صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

trines to the pleasure of a capricious multitude, to be continually affecting a style and manner neither natural to him nor agreeable to his judgment, to live in constant bondage to tyrannical and insolent directors, are circumstances so mortifying not only to the pride of the human heart but to the virtuous love of independency, that they are rarely submitted to without a sacrifice of principle and a depravation of character; at least it may be pronounced, that a ministry so degraded would soon fall into the lowest hands; for it would be found impossible to engage men of worth and ability in so precarious and humiliating a profession.*

To much of this it is a sufficient answer, that the predictions are contradicted by the fact. Of those teachers who are supported by voluntary subscriptions, it is not true that their eloquence resembles the exhibition of a player who is computing the profits of his theatre; for the fact is, that a very large proportion of them assiduously devote themselves from better motives to the religious benefit of their flocks: -it is not true that the office is rarely undertaken without what can be called a depravation of character; for the character, both religious and moral, of those teachers who are voluntarily paid, is at least as exemplary as that of those who are paid by provision of the state :-it is not true that the office falls into the lowest hands, and that it is impossible to engage men of worth and ability in the profession, because very many of such men are actually engaged in it.

But although the statements of the Archdeacon are not wholly true, they are true in part. Preaching will become a mode of begging. When a congregation wants a preacher, and we see a man get into the pulpit expressly and confessedly to show how he can preach, in order that the hearers may consider how they like him, and when one object of his thus doing is confessedly to obtain an income, there is reason-not certainly for speaking of him as a beggar--but for believing that the dignity and freedom of the gospel are sacrificed. Thoughts perpetually solicited to the reflection how he may increase his subscription. Supposing this to be the language of exaggeration, supposing the increase of his subscription to be his subordinate concern, yet still it is his concern, and being his concern, it is his temptation. It is to be feared, that by the influence of this temptation his sincerity and his independence may be impaired, that the consideration of what his hearers wish rather than of what he thinks they need, may prompt him to sacrifice his conscience to his profit, and to add or to deduct something from the counsel of God. Such temptation necessarily exists; and it were only to exhibit ignorance of the motives of human conduct to deny that it will sometimes prevail.—To live in constant bondage to insolent and tyrannical directors. It is not necessary to suppose that directors will be tyrannical or insolent, nor by consequence to suppose that the preacher is in a state of constant bondage. But if they be not tyrants and he a slave, they may be masters and he a servant: a servant in a sense far different from that in which the Christian minister is required to be a servant of the Church-in a sense which implies an undue subserviency of his ministrations to the will of men, and which is incompatible with the obligation to have no master but Christ.

Other modes of voluntary payment may be and perhaps they are adopted, but the effect will not be essentially different. Subscriptions may be collected from a number of congregations and thrown into a common fund, which fund may be appropriated by a directory or conference: but the objections still

Mor. and Pol. Phil. b. 6, c. 10.

[ocr errors]

apply; for he who wishes to obtain an income as a preacher, has then to try to propitiate the directory instead of a congregation, and the temptation to sacrifice his independence and his conscience remains.

There is no way of obtaining emancipation from this subjection, no way of avoiding this temptation, but by a system in which the Christian ministry is absolutely free.

But the ill effects of thus paying preachers are not confined to those who preach. The habitual consciousness that the preacher is paid, and the notion which some men take no pains to separate from this consciousness, that he preaches because he is paid, have a powerful tendency to diminish the influence of his exhortations, and the general effect of his labours. The vulgarly irreligious think, or pretend to think, that it is a sufficient excuse for disregarding these labours to say, They are a matter of coursepreachers must say something, because it is their trade. And it is more than to be feared that notions, the same in kind however different in extent, operate upon a large proportion of the community. It is not probable that it should be otherwise; and thus it is that a continual deduction is made by the hearer from the preacher's disinterestedness or sincerity, and a continual deduction therefore from the effect of his labours.

