Page images
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

praised and held up to our view for reason assigned for the command imitation on account of their warlike against Amalek; but it is added, " and achievements, but for their faith in and he feared not God :" that is, it was obedience to the true God.

an act of defiance of God, who had After mentioning his intention of so openly and marvellously displaybuilding a house to the Lord, David ed his power on behalf of the Israeladds, “ But God said unto me, Thou ites, in the destruction of the Egypshalt not build an house for my name, tians in the Red Sea. Was it unjust because thou hast been a man of war in God to punish rebellion against and hast shed blood.” 1 Chron. himself! The sins of the Canaanites xxviii. 3. In this passage, heroic were of so abominable a nature, that, achievements, instead of being ex- after having enumerated some of their tolled, disqualify David from building cruel customs and unnatural vices, the temple of the Lord. Again in Moses adds, “ Defile not yourselves Psalm xlvi. 9. David says, in pro- in any of these things: for in all these phetic language,

66 He maketh wars the nations are defiled which I cast to cease unto the end of the earth; out before you : and the land is dehe breaketh the bow and cutteth filed : therefore I do visit the iniquity the spear in sunder; he burneth the thereof upon it, and the land itself chariot in the fire.” You cannot be vomiteth out her inhabitants." Levit. ignorant of the prophecies of Isaiah xviii. 24, 25. The Canaanites were and Micah to the same effect. destroyed for their wickedness and

A faithful history of nations, is, abominations, for an example to the more or less, a history of crime; such surrounding nations; and the Israelis the Bible; but while it records, it ites were planted in their room, to does not palliate, but condemns crime, preserve the worship of the only true especially in those whom the reader God in the midst of Pagan superstimight, from their general character tions, and as a light to the rest of the and situation, expect to be exemp- world. The command to destroy the tions from the usual failings and vices Canaanites was attended by such a of human nature. It exposes vice to visible miraculous interposition of the condemn it, and that with an impar- Deity in the execution of it, that it is tiality not to be met with in any other impossible, notwithstanding all that history.

Dr. Geddes has urged in reply to the Your assertion, that God himself bishop of Llandaff, for it to be made commanded wars upon the most frivo- a precedent, as authorizing any such lous and unjust motives, might be met claims in the present gospel day of with a simple denial of it as unsup- peace on earth and good will to men. ported by any thing we read in the For if any nation were now disOld Testament; but I cannot dismiss posed to quote the example of the it without observing, that I recollect Israelites' attack of the Canaanites, only two instances of aggressive war as an authority for a similar attack being commanded by God,-one, the upon another nation, they are bound command to the Israelites to de- to produce the same sanction as the stroy the Canaanites; the other, to Israelites possessed, namely, a divine destroy Amalek ; both which com command confirmed by a chain of mands were of a judicial nature, the undoubted miracles, which, as in the Israelites being only the instruments case of the Israelites, would, by their to execute the divine judgments. irresistible evidence, force conviction

The Amalekites had made an un even upon their enemies. See Josh. provoked and cowardly attack on the ii. 9-13 ix. 9, 10-24. rear of the Israelites just after their You see that by following you, I departure from Egypt, when they have strayed from a defence of the were faint and weary. This is one Peace Society to a defence of the

[ocr errors]


Bible, though in truth to justify one is adulterers shall not inherit the kingto justify the other. This, I presume, dom of God. So far they agree. But was not your intention; but what has, if we look to the definition of adultery probably inadvertently, fallen from given by each, a difference will be your pen on the divine commands for discoverable. Under the law, a man, war recorded in the Old Testament, whether he were previously married has compelled me into this line of or not, could only be guilty of aduldefence; and if it only convince you tery by infringing on the conjugal of the dangerous tendency of the ar- rights of another man; for as the law gument you have adopted against Mr. allowed of polygamy, a woman had Clarkson, I shall feel myself amply no exclusive claim to her husband. repaid for this digression.

