The Kingdom of God Is Within You by Leo Nikoleyevich Tolstoy (reading diary .txt) 📖

this declaration a Society for Nonresistance was

founded by Garrison, and a journal called the NON-RESISTANT, in

which the doctrine of nonresistance was advocated in its full

significance and in all its consequences, as it had been expounded

in the declaration. Further information as to the ultimate

destiny of the society and the journal I gained from the excellent

biography of W. L. Garrison, the work of his son.

 

The society and the journal did not exist for long. The

greater number of Garrison’s fellow-workers in the movement for

the liberation of the slaves, fearing that the too radical

programme of the journal, the NON-RESISTANT, might keep people

away from the practical work of negro-emancipation, gave up the

profession of the principle of nonresistance as it had been

expressed in the declaration, and both society and journal ceased

to exist.

 

This declaration of Garrison’s gave so powerful and eloquent an

expression of a confession of faith of such importance to men,

that one would have thought it must have produced a strong

impression on people, and have become known throughout the world

and the subject of discussion on every side. But nothing of the

kind occurred. Not only was it unknown in Europe, even the

Americans, who have such a high opinion of Garrison, hardly knew

of the declaration.

 

Another champion of nonresistance has been overlooked in the same

way—the American Adin Ballou, who lately died, after spending

fifty years in preaching this doctrine. Lord God, to calmly and

meekly abide the doctrine. How great the ignorance is of

everything relating to the question of nonresistance may be seen

from the fact that Garrison the son, who has written an excellent

biography of his father in four great volumes, in answer to my

inquiry whether there are existing now societies for nonresistance, and adherents of the doctrine, told me that as far as

he knew that society had broken up, and that there were no

adherents of that doctrine, while at the very time when he was

writing to me there was living, at Hopedale in Massachusetts, Adin

Ballou, who had taken part in the labors of Garrison the father,

and had devoted fifty years of his life to advocating, both orally

and in print, the doctrine of nonresistance. Later on I received

a letter from Wilson, a pupil and colleague of Ballou’s, and

entered into correspondence with Ballou himself. I wrote to

Ballou, and he answered me and sent me his works. Here is the

summary of some extracts from them:

 

“Jesus Christ is my Lord and teacher,” says Ballou in one of

his essays exposing the inconsistency of Christians who allowed

a right of self-defense and of warfare. “I have promised

leaving all else, to follow good and through evil, to death

itself. But I am a citizen of the democratic republic of the

United States; and in allegiance to it I have sworn to defend

the Constitution of my country, if need be, with my life.

Christ requires of me to do unto others as I would they should

do unto me. The Constitution of the United States requires of

me to do unto two millions of slaves [at that time there were

slaves; now one might venture to substitute the word

‘laborers’] the very opposite of what I would they should do

unto me—that is to help to keep them in their present

condition of slavery. And, in spite of this, I continue to

elect or be elected, I propose to vote, I am even ready to be

appointed to any office under government. That will not hinder

me from being a Christian. I shall still profess Christianity,

and shall find no difficulty in carrying out my covenant

with Christ and with the government.

 

“Jesus Christ forbids me to resist evil doers, and to take from

them an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, bloodshed for

bloodshed, and life for life.

 

“My government demands from me quite the opposite, and bases a

system of self-defense on gallows, musket, and sword, to be

used against its foreign and domestic foes. And the land is

filled accordingly with gibbets, prisons, arsenals, ships of

war, and soldiers.

 

“In the maintenance and use of these expensive appliances for

murder, we can very suitably exercise to the full the virtues

of forgiveness to those who injure us, love toward our enemies,

blessings to those who curse us, and doing good to those who

hate us.

 

“For this we have a succession of Christian priests to pray for

us and beseech the blessing of Heaven on the holy work of

slaughter.

 

“I see all this (i.e., the contradiction between profession and

practice), and I continue to profess religion and take part in

government, and pride myself on being at the same time a devout

Christian and a devoted servant of the government. I do not

want to agree with these senseless notions of nonresistance.

I cannot renounce my authority and leave only immoral men in

control of the government. The Constitution says the

government has the right to declare war, and I assent to this

and support it, and swear that I will support it. And I do not

for that cease to be a Christian. War, too, is a Christian

duty. Is it not a Christian duty to kill hundreds of thousands

of one’s fellow-men, to outrage women, to raze and burn towns,

and to practice every possible cruelty? It is time to dismiss

all these false sentimentalities. It is the truest means of

forgiving injuries and loving enemies. If we only do it in the

spirit of love, nothing can be more Christian than such

murder.”