How seldom can such a pastor say, with full demonstration of sincerity, "I seek not yours, but you." The flock may indeed be, and happily it often is, his first and greatest motive to exertion; but the demonstrative evidence that it is so, can only be afforded by those whose ministrations are absolutely free. The deduction which is thus made from the practical influence of the labours of stipended preachers, is the same in kind (though differing in amount) as that which is made from a pleader's addresses in court. He pleads because he is paid for pleading. Who does not perceive, that if an able man came forward and pleaded in a cause without a retainer, and simply from the desire that justice should be awarded, he would be listened to with much more of confidence, and that his arguments would have much more weight, than if the same words were uttered by a barrister who was fee'd? A similar deduction is made from the writings of paid ministers, especially if they advocate their own particular faith. "He is interested evidence," says the reader he has got a retainer, and of course argues for his client; and thus arguments that may be invincible, and facts that may be incontrovertibly true, lose some portion of their effect, even upon virtuous men, and a large portion upon the bad, because the preacher is paid. If, as is sometimes the case, “the amount of the salary given is regulated very precisely by the frequency of the ministry required,”—so that a hearer may possibly allow the reflection, The peacher will get half a guinea for the sermon he is going to preach-it is almost impossible that the dignity of the Christian ministry should not be reduced, as well as that the influence of his exhortations should not be diminished. "It is however more desirable," says Milton, "for example to be, and for the preventing of offence or suspicion, as well as more noble and honourable in itself, and conducive to our more complete glorying in God, to render an unpaid service to the church, in this as well as in all other instances; and, after the example of our Lord, to minister and serve gratuitously.'

Some ministers expend all the income which they derive from their office in acts of beneficence. To these we may safely appeal for confirmation of these remarks. Do you not find that the consciousness,

• Christian Doctrine; p 484.

CHAP. XVII]

in the minds of your hearers, that you gain nothing by your labour, greatly increases its influence upon them? Do you not find that they listen to you with more confidence and regard, and more willingly admit the truths which you inculcate and conform to the advices which you impart? If these things be so-and who will dispute it ?-how great must be the aggregate obstruction which pecuniary remuneration opposes to the influence of religion in the world.

But indeed it is not practicable to the writer to illustrate the whole of what he conceives to be the truth upon this subject, without a brief advertence to the qualifications of the minister of the gospel : because, if his view of these qualifications be just, the stipulation for such and such exercise of the ministry, and such and such payment is impossible. If it is" admitted that the ministry of the gospel is the work of the Lord, that it can be rightly exercised only in virtue of his appointment," and only when "a necessity is laid upon the minister to preach the gospel," it is manifest, that he cannot engage before hand to preach when others desire it. It is manifest, that "the compact which binds the minister to preach on the condition that his hearers shall pay him for his preaching, assumes the character of absolute inconsistency with the spirituality of the Christian religion."

Freely ye have received, freely give. When we contemplate a Christian minister who illustrates, both in his commission and in his practice, this language of his Lord; who teaches, advises, reproves, with the authority and affection of a commissioned teacher; who fears not to displease his hearers, and desires not to receive their reward; who is under no temptation to withhold, and does not withhold, any portion of that counsel which he thinks God designs for his church;-when we contemplate such a man, we may feel somewhat of thankfulness and of joy ;—of thankfulness and joy that the Universal Parent thus enables his creatures to labour for the good of one another, in that same spirit in which he cares for them and blesses them himself.

I censure not, either in word or in thought, him who, in sincerity of mind, accepts remuneration for his labours in the church. It may not be inconsistent with the dispensations of Providence, that in the present imperfect condition of the Christian family, imperfect principles respecting the ministry should be permitted to prevail: nor is it to be questioned that some of those who do receive remuneration, are fulfilling their proper allotments in But this does not evince that the universal church.

