Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/nonresistanceserOOsper 
 
NON-RESISTANCE 
 
 >C.V- 
 
 BY 
 
 >/ 
 
 \ A 
 
 WILLARD L. SPERRY 
 
 
 A SERMON PREACHED IN THE 
 CENTRAL CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 
 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 
 JANUARY 24, 1915 
 
 THE PILGRIM PRESS 
 
 BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO 
 
Copyright 1915 
 By WILLARD L. SPERRY 
 
 THE 
 
 PILGRIM 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 PRESS 
 
Matthew 5: 39 
 
 “Resist not him that is evil.” 
 
vr 
 
NON-RESISTANCE 
 
 “The position taken by most Christians 
 that Jesus made it a rule to say what he did 
 not mean,” says Ernest Crosby, “is fast 
 becoming untenable. Common intellectual 
 honesty before long will have completely 
 undermined it. We must choose between 
 Christ plus his teachings on the one hand 
 and an honest paganism on the other. I 
 once read the portions of the Sermon on the 
 Mount which refer to turning the other 
 cheek and giving up one’s cloak to my nine 
 year old boy with the object of getting his 
 opinion. ‘Oh what stuff!’ was the only 
 comment. I value this answer as a frank 
 expression of judgment. If every Chris- 
 tian who, at the bottom of his heart, believes 
 that these injunctions are stuff, would cor- 
 dially say so, it would be a great gain in 
 the cause of truthfulness, whatever might 
 be the result on the dogma of the inspira- 
 tion of the gospels.” 
 
 [ 7 ] 
 
N on-Resistance 
 
 There is probably no single injunction of 
 Jesus’ which has so signally and so consis- 
 tently failed of fulfilment as this injunction, 
 “I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil.” 
 Not only has Christendom failed to practise 
 the doctrine of non-resistance, but it has not 
 even thought seriously about it. A diligent 
 search through the catalogue of the Public 
 Library reveals only a pathetically brief 
 literature in the interests of this program. 
 True, the Society of Friends, and kindred 
 sects like the Moravians, have been a con- 
 spicuous minority, bearing witness to this 
 doctrine both with their lips and in their 
 lives, hut most of Christendom has regarded 
 their manner of life as quixotic and imprac- 
 ticable. Outside these sects only three or 
 four voices in America have been raised in 
 behalf of Jesus’ injunction not to resist evil 
 with evil. The one voice which we would 
 recognize is that of William Lloyd Garri- 
 son, who regarded the preaching of non- 
 resistance as his major mission, and the 
 preaching of abolition as his minor mission. 
 Because he thought that Jesus meant what 
 he said upon this and similar matters he 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 was branded by “The Independent” as an 
 “infidel of the most degraded class.” Gar- 
 rison founded here in Boston, in 1838, a 
 little Society of Non-Resistance, and later 
 published a brief monthly in the interests of 
 this cause. Both the Society and the paper 
 languished and soon died. Garrison was 
 before his time. The only other clear non- 
 sectarian voice which has been raised in the 
 modern world in behalf of non-resistance is 
 that of Tolstoi, to whom our text was the 
 very keystone of Christianity, the open ses- 
 ame to the meaning of the gospels. Tol- 
 stoi’s dramatic experiment in literal Bible 
 Christianity remains as one of the great 
 question marks writ after our whole con- 
 temporary religion, one of the real spiritual 
 assets of our time. Practically all Tolstoi’s 
 religious writings resolve themselves into 
 fugues upon this one theme, you must not 
 resist evil with evil, you must overcome evil 
 with good^. But, then, of course, Tolstoi 
 was Tolstoi. 
 