 

In another pamphlet, entitled “How many Men are Necessary to

Change a Crime into a Virtue?” he says: “One man may not kill. If

he kills a fellow-creature, he is a murderer. If two, ten, a

hundred men do so, they, too, are murderers. But a government or

a nation may kill as many men as it chooses, and that will not be

murder, but a great and noble action. Only gather the people

together on a large scale, and a battle of ten thousand men

becomes an innocent action. But precisely how many people must

there be to make it so?—that is the question. One man cannot

plunder and pillage, but a whole nation can. But precisely how

many are needed to make it permissible? Why is it that one man,

ten, a hundred, may not break the law of God, but a great number

may?”

 

And here is a version of Ballou’s catechism composed for his

flock:

 

CATECHISM OF NONRESISTANCE.

 

Q. Whence is the word “nonresistance” derived?

 

A. From the command, “Resist not evil.” (M. v. 39.)

 

Q. What does this word express?

 

A. It expresses a lofty Christian virtue enjoined on us by

Christ.

 

Q. Ought the word “nonresistance” to be taken in its widest

sense—that is to say, as intending that we should not offer

any resistance of any kind to evil?

 

A. No; it ought to be taken in the exact sense of our Saviour’s

teaching—that is, not repaying evil for evil. We ought to

oppose evil by every righteous means in our power, but not by

evil.

 

Q. What is there to show that Christ enjoined nonresistance in

that sense?

 

A. It is shown by the words he uttered at the same time. He

said: “Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye,

and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil.

But if one smites thee on the right cheek, turn him the other

also; and if one will go to law with thee to take thy coat from

thee, give him thy cloak also.”

 

Q. Of whom was he speaking in the words, “Ye have heard it was

said of old”?

 

A. Of the patriarchs and the prophets, contained in the Old

Testament, which the Hebrews ordinarily call the Law and the

Prophets.

 

Q. What utterances did Christ refer to in the words, “It was

said of old”?

 

A. The utterances of Noah, Moses, and the other prophets, in

which they admit the right of doing bodily harm to those who

inflict harm, so as to punish and prevent evil deeds.

 

Q. Quote such utterances.

 

A. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be

shed.”—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 and 23-25.

 

“He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if

a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so

shall it be done unto him: breach for breach, eye for eye,

tooth for tooth.”—LEV. xxiv. 17, 19, 20.

 

“Then 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, 21.

 

Noah, Moses, and the Prophets taught that he who kills, maims,

or injures his neighbors does evil. To resist such evil, and

to prevent it, the evil doer must be punished with death, or

maiming, or some physical injury. Wrong must be opposed by

wrong, murder by murder, injury by injury, evil by evil. Thus

taught Noah, Moses, and the Prophets. But Christ rejects all

this. “I say unto you,” is written in the Gospel, “resist not

evil,” do not oppose injury with injury, but rather bear

repeated injury from the evil doer. What was permitted is

forbidden. When we understand what kind of resistance they

taught, we know exactly what resistance Christ forbade.

 

Q. Then the ancients allowed the resistance of injury by

injury?

 

A. Yes. But Jesus forbids it. The Christian has in no case the

right to put to death his neighbor who has done him evil, or to

do him injury in return.

 

Q. May he kill or maim him in self-defense?

 

A. No.

 

Q. May he go with a complaint to the judge that he who has

wronged him may be punished?

 

A. No. What he does through others, he is in reality doing

himself.

 

Q. Can he fight in conflict with foreign enemies or disturbers

of the peace?

 

A. Certainly not. He cannot take any part in war or in

preparations for war. He cannot make use of a deadly weapon.

He cannot oppose injury to injury, whether he is alone or with

others, either in person or through other people.

 

Q. Can he voluntarily vote or furnish soldiers for the

government?

 

A. He can do nothing of that kind if he wishes to be faithful

to Christ’s law.

 

Q. Can he voluntarily give money to aid a government resting on

military force, capital punishment, and violence in general?

 

A. No, unless the money is destined for some special object,

right in itself, and good both in aim and means.

 

Q. Can he pay taxes to such a government?

 

A. No; he ought not voluntarily to pay taxes, but he ought not

to resist the collecting of taxes. A tax is levied by the

government, and is exacted independently of the will of the

subject. It is impossible to resist it without having recourse

to violence of some kind. Since the Christian