It does not

we should not anticipate the arrival, and promote the extension, of a more perfect state. evince that a higher allotment may not await their successors that days of greater purity and brightness may not arrive;-of purity, when every motive of the Christian minister shall be simply Christian; and of brightness, when the light of truth shall be

• I would venture to suggest to some of those to whom these considerations are offered, whether the notion that a preacher is a sine qua non of the exercise of public worship, is not taken up without sufficient consideration of the principles which it involves. If, "where two or three are gathered together in the name" of Christ, there He, the minister of the sanctuary, is "in the midst of them," it surely cannot be necessary to the exercises of such worship, that another preacher should be there. Surely, too, it derogates something from the excellence something from the glory of the Christian dispensation, to assume that, if a number of Christians should be so situated as to be without a preacher, there the public worship of God cannot be performed. This may often happen in remote places, in voyages or the like: and I have sometimes been impressed with the importance of these considerations is absent, and therewhen I have heard a person say, fore there will be no divine service this morning."

66

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

CHAPTER XVII.

PATRIOTISM.

Patriotism as it is viewed by Christianity-A Patriotism which is opposed to general benignity-Patriotism not the soldier's motive.

We are presented with a beautiful subject of contemplation, when we discover that the principles which Christianity advances upor. its own authority, are recommended and enforced by their practical adaptation to the condition and the wants of man. With such a subject I think we are presented in the case of Patriotism.

66

Chris

Christianity does not encourage particular patriotism in opposition to general benignity." If it did, it would not be adapted for the world. The duties of the subject of one state would often be in opposition to those of the subject of another, and men might inflict evil or misery upon neighbour nations in conforming to the Christian law. tianity is designed to benefit, not a community, but the world. The promotion of the interests of one community by injuring another—that is, "patriotism in opposition to general benignity," it utterly rejects as wrong; and in doing this, it does that which in a system of such wisdom and benevolence we should expect." The love of our country," says Adam Smith, "seems not to be derived from the love of mankind."†

I do not mean to say that the word patriotism is to be found in the New Testament, or that it contains any disquisitions respecting the proper extent of the love of our country-but I say that the universality of benevolence which Christianity inculcates, both in its essential character and in its precepts, is imcompatible with that patriotism which would benefit our own community at the expense of general benevolence. Patriotism, as it is often advocated, is a low and selfish principle, a principle wholly unworthy of that enlightened and expanded philanthropy which religion proposes.

Nevertheless Christianity appears not to en"citizen of the courage the doctrine of being a world," and of paying no more regard to our own community than to every other. And why? Because such a doctrine is not rational; because it opposes the exercise of natural and virtuous feelings; and because, if it were attempted to be reduced to practice, it may be feared that it would destroy confinod benignity without effecting a counterbalancing amount of universal philanthropy. This preference of our own nation is indicated in that strong language of Paul, "I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites." And a similar

[blocks in formation]

sentiment is inculcated by the admonition-" As we have, therefore, opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." In another place the same sentiment is applied to more private life ;-"If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith." t

All this is perfectly consonant with reason and with nature. Since the helpless and those who need assistance must obtain it somewhere, where can they so rationally look for it, where shall they look for it at all, except from those with whom they are connected in society? If these do not exercise benignity towards them, who will? And as to the dictate of nature, it is a law of nature that a man shall provide for his own. He is prompted to do this by the impulse of nature. Who, indeed, shall support, and cherish, and protect a child if his parents do not? That speculative philosophy is vain which would supplant these dictates by doctrines of general philanthropy. It cannot be applicable to human affairs until there is an alteration in the human constitution. Not only religion therefore, but reason and nature, reject that philosophy which teaches that no man should prefer or aid another because he is his countryman, his neighbour, or his child-for even this, the philosophy has taught us; and we have been seriously told that, in pursuance of general philanthropy, we ought not to cherish or support our own offspring in preference to other children. The effect of these doctrines, if they were reduced to practice, would be, not to diffuse universal benevolence, but to contract or destroy the charities of men for their families, their neighbours, and their country. It is an idle system of philosophy which sets out with extinguishing those principles of human nature which the Creator has implanted for wise and good ends. He that shall so far succeed in practising this philosophy as to look with indifference upon his parent, his wife, and his son, will not often be found with much zeal to exercise kindness and benevolence to the world at large.

