CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

Chapter 2




Scriptural Proofs

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


The 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 offscouring of all things.” Stephen was stoned to death, calling on the Savior to receive his spirit, and with the holy prayer on his lips: “Lord, lay not this 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 them aspiring to places of power; never distinguishing themselves in the army; never wheedling 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 Martyr, 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, torment, or death?” Lactantius declared, “It can never be lawful for a righteous man to go to war, 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 principles 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, Maximillian, “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.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

Chapter 2




Scriptural Proofs

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



Testimony of Celsus and Gibbon

Celsus, a heathen philosopher, wrote an elaborate work against the Christians, about the middle 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-resistants. “The defense of our persons 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 active contention of public life; nor could their humane ignorance be convinced that it was lawful, on any occasion, to shed the blood of their fellow creatures, either by the sword of justice or that of war, even though their criminal 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.” Vol. I p. 24. “The humble Christians were sent 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 first three 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 and sequestered corner of the globe.” Vol. II p. 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 abundant, 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.

Continued:

Hi pastorfrin...

I've noticed that you quote Adin Ballou in many threads and posts. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Mr. Ballou both a [i]Unitarian-Universalist[/i] and an advocate for [i]socialism[/i]?

Forgive me if this sounds like an attack on Mr. Ballou. I know little about the man. However, I checked our University's card catalog and found a copy of his work [i]Practical Christian Socialism[/i]. An internet search revealed a website entitled [url=http://www.adinballou.org/]Friends of Adin Ballou[/url]. The biography listed in that website, as well as the one listed in the [url=http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/adinballou.html]Unitarian/Universalists' website[/url] is quite revealing. He was the founder of an utopian Unitarian-Universalist community known as "[i]Hopedale[/i]" that was complete with a socialist government.

Anyway, I was wondering if you could point me to a website that reveals a little more about this man. I'm not certain as to whether you are an advocate of all of Ballou's teachings, or simply those that embrace his pacifist and CNR beliefs.

Thanks!

:-)

_________________
Christopher

Hi Chris,

You wrote:

Hi pastorfrin...

_________________
Christopher

Hi Chris,

I was in no way offended by your question, and I hope you did not perceive that I was.
My answer to you was done with the wink, as far as your search is concerned; if you look at the listed references to Mr. Ballou, many are duplicates and some are post by others then myself;
Not that it matters, just a point to consider.

As my writings have said in the past, I’m not interested in any form of government, other than what the Lord will introduce upon His return; so Socialism would not interest me, it may interest the pacifist but not the CNR.

Thanks for your thoughts.

In His Love
pastorfrin

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

Chapter 3



Scriptural Objections Answered

Objection 1 – You throw away the Old Testament – Voice of the New Testament – Voice of the Old Testament. Objection 2 – The scourge of small cords. Objection 3 – The two swords. Objection 4 – The death of Ananias and Sapphira. Objection 5 – Human government – Romans chapter 13 – How the apostles viewed the then existing governments – Submission to, not participation in governments enjoined on Christians – In what sense the powers that be are ordained of God – Pharaoh God’s “minister” – Also the monarch of Assyria – Also Nebuchadnezzar – The Roman government – Respects wherein government is ordained of God – Paul’s conduct in relation to government – Conclusion.

I devote the present chapter to the consideration of scriptural objections. Our doctrine is obviously sustained by the most abundant and convincing proofs from the scriptures of the New Testament. It forces a degree of conviction on many minds by no means prepared for the great practical change involved, or even for a cordial assent to the doctrine itself. Hence they fall back behind certain apparently formidable objections, urged by more determined opponents from the scriptures. They demand that these should be satisfactorily answered. It is only fair that it should be done.

Objection 1 – You Throw Away the Old Testament

“You quote exclusively from the scriptures of the New Testament to prove the non-resistance doctrine. Those of the Old Testament are unequivocally against it. They afford abundant precepts and examples in justification of war, capital punishment, and various forms of penal restraint on criminals. Is not the whole Bible the word of God? Do you throw away and trample under foot the Old Testament? If your doctrine were of God, it would be equally provable from both Testaments.”

