THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU. Leo Tolstoy

"How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into righteousness? One man must not kill. If he does, it is murder. Two, ten, one hundred men, acting on their own responsibility, must not kill. If they do, it is still murder. But a state or nation may kill as many as they please, and it is no murder. It is just, necessary, commendable, and right. Only get people enough to agree to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how many men does it take? This is the question. Just so with theft, robbery, burglary, and all other crimes.... But a whole nation can commit it.... But how many does it take?"[3]

      Here is Ballou's catechism, composed for his flock (The Catechism of Non-Resistance[4]):

      Q. Whence originated the term "non-resistance?"

      A. From the injunction, "Resist not evil," Matt. v. 39.

      Q. What does the term signify?

      A. It expresses a high Christian virtue, prescribed by Christ.

      Q. Is the word "resistance" to be taken in its widest meaning, that is, as showing that no resistance whatever is to be shown to evil?

      A. No, it is to be taken in the strict sense of the Saviour's injunction; that is, we are not to retaliate evil with evil. Evil is to be resisted by all just means, but never with evil.

      Q. From what can we see that Christ in such cases prescribed non-resistance?

      A. From the words which He then used. He said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."

      Q. To whom does Jesus refer in the words, "It has been said?"

      A. To the patriarchs and prophets, to what they said,—to what is contained in the writings of the Old Testament, which the Jews generally call the Law and the Prophets.

      Q. What injunctions did Christ mean by "It hath been said?"

      A. Those injunctions by which Noah, Moses, and other prophets authorize men to inflict personal injury on injurers, in order to punish and destroy evil.

      Q. Quote these precepts.

      A. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man (Gen. ix. 6). He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death, and if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Ex. xxi. 12, 23-25).

      And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; 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 again (Lev. xxiv. 17, 19, 20).

      And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: and thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot (Deut. xix. 18, 19, 21). These are the precepts of which Jesus is speaking.

      Noah, Moses, and the prophets taught that he who kills, maims, and tortures his neighbours does evil. To resist such evil and destroy it, the doer of evil is to be punished by death or maiming or some personal injury. Insult is to be opposed to insult, murder to murder, torture to torture, evil to evil. Thus taught Noah, Moses, and the prophets. But Christ denies it all. "But I say unto you," it says in the Gospel, "that ye resist not evil, resist not an insult with an insult, but rather bear the repeated insult from the doer of evil." What was authorized is prohibited. If we understand what kind of resistance they taught, we clearly see what we are taught by Christ's non-resistance.

      Q. Did the ancients authorize the resistance of insult with insult?

      A. Yes; but Jesus prohibited this. A Christian has under no condition the right to deprive of life or to subject to insult him who does evil to his neighbour.

      Q. May a man kill or maim another in self-defence?

      A. No.

      Q. May he enter a court with a complaint, to have his insulter punished?

      A. No; for what he is doing through others, he is in reality doing in his own person.

      Q. May he fight with an army against enemies, or against domestic rebels?

      A. Of course not. He cannot take any part in war or warlike preparations. He cannot use death-dealing arms. He cannot resist injury with injury, no matter whether he be alone or with others, through himself or through others.

      Q. May he choose or fit out military men for the government?

      A. He can do nothing of the kind, if he wishes to be true to Christ's law.

      Q. May he voluntarily give money, to aid the government, which is supported by military forces, capital punishment, and violence in general?

      A. No, if the money is not intended for some special object, just in itself, where the aim and means are good.

      Q. May he pay taxes to such a government?

      A. No; he must not voluntarily pay the taxes, but he must also not resist their collection. The taxes imposed by the government are collected independently of the will of the subjects. It is impossible to resist the collection, without having recourse to violence; but a Christian must not use violence, and so he must give up his property to the violence which is exerted by the powers.

      Q. May a Christian vote at elections and take part in a court or in the government?

      A. No; the participation in elections, in the court, or in the government, is a participation in governmental violence.

      Q. In what does the chief significance of the doctrine of non-resistance consist?

      A. In that it alone makes it possible to tear the evil out by the root, both out of one's own heart and out of the neighbour's heart. This doctrine forbids doing that by which evil is perpetuated and multiplied. He who attacks another and insults him, engenders in another the sentiment of hatred, the root of all evil. To offend another, because he offended us, for the specious reason of removing an evil, means to repeat an evil deed, both against him and against ourselves,—to beget, or at least to free, to encourage, the very demon whom we claim we wish to expel. Satan cannot be driven out by Satan, untruth cannot be cleansed by untruth, and evil cannot be vanquished by evil.

      True non-resistance is the one true resistance to evil. It kills and finally destroys the evil sentiment.

      Q. But, if the idea of the doctrine is right, is it practicable?

      A. It is as practicable as any good prescribed by the Law of God. The good cannot under all circumstances be executed without self-renunciation, privation, suffering, and, in extreme cases, without the loss of life itself. But he who values life more than the fulfilment of God's will is already dead to the one true life. Such a man, in trying to save his life, shall lose it. Besides, in general, where non-resistance costs the sacrifice of one life, or the sacrifice of some essential good of life, resistance costs thousands of such sacrifices.

      Non-resistance preserves, resistance destroys.

      It is incomparably safer to act justly than unjustly; to bear an insult than to resist it with violence,—it is safer even in relation to the present life. If all men did not resist evil with evil, the world would be blessed.

      Q. But if only a few shall act thus, what will become of them?

      A. If only one man acted thus, and all the others agreed to crucify him, would it not be more glorious for him to die in the triumph of non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than to live