our population depends upon it. Discoveries and improvements in this department of science are worthy of the philosopher, the statesman, and the philanthropist. I became a constant attendant at all the great sheep-shearings, and I myself got several prizes as an experimental farmer. How of ten, as I walked across my land, have I pleased myself with the reflection, that I had caused two blades of grass to grow where only one was to be seen before; and in the late years of scarcity, how was I gratified by thinking, that there would have been fewer potatoes, by some thou sand bushels, if I had not happened to pay timely attention to this particular subject. I enjoyed, at the same time, some complacency in finding that my agricultural knowledge was the means of introducing me to persons of the first rank in this country. I moreover thought that I should make amends to the world, for any of the common trespasses against morality committed in my youth, as well as for any little advantages taken in the way of business, by the unques tionable patriotism and utility of this last of my occupations.

Here again, however, Mr. Editor, my zeal slackened after a time; and, indeed, I thought that I had many reasons to be out of humour. I was of opinion, that the large breed of cattle, which had been so much encouraged, was not on the whole desireable; and that the premiums, in this respect as well as in some others, did not answer. I suspected that there was too much theory in our moden system; that gentlemen farmers too much abounded; and that the multitude of publications on agricultural subjects produced perplexity. I moreover doubted, whether the whole system of our corn laws might not proceed on a somewhat erroneous principle. In short, I saw that my zeal on this subject had been somewhat hasty, and that many of my own first notions needed correction. Still, indeed, I thought that a certain portion of skill on agricultural subjects exceedingly became a gentleman. But science, said I, should be general. Why, for example, should a man of fortune like myself know so much of one thing, and so little of many others. I, therefore, turned my attention to the whole circle of the sciences. On this principle I resolved CHRIST. OESERV. No. 34.

to provide myself with a complete library, and indulged the hope that by hard reading I might become a man of tolerable knowledge before I died, and obtain admission into some of the first literary circles. Two years were spent in the preparatory work of collecting about five thou sand books, and about six months more in arranging these materials of future wisdom; in fitting up my shelves; completing my catalogues; and, lastly, in weeding my library of all works of inferior name, and of several bad editions which my early ignorance had led me to purchase.

But, Sir, there is still another revolution, of which it remains for me to inform you. I allude to a vast alteration in my thoughts on the subject of religion. Politics, and philosophy, and trade, and agriculture, and the desire of universal knowledge, had by turns engaged my mind: but to know the peculiarities, even of my own professed religion, had not come within the compass of my reflection. I had been accustomed to fancy, that whatever was important in divinity must be so obvious as to require no consideration. I had assumed that we are each of us christians if we have been regularly baptized; that there are, however, the good and the bad in all religions; that to be a good christian is to do what is right; and to be a bad one is to do what is wrong. To desire much more religious knowledge than this, indicated, as I thought, conceit: it might also lead to schism, to fanaticism, and a world of evils: and it sometimes issued in the most extravagant and dangerous of all fancies, the fancy that faith without works is to save us. In dipping, however, into some theological tracts, which I had bought with a view of perfecting my library, I was led to suspect, that under the idea of keeping clear of metaphysical subtilties, and of being practical in my religion, I had indulged myself in the most profound doctrinal ignorance. I now began to see that christianity, like every other science, must be studied in order to be understood: and having earnestly applied my mind to this subject, I soon thought myself as great an adept in gospel doctrines, as I had before considered myself to be in so many other branches of knowledge. I became, like you, Mr. Editor, very zealous for true 4K

evangelical divinity, Indeed I went far beyond you; for I accounted the reception of the doctrines to be the all in all. As yet I was not apprized of a fact which larger observation and experience have rendered but too manifest. I mean that there are many persons of an orthodox creed, and yet of a most unchristian temper and life: -persons whose religious deficiency it is scarcely possible to detect by resorting to any other than a practical test. To see the truth was almost the only phrase now in use with me; and to possess clear views of the nature of gospel grace was the one thing needful in my estimation. So zealous did I feel on this subject, and so little satisfied was I, even with many who pass for gospel preachers, that (to divulge to you my whole story) I had, at one time, resolved to turn preacher myself. I had it also in contemplation to part with my library, retaining only a very few works on theology: for I had condemned in the lump at least nineteen twentieths evenot my divinity shelf. I, at the same time, had an idea of selling my estate, and of immediately employing every shilling of my property in building chapels, and educating young men, who should propagate exactly what I considered to be the truth, under my own immediate direction and authority. Indeed I regarded all secular occupations as somewhat carnal and prolane; as unworthy the spirituality of my mind; as a degradation to one who had such a deep knowledge of the gospel as myself.

