« AnteriorContinuar »
truth, that mockers—that Christian mockers, are in a more lamentable condition than Pagans and Turks. It has been wisely said by that great master of reason and natureHooker, that “the light of natural Reason hath put some wisdom in the reins of a Pagan, and hath given his heart some understanding,” but that “Mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts—they have smothered every spark of that heavenly light
t-they have trifled away their very understanding."* Now a few examples from ancient history, will establish the law of Neutrality beyond doubt. The usage of the Grecians on this point, may be known from Thucydides, who informs us, that when the Corcyræans were at war with the Corinthians, the former told the Athenians, that it was their duty, if they wished to be regarded as neutral, neither to suffer their enemies-the Corinthians, nor even themselves, to raise forces in Attica. The law of the Romans is equally well established. Livy records that the Roman senate, urged it as a sufficient motive to the ambassadors of Philip, for the commencement of hostilities, because their King “had doubly violated their treaty with them : first, in offering injury to the allies of the Roman people, assaulting them in open hostilities : secondly, in assisting their enemies with troops and money."* Again-the same historian gives us an account of an interview between Titus Quintius Flamininus and Nabis. Upon that occasion Quintius replies to