Answer: It is true that I have quoted exclusively from the scriptures of the New Testament to prove the doctrine of Christian non-resistance. And I grant that those of the Old Testament, with a few unimportant exceptions, are unequivocally against it, i.e., taken independently of the Christian revelation. I also admit the whole Bible, properly considered and interpreted, to be in a general sense the word of God. But I do not admit the Old Testament to be as clearly, fully, and perfectly the word of God as the New Testament; nor to be of equal authority with the latter on questions of doctrine and duty; nor to be the rule of faith and practice for Christians. It is to be held in reverence as the prophecy and preparative of the New Testament – the foreshadow of better things to come. If I can prove this to be the true character and office of the Old Testament, I shall thereby silence the objection before us. Not only so, I shall demonstrate that I pay the highest respect to both Testaments; and that those who claim for the Old an equal authority with the New, discredit both. Let us settle this point. The scriptures of the two Testaments shall speak for themselves. What they say of each other must determine the matter.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

Chapter 3



Scriptural Objections Answered

Objection 1 – You throw away the Old Testament – Voice of the New Testament – Voice of the Old Testament. Objection 2 – The scourge of small cords. Objection 3 – The two swords. Objection 4 – The death of Ananias and Sapphira. Objection 5 – Human government – Romans chapter 13 – How the apostles viewed the then existing governments – Submission to, not participation in governments enjoined on Christians – In what sense the powers that be are ordained of God – Pharaoh God’s “minister” – Also the monarch of Assyria – Also Nebuchadnezzar – The Roman government – Respects wherein government is ordained of God – Paul’s conduct in relation to government – Conclusion.

Voice of the New Testament

We will commence with the New Testament. “God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Heb. 1:1-2. “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he that built the house hath more honor than the house.” “Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things that were to be spoken after. But Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house we are…” Heb. 3:1-3,5-6. “For if perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law.” “There is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitability thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by which we draw nigh to God.” “By so much was Jesus made the surety of a better Testament.” Heb. 7:11-12,18-19,22. “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry than they, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For, finding fault with them, he saith, ‘Behold the days come,’ saith the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt… After those days,’ saith the Lord, ‘I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people…’” “In that he saith, ‘a new covenant,’ he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Heb. 8:6,13. See Heb. 10:1-2. “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions until the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” “But before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith that should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” Gal. 3:19,23,25. “Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” Eph. 3:4-5. “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones, was so glorious that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance – which glory was to be done away – how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?” “For even that which was made glorious, had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory which excelleth.” “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech, and not as Moses, who put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. But their minds were blinded; for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.” 2 Cor. 3:5-8,10-15. “Having, therefore, obtained help of God, I continue unto this day witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.” Acts 26:22-23. “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you saying, ‘Ye must be circumcised and keep the law’; to whom we gave no such commandment.” “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication – from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.” Acts 15:24,29. “And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses.” Acts 13:39. “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, ‘A Prophet shall the Lord your God arise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall say unto you.’ Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, have likewise foretold of these days.” Acts 3:22,24. “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my word.” John 5:45-47. “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write.” John 3:45. “These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me.” Luke 24:44. “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Luke 16:16. “Among those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” Luke 7:28. “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light, the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” “John bore witness of him and cried, saying, ‘This was he of whom I spoke. He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me.’” “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” John 1:6-8,15,17-18. “John answered and said, ‘A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.’” “He (Christ) must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all.” “For God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” John 3:27,31,34.
Such is the testimony of the New Testament scriptures. The objector professes to hold them, at least, equally authoritative with those of the Old Testament, and to receive the entire Bible as the word of God. Now, does he implicitly believe what is declared in the previously cited passages? Does he believe that “Christ was counted worthy of more glory than Moses;” that Moses was “a servant, but Christ a son over his own house;” that “perfection was not by the Levitical priesthood;” that Christ is the great “High Priest after the order of Melchisedec;” that “the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law;” that the old law “made nothing perfect;” that Jesus was made the surety of a better Testament – the mediator of a better covenant; that the old covenant was faulty, that it waxed old and was ready to “vanish away;” that the law was a mere “schoolmaster to bring mankind to Christ;” that the New Testament is not of “the letter which killeth, but of the spirit which giveth life;” that the law was “a ministration of death,” whose “glory was to be done away;” that the Christian dispensation “excelleth in glory;” that the Mosaic dispensation was to be “abolished;” that a veil remained in place in a certain Judaizing class of minds when reading the Old Testament, “which veil is done away in Christ;” that Moses and the prophets wrote of Christ; that Moses wrote of him when he announced the future coming of a prophet, whom the people should “HEAR IN ALL THINGS;” that the law and the prophets were until John the Baptist, and then the kingdom of God was preached; that John was greatest among prophets previously born, and yet inferior to the least in the gospel kingdom; that Christ was before and above John – from heaven and above all – endowed with the Spirit beyond measure – the true “light of the world”? If he believes all this, what becomes of his objection? If he believes it not, what becomes of the New Testament?