A thought, however, came across me, which, at first, I knew not exactly whether to indulge or repress. I said to myself, It is unquestionably right to be zealously affected in a good cause; and yet, perhaps, that natural temper, which has made me violent in so many previous occupations, may now have some improper influence on my religion. Is it certain that the gospel which I wish to promote is precisely that of Christ and his apostles: In my zeal for doctrinal truth, is it not possible that I may a little overlook some of those precepts which the scriptures combine with it? In my first ardor for sacred knowledge, may I not look down on human learning with too much contempt; and, while I am reducing all my occupations into one, may Inot

be relinquishing some branch of my proper calling, and neglecting some relative duty of life? While Lam undertaking to evangelize the world, may I not forget that I am a parent, a brother, an uncle, and a friend; and even hinder that very gospel which I mean to promote, by failing to adorn it in some of these respects as I ought? And, above all, while I assume that to me is committed the ministry of the gospel of Christ, may I not be guilty of intruding myself into the sacred office, and of disturbing the peace and order of the church?

In short, I began to feel that much of that natural corruption, in which I had learnt to believe, consists in the ungoverned violence of our passions, and in the eagerness with which successive objects are rejected and embraced. I considered that many actions are, in themselves, neither good or evil; their quality depending, for the most part, on the circumstances under which we are placed, on the motives by which we are impelled to them, and on the relative situation which they are made to maintain and thus I came to the conclusion that any one of the employments in which I had been engaged, if subjected to a new rule, and pursued with a new end, might become an occupation as truly religious as that of preaching the gospel of Christ.

Christianity, no doubt, requires every man, in heart and affection, to leave all and follow Christ; and it may invite some literally to forsake their calling. I now see clearly, however, that it is not intended to destroy the structure of civil society, nor to change the general occupations of life; and I now can admire it on this account. When, indeed, we first meditate on the doctrines of the gospel, and when, by this meditation, our hearts begin to be warmed with the love of Him who died for us, we ca sily persuade ourselves, that to speak of the new truths which we have learnt ought to be our only pleasure; and to spread the knowledge of them our only task. But when we attend also to the precepts of the divine word, we then learn that the rule for converts ought generally to be, "Let every man abide in that state in which he is called," and that it is possi ble to be at once" diligent in business and fervent in spirit serving the Lord."

I have an idea, Mr. Editor, that scarcely any thing is at this time more wanted among us than a few bright examples of religious men, engaged in secular affairs, who shall conduct them in a manner becoming the purity of the gospel:-of men who shall redeem religion from the reproach under which it labours, in that part of the country in which I live, of being a subject for disputation rather than a regulator of the conduct; an affair of the tongue rather than of the heart and life.

I have still two sons, Mr. Editor, whom I wish to train to some useful profession, besides one whom I have in part, on account of the early piety which he has manifested, destined to the church: and I begin to lament, on account of my family, that I have withdrawn myself from the manyfactory in which I was once engaged. I believe, indeed, that I have an opportunity of again entering into it, though my name must now be lowest in the firm, and my share of profit must be less than when I took the resolution to retire. I incline to think, however, that these considerations ought not to weigh much. I shall have under me many working

manufacturers, to whom I may be of some religious use; as well as a considerable number of children, the religious education of whom I contemplate with peculiar pleasure. Probably I shall again acquire some political influence in the borough, the right use of which may be of mo ment. I shall again be a reformer, but a reformer of a very different class; for instead of inveighing, as I did before, against the corruption of parliament, and calling out for political changes, I shall labour to overthrow some corrupt customs in our own borough, to which, heretofore, I was myself a party. My little chemical knowledge, (for my science of every kind is far less than I had imagined), may possibly be of some advantage to my manufactory,' and I shall apply it in the same manner as the doctrines of my religion, to a plain practical use. In short, it is now my anxious wish no longer to indulge any ambition but that of ennobling, by an uniformly pious conduct, one of the ordinary occupations of life.

