Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

since the apostolic times, has experienced this "spirit of persecution and revenge?" "If any man will live godly in Christ Jesus, he shall suffer persecution," has a special reference to the time of perse→ cution which existed during, and immediately after, the days of the apostles. We have, blessed be God, many living witnesses of the fact, that Christians may now live unpersecuted. If Christians stray from the path of rectitude, they must "confidently expect," at least, a persecuted conscience; and be prepared for the severest persecutions of person. But in saying this, (I beg your pardon if the idea is conveyed,) I wish not to be understood as having a disposition to persecute you, or to suggest the idea, in accordance with yourself, that this is a land of persecution. "If you are persecuted for righteousness' sake, happy are you;" but "what glory is it, if, when ye be buffetted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently?" "The carnal heart" is as much opposed to the precepts of our Saviour as formerly, but the spirit of persecution has not the same audacity. You may, therefore, comfort yourself, my Christian brother; for you are not in that imminent danger, which you seem to apprehend. And until you exhibit reasons for the support of your confident expectations, your friends, at least, will not unite with you in your fears.

Another of

You say,

your remarks must not be passed over. "it is not impossible but when the wit

nesses are slain, the crime may be, a refusal to use

[ocr errors]

carnal weapons in defence of their country;" (p. 22.) As it appears to be a question yet undecided by the learned and pious, whether the witnesses have or have not been slain, and as I am not myself prepared to give my opinion on this point, I have no objection to allow you the whole force of the argument, if argument it may be called; but, at the same time, would take the liberty to observe, in my turn, that, "it is not impossible that, when the witnesses are slain, the crime may be an adherence to the doctrine of St. Paul-not to marry, (having in view, in this respect, "the example of our Lord,") while the government under which they live forbids a state of celibacy, on pain of death. And to me, indeed, the latter supposition appears the most plausible. Both are very improbable. But, as "all things are possible with God," neither the one nor the other can be impossible. Both therefore being equally possible, and equally improbable, (as many others are,) you are welcome to the whole force of the argument, as I before observed.

Your third great argument is derived from the example of Christ. His example being perfect, you infer that as he used no weapons in his defence, his followers should use none in theirs. You say,

[ocr errors]

we have never heard it questioned by Christians, but that all his conduct as man, was to remain a perfect example for his brethren," (p. 22.) The argument requires you to take "all" in the most extensive sense; for if any exceptions are to be made,

the article of self-defence may be one of them; in which case your reasoning would be lame. But as, I presume, you meant that the argument should be sound, I shall take it for granted that you meant all, in the utmost latitude. Now, have you ever "heard it questioned by Christians, but that" the man, who should attempt to fast forty days and forty nights, would properly be considered as a madman? or that those, who, following the example of our Lord, decline marriage for conscience sake, are to be pitied for their delusion? These and many other examples of Christ, as man, appertain to him alone. They never were imitated--they never will be. Neither was imitation expected, nor intended. That perfection, and that alone, was the characteristic of his whole life, of his precepts, and of every thing relative to his mission into the world, cannot be denied. But from this the inference cannot be made, that he requires us to imitate every thing that he has done. The natural and only conclusion is obvious That we should strictly observe such examples as are applicable to men, placed among wicked men. The argument, therefore, that the example of Christ in not using carnal weapons, forbids the use by his followers, has no solidity. It must remain unsound, till you prove that this part, in particular, of Christ's example, was intended for our imitation.

[ocr errors]

To the argument which I have now considered, you have subjoined the following remark-that,

"under the Mosaic dispensation, not only defensive, but offensive war was tolerated; and not only war was permitted, but a retaliating theocracy established-an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, life for life," &c. (p. 24.) It is believed, Sir, that you were not aware of the meaning of your language, when you styled the Jewish government a retaliating theocracy. Do you mean to ascribe to the Divine Being, the establishment of a government, whose characteristic property, and whose prominent feature, is that of a spirit of retaliation? You certainly cannot make this unwarrantable ascription. Yet such is the import of your language. Is retaliation the most distinguished, or even the most extensive feature in the Mosaic dispensation? If not, why select this from other parts of the code, as characteristic of the whole? The observation of this law," an eye for an eye," &c. was required in three instances only. One is that of a false witness, who is to suffer the pains which he designed for another. The second is that of personal injury, in which case, he that destroys the eye, &c. of another, shall receive punishment in kind. The third is mentioned in Exodus xxi. 22 to 25. to which place you are referred. And is it possible, that, on this ground, you can style the government a retaliating theocracy? You recollect the three following laws : "Thou shalt make the fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself."

-"And all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die."-" Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Now, Sir, as these laws were as binding as that of 66 an eye for an eye," &c. I may, with your example before me, and with no more license than you take, call the government a stoning theocracy, a fringing theocracy, and a muzzling theocracy.

[ocr errors]

Your fourth great argument, consists of several passages of Scripture. The first is that which you have made the text of your pamphlet. My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:"-and you dismiss the passage with this curt remark-" no comment can add force to this passage, for it is apprehended that no language can be more explicit against defensive war," (p. 25.) We have no right to annex to the words of any writer, inspired or uninspired, any meaning that did not enter into the design of the writer. Now the design of Christ in making the declaration, "my kingdom is not of this world," manifestly was, to repel the charge of rebellious views. Surely, says he, had I any designs upon the government, my servants would have fought. POOLE presents this argument of Christ in a very clear light. I quote his words: "Was there ever an earthly prince apprehended, and bound, for whom none of his subjects would take

« AnteriorContinuar »