Christianity rejects alike the extravagance of Patriotism and the extravagance of seeming philanthropy. Its precepts are addressed to us as men with human constitutions, and as men in society. But to cherish and support my own child rather than others; to do good to my neighbours rather than to strangers; to benefit my own country rather than another nation, does not imply that we may injure other nations, or strangers, or their children, in order to do good to our own. Here is the point for discrimination-a point which vulgar patriotism and vulgar philosophy have alike overlooked.

The proper mode in which Patriotism should be exercised, is that which does not necessarily respect other nations. He is the truest patriot who benefits his own country without diminishing the welfare of another. For which reason, those who induce improvements in the administration of justice, in the maxims of governing, in the political constitution of the state or those who extend and rectify the education, or in any other manner amend the moral or social condition of a people, possess incomparably higher claims to the praise of patriotism than multitudes of those who receive it from the popular voice.

That patriotism which is manifested in political partizanship, is frequently of a very questionable kind. The motives to this partizanship are often far other than the love of our country, even when the measure which a party pursues tends to the country's good; and many are called patriots, of

[merged small][ocr errors]

whom both the motives and the actions are pernicious or impure. The most vulgar and unfounded talk of patriotism is that which relates to the agents of military operations. In general, the patriotism is of a kind which Christianity condemns; because it is "in opposition to general benignity." It does more harm to another country than good to our own. In truth, the merit often consists in the harm that is done to another country, with but little pretensions to benefiting our own. These agents therefore, if they were patriotic at all, would commonly be so in an unchristian sense. And as to their being influenced by patriotism as a motive, the notion is ordinarily quite a fiction. When a Frenchman is sent with ten thousand others into Spain, or a Spaniard with an army into France, he probably is so far from acting the patriot that he does not know whether his country would not be more benefited by throwing down his arms; nor probably does he know about what the two nations are quarrelling. Men do not enter armies because they love their countries, but because they want a living, or are pleased with a military life: and when they have entered, they do not fight because they love their country, but because fighting is their business. At the very moment of fighting, the nation at home is perhaps divided in opinion as to the propriety of carrying on the war.

One party maintains that the war is beneficial, and one that it is ruining the nation. But the soldier, for whatever he fights. and whether really in promotion of his country's good, or in opposition to it, is secure of his praise.

All this is sufficiently deceptive and absurd: the delusion would be ridiculous if the topic were not too grave for ridicule. It forms one amongst the many fictions by which the reputation of military affairs is kept up. Why such fictions are needful to the purpose, it may be wise for the reader to enquire. I suppose the cause is, that truth and reality would not serve the purposes of military reputation, and therefore that recourse is had to pleasant fictions. This may, however, have been done without a distinct consciousness, on the part of the inventors, of the delusions which they spread. I do not wholly coincide with the writer who says,-" The love of our country is one of those specious illusions which have been invented by impostors in order to render the multitude the blind instruments of their crooked designs." The love of our country is a virtuous motive of action. The "specious illusion" consists in calling that "love of our country" which ought to be called by a far other name. As to those who have thus misnamed human motives and actions, I know not whether they have often been such wily imposThe probable supposition is, that they have frequently been duped themselves. He whom ambition urged on to conquest, tried to persuade himself, and perhaps did persuade himself, that he was actuated by the love of his country. He persuaded, also, his followers in arms; and they, no doubt, were sufficiently willing to hope that they were influenced by such a motive. But, in whatever manner the fiction originated, a fiction it assuredly is; and the circumstance that it is still industriously imposed upon the world, is no inconsiderable evidence that the system which it is employed to encourage, would shrink from the eye of virtue and the light of truth.

tors.