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

Chapter 3



Scriptural Objections Answered

Objection 1 – You throw away the Old Testament – Voice of the New Testament – Voice of the Old Testament. Objection 2 – The scourge of small cords. Objection 3 – The two swords. Objection 4 – The death of Ananias and Sapphira. Objection 5 – Human government – Romans chapter 13 – How the apostles viewed the then existing governments – Submission to, not participation in governments enjoined on Christians – In what sense the powers that be are ordained of God – Pharaoh God’s “minister” – Also the monarch of Assyria – Also Nebuchadnezzar – The Roman government – Respects wherein government is ordained of God – Paul’s conduct in relation to government – Conclusion.

Voice of the Old Testament

And what says the Old Testament? Does it contradict the testimony of the New? Does it represent itself as the perfect and final revelation of God respecting divine truth, human duty, and destiny? Does it claim a higher mission, or more permanent authority, than is ascribed to it in the New? Does not Moses predict Christ, and enjoin that he shall be heard in all things? Do not the prophets foretell the coming of the Messiah, and the establishment of a new covenant, superior to that of Sinai? Do not all the types and shadows of the old dispensation presuppose a new and more glorious one? Is there any need of my quoting texts from the Old Testament scriptures to this effect? No, the objector will not demand it. He will spare me the labor, for he must admit the obvious truth. To doubt it would be to doubt the divine inspiration of both Testaments, and thus to do the very thing he so much deprecates – discredit the whole Bible. If then, the New Testament claims to supersede the Old, and the Old, by prophecy, type, and shadow, announced beforehand the coming in of a more glorious dispensation than itself, i.e. the New, the point is settled forever. The New Testament supersedes the Old on all questions of divine truth and human duty. In affirming this, I only affirm what both Testaments unequivocally declare respecting themselves and each other. To question it is virtually to question the credibility of both. To affirm the contrary is to charge falsehood on both. Instead, therefore, of throwing away the Old Testament, I receive its testimony and render it a just reverence. By looking to the New Testament and accepting it as my rule of faith and practice, I rendered the most honorable obedience to the teachings of the Old. Whereas they who turn back from the perfection of the New to the imperfection of the Old – from the substance to the shadow – from sunlight to lamplight, to determine their Christian duty, trample on both Testaments, and invalidate the whole Bible. They believe neither; they obey neither.
In this view of the subject, the Old Testament, being in its nature and design a prophecy and foreshadow of the New, is not against but for non-resistance; notwithstanding the anti-non-resistant character, for the time, of its particular precepts and examples. Because it is, on the whole, for Christ and the supreme authority of his teachings, non-resistance included. It is for the New Testament with all its peculiarities, and for the excellence of the glorious gospel. Who can gainsay this? Hence, for professed Christians to quote its precepts and examples as applicable to the present dispensation is not only a gross perversion, but also a kind of pious fraud – not to be tolerated for a moment. That man can be no friend to the Old Testament, who drags it into overbearing conflict with the New. He is the enemy of both.
