humane ignorance be convinced that it was lawful on any occasion to shed blood of their fellow creatures, either by the sword of justice or by their personal and hostile attempts should threaten the whole community. They felt and confessed that such institutions, life-taking, etc., might be necessary for the present system of the world. And they cheerfully submitted to the authority of their pagan governors. But while they inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or military defense of the empire. Volume 1, page 24 went into the world as sheep among wolves, and since they were not permitted to employ force, even in the defense of their religion, they deemed that they should be still more criminal if they were tempted to shed the blood of their fellow creatures in disputing the vain privileges or the sordid possessions of this transitory life. Faithful to the doctrine of the apostle, who in the reign of Nero had preached the duty of unconditional submission, the Christians of the three first centuries preserved their conscience pure and innocent of the guilt of secret conspiracy or open rebellion. While they experienced the rigor of persecution, they were never provoked either to meet their tyrants in the field or indignantly to withdraw themselves into some remote or sequestered corner of the globe. Volume 2, page 200 Can there be any doubt that Jesus Christ, His apostles, and the primitive Christians held, taught, and exemplified the doctrine for which I am contending, is not the scriptural proof of its truth and positive, unequivocal, and irresistible? It seems to me that it is. I therefore commend what has been submitted to the deliberate consideration of all candid minds, whose veneration for and attachment to the scriptures give their testimony the least weight in determining such a question.


The sparkling pink and purple loop in ZW-228 is not a typical ring galaxy due to the fact that it doesn't seem to have the usual visible central companion. For many years it was thought to be a lone circle on the sky, but observations using Hubble have shown that there may be a possible companion lurking just inside the ring where the loop appears to double back on itself.