The Mennonites are undoubtedly right in making a distinction between
their position and that of the relatively large group of
"non-resistants" which arose in New England during the middle of the
nineteenth century. We have already noted the "Declaration of
Principles" written by Garrison and accepted by the New England
Non-Resistance Society in 1838. Despite the fact that Garrison insisted
that an individual ought not to participate in the government of a state
which used coercion against its subjects, his life was devoted to a
campaign against the evil of slavery. In the "Declaration" itself he
said:
"But, while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and
passive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual
sense, to speak and act boldly in the cause of GOD; to assail
iniquity in high places, and in low places; to apply our principles
to all existing civil, political, legal and ecclesiastical
institutions; and to hasten the time, when the kingdoms of this
world will have become the kingdoms of our LORD and of his CHRIST,
and he shall reign forever."[102]
Garrison was essentially a man of action; the real philosopher of the
non-resistance movement was Adin Ballou, a Universalist minister of New
England who devoted his whole life to the advancement of its principles.
In 1846 he published his _Christian Non-Resistance: In All Its Important
Bearings_, in which he set forth his doctrine, supported it with full
scriptural citations, and then presented a catalogue of incidents which
to his own satisfaction proved its effectiveness, both in personal and
in social relationships.
Although Ballou listed a long series of means which a Christian
non-resistant might not use, he insisted that he had a duty to oppose
evil, saying:
"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."[103]
Nor did Ballou condemn all use of "uninjurious, benevolent physical
force" in restraining the insane or the man about to commit an injury to
another. He finally defined non-resistance as "simply non-resistance of
injury with injury--evil with evil." Rather, he believed in "the
essential efficacy of good, as the counter-acting force with which to
resist evil."[104]
In applying his principle rigorously, Ballou, like the Mennonites, came
to the conclusion that the non-resistant could have nothing to do with
government. If he so much as voted for its officials, he had to share
the moral responsibility for the wars, capital punishment, and other
personal injuries which were carried out in its name. He insisted:
"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 and
constitutional law, as is decidedly anti-Christian. He must cease
to be its pledged supporter, and approving dependent."[105]
Like the Mennonites, he saw that the reason that governments were
unchristian was that the people themselves were not Christian; but
unlike the Mennonites he maintained that they might eventually become
so, and that it was the duty of the Christian to hasten the day of their
complete conversion. "This," he said,
"is not to be done by voting at the polls, by seeking influential
offices in the government and binding ourselves to anti-Christian
political compacts. It is to be done by pure Christian precepts
faithfully inculcated, and pure Christian examples on the part of
those who have been favored to receive and embrace the highest
truths."[106]
The Mennonites believed that man was essentially depraved; Ballou
believed that he was perfectible.[107]