Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that given by you,) is surely not correct for we have abundant proof, that multitudes, armies, na-. tions, have survived the use of the sword, and gone down to their graves in peace. I do not see, therefore, that the two swords," were necessarily taken "to prohibit, by way of example, their use in selfdefence," (p. 27.) For what other purpose they were taken, it is not necessary now to inquire.

You again revert to Scripture ground, and quote a passage from St. James: "From whence come wars and fightings from among you? Come they not hence even of your lusts, that war in your members ?" The argument which you derive from this passage, is not, (it is believed,) supported by it. St James' address was to the Jews, in circumstances very different from the circumstances of those whose defence of themselves I am advocating. They were in a state of rebellion, discord, insurrection-their object was the attainment of power, without regard to the means used for its attainment. These wars and fightings, were, indeed, the offspring of "lusts which warred in their members." But all this has no concern with the subject in question-with those wars which do not spring from such lusts. The spirit of defensive war, does not bear any resemblance to the spirit by which the Jews were actuated. What lust of the above description, can there be in him who stands simply in his own defence-takes up arms simply for the preservation of his own life, and that

of his family, or for the defence of his country, or for the maintenance of his religious privileges? No conquest, no power, no oppression, no gratification of any lust is desired or sought after-no malice or hatred is harboured in his breast, but only a desire to preserve that life which God has given, and impelled him, by every propensity of his nature, to protect. Now, then, as St. James does not censure any wars, but such as "come from our lusts," how can you infer a condemnation of such as do not << come from our lusts ?"

After having thus inculcated the doctrine of nonresistance, you are pleased to state, as an encouragement to an observance of your doctrine, that "no assassin could stand a moment before the prayer of faith," that "God will be a present help in time of need," (p. 38.)-" that angels will be sent to deliver the saints in the times of trouble," (p. 28. note.) This is no new doctrine; it bears an ancient date. And where was it taught? Not in the vale of humility, not in the "straight and narrow path to life;" no, not even on Christian ground. By whom was it taught? Not by an obscure and illiterate fisherman, nor by a humble follower of the "meek and lowly Jesus." It was taught, It was taught, however, by a no mean personage; by a character highly distinguished; by his majesty himself, throned on the

pinnacle of the temple"-" Cast thyself down, for God shall give his angels charge over thee to keep

thee." I am exceedingly sorry, Sir, to find a difference of opinion, in you and one who had the mind of Christ. He says, that "faith without works is dead:"-but, according to you, we are to pray, and have faith; have faith and pray, and stand still and see the salvation of the Lord." That the prayer, as you observe, "would enter the heavens, and the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth," (p. 38.) is no doubt true; but the hope that, if we use no means, we shall have the miraculous interposition of angels, will be found to be only that of the hypocrite."

The example of our Saviour, of his apostles, of the prophets and patriarchs, all prove that "faith without works," is unavailing. The clay must be applied to the eyes of the blind, before they can expect a restoration of sight. The ship could not be saved, nor the lives of those she wafted, (though the angel of the Lord had declared, that not a hair of their heads should perish,) without they abode in the ship. The Red Sea would not divide its waters, till smote by the rod of Moses. The ram's horns must be sounded, and the walls of Jericho be seven times encompassed. It is true, an angel was sent to deliver Peter from the prison; but where is the promise, that angels will be sent to deliver us from the sword of our enemy? That angels are our guardians by night and by day; that they aid and assist us in the way of our duty; that they manifest the

same friendly disposition that our heavenly father manifests, is fully believed: and it is equally believed that no ground for the least expectation or hope of deliverance from danger, at the present day, by their miraculous aid, can be found in Scripture. How then is it to be understood that the " prayer of faith" is to repel the assassin? Is the body of the Christian to be rendered impenetrable, or the sword of the enemy to melt like wax?

Indeed, your own acknowledgment, (implied in the consolation administered to the Christian, (p. 39.) who might be slain,) shows that, even in your opinion, the effectual protection of angels is not always to be expected in hours of trial. But strange is your language of comfort-that the life of the Christian is of little consequence compared with that of his murderer; for the former" will be immediately translated to glory;" while the latter, if suffered to live, may " possibly become a penitent:" (p. 39.)— though probably, (I would add,) would, "fill up the measure” of his sins. Supposing that the doctrine which you inculcate should tempt some person, who had not formed a just estimation of his own character, to sacrifice his life, with the most sanguine expectation of "being translated to glory," and should find himself immediately translated to a different place; where is the remedy for this dire mistake? As few, very few professors of Christianity have the "faith of assurance," and as all are liable to mis

judge, I cannot but think your doctrine, whatever

it

may be in theory, is a very dangerous one in practice; unless you make it appear that every one, whatever be his character, who shall suffer himself to be slain, shall, for that very act, be immediately "translated to glory:" otherwise I shall take it for granted that we are under no obligation to sacrifice, or even hazard, our own salvation for that of another.

Besides, many lives may be dependent on the preservation of one. Suppose ten persons, lodging under the same roof, half of which are Christians. Suppose but one way of escape, which an armed incendiary occupies. Suppose the house on fire, and no possibility of escape, except by destroying the incendiary. Is it the duty of the ten to suffer themselves to perish in the flames, when, by the sacrifice of a single life, the ten are preserved? Five of them are "without God in the world," and, if destroyed, will not be "translated to glory.'

دو

But, you say, this is an extreme case; it is so :but you have said, that defence by arms is " prohibited in the most trying situation possible ;" (p. 27.) and the instance supposed, is far from being the strongest within the limits of possibility.

While on this part of the subject, I beg you to compare two passages of your pamphlet.

The first is, "It has been said, that Christians, with a small exception, have never questioned the propriety of defensive war. As it regards no

E

« AnteriorContinuar »