pponents of Christianity—the so-called 'orthodox' ecclesiastical authorities.
Mr. Higginson says, 'I do not believe Non-Resist- ance admissible as a universal rule.' Heber Newton says that 'People's opinion as to the practical results of the application of Christ's teaching will depend on the extent of people's belief in his authority.' Carlos Martyn considers 'The transition stage in which we live not suited for the application of the doctrine of Non-Resistance.' G. D. Herron holds 'That to obey the law of Non-Resistance we must learn how to apply it to life.' Mrs. Livermore, thinking that the law of Non-Resistance can be fully obeyed only in the future, says the same.
All these views refer to the question, "What would happen if people were all obliged to obey the law of Non-Resistance?' But, in the first place, it is impossible to oblige everyone to accept this law. Secondly, if it were possible to do so, such compulsion would in itself be a direct negation of the very principle set up. Oblige all men to refrain from violence! Who then would enforce the decision? Thirdly, and this is the chief point, the question as put by Christ is not at all, Can Non-Resistance become a general law for humanity? but, How must each man act to fulfil his allotted task, to save his soul, and to do the will of God?—which are all really one and the same thing.
Christian teaching does not lay down laws for every- body, and does not say to people, 'You all, for fear of punishment, must obey such and such rules, and then you will all be happy'; but it explains to each individual his position in relation to the world, and lets him see what results, for him individually, inevitably flow from that relation. Christianity says to man (and to each man separately) that his personal life can have no rational meaning if he counts it as belonging to himself, or as having for its aim worldly happiness for himself or for other people. This is so because the happiness he seeks is unattainable: (1) because, as all