Upon the whole, we shall act both safely and wisely in lowering the relative situation of patriotism in the scale of Christian virtues. It is a virtue; but it is far from the greatest or the highest. The world has given to it an unwarranted elevation-an

Godwin: Pol. Justice, v. 2, p. 514.

elevation to which it has no pretensions in the view of truth; and if the friends of truth consign it to its proper station, it is probable that there will be fewer purious pretensions to its praise.

CHAPTER XVIII.

SLAVERY.

Requisitions of Christianity professedly disregarded-Persian law-The slave system a costly iniquity.

Ar a future day it will probably become a subject of wonder how it could have happened that upon such a subject as Slavery men could have enquired, and examined, and debated, year after year; and that many years actually passed before the minds of a nation were so fully convinced of its enormity, and of their consequent duty to abolish it, as to suppress it to the utmost of their power. I say this will probably be a subject of wonder; because the question is so simple, that he who simply applies the requisitions of the Moral Law finds no time for reasoning or for doubt. The question, as soon as it is proposed, is decided. How, then, it will be asked, in future days, could a Christian Legislature argue and contend, and contend and argue again, and allow an age to pass without deciding.

The cause is, that men do not agree as to the rule of decision-as to the test by which the question should be examined. One talks of the rights to property-one of the interests of merchants-one of safety-one of policy-all which are valid and proper considerations; but they are not the primary consideration. The first question is, Is Slavery right? Is it consistent with the Moral Law? This question is, in practice, postponed to others, even by some who theoretically acknowledge its primary claim; and when to the indistinct principles of these is added the want of principle in others, it is easy to account for the delay and opposition with which the advocate of simple rectitude is met.

To him who examines slavery by the standard to which all questions of human duty should be referred, the task of deciding, we say, is short. Whether it is consistent with the Christian Law for one man to keep another in bondage without his consent, and to compel him to labour for that other's advantage, admits of no more doubt than whether two and two make four. It were humiliating, then, to set about the proof that the Slave System is incompatible with Christianity; because no man questions its incompatability who knows what Christianity is, and what it requires. Unhappily, some who can estimate, with tolerable precision, the duties of morality upon other subjects, contemplate this through a veil a veil which habit has suspended before them, and which is dense enough to intercept the view of the moral features of slavery as they are presented to others who examine it without an intervening medium, and with no other light than the light of truth. To these the best counsel that we can offer is, to simplify their reasonings-to recur to first principles; and first principles are few. Look, then, at the foundation of all the relative duties of man-Benevolence-Love-that love and benevolence which is the fulfilling of the Moral Law-that "charity" which prompts to actions of kindness, and tenderness, and fellow-feeling, for all men. Does he who seizes a person in Guinea, and drags him shrieking to a vessel, practise this benevolence? When three or four hundreds have been

thus seized, does he who chains them together in a suffocating hold practise this benevolence? When they have reached another shore, does he who gives money to the first for his victims--keeps them as his property--and compels them to labour for his profit, practise this benevolence? Would either of these persons think, if their relative situations were exchanged with the Africans', that the Africans used them kindly and justly? No. Then the question is decided. Christianity condemns the system; and no further enquiry about rectitude remains. The question is as distinctly settled as when a man commits a burglary it is distinctly certain that he has violated the law.

But of the flagitiousness of the system in the view of Christianity, its defenders are themselves aware for they tell us, if not with decency at least with openness, that Christianity must be excluded from the enquiry. What does this exclusion imply? Obviously, that the advocates of slavery are conscious that Christianity condemns it. They take her away from the judgment seat, because they know she will pronounce a verdict against them.--Does the reader desire more than this? Here is the evidence, both of enemies and of friends, that the Moral Law of God condemns the slave system. If, therefore, we are Christians, the question is not merely decided, but confessedly decided: and what more do we ask? It is, to be sure, a curious thing, that they who affirm they are Christians, will not have their 'conduct examined by the Christian Law; and whilst they baptize their children and kneel at the communion table, tell us that with one of the greatest questions of practical morality our religion has no

concern.