Again, Moses allowed a man to di3. Le culte substitué par le nouveau

vorce his wife at his pleasure ; in testament, au culte étable par l'ancien, which case, the tie between the wife la loi nouvelle qui a succédé à la loi and her husband being dissolved, the primitive, ont ils établi des doctrines woman was at liberty to marry another formellement contraires ? Voila la

On the other hand, the gospel question à examiner. Je vais prendre prohibits polygamy entirely; and diles citations de l'ouvrage ; mais avant, vorce, except for a breach of chastity, je dois faire une remarque, mon bon by which it makes the marriage tie ami ; c'est, Qu'il est bien malheureux, que, dans les objets les plus impor- more binding, extending the vow of tants que l'on discuse, on modifie si fidelity to the man, which, by the law, souvent la signification des mots, et was only enjoined the woman; and que l'on cherche à etablir sur des au thus infidelity towards the wife by the torités, des opinions démenties par la husband, which was not recognised as raison et l'expérience. Cette marche a crime by the law, is pronounced to éloigne de la vérité, et c'est celle qu'à be adultery by the gospel. suivie Mr. Clarkson.

The law


- Thou shalt not hate Here, as in the last paragraph, you thy brother in thy heart—thou shalt wander from the argument of Mr. not avenge, nor bear any grudge Clarkson; but justice to the princi- against the children of thy people, ples of the Peace Society obliges me

but thou shalt love thy neighbour as to follow you in your meanderings. thyself.” Lev. xix. 17, 18. And what You ask, whether the worship substi- says the gospel ?, Our Lord being tuted by the New Testament for the asked what was the first and great worship established by the Old—the commandment of the law, mentions new law which has succeeded the old, the supreme love of God, and then establish doctrines expressly contra- adds, " And the second is like unto it, dictory to those under the law? Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy

This question comprises much more self. On these two commandments,' than can affect the subject under con adds he, “ hang all the law and the sideration; I shall therefore, only prophets.” Matt. xxii. 37-41. or, as it attempt to answer it so far as it in- is expressed in Mark xii. 31,

66 There volves our present argument. This is none other commandment greater will reduce the argument to a single than these." And the apostle Paul in point.. Do the requisitions of the his Epistle to the Romans, xiii. 8-10, Christian moral code expressly con- makes this commandment a part of tradict the requisitions of the Mosaic the gospel moral code.

Here we moral law ? A plain statement of two again meet with an agreement becases in point, will sufficiently explain tween the law and the gospel. how far these two moral codes agree, But when our Lord is asked, “ And and how far they differ.

who is my neighbour?" His parabolic The law says, Thou shalt not com answer most forcibly shews the supemit adultery.". The gospel says, that riority of the Christian moral code to


que os

I agree

[ocr errors]

the Mosaic Law. It shews that Chris- foot,” &c.—You appear to have been tianity breaks down the fences of na- misled by understanding the word evil tional distinctions, and requires that in a sense in which it is not used in its followers consider all men as neigh- this place by Christ. It is not for me bours and brethren; whereas the to remind of the necessity of givJewish law limits the meaning of the ing a just interpretation of words, and word neighbour to the Israelites, in- to avoid accommodating them to our cluding perhaps the stranger within argument. their gates. It makes a marked line of distinction between them and other

5. Amad á vuestros enemigos. Haced bien à los que os aborrecen, y rogad por.

los nations; it recognizes national ani- maltratan y os persiguen. Il n'y a rien mosities, allows the Israelites to de- la dedans qui condamne la guerre. !! fend themselves by the sword against ne s'agit pas même de la guerre, quoitheir enemies, and to retaliate the in- que dise l'auteur que vous avez trajuries they may receive.

duit: enemigos d'après son étimologie with you,

that it is unfor. veut dire ennemis particulier, et ensuite tunate, that in the most important dis

cette maxime chrétienne, qui ne s'apcussions, the meaning of words is plique qu'aux individus ne leur oroften softened down to accommodate rogad, de servir les projets de ceux qui

donne pas, par ces mots: haced bien et them to the object of the writer; but nous abhorrent, de prier pour leur I must dissent from you when you succès. Mon ennemi va périr, dans say

that Mr. Clarkson has fallen into un fleure, dans un incendie, dans un this error in the work before us. précipice: je dois le sauver: son coeur 4. Yo os diga que no resistais lo malo. Ce

est corrompu, je prie, pour que Dieu principe est justement rejetté par tout

le change. Voila toute l'étenque du le monde et par vous même, comme

précepte. Il devient immoral, quand contraire à tout ordre, et à toute mo

on lui donne plus d'extension. rale. Il condamne l'homme au mal

The sentiment, that man in his conheur, et fraie la route au triomphe du gregate or judicial character is abcrime. La raison, l'équité, l'intérêt Solved from those moral principles by général disent au contraire à la conscience de tous : -“ prévenez, empê

which he is bound in his individual chez, punissez le mal.” La servilité character, is pregnant with error; and du principe cité est d'ailleurs trop op- with incalculable miseries to mankind. posée aux principes actuels, pour mé- Your observations on the text, “ Love riter une autre réfutation.