 “What is going to stop the war?” asked 
 a friend the other day. None of us can 
 answer the question. Economic insolvency, 
 [ 9 ] 
 
N on-Resistance 
 
 military exhaustion, a general spontaneous 
 uprising of the common people. These are 
 the ultimate possibilities. No one mentions 
 religion. “We look to the Church that 
 takes for its purposes the name of the 
 Prince of Peace,” says Mr. H. G. Wells. 
 “In England except for the smallest, weak- 
 est protest against war, any sort of war, on 
 the part of a handful of Quakers, Chris- 
 tianity is silent. Its workers, for the most 
 part, are busied in the loyal manufacture of 
 flannel garments and an inordinate quan- 
 tity of bed socks for the wounded. It is an 
 extraordinary thing to go now and look at 
 one’s parish church, and note the pulpit and 
 the orderly arrangements for the hearers 
 and to reflect that this is just the local rep- 
 resentative of a universally present organi- 
 zation for the communication of ideas. That 
 all over Europe there are such pulpits, such 
 possibilities of gathering and saying, and 
 that it gathers nothing and has nothing to 
 say.” 
 
 There are a great many persons who are 
 finding themselves forced by the logic of 
 events to the conclusion that the Christian 
 
 [ 10 ] 
 
N on-Besistance 
 
 Church ought to be gathering people to- 
 gether, now, and preaching to them dog- 
 matically the hteral doctrine of non-resis- 
 tance. The forced moral option of our time 
 is that between “Christ and Antichrist.” 
 “If our choice is to be Christ,” writes a 
 thoroughly unecclesiastical friend from 
 England, “then you have got to talk to us 
 about Christ. We moderns have forgotten 
 him. Revive our memories. And give him 
 and his teaching without compromise.” 
 
 This is a fair challenge to all of us who 
 pretend to be the spokesmen for the gospel. 
 The command to non-resistance belongs to 
 that great body of moral precept given us 
 in the Sermon on the Mount, which is, by 
 common confession, a counsel of perfection. 
 The absolute moral ideal preached by Jesus 
 constitutes for us all the practical dilemma 
 of our would-be discipleship. Christendom 
 has traditionally sought readjustment to 
 the austere morality of the original gospel 
 by underwriting it with some lower require- 
 ments which satisfy the conventions. Ca- 
 tholicism enjoins the “counsels of perfec- 
 tion” only upon the “religious,” and pre- 
 [ 11 ] 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 scribes for the laity the less exacting “com- 
 mandments.” Protestantism either admits 
 a “half-way covenant,” or, as in latter times, 
 “spiritualizes” the letter of the gospel. 
 Everywhere there is this “ethical bi-metal- 
 lism,” by which the original currency of the 
 Kingdom has been debased. 
 
 It seems more and more obvious that this 
 process is fatal to the moral significance and 
 moral power of the person and teaching of 
 Jesus. We have been proceeding upon the 
 theory that the Sermon on the Mount is a 
 program which, by ingenious exegesis, can 
 be dovetailed into the world as it now is. 
 Our supposition is false. Our effort has 
 failed. In altering the gospel to suit the 
 present status we have destroyed its original 
 character. This modified Christianity is 
 the Christianity which now is declared 
 bankrupt. 
 
 There never was a time when it was more 
 essential for us to hold clearly before our 
 eyes the unqualified moral ideal announced 
 by the gospels. If Christianity is to make 
 any contribution to our contemporary ex- 
 tremity, that contribution must follow upon 
 [ 12 ] 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 a fresh apprehension of the actual life 
 preached and lived by Jesus. That we shall 
 all be rebuked by the discrepancy between 
 the gospel and our own circumstance is 
 slight loss, compared to the gain which will 
 accrue to us if we win a fresh appreciation 
 of pure Christianity and uncompromised. 
 
 The doctrine of non-resistance is so alien 
 to the conventional orthodoxies of our he- 
 redity and our environment, that it calls for 
 explanation. I quote, therefore, the ques- 
 tions and answers from a little catechism of 
 non-resistance published seventy years ago 
 by Wilham Lloyd Garrison’s disciples. 
 
 "'Q, Whence originated the term ‘non- 
 resistance’ ? 
 
 From the injunction. Resist not 
 evil, Matthew v: 39. 
 
 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 
 
 [ 13 ] 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 is to be resisted by all just means, but never 
 with evil. 
 
 May a man kill or maim another in 
 self defense? 
 
 No. 
 
 ''Q, May he fight with an army against 
 enemies or against domestic rebels? 
 