Your very humble servant and admirer,

SOBRIUS.

CLXXIX. Hints respecting the Lawfulness of Self-defence, under the Limitations prescribed by the Christian Law; containing Remarks on "the Answer of a Clergyman of the Church of England to some Passages in a Letter from the Bishop of Rochester to the Clergy, upon the Law fulness of Defensive War," printed by Darton and Harvey, London; and an Attempt to remove other Scruples, and to shew that Non-resistance does not always promote Peace nor accord with Mercy. By A SCOTCH DISSENTER Edinburgh, Turnbull; London, Ogle. 1804. 12mo. pp.

52.

Ir has seldom fallen to our lot to review a tract which has a fairer claim to praise than the anonymous pamphlet now under consideration. Its author, by whatever religious name he may be distinguished, shews himself a

loyal subject, an able reasoner, and a sound divine; and his "Hints" bear evident marks of christian candour and moderation, no less than of just reflection and acute discrimination.

The question which he undertakes to discuss is one that can only be decided by the authority of scripture: and it is to scripture that our author uniformly makes his appeal, while he combats the reasonings of those who are so far carried away with specious appearances of philanthropy, and of compassion towards enemies, as to maintain the unlawfulness, under the New Testament dispensation, of bearing arms, on any pretence whatever; or of resisting, by violent means, the attack either of the invaders of their country or of internal robbers and murderers.

The advocates for this doctrine of non-resistance are apt to make a dis

tinction between the obligations of christians and of men of the world, as if that might be lawful and necessary for the latter which is forbidden to the former. This, however, is but a flimsy attempt to conceal the absurd consequences of their system: for such a distinction is wholly unwarranted by the word of God. If any course of conduct be forbidden on account of its moral turpitude, which is what is alleged in the present instance, it must be forbidden universally. Every man to whom the gospel is preached is obliged, by the authority of God, to believe and obey it. If then it be morally wrong in itself to kill a human being, whether in self-defence, or in order to punish or prevent crimes, the divine law must prohibit it in every instance: for, if we would not confound the distinctions between moral good and evil, we must acknowledge that that conduct which in its nature is criminal, must be so in the case of unbelievers as well as of christians. If, therefore, every attempt to defend ourselves or our country by violent means is opposite to the merciful spirit of the gospel; then no one has a right to defend himself, or to secure the peace of society, by violent means: for no one is at liberty to oppose the gospel either in word or deed.

The profession of a soldier is unquestionably ill suited, in some respects, to religious persons; and offensive. war involves, as must be allowed, a very high degree of criminality. But yet it may admit of clear proof on scriptural principles, that there are cases in which christians, as well as others, may lawfully defend themselves against their enemies. Those who maintain the contrary position have never produced any passage from the word of God which expressly forbids resistance to the lawless attacks of invaders and plunderers. They argue chiefly from the nature of the christian dispensation, which, they allege, requires christianis, not only when they are "persecuted for righteousness sake," but upon all other occasions, to yield to those, and even to load them with favours, who come to enslave, to murder, and to exterminate. But can it be right thus to encourage plunderers in their sanguinary schemes?