your enemies, do good to them that Of this command of our Saviour, hate you, and pray for them that de“ I say unto you resist not evil," you spitefully use you and persecute you," remark that it is justly rejected by seem to be founded upon this exempevery body, as contrary to all' order tion of governments and of kings from and morality. Is not this an attack responsibility, an exemption not reon the New Testament, rather than cognized in the Christian code. In on Mr. Clarkson? You misconceive an absolute monarchy, if a king unthe above command; it does not, as justly condemns one of his subjects to you infer, give a license to evil against death, who has committed no crime, the peace and safety of the commu he may not be amenable to any power nity, by prohibiting the interference on earth for his conduct; but he is not of the civil magistrates to suppress therefore absolved from his allegiand punish crime. The context proves ance to the King of kings and Lord that Christ is only enforcing the Chris- of lords. In the eye of heaven, tian principle of forbearance in oppo- he is as much a murderer as the sition to the Jewish law of the reta- assassin who stabs his victim in the liation of injuries, as expressed in dark. Such was Alexander, when, by Exod. xxi. “Life for life, eye for eye, his orders, Parmenio, and afterwards tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for Calisthenes, were slain.

The moral maxims of the gospel, Scythian embassador to Alexander, if we would give them effect, must be as containing the sentiment expressed considered as of universal obligation, by St. Justin, when he says that “the unless the context contains an evident devil is the author of all wars:" hence, restriction; otherwise, they will be you say, "Justin has only repeated subjected to the arbitrary “private what had been said a long time before interpretation ” of any individual, who him.” Before we can admit your conmay wish to make them more pliable clusion, we shall expect you to supto a loose morality, or to a favourite port it by evidence of less doubtful notion,

authority than the speech put into the The maxim under consideration ex mouth of the Scythian by Quintus presses the spirit which should influ- Curtius; and even in this speech, the ence men in their conduct towards sentiment of Justin is not to be found, each other; and there is not a maxim for, whilst the orator condemns the in war, that is consistent with the insatiate ambition of Alexander, he Christian spirit of forbearance and boasts of the Scythians' mode of warforgiveness of injuries, inculcated in fare, that by it they had “ formerly this and other passages of the New conquered the most warlike nations, Testament, The friends of Peace subdued the most powerful kings, laid will freely admit that they are not waste Asia, and opened themselves a commanded by the words do good and way into the heart of Egypt.” Here pray, to promote, or pray for the suc- is nothing corresponding with the sencess of the mischievous projects of timent of Justin; but it corresponds those who hate them. This would with the conduct of the Scythians ; be to make themselves accessary to for in this very war with Alexander crime. The sentiment is so prepos- they were the aggressors, they atterous, that I am surprised your good tacked him when he had no intention sense could attribute it to them. to commence hostilities with them.

Your explanation of the two phrases, The speech is, most probably, a mere do good and pray,

I admit to be cor flourish of the historian; and I am inrect, only I should extend it to the clined, with sir Walter Raleigh, to governors, as well as to the governed. doubt the truth of the embassy itself, Christian rulers have no more a lie as not consistent with the hostile movecense from heaven for crime than ments of the Scythians on this occatheir meanest subject. They are sion. equally bound with him to conform You may perhaps observe, that if their conduct to the maxims of the the speech to which you appeal is to gospel. Extend to governments your be referred to the historian, and not own definition of the Christian in- to the Scythian, yet its antiquity aujunction to do good and pray, and you thorizes your appeal. I answer, so must see that it is incompatible with little is known of the author, or of the prosecution of war of any kind, the age in which he lived, that some the elements of which are expressed have supposed the work to have been in three words, Kill, burn, destroy. composed in Italy not 400 years ago,

6. El demonio es autor de todas las guerras and the name of Quintus "Curtius to -n'est pas une maxime née du Chris- be fictitious, to give the appearance tiapisme. St. Justin n'a fait que répéter of antiquity to the work : but whatce qu'on avait dit longtems avant lui. ever may be thought of this conjecLes Scythes parlaient ainsi à Alexan-. ture, the speech does not, as I have dre; et, de nos jours, les peuplades observed, contain the sentiment you sauvages n'appellent ils pas d'un seul have attributed to it. nom, matehimanitou, le génie du mal et de la guerre ?

