CHRISTIAN NON-RESISTANCE. CHAPTER I. EXPLANATORY DEFINITIONS. Different kinds of Non-Resistance-The term Non-Resistance-The term Force, etc.-The term injury, etc.-The term Christian NonResistance; its derivation-The key text of Non-Resistance-Necessary applications of Non-Resistance-What a Christian NonResistant cannot consistently do-The principle and sub-principle of Non-Resistance-The conclusion. DIFFERENT KINDS OF NON-RESISTANCE. What is Christian Non-Resistance? It is that original peculiar kind of non-resistance, which was enjoined and exemplified by Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures of the New Testament. Are there other kinds of non resistance? Yes. 1. Philosophical non-resistance of various hue, which sets at nought 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 despots to their subjects, as their indispensable duty and highest virtue; also recommended by worldly prudence to the victims of oppression when unable to offer successful resistance to their injurers. With this last mentioned kind Christian non-resistance has nothing in common. With philosophical and sentimental non-resistance it holds much in common; being, in fact, the divine original of which they are human adulterations, and embracing all the good of both without the evils of either. This treatise is an illustration and defence of Christian non-resistance, properly so designated. THE TERM NON-RESISTANCE. The term non-resistance itself next demands attention. It requires very considerable qualifications. I use it as applicable only to the conduct of human beings towards human beings-not towards the inferior animals, inanimate things, or satanic influences. If an opponent, willing to make me appear ridiculous, should say"You are a non-resistant, and therefore must be passive to all assailing beings, things and influences, to satan, man, beast, bird, 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. But I go further, and disclaim using the term to express absolute passivity, even towards human beings. I claim the right to offer the utmost moral resistance, not sinful, of which God has made me capable, to every manifestation of evil among mankind. Nay, I hold it my duty to offer such moral resistance. In this sense my very non-resistance becomes the highest kind of resistance to evil. This is another important qualification of the term. But I do not stop here. There is an unin. jurious, benevolent physical force. There are cases in which it would not only be allowable, but in the highest degree commendable, to restrain human beings by this kind of force. Thus, maniacs, the insane, the delirious sick, ill natured children, the intellectually or morally non-compos mentis, the intoxicated and the violently passionate, are frequently disposed to perpetrate outrages and inflict injuries, either on themselves or others, which ought to be kindly and uninjuriously 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 nonresistance to animals and inanimate things, nor to satan, but only to human beings, Nor is it moral non-resistance to human beings, but chiefiy physical. Nor is it physical non-resistance to all human beings, under all circumstances, but only so far as to abstain totally from the infliction of personal injury, as a means of resistance. It is simply non-resistance of injury with injury-evil with e vil. Will the opposer exclaim "This is 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 an absurdity. It was replied—“ we limit its application to the use of ardent spirits and intoxicating liquours." "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 absurdam,) "is no total abstinence at all; the term is mischosen!" Nevertheless, it was a most significant term. It had in it an almost talismanic power. It expressed better than any other just what was meant, and wrought a prodigious change in public opinion and practice. The term non-resistance is equally significant and talismanic. It signifies total abstinence from all resistance of injury with injury. It is thus far non-resistance—no farther. The almost universal opinion and practice of mankind has been on the side of resistance of injury with injury. It has been held justifiable and necessary, for individuals and nations to inflict any amount of injury which would effectually resist a supposed greater injury. The consequence has been universal suspicion, defiance, arma_ ment, violence, torture and bloodshed. The earth has been rendered a vast slaughter-field--a theatre of reciprocal cruelty and vengeance-strewn with human skulls, reeking with human blood, resounding with human groans, and steeped with human tears. Men have become drunk with mutual revenge; and they who could inflict the greatest amount of injury, in pretended defence of life, honor, rights, property, institutions and laws, have been idolized as the heroes and rightful sovereigns of the world. Non-resistance explodes this horrible delusion; announces the impossibility of overcoming evil with evil; and, making its appeal directly to all the injured of the human race, enjoins on them, in the name of God, never more to resist injury with injury; assuring them that by adhering to the law of love under all provocations, and scrupulously suffering wrong, rather than inflicting it, they shall gloriously "overcome evil with good," and exterminate all their enemies by turning them into faithful friends. 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-resistants, like others, have been in the habit of using this, and similar terms too loosely; thereby giving needless occasion for misunderstanding, on the part of the uninformed, and misrepresentation on the part of interested opposers. The word force, is thus defined by Walker, 66 strength, vigor, might, violence, virtue, efficacy, validness, power of law, armament, warlike preparation, destiny, necessity, fatal compulsion." Now if we should use the word force, as the contrary of non-resistance, without |