Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

pursuits, whether lawful or unlawful, he considered them as spiritual adulterers.

Why should the author, who fancied himself on such elevated ground, and has so often clapped his wings, have recourse to such measures to aid him in his vice tory?

In p. 15. he expresses great surprise that the character of Satan is so "apparently enhanced" in the estimation of the writer-" That the testimony of Satan, (I revert to the reliance you place on it,) a subject which I know not how to leave, without expressing once more my abhorrence of it," &c. As we have already fully exposed these charges, and shown what "reliance" was placed upon his testimony, the serious Christian will not be at a loss how to estimate such remarks; as well as his attempt at wit, in personal allusion. Did he soberly believe that the writer placed great "reliance” on Satan's testimony, or was he in great want of matter to make it necessary to press in such materials, to aid him in his argument?

66

He then proceeds to another point, (p. 16,) and says: Try your argument by this test; the substance of it is, the subjects of Satan use carnal weapons; therefore the subjects of Christ ought not to use them. From what is your conclusion drawn?" We would reply, not principally because Satan's subjects use them; but because the Scriptures declare, that the " weapons of our warfare are not carnal." He further says to the writer" Now as you have not proved that using carnal weapons in particular, is wrong; and as it is evident that all that they, (Satan's subjects,) do, cannot be condemned, pray, Sir, whence your conclusion?" This is taking for granted, the subject in dispute. It must be left with the candid reader to decide, whether the

writer has proved that the use of carnal weapons is contrary to the precepts of the Gospel, or not; and, likewise, whether his arguments were "illogically drawn." (p. 17.)

In reply to the observations of the author, upon this passage of Scripture, "If we let him alone, all men will believe on him," &c. the writer begs leave to refer the reader to the pamphlet, (Med. Kingd. p. 20.) as he believes the remarks there are just.

The author declares that the following passage, "If any man will live godly in Christ Jesus, he shall suffer persecution," has a special reference to the time of persecution, which existed during, and immediately after, the days of the apostles." (L. p. 19.) He has not given us his authority for limiting what God has not limited. The word of the Lord, by the mouth of the apostle is, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution." Here is no limitation to time or place. We may venture to say, upon this authority, that the spirit of persecution against godly Christians, is the same as it was in the apostle's day; although the mode of expressing it is different. Divine Providence does not at present permit the enemies of the cross to use the sword and the fagot; yet they are permitted to use other weapons, sufficiently to manifest their spirit ; contempt and ridicule, now supply their place. Be cause the blood of the martyrs of Jesus is not at this time flowing, it will not so well accord with the Scriptures to say there is not now so great a spirit of persecution, as to say, that there is not now so great a spirit of living "godly in Christ Jesus," as was formerly.

It is thought that his observations, (p. 20.) respecting the witnesses, merit no reply.

He next proceeds to remark upon the example of our Lord, as follows: (p. 20.) "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," &c. This does not of course follow ; because some parts of his example are limited by other parts. All parts of his conduct as man, wherein men are called to act, are binding upon them, unless they are limited by other parts of his example or precepts; in that case, they are not intended as a rule of life for his disciples. Therefore the cases of marriage and fasting are not to the point; because the former he sanctioned in Matthew, 19th chapter, and the latter in Matthew, 6th chapter; but resistance with carnal weapons, it is be lieved, he never did sanction, either by example or precept; notwithstanding he was assaulted, buffeted, and spit upon.

The author acknowledges, (p. 42:) "That there is no express command in it, (the New-Testament,) to defend ourselves," &c. He likewise says, (p. 21.) "That we should strictly observe such examples, (of Christ,) as are applicable to men placed among wicked men." It is believed that his refusing to repel an insult, and likewise forbidding his subjects to do it, with carnal weapons, is directly to the point; as we do not find that he has any where else tolerated it.

Here we haye another of the author's parallel cases-Marriage and Fasting, our Lord recognized as a duty for his disciples; but forbade them to defend him, or themselves, with carnal weapons.

He next animadverts, (p. 22.) upon the words "retaliating theocracy." Johnson defines Theocracy to be "government immediately superintended by God." That this was the case with the Mosaic government, none will probably deny. He defines Retaliation to be Requital, return of like for like." This was a law of the Mosaic dispensation, in cases of personal injury,

[ocr errors]

(the subject on which the writer was treating,) as may be seen in Exodus. "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." The meaning of the writer was, that it was a Theocracy which, in cases of personal injury, required retaliation, in the sense Johnson has defined.

As the words do not clearly convey the writer's meaning, and the question before us not at all depending upon them, he is very willing to acknowledge that they were used in an unhappy manner.

The author, however, was unwilling to leave the subject without an attempt to display his wit. He says, (p. 23.) "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."

t.

Any thing but a horned creature, may be made to look ridiculous, by placing horns upon it. But it must be remembered, that he who places them on, is responsible for the frightful appearance.

He again comments, (p. 23.) upon our Lord's declaration to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world,” &c. and says; "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." Instead of these being the words of our Lord, they are the words of the author. Who, that was at the head of a party charged with sedition, would claim the dignity of a king to excuse himself while under trial for rebellion? But we have already seen that our Lord made use of these words to claim that majesty which was due

unto his name; and we cannot admit upon the authority of the author, or any other human testimony, that it was only to obviate the charge of rebellion.

We are not left to conjecture as to the reason why he forbade his servants to fight, because he himself has given the reason: "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight." He declares it to be because his kingdom was not of this world. His kingdom being spiritual, his subjects spiritual, and their weapons spiritual, what had they to do with carnal weapons? It could not be because he had commanded to make resistance with them; for, on the contrary, he had already said-Put up thy sword: for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. If our Lord forbade his servants to fight because his kingdom is not of this world; and if his servants are not of the world, even as he is not of the world, is it not a sufficient reason why they should not use the weapons of the world? Can we be his disciples without imitating his example, and obeying his commands?

The author's remarks, (p. 24.) upon the following injunction of our Lord: "But I say unto you, that that ye resist not evil," require particular notice.

66

He first

attempts to state an observation of the writer, but in doing it, he has been pleased to garble a sentence, so as to make it assertion instead of opinion; which will appear by quoting both sentences: Upon this you observe, that it is "directly opposed to the one our Lord quoted from Exodus, and disannulled it." (L. p. 24.) The words of the writer are these: "That the spirit of this passage is directly opposed to the one our Lord quoted from Exodus, we think cannot fairly be denied; and of course, it disannulled it, for he who had power to make laws under one dispensation, had power to

« AnteriorContinuar »