Nor is he the friend of Moses, who claims equality for him with Jesus Christ. It is no better than an attempt to turn a faithful herald into a rival of the king his master, whose approach he is commissioned to announce and prepare for. Yet there have never been wanting those who have set up Moses in superiority to Jesus. Moses predicted, and instituted preparations for, the coming of a Prophet whom the Lord God should in due time raise up. That Prophet was Christ. And what did Moses enjoin respecting the reverence to be paid to Christ? “Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.” Well, the predicted one came into the world and spoke as man never before had spoken. But he corrected some, modified others, and absolutely abrogated several of the sayings of Moses. Moses, for the hardness of the people’s hearts, had authorized them to divorce their wives for ordinary causes of dislike. But Jesus imperatively forbade them to do so, except for one cause – fornication. Moses sanctioned sacred and judicial oath-taking, and enjoined the most faithful performance of all vows. “But I say unto you, swear not at all,” is the injunction of Jesus. Moses said, “Life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…” “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil.” Thus is the mandate of the new Prophet. This very superiority of Jesus to Moses became an offence to the Jews. “Who makest thou thyself?” said they contemptuously. “We know that God spoke unto Moses; as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.” But Jesus said, “If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.” Yet he became to them a stumbling stone, and a rock of offence. They would not hear him in all things, even though solemnly enjoined by Moses to do so. The same stumbling still happens among professing Christians. When the plain non-resistant precepts of Jesus are urged upon them, and are demonstrated to be prescriptive requirements of the gospel, they are accounted hard sayings. The old law of retaliation is so sweet, and inflictions of evil are so convenient as means of resisting evil, that though unable to avoid the obvious non-resistant construction of the language in which those precepts are expressed, they retire behind the authority of Moses and deny that Jesus abrogated his sayings. They do not know what Jesus really meant, but they affect to be certain that he left war, capital punishment, penal inflictions, and personal resistance just where Moses did. Though Jesus expressly refers to the saying of Moses, “Life for life, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth,” and revokes it, still they adhere to it. And this they do under pretence of extraordinary reverence for the word of God – the whole Bible; alleging that non-resistants condemn Moses and the Old Testament, in the very act of receiving Jesus and the new covenant for what those precursors announced they should be. But the accusation returns upon their own heads. They are the condemners of Moses and the Old Testament, for if they believed Moses and the prophets, they would believe in Jesus and the New Testament as more excellent, glorious, and authoritative than their forerunners. But as it is, they receive neither the Old nor the New Testaments as the Word of God, in any such sense as each separately, and both mutually, purport to be. Is it to be believed, then, that if they could summon Moses from the world of spirits, he would commend them for their adherence to his war-like and punitive precepts, regardless of Christ’s non-resistant precepts? Would he thank them for overbearing and nullifying the laws of Jesus by perpetuating and enforcing his code? Would he not rebuke them for their unbelief and rebellion of soul? Would he not, like Elias, say, “He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear”? “He must increase, but I must decrease. He that is of the earth is earthly; he that cometh from heaven is above all.” “Hear him in all things.” I consider the objection under notice fairly answered.