 '"A, Of course not. He cannot take 
 part in any 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. 
 
 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 neighbor’s 
 heart. The doctrine forbids doing that by 
 which evil is perpetuated and multiplied. 
 To offend another because he offended us 
 means to repeat an evil deed. Satan cannot 
 be driven out by Satan, evil cannot be van- 
 quished by evil. True non-resistance is the 
 one true resistance to evil. 
 
 [ 14 ] 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 ''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, suffer- 
 ing, and in extreme cases, the loss of life 
 itself. But it is incomparably safer to act 
 justly than unjustly — it is safer even in 
 relation to the present life.” 
 
 This, then, is the Christian attitude of 
 non-resistance. It is not something weak 
 and cowardly, not a craven acquiescence in 
 evil. It is not simply lying down and letting 
 the evil walk over you. It is standing up on 
 your feet and facing evil with good. It is 
 a marching unarmed up to the muzzles of 
 the guns. Let us have done with the idea 
 that a non-resister is a coward. He is the 
 only man who can understand the Bible 
 saying that “perfect love casteth out fear.” 
 Garrison was a non-resister, but it was 
 Garrison who said, “I am in earnest. I 
 will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I 
 will not retreat a single inch, and I will 
 be heard.” Non-resistance is the fearless 
 [ 15 ] 
 
N on-Resistance 
 
 assertion of justice and love, in the face of 
 wrong. 
 
 This doctrine of non-resistance, the over- 
 coming of evil with good, is precisely as rea- 
 sonable as the doctrine of forgiveness, no 
 more, no less. For both non-resistance and 
 forgiveness are expressions of the determi- 
 nation to ignore evil in an offender because 
 of the latent good in him. When we for- 
 give a man we treat the evil that he has done 
 as though it did not exist. We try to con- 
 vince him of his unrealized and better self. 
 And non-resistance differs from forgiveness 
 only in its direction. For while forgiveness 
 is an act of retrospect, non-resistance is an 
 act of anticipation. In forgiving a man we 
 ignore the fact that he has done evil, in 
 non-resistance we ignore the fact that he 
 proposes to do evil. If non-resistance is un- 
 justifiable and impracticable, then forgive- 
 ness is also unjustifiable and impracticable, 
 for they are one and the same thing. 
 
 The field for the preaching of non-resist- 
 ance as the only ultimate and adequate solu- 
 tion of the problems raised by aggressive 
 evil in the world is open and unoccupied. 
 
 [ 15 ] 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 No statesman, no socialist, no economist as 
 such, advocates this program. It is pecu- 
 liarly a Christian policy. If the witness of 
 the Church is not raised in its behalf, then 
 it will fail of a hearing. But if we, who are 
 of '‘The Way,” have faith enough to preach 
 this doctrine of non-resistance with convic- 
 tion we shall find a world ready to listen. 
 Alike in religious and secular circles men 
 are open to conviction as never before upon 
 the practicability as well as the righteous- 
 ness of this dogma. The signs of the times 
 are significant. There is, for example, a 
 whimsical fancy by Ray Stannard Baker in 
 one of the current magazines which de- 
 scribes the ultimate invasion of America by 
 the military conquerors of Europe. Amer- 
 ica meanwhile has become converted to non- 
 resistance, has demolished her coast de- 
 fences, has disbanded her army and militia, 
 has scrapped her battleships, and fortified 
 herself only with international good will. 
 The invaders are met while yet at sea by a 
 reception committee tendering the hospital- 
 ity and freedom of the country. They land 
 on Long Island and instantly dig them- 
 [ir] 
 
N on-Resistance 
 
 selves into trenches and wait, and nothing 
 happens. No defenders appear. They send 
 a peremptory demand for the surrender of 
 New York City. They receive in return a 
 cordial invitation to come right along and 
 try their hand at governing New York, 
 which under Tammany Rule has not been 
 at all as creditable a municipality as any 
 one of the great European cities. And then 
 the invasion collapses and War is forever 
 exorcised from the world by one spontane- 
 ous burst of international laughter. Be- 
 neath the genial satire there is the serious 
 truth of a newly apprehended idea. This 
 article would not have been possible a year 
 ago. 
 