The expressions "resist not evil," -"love your enemies," &c. which

It is certainly a great mistake in such cases to imagine, that one who resists or gives up to punishment the eriminal aggressor, may not entertain towards him sentiments of kindness and forgiveness. In the case, for instance, of a French army attempting to land on our shores, it appears to us that humanity and mercy, as well as justice, would approve of our resisting the attempt with all the. power which God has given us. Such conduct would not only be no violation of christian love, but, as we conceive, would be clearly required by the spirit of that precept which commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves. For if it would be a dereliction of our duty to decline interfering to prevent the incendiary or the assassin from destroying the property, or taking the life of our neighbour, it would surely be a still more flagrant violation of our obligations as christians to refuse our aid for the purpose of preventing the general pillage, and the immense slaughter, to say nothing of other dreadful effects, which must attend a successful invasion. Hatred, malice, and revenge, indeed, are crimes which, in no case, admit of excuse: but to affirm that resistance to lawless violence partakes in itself of the nature of these crimes would be to imply, that not only the profession of soldiers, but the different of

fices of all concerned in criminal prosecutions, are, in their nature, unlawful, and opposed to the spirit of the gospel.

It is worthy of remark, that those who argue for non-resistance in all cases do not entertain similar views with St. Paul. He not only pleaded his privilege as a Roman citizen, in order to point out to his enemies the danger of maltreating him; but on one occasion he appealed to Casar. And, to go still further, when his nephew detected a conspiracy against his life, did St. Paul reckon it a crime to resist assassins? Or did he think the use of means inconsistent with dependance upon God? No, he sent his nephew to the chief captain in the hope that measures would be taken to defeat the malice of his enemies. Nor was he disappointed. A powerful guard conducted him to Cæsarea; and had the confederated assassins attempted to execute their purpose, would not the apostle's guards have drawn the sword in his defence?

Those who attempt to prove that military service is, in all cases and in its own nature, contrary to the law of God, will find it difficult to evade the force of several passages in the New Testament, which evidently lead to an opposite conclusion. Referring our readers to a comment on these passages in our number for July, p. 401 and 402, we would only remark that the fair inference to be drawn from them, and it is an inference confirm ed by the practice of christians in the first ages, seems to be, that a soldier may be one who fears God; that his situation does not preclude him from glorifying God; and that, therefore, he is not bound to resign it as in itself an unlawful employment. A "devout soldier," if military employment be unlawful, would be as absurd an epithet, as a devout robber, or a dezout murderer.

But it has been alleged, that though civil rulers are required to defend their subjects from those among themselves who would injure them, or disturb the public peace; yet that they are never expressly enjoined in the New Testament to defend their country against a foreign enemy. But the former obligation necessarily involves the latter. It would be absurd to suppose, that because those who attempt to injure us are foreigners, they may, therefore, attack and plunder us with

impunity. If St. Paul could consci entiously apply to a Roman comman der for protection against forty assassins, may not we lawfully desire that our rulers should use every exertion to defend us against one or two hundred thousand, who have resolved "to cut us off from being a nation?" If such be the duty of rulers, and if, as christians, we are bound to obey them in all lawful cases, then must we be ready at their call to assist in the defence of our country.

It has likewise been argued, that war proceeds solely from the lusts of men, and is altogether opposed to the spirit of the gospel. We freely admit that this is the case with respect to offensive wars; which, therefore, cannot be reprobated in too, strong terms, as utterly inconsistent with christianity, and the proper fruit of diabolical malice. We plead not for these: we plead only for the right of self-defence, and to this right we are more clearly entitled, in proportion as it can be made to appear, that we have no right to invade others. It is plain that if all nations were to act merely on the defensive there would be no war.

In the present circumstances of this country, let it be remembered, the question is not, whether we shall make war for the purposes of revenge or national aggrandizement, but whether we shall resist invaders. A peace. able man may be obliged to resist an assassin: but does he thereby encou rag bloodshed? Or is he therefore chargeable with the same bad passions which influenced the attempt to murder him? And were he to deliver another person from the stroke of the assassin, even at the risk of his own life, what would be our opinion of that person who should endeavour to prove that such an action was oppesite to the merciful spirit of the gopel? Does then the gospel forbid all mercy except towards the enemies of the human race? Or is no pity die to those whom they threaten and o press?

"The kingdom of Christ is not of this world," is a text which sore have frequently employed against te principle of self-defence. The kingdom of Christ is, indeed, heavery and spiritual: and the subjects of that kingdom are bound to shew tat they are not of this world, by thir being mainly occupied about obtan