of the doctrine, are, firstly, that I cannot agree with the concession that he makes for employing violence against drunkards and insane people, the Master made no concessions, and we can make none. We must try, as Mr. Ballou putsit, to mave impossible the existence of such persons, but if they are — we must use all possible means, sacrifice ourselves, but not employ violence. A true Christian will always prefer to be killed by a madman rather than to deprive him of his liberty. Secondly, that Mr. Ballou does not decide more categorically the question of property, for a true Christian not only cannot claim any rights of property, but the term «property» cannot have any signification for him, all that he uses, a Christian only uses till somebody does not takes it from him, he cannot defend his property, so he cannot have any. Property has been Achilles heel for the Quakers, and also for the Hopedale Community.2
Thirdly, I think that for a true Christian, the term «government» (very properly defined by Mr. Ballou) cannot have any signification and reality. Government is for a Christian only regulated violence; governments, states, nations, property, churches, — all these for a true Christian are only words without meaning; he can understand the meaning other people attach to those words, but for him it has none, just as for a business man if the ground, and regulations of the game, could have no importance or influence upon his activity. No compromise! Christian principles must be pursued to the bottom, to be able to support practical life. The saying of Christ that, «If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me», was true in His time, and is true in ours; a follower of Christ must be ready to be poor and suffer; if not he cannot be his disciple, and «non-resistance» implies it all. Moreover, the necessity of suffering for a Christian is a great Good, because otherwise, we could never know, if what we are doing, we are doing for God, or for ourselves.
The application of every doctrine is always a compromise, but the doctrine in theory cannot allow compromises; although we know we never can draw a mathematically straight line, we will never make another definition of a straight line as «the shortest distance between two points».
I will take care to send you my book on «Life» and would be very glad to know that you and Mr. Ballou approve of it.