Continued:

CHRISTIAN
NON-RESISTANCE

by Adin Ballou

Chapter 3



Scriptural Objections Answered

Objection 1 – You throw away the Old Testament – Voice of the New Testament – Voice of the Old Testament. Objection 2 – The scourge of small cords. Objection 3 – The two swords. Objection 4 – The death of Ananias and Sapphira. Objection 5 – Human government – Romans chapter 13 – How the apostles viewed the then existing governments – Submission to, not participation in governments enjoined on Christians – In what sense the powers that be are ordained of God – Pharaoh God’s “minister” – Also the monarch of Assyria – Also Nebuchadnezzar – The Roman government – Respects wherein government is ordained of God – Paul’s conduct in relation to government – Conclusion.

Objection 2 – The Scourge of Small Cords

“And Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen, and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money, sitting. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changer’s money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, ‘Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.’ And his disciples remembered that it was written, ‘The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.’” John 2:13-17. Is not this transaction of Jesus directly contrary to your doctrine of non-resistance?


Answer. Whether the conduct of Jesus on this occasion was inconsistent with my construction of his non-resistance precepts depends very much on the particular facts of the case. Did Jesus injure or threaten to injure any person whom he expelled from the temple? Did he impair the life or health of any human being? Did he wantonly destroy property? Did he commit any injurious act on the body, mind, or rightful estate of any person concerned? If he did, his conduct was inconsistent with what I have defined to be Christian non-resistance. If he did not, it is perfectly reconcilable with my doctrine. That he displayed an extraordinary zeal for the religious honor if the temple is certain. That by some remarkable means he caused a considerable number of persons trafficking within the temple suddenly to remove from the same, with their animals and other effects is granted. That those persons had no right to occupy the temple for such purposes, and ought to have voluntarily removed upon the remonstrance of Jesus£, will, I trust, be admitted on all sides. The precise point of inquiry is, did Jesus inflict any injury on the persons, estate, or morals of those who were caused to remove by his interference? If it is to be presumed that he inflicted blows on the men with his scourge of small cords, and that he violently upset tables covered with coin, scattering it in all directions, I should have to admit that he injured, more or less, those whom he drove out of the temple. But I want some proof that he touched a single person with his scourge, and that in overthrowing the money-changers’ tables he exhibited a single undignified gesture. He urgently and authoritatively commanded the intruders to remove those things thence, and probably assisted in pouring their money into such vessels as were at hand, and in removing the fixtures they had constructed for their convenience. In all this he was earnest and determined, no doubt. But was he violent, outrageous, or punitive? Are we to imagine him rushing furiously among the sacrilegious, smiting right and left whomsoever he might reach with his scourge; knocking one thing one way, and another the other way; tearing up and breaking to pieces benches, tables and seats, like the leader of a mob? Some minds seem to imagine such proceedings as these, and of course conclude that many grievous cuts of the scourge remained on the persons of the expelled, and that money and other property was wantonly destroyed or wasted, or at least lost to the owners. But as I have an equally good right to imagine how Jesus acted on the occasion, I shall presume that he did nothing unworthy of the principles, the character, and spirit that uniformly distinguished him. When he saw the temple occupied by such a mixed multitude of pretended worshippers; some really devout, some hypocritically observing their formalities, and many others, who, while professing to be promoting the service of God, were intent only on acquiring gain – crowding their cattle, fowls, and money changing tables hard upon the sanctuary – so that the lowing of oxen, bleating of sheep, cooing of doves, clinking of coin, and vociferations of the keepers, mingled confusedly with the prayers, hymns, recitations, and responses of the devotees, his soul was filled with grief, loathing and abhorrence. A divine zeal fired his mind, to testify against and suppress this gross confusion and sacrilegious disorder. Taking up from the pavement a few of those rushes, or pieces of small cord made of rushes, which chanced to lie about him, he fastened them together in the form of a scourge or switch, and holding it up as an emblem of the condemnation in which the multitude had involved themselves, he commenced rebuking them for corrupting the divine worship, and mocking the Almighty with such a medley of prayer and traffic. Waxing warmer, in his denunciations, he assumed a high moral and religious tone of authority, and commanded the temple to be instantly cleansed of all those nuisances. The people, amazed and overawed by the truth, justice, earnestness, and uncompromising energy of his rebukes, shrunk backward from his presence, yielded to the impulse that his moral force imparted to them, almost involuntarily obeyed his directions, and in a short time were actively engaged in the work of removal. Jesus, waving the emblem of condemnation and reproach, but without harming either man or beast, followed up the retreating throng, urging forward the cattle, expediting the clearing and taking down of the money changer’s tables, and pouring forth with increasing fervor his rebukes and admonitions into the ears of the people, until the work was consummated. I take for granted that in this whole proceeding, spiritual and moral power was the all controlling element; that Jesus used very little physical force, and that little un-injuriously; that he acted in all respects worthily of his authority, dignity, spirit, and mission as the Son of God; that there was nothing of the mobocrat, fanatic, or police officer in his manner; and that he did no injury to any human being – nothing but good to all parties concerned. This is what I imagine respecting this affair. There is no positive proof one way or the other; as to the particular facts, we are left to form the best judgment we can in view of the probabilities. These are all on the non-resistant side of the question. It is unnatural, absurd, and altogether improbable to suppose that Jesus drove out so large a number of persons by actually scourging, or threatening to scourge their bodies. That he severely scourged their minds with just reproof, of which his rush scourge was a significant emblem, I willingly admit. And in this there is nothing inconsistent with non-resistance, as I have defined it. I insist, then, that it was neither mobocratic, military, political, or any mere physical force by which Jesus cleansed the temple; but divine, spiritual, and moral power. Therefore, I throw the laboring oar upon the objector, and demand that he adduce some evidence, other than mere inference or conjecture, that the Savior struck a single person with his scourge, or otherwise absolutely injured any human being. When something like this shall be proved, I will confess the force of the objection. Until then, I shall consider it sufficiently answered.

Continued: