154

CHAPTER FOURTEENTH.

POPULAR OBJECTIONS.

WHEN the doctrine of entire abstinence from war, both offensive and defensive, is asserted and maintained, it is so far in advance both of public sentiment and public practice, that we are at once met with a host of objections. Some good men, who, in the main, are averse to violent and sanguinary measures, are greatly alarmed at its announcement, on the ground that, if it should prevail, there would be no personal or political safety. Some of the objections which are made may appear to be trivial; undoubtedly they are so; but if they are frequently made, and have influence with the popular mind, they seem to require a word of notice. This is to be said, however, that these objections multiply themselves so rapidly, and assume so many shapes, that we can afford to give only a few specimens, leaving the rest to be supplied by the reader's imagination.

I. One man says, for instance, if a person, or a number of persons, should commence a violent attack upon you, to the hazard even of your life, what would you do? This is my answer: I would do as the Savior did on a certain occasion, Luke iv. 28-30: "And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath; and rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon the city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he, passing through the midst of them, went his way." In other words, (by what means we cannot tell,) HE MADE

HIS ESCAPE.

Or, I would do as the apostle Paul did, when the Jews of Damascus took counsel to kill him, Acts ix. 23-25: But their laying wait was known of Saul; and they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.”

Or, if I could not escape, I would strive by superior skill or physical power to disarm the man, as an act of benevolence to him, as well as of duty to myself, and yet without endangering his life, or injury to his person. In other words, I would do as David did on a certain occasion: I would take away the spear of the assailant, but with a sacred care not to use it against him. I certainly should not feel at liberty, under any provocation whatever, or any pressure of danger, to forget the sublime and instructive declaration of the Savior, already repeatedly referred to: "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 unto the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence." Every thing should be done in love, and without any possible injury to the assailant. And there can be but little doubt that this course of kindness, patience, and forbearance, especially if it were combined with affectionate entreaty and remonstrance, would prove a successful one. But if it should prove otherwise, if it should

clearly appear that all this would not avail, and that certain destruction stared me in the face, if I acted as a Christian,I should most seriously endeavor to imitate the example of the Savior, when he died in agony on the cross: Father, forgive them; they know not what they do."

II. We have sometimes heard the question put, as if it were almost decisive of the right to use force and to destroy life, whether it would not be right to attack a slave ship, loaded with slaves from Africa. In answer to an inquiry of this kind, we would ask,

in the first place, whether the plan of attempting to put an end to the slave trade by force, which has been in progress some fifteen or twenty years, has done any good. And we hesitate nothing in saying that, in the minds of many judicious people, it is very questionable whether it has not in fact increased the evils which it was intended to diminish. Certain it is, that the slave trade, up to the present moment, has not been essentially diminished; and whatever diminution has taken place is probably owing to other causes. We are indeed compelled to admit that the slave traders take more precautions than they used to do; their vessels are modelled, much more than they were formerly, with a view to fast sailing; but this only increases the wretchedness of the poor slaves. And if, at any time, the vessels of the slave traders are likely to be overtaken by hostile ships of war, they do not hesitate, shocking as the very thought is, to throw the miserable Africans overboard. If, then, we shall do no good by resorting to force, and shall probably do evil, it would not be an easy matter to show that we are under obligations to make that resort.

But, while we throw out this view of the subject as worthy of some consideration, we would take the liberty to say, further, that there is a much easier way of putting a stop to the slave trade, which ought at least to be tried before we resort to the awful remedy of shedding human blood. The slave trade can be stopped at once by destroying the market at home; or, in other words, by the suppression of slavery. Here is a Christian remedy; let us try this first, before we resort to another, which is obviously of doubtful utility, besides being opposed to the gospel. It is we who make slave traders by keeping open the slave market; we have done wrong in the first instance by purchasing the slaves, and by thus encouraging the cupipity of these traders; we are not at liberty, on

any sound principles, to take advantage of our own wrong, and to make it an excuse for wrong in another shape. If, when we do right ourselves, by breaking the yoke of bondage, and treating the millions of Africans in Christian countries as our fellowmen, the great evil of the slave trade does not cease and die of itself, then we shall be called upon, with some show of propriety, to answer the inquiry concerning the application of force.

III. Another objection (one which may be supposed to have considerable weight with many minds in this country) is, that, on peace principles, the leaders and agents in the American revolution were wrong. In remarking upon this difficulty, we do not deny that the leading men of the American revolu tion were the true friends of their country; that they in general acted from public, and not from private and selfish, considerations; and that they deserve, on many accounts, to be held in most respectful and affectionate remembrance. Furthermore, they were right in their principle, as we believe; and Great Britain was wrong. But we as firmly believe (if we estimate the matter, not by the natural sentiments of mankind, but by the principles of the gospel) that they were wrong in the measures they pursued. And, if they had pursued different measures, such as would have been entirely consistent with the spirit of the gospel, and had persevered in them, we have no doubt that all the valuable results of the revolution would have been ultimately gained.

The measure most likely to have secured their object, would have been earnest, respectful, and patient remonstrance, combined with some measures of a negative kind, such as refusing to use those things which were unjustly taxed. Nor do we hazard much in this remark, since the course was tried in opposition to the early movements of British oppression, and with a great degree of success. The principle

for which our revolutionary fathers contended, was the acknowledged and important principle of the English constitution, that the right of taxation depends on representation. One of the first measures of the English ministry, after they had adopted the plan of taxing America, without, at the same time, permitting her to be represented in parliament, was the imposition of stamp duties on most of the instruments in common use, which duties were to be paid to the officers appointed by the crown. This was in

1765. And what was the course which was then pursued by America? Not a resort to violence; not an appeal to arms; not the shedding of blood; but simply earnest and patient remonstrance, combined with a concerted and general abstinence from the use of stamps. The consequence was, that, in due season, the English ministry was changed, and the measure was abandoned. Some years afterwards, the English government tried again its measures of oppression, by imposing a tax on tea and a few other articles. If the same course of remonstrance, and abstinence from the use of the articles taxed, had been pursued for any considerable time, we may reasonably suppose that the same results would have followed. And not only that; the English people and the English parliament would soon have felt and recognized the justice of our claims in other respects, and have conceded the great principle of actual American representation in the parliament of England. This would have fully satisfied America for many years; but the time would have sooner or later arrived, when America, by the full and free consent of Great Britain, would have separated from the mother country, and taken a stand among nations, without that vast amount of crime and misery which attended the war, and without that mutual jealousy and hostility which have existed in a painful degree ever since.