Two reasons induce the writer to confine himself, upon this subject, to little more than the exhibition of fundamental principles;-first, that the details of the Slavery question are already laid, in unnumbered publications, before the public; and, secondly, that he does not think it will long remain, at least in this country, a subject for discussion. That the system will, so far as the British government is concerned, at no distant period be abolished, appears nearly certain; and he is unwilling to fill the pages of a book of general morality with discussions which, ere many years have passed, may possess no relevance to the affairs of the Christian world.

Yet one remark is offered as to a subordinate means of estimating the goodness or badness of a cause that which consists in referring to the prin. ciples upon which each party reasons, to the general spirit, to the tone and the temper of the disputants. Now, I am free to confess, that if I had never heard an argument against Slavery, I should find, in the writings of its defenders, satisfactory evidence that their cause is bad. So true is this, that if at any time I needed peculiarly to impress myself with the flagitiousness of the system, I should take up the book of a determined advocate. There I find the most unequivocal of all testimony against it-that which is unwittingly furnished by its advocates. There I find, first, that the fundamental principles of morality are given to the winds;-that the proper foundation of the reasoning is rejected and ridiculed. There I find that the temper and dispositions which are wont to influence the advocate of a good cause, are scarcely to be found; and that those which usually characterize a bad one, continually appear; and therefore, even setting aside inaccurate statements and fallacious reasonings, I am assured, from the general character of the defence and conduct of the defenders, that the system is radically vicious and bad.

The distinctions which are made between the ori

ginal robbery in Africa, and the purchase, the inheritance, or the "breeding" of slaves in the colonies, do not at all respect the kind of immorality that attaches to the whole system. They respect nothing but the degree. The man who wounds and robs another on the highway, is a more atrocious offender than he who plunders a hen-roost ;-but he is not more truly an offender, he is not more certainly a violator of the law. And so with the slave system. He who drags a wretched man from his family in Africa, is a more flagitious transgressor than he who merely compels the African to labour for his own advantage; but the transgression, the immorality, is as real and certain in one case as in the other. He who had no right to steal the African can have none to sell him. From him who is known to have no right to sell, another can have no right to buy or to possess. Sale, or gift, or legacy, imparts no right to me, because the seller, or giver, or bequeather, had none himself. The sufferer has just as valid a claim to liberty at my hands as at the hands of the ruffian who first dragged him from his home.-Every hour of every day, the present possessor is guilty of injustice. Nor is the case altered with respect to those who are born on a man's estate. The parents were never the landholder's property, and therefore the child is not. Nay, if the parents had been rightfully slaves, it would not justify me in making slaves of their children. No man has a right to make a child a slave, but himself. What are our sentiments upon kindred subjects? What do we think of the justice of the Persian system, by which, when a state offender is put to death, his brothers and his children are killed and mutilated too? Or, to come nearer to the point, as well as nearer home, what should we say of a law which enacted, that, of every criminal who was sentenced to labour for life, all the children should be sentenced so to labour also?-And yet, if there is any comparison of reasonableness, it seems to be in one respect in favour of the culprit. He is condemned to slavery for his crimes: the African, for another man's profit.

That any human being who has not forfeited his liberty by his crimes, has a right to be free-and that whosoever forcibly withholds liberty from an innocent man, robs him of his right and violates the Moral Law, are truths which no man would dispute or doubt, if custom had not obscured our perceptions, or if wickedness did not prompt us to close our eyes.