 And then there is the favorite and fami- 
 liar question for contemporary casuistry. 
 What would have happened if the Belgians 
 and French had not resisted violence with 
 violence. What if they had simply laid down 
 their arms, unitedly, and taken their stand 
 in the highways and said, we refuse to re- 
 cognize the anticipated evil, we see only the 
 common good of all the peoples of Europe. 
 We stand in the way of your advance to 
 [ 18 ] 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 remind you of human values, not of military 
 necessity. The minister of the French con- 
 gregation which meets in our chapel on 
 Sunday afternoons is a native Belgian, and 
 it is his great regret that his people were 
 not organized for this effort, even though it 
 had meant national martyrdom instead of 
 international war. 
 
 Then I have a British friend who wishes 
 that the Church of England had been or- 
 ganized for non-resistance as the State was 
 organized for war. That the Church of 
 England had had her companies and regi- 
 ments of communicants, her transport and 
 commissary departments ready for the 
 emergency, so that in the critical hour she 
 could have marched five hundred thousand, 
 a million Christians, into the face of her 
 foes, singing the hymns of the Church uni- 
 versal, and chanting the creed of the King- 
 dom of God upon earth. He says there is 
 no government in the world that would 
 assume the terrible responsibility or risk the 
 moral odium of butchering such an army 
 for the sake of its policies of aggression. 
 
 Well, then there was that congressman 
 
 [ 19 ] 
 
N on-Resistance 
 
 who suggested, as a serious measure, that 
 Congress should vote the demanded appro- 
 priation for increased armaments and then 
 should turn over the whole appropriation 
 to relief work in Europe. What nation, he 
 asked, not without good reason, would at- 
 tack another nation that had voluntarily 
 laid off its armor to assume a ministry of 
 brotherly charity? 
 
 Now all these whimsicalities and visions 
 are significant net in themselves, but as 
 signs of the times. The doctrine of non- 
 resistance when thus stated captivates the 
 imagination. It commands respect and en- 
 thusiasm. It appeals to us not only as 
 ideal, but as more practicable than we had 
 ever dreamed. We begin really to believe 
 that '‘The man who will not strike back is 
 the only man who cannot be conquered, and 
 the treatment of him becomes an insoluble 
 problem for the tyrant. It is the non-re- 
 sistant alone who can overcome superior 
 power.” 
 
 There are two obvious objections to the 
 doctrine of non-resistance that will always 
 be urged. 
 
 [ 20 ] 
 
N on-Resistance 
 
 The first is an objection which bulks 
 large with many of us. That however 
 plausible non-resistance may seem, it is in 
 the last analysis unnatural, and therefore 
 cannot and ought not to be put into prac- 
 tice. It is man’s nature to fight, the strug- 
 gle for existence is the law of his life. This 
 faith is deep rooted, not only in Nietzsche 
 and Treitschke and Bernhardi, but in us all, 
 in so far as we comprehend the facts of the 
 evolutionary process. Non-resistance finds 
 no sanction in evolution. How then can we 
 square it with this major article of our mod- 
 ern creed? This is the problem which we 
 all see so clearly now; the problem which 
 Huxley saw and faced and answered 
 twenty-five years ago in his Romanes Lec- 
 ture, one of the really classic utterances of 
 the last century, that might well be circu- 
 lated now as a tract for the times. “Man 
 and society,” he says, “are undoubtedly sub- 
 ject to the cosmic process. The struggle 
 for existence tends to eliminate those less 
 fitted to adapt themselves to the circum- 
 stances of their existence. The strongest 
 and most self assertive tend to tread down 
 
 [ 21 ] 
 
