murderers, is another question. But, for murder at least, there seems full Scripture authority, that nations should inflict the punishment of death.

II. The last paragraph in the Article is: It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the magistrate, to wear weapons and serve in the wars.'

Tertullian, in his treatise De Corona Militis, argues against the lawfulness of a Christian's engaging in the military profession'. But, in his Apology, he says that Christians were in the habit of enlisting both in the Roman armies and the Roman navies 2. The well-known story of The Thundering Legion' proves that, in the year 174, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, there were many Christians among the imperial troops, even if we hesitate to believe that there was a whole Christian legion, or that their prayers brought down thunder and rain3.

When we come to Scripture, we find one or two passages in the new Testament, which seem to some persons decisive against the lawfulness of war altogether, and therefore against the lawfulness of serving in war. They are especially Matt. v. 38-41, where our Lord forbids us to resist evil,' bidding us turn the left cheek to one who smites us on the right; and Matt. xxvi. 52, All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.' What applies to individuals may be thought equally applicable to societies of individuals, and therefore to whole nations. Indeed we may justly apply the argument so far as to say, that no Christian nation or governor is justified in

1 De Corona, c. 11.

2 Apol. c. 42. See Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, p. 364.

3 Concerning the Thundering Legion, see Mosheim, De Rebus ante Constant. Mag. sec. II. § 17; Lardner, Vol. vII. p. 438.

Many later sects, whose doctrines and practices were very rigid, seem to have opposed capital punishments and the lawfulness of war; as the Waldenses (see Mosheim, Cent. XII. part II. sect. v. 12) and the Anabaptists. Mosh. Cent. XVI. sect. iii. pt. II. ch. iii. 16.

making war upon a principle of revenge. Revenge is an unchristian feeling, and therefore forbidden to nations as well as to individuals. Therefore, not only are wars for mere glory unquestionably wholesale murder, but wars for any end, save necessary preservation and protection of life, liberties, and independence, are clearly against the will of God, and the spirit of the Gospel of Christ. Yet we may press doctrines and passages of Scripture, of Scripture, so far as to overturn the whole fabric of society. If Christian nations may never resist aggression, or defend the weak; civilization and religion would be hourly exposed to destruction from the invasion of barbarians and unbelievers. In such a case the Gospel would have established the supremacy of the violent and the ungodly.

But He, who in the old Testament repeatedly calls Himself 'the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel,' can hardly have altogether forbidden just war. John the Baptist, when the soldiers inquired of him, what they should do to prepare for the kingdom of Christ, did not bid them give up serving in the armies, but required them to do no violence, and to be content with their wages (Luke iii. 14). Nowhere in the new Testament is there any injunction against the military profession, although our blessed Lord and His Apostles are frequently brought into contact with soldiers, and are led to speak of war. Thus the centurion, whose servant our Lord healed, receives high commendation for his faith, but no rebuke for his vocation (Matt. viii. 5-13). Cornelius, another centurion, has visions and miracles vouchsafed to him, and an Apostle is sent to instruct and baptize him; but no hint is given, that he ought to give up serving in the Roman armies, after his baptism and adoption of the faith (Acts x.). Our Lord and St. Paul both refer to the customs of war, as illustrations of the Christian's warfare, and commend the prudence and wisdom of the worldly warrior to the imitation of the soldier of the Cross, without any reservation or intimation that this world's warrior is to be

condemned for following his calling.

(See Luke xiv. 31, 32;

2 Tim. ii. 4). The rebuke to St. Peter, They that take the
sword shall perish with the sword,' was evidently directed against
an individual's voluntarily taking on himself to fight; and also
against using carnal weapons in a spiritual cause. It is not
therefore applicable to serving as a soldier in defence of our
country, and at the command of the magistrate, who, by God's
own ordinance, 'beareth the sword,' and 'is an avenger to ex-
ecute wrath upon him that doeth evil' (Rom. xiii. 4).

Ss

VOL. II.

HERE is no doubt, that the early Christians practised alms

THE

giving and sacrifice of their own wealth for the Church and the poor, to an extent unknown in our days. There are indeed passages in the Apologies of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, which appear at first sight, as if there were in the early ages a complete community of goods. The former speaks of Christians as having formerly placed their greatest pleasure in acquiring wealth and possessions; but now bringing all that they have into a common stock, and imparting to every one in need'.' The latter says, We, who are united in mind and soul, hesitate not to have our possessions in common. With us all things are in common but our wives2. But, that they did not mean a real community of goods, appears from an earlier passage in the same chapter: 'Even if there be with us a sort of treasury, no sum is therein collected discreditable to religion, as though she were bought. Every man places there a small gift on one day of the month, or whenever he wills, so he be but willing and able; for no man is constrained, but contributes willingly 3.' It

1 Justin M. Apol. 1. p. 61, B.

2 Tertull. Apol. 39.

s Ibid.

is plain that where there were collections, according as men were able and willing, there could be no true community of goods. It was one of the errors attributed to the Pelagians, 'that a rich man must sell all that he has, or he cannot enter into the kingdom of God'.' But, that this was not a precept of universal obligation, St. Augustine argues against them at great length2. Several early sects are mentioned as having forbidden possessions, and denied salvation to those who had wealth-as the Apostolici3; and the Eustathians, who, for this and other errors, were condemned by the Council of Gangra1. Persons, who adopted such opinions, were called by the fathers Apotactitæ. The fact, that they were esteemed heretics, shews that the Church repudiated and condemned their peculiarities.

Some very zealous Christians in all ages have felt personally bound to relinquish their wealth, and devote themselves to a voluntary poverty; and with them may be classed the mendicant orders, and indeed all those religious communities which have required vows of poverty from their members. This, however, is a different view of things from that condemned in the Article. The Article refers to the belief, that all property is unlawful, and that goods in a Christian society must be common. is a tenet which has only been adopted, whether in primitive or later ages, by certain fanatical sects; and it is here especially spoken of as an error of the Anabaptists. With them the doctrine was a source, not so much of personal self-denial, as of efforts to subvert civil government and the whole framework of society; and it was not therefore to be treated as an innocent enthusiasm, but to be denounced as a dangerous error.

1 Augustin. Ep. 156, Tom. II. p. 542.

This

2 Ep. 157, Tom. II. pp. 553–559. See also Wall, On Infant Baptism, pt. I. ch. xix. Vol. I. p. 396. Oxf. 1836.

3 August. Hær. 40; Epiphan. Hær. LXI. Apostol.

4 Bevereg. Synod. Tom. I. p. 415.

5 See Bingham, XVI. xii. 1.

6 See an account of their doctrines and proceedings, Mosheim, E.H,

Cent. XVI. sect. iii. pt. ii. ch. iii. 5, &c.