The whole system is essentially and radically bad: -Injustice and oppression are its fundamental principles. Whatever lenity may be requisite in speaking of the agent, none should be shown, none should be expressed for the act. I do not affirm or imagine that every slaveholder is therefore a wicked man;— but if he be not, it is only upon the score of ignorance. If he is exempt from the guilt of violating the Moral Law, it is only because he does not perceive what it requires. Let us leave the deserts of the individual to Him who knoweth the heart; of his actions, we may speak; and we should speak in the language of reprobation, disgust, and abhorrence.

Although it could be shown that the slave system is expedient, it would not affect the question, whether it ought to be maintained?-yet it is remarkable that it is shown to be impolitic as well as bad. We are not violating the Moral Law because it fills our pockets. We injure ourselves by our own transgressions. The slave system is a costly iniquity both to the nation and to individual men. It is matter of great satisfaction that this is known and proved; and yet it is just what, antecedently to enquiry, we should have reason to expect. The truth furnishes one addition to the many evidences, that, even with

respect to temporal affairs, that which is right is commonly politic; and it ought, therefore, to furnish additional inducements to a fearless conformity of conduct, private and public, to the Moral Law.

It is quite evident that our slave system will be abolished, and that its supporters will hereafter be regarded with the same public feelings, as he who was an advocate of the slave trade, is now. How is it that legislators or that public men are so indifferent to their fame? Who would now be willing that biography should record of him— This man defended the slave trade? The time will come when the record -This man opposed the abolition of slavery-will occasion a great deduction from the public estimate of worth of character. When both these atrocities are abolished, and but for the page of history forgotten, that page will make a wide difference between those who aided the abolition, and those who obstructed it. The one will be ranked amongst the Howards that are departed, and the other amongst those who, in ignorance or in guilt, have employed their little day in inflicting misery upon mankind.

CHAPTER XIX.

WAR.

CAUSES OF WAR.-Want of enquiry Indifference to human misery: National irritability: Interest: Secret motives of Cabinets Ideas of glory-Foundation of military glory. CONSEQUENCES OF WAR.-Destruction of human life: Taxation: Moral depravity: Familiarity with plunder: Implicit submission to superiors: Resignation of moral agency : Bondage and degradation-Loan of armies-Effects on the community.

LAWFULNESS OF WAR.-Influence of habit-Of appealing to antiquity-The Christian Scriptures-Subjects of Christ's benediction-Matt. xxvii. 52.-The Apostles and EvangelistsThe Centurion-Cornelius-Silence not a proof of approbation-Luke xxii. 36.-John the Baptist-Negative evidence -Prophecies of the Old Testament-The requisitions of Christianity of present obligation-Primitive Christians-Example and testimony of early Christians-Christian soldiers-Wars of the Jews-Duties of individuals and nations-Offensive and defensive war-Wars always aggressive-Paley--War wholly forbidden.

OF THE PROBABLE AND PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF ADHERING TO THE MORAL LAW IN RESPECT TO WAR.-Quakers in America and Ireland-Colonization of Pennsylvania-Unconditional reliance on Providence-Recapitulation-General Obser vations.

It is one amongst the numerous moral phenomena of the present times, that the enquiry is silently yet not slowly spreading in the world-Is War compatible with the Christian religion? There was a period when the question was seldom asked, and when war was regarded almost by every man both as inevitable and right. That period has certainly passed away; and not only individuals but public societies, and societies in distant nations, are urging the question upon the attention of mankind. The simple circumstance that it is thus urged contains no irrational motive to investigation: for why should men ask the question if they did not doubt; and how, after these long ages of prescription, could they begin to doubt, without a reason?

It is not unworthy of remark, that whilst disquisitions are frequently issuing from the press, of which the tendency is to show that war is not compatible with Christianity, few serious attempts are made to show that it is. Whether this results from the circumstance that no individual peculiarly is interested in the proof-or that there is a secret consciousness that proof cannot be brought-or that those who may be desirous of defending the custom, rest in security that the impotence of its assailants will be

« السابقةمتابعة »