N on-Resistance 
 
 the weaker. But social progress means a 
 checking of the cosmic process at every step 
 and the substitution for it of another, which 
 may be called the ethical process; the end 
 of which is not the survival of those who 
 may happen to be the fittest, but of those 
 who are ethically the best. The practice of 
 that which is ethically best — what we call 
 goodness or virtue — involves a course of 
 conduct, which in all respects is opposed to 
 that which leads to success in the struggle 
 for existence. In place of ruthless self 
 assertion, it demands self-restraint; in place 
 of thrusting aside or treading down all com- 
 petitors, it requires that the individual shall 
 not merely respect but help his fellows. Its 
 influence is directed not so much to the sur- 
 vival of the fittest as to the fitting of as 
 many as possible to service. It repudiates 
 the gladiatorial theory of existence. Let us 
 understand once for all that the ethical 
 progress of society depends not on imitating 
 the cosmic process, still less in running away 
 from it, but in combating it.” It would be 
 a strange reversal of affairs if now, in civi- 
 lization’s extremity, Huxley were found to 
 [ 22 ] 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 be the real Christian and we church people 
 were to be found the heretics, because he 
 went on record in behalf of the gospel vir- 
 tues as against the natural instincts, while 
 we bow in helpless acquiescence to what we 
 call the law of our natures. 
 
 And the second objection to the doctrine 
 of non-resistance is that it is impracticable. 
 It may be impracticable as society is imme- 
 diately organized. But who of us holds any 
 brief for the present order, who is a blind 
 devotee of the “god-of-things-as-they-are” ? 
 The worship of existing institutions, in the 
 political and economic world, is the idolatry 
 from which we pray to be delivered. For 
 the man to whom the competitive processes 
 of contemporary society are the gospel as 
 well as the law, non-resistance is impracti- 
 cable. But most of us look for a new earth. 
 We realize that men must be “converted” 
 to non-resistance as to all the other charac- 
 teristic Christian dogmas, that Christianity 
 itself is a revolutionary program, a trans- 
 valuation of all values. 
 
 Perhaps we shall have to make private 
 and humble experiments in non-resistance 
 [ 28 ] 
 
N on-Besistance 
 
 before we can be convinced that it is thor- 
 oughly practicable. We must have a few 
 personal victories in this matter of overcom- 
 ing evil with good before we can understand 
 the homely wisdom of this seeming folly. 
 The history of individual experiments in 
 non-resistance is tremendously significant. 
 Stanley made it work in Africa. John G. 
 Paton made it work in the New Hebrides. 
 Thomas Mott Osborne is making it work in 
 Sing Sing. The history of community ex- 
 periments in non-resistance is not less sig- 
 nificant. The conquest and occupation of 
 America was achieved only after many 
 costly collisions with the Indians. But for 
 seventy years, until they were outvoted in 
 their legislature, the Society of Friends in 
 Pennsylvania lived in absolute peace and 
 security. When Maryland, Virginia, New 
 York and New England were being visited 
 with massacre upon massacre, the Quakers 
 of Pennsylvania went scot free. So long as 
 they practised non-resistance they never lost 
 a single settler at the hands of the natives. 
 ‘‘Their security and quiet,” says one of the 
 Society’s historians, “was not a transient 
 
 [ 24 ] 
 
N on-Remtance 
 
 freedom from war. Having determined 
 not to fight, the Pennsylvanians maintained 
 no soldiers and possessed no arms. There- 
 fore, they became armed without arms; they 
 became strong without strength; they be- 
 came safe without the ordinary means of 
 safety.” 
 
 If it be objected that non-resistance 
 might work with simple and primitive foes, 
 but not with sophisticated soldiers of the 
 modern world, listen to two extraordinary 
 quotations from a large number of just such 
 letters from the front, published in the 
 weekly London “Times” for January 8. 
 The first is from a Belgian soldier. “ Christ- 
 mas Day in the trenches ! It must have been 
 sad, you say. Well I am not sorry to have 
 spent it there, and the recollection of it will 
 ever be one of imperishable beauty. At 
 midnight a baritone stood up and sang, 
 ‘’Tis midnight, Christian!’ The cannonade 
 ceased, and when the hymn finished ap- 
 plause broke out from our side and from the 
 German trenches. The Germans too were 
 celebrating Christmas two himdred yards 
 away from us. Now I am going to tell you 
 