7. Tous les auteurs cités ensuite, ne You refer to the address of the devaient pas leur opposition à la guerre

[merged small][ocr errors]


au christianisme. Ils l'auraient con soldats. Les motifs de cette conduite damnée également s'ils étaient restés sont expliquée, assez clairement, dans idolâtres. C'est une opinion commune les lois et les moeurs militaires des à tous les philosophes de tous les Romains. Leurs étendards étaient temps, de tous les pays et de tous les payens, leur culte, aux cérémonies cultes. Ce n'est que par des textes du quel tout les soldats étaient tenus de l'evangile que l'on prouverait que d'assister, devait faire horreur aux le Christianisme condamne la guerre, chrétiens, et la haine de l' idolatrie et de pareils textes n'y ont pas encore

seule les éloignaient des rangs de été découverts, quoiqu'on y ait presque l'armée. tout trouvé.

9. Je viens d'examiner la phrase de

St. Justin le martyr. Nosotros que antes Until you produce your proofs, that

soliamos mutarnos unos á otros, ya no comthe condemnation of all war by the batimos aun con nuestros enemigos. Mais primitive Christians, as stated by Mr. observez, mon cher ami, que si le mot Clarkson, was the common opinion of Grec signifie combattre en guerre, le mot all philosophers, of every age, of every Grec que vous rendez par enemigos ne country, and of every religion; you signifie ni ennemis privés, ni ennemis de must excuse us, if we decline


l'état ; mais ennemis de la religion

nouvelle. ing your assertions as sufficient to overturn the proofs adduced by Mr. Your 8th and 9th paragraphs are Clarkson, that they originated in so connected in their argument, that Christianity.

I shall consider them at the same time. As the advocates for war are at You evidently feel the force of the issue with us upon the import of those positive proofs adduced by Mr. Clarkpassages in the New Testament which son, of the early Christians' refusal we consider as virtually prohibiting to be soldiers. You endeavour to all war, the design of Mr. Clarkson's extricate your argument from the work is to shew how those passages dilemma in which these proofs of were understood by the primitive Mr. Clarkson involve it, by observó Christians, as affording strong pre- ing, that the motives of their conduct sumptive evidence of their real im- are sufficiently explained by the miliport. The question therefore, so far tary laws and manners of the Romans, as it relates to the Pamphlet that has which obliged the soldiers to assist in drawn forth your animadversions, is, their idolatrous rites. I grant that whether Mr. Clarkson's citations from the nature of these rites presents a the early Christian writers, support sufficient reason for Christians to prehis interpretation of the Scripture fer death to an acquiescence in them; passages in dispute ? This you deny, but, by this observation, you do not and say, that the early Christians' answer, but evade, the argument of objections to war are no other than Mr. Clarkson. they would have been bad they con

Mr. Clarkson was not ignorant of tinued idolaters, but fail in producing this objection to the military service your proofs to overturn the conclusions in the Roman armies; he has cited in Mr. Clarkson has drawn from his this very Tract, two instances of a authorities. Under such circumstances refusal to serve in the army on that your unproved opinion must succumb account; but then he has also cited to Mr. Clarkson's proofs. This is, so

instances where the objection extendfar as Mr. Clarkson's argument is ed to war itself. • I am a Christian, concerned, a sufficient answer to the and cannot fight,' says Maximilian. last clause in the seventh paragragh.

Marcellus says, “ It is not lawful for 8. Mais il y a défaut de raisonnement the Lord, to bear arms for any earthly

a Christian, who is a servant of Christ à établir cette doctrine sur les exemples cités de soldats qui quittent le service

consideration.' Cassian and Martin après d'être faits Chrétiens, ou de speak to the same effect. From the chrétiens qui meurent plutôt que d'être manner in which these martyrs ex

« PreviousContinue »