N on-Resistance 
 
 something that you will think incredible, but 
 I give you my word that it is true. At 
 dawn the Germans displayed a placard over 
 the trenches on which was written ‘Happy 
 Christmas!’ and then leaving their trenches 
 they advanced towards us singing and 
 shouting, ‘Comrades!’ No one fired. We 
 also left our trenches. They asked us to 
 spend Christmas Day without firing and the 
 whole day passed without any fighting. 
 Was it not splendid? Think you that we 
 were wrong? We have been criticised here; 
 it is said that we ought to have fired. But 
 would it not have been dastardly?” And 
 the other letter is from an officer of a High- 
 land regiment. “You need not have pitied 
 us on Christmas Day. We were in the 
 trenches and the Germans began to make 
 merry on Christmas Eve shouting at us to 
 come out and meet them. I was horrified 
 at discovering that some of our men had 
 gone out; they met half way and they ar- 
 ranged (the private soldiers of one army 
 and the private soldiers of the other army) 
 a forty-eight hours’ armistice. It was all 
 most irregular. All the night the enemy 
 [ 26 ] 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 sang, and during my watch they played 
 ‘Home sweet home’ and ‘God save the king’ 
 at half past two in the morning. It was 
 really rather wonderful. Christmas Day 
 out came those Germans to wish us a 
 Happy Day. So here you are, all this talk 
 of hate and fury at each other that has 
 raged since the beginning of the war, 
 quelled and stayed by the magic of Christ- 
 mas. Indeed as one of the Germans said, 
 ‘But you are of the same religion as us, and 
 to-day is the Day of Peace.’ It is really 
 a great triumph for the Church. It is great 
 hope for future peace when two nations, 
 hating each other as foes have seldom hated, 
 should on Christmas Day, and for all that 
 the word implies, lay down their arms and 
 wish each other happiness.” 
 
 Non-resistance will work, it will work in 
 our private relationships far oftener than 
 any of us suppose. It will also work in 
 our public activities far more generally than 
 we have ever dreamed. And if, sometimes, 
 like all human ventures it fails of its end, 
 even its failure is a victory. The signal and 
 classic example of the failure of the doctrine 
 
 [ 27 ] 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 of non-resistance, as a worldly expedient, is 
 the death of Jesus. They killed him in spite 
 of his non-resistance. But this signal fail- 
 ure of the doctrine is by common human 
 confession the greatest spiritual triumph 
 that the world has ever known. Socrates, 
 Savonarola, Nathan Hale, John Brown of 
 Ossawotomie, these martyrs were also vic- 
 tors in their latter end, but there is no moral 
 victory in all history like that of Jesus on his 
 cross. You do not need any doctrine of the 
 atonement to sense this fact, you need not 
 even be one of his disciples to appreciate the 
 positive spiritual glory of that death. He 
 who above all others overcame the world, 
 refused and rebuked the sword that was 
 drawn in his behalf and died in non-resis- 
 tance. And the most universal religious 
 symbol which the world knows is that sym- 
 bol of his non-resistance, the cross. 
 
 We are dealing, after all, in the doctrine 
 of non-resistance not with the calculating 
 counsels of selfish expedience, but with per- 
 manent values. Whether non-resistance 
 works or whether it fails to work as a means 
 to immediate safety, it is in either event a 
 J 28 J 
 
Non-Resistance 
 
 positive spiritual victory over the evil that 
 is in the world. “If only one man acted 
 thus,” said the makers of the New England 
 catechism of non-resistance, “and all the 
 others agreed to crucify him, would it not 
 be more glorious for him to die in the tri- 
 umph of non-resisting love, praying for his 
 enemies, than to live wearing the crown of 
 Csesar bespattered with the blood of the 
 slain?” 
 
 [ 29 ] 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f) 
 
 
 
 
PHOTOMOUNT 
 
 I pamphlet binder 
 
 PAT. NO. 
 877188 
 
 I Manufactured by 
 
 GAYLORD BROS. Ine. 
 I Syracuse, N. Y. 
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
 tnifftLl 
 
JX1959 .S75 
 
 Non-resistance: A sermon preached in 
 
 1 1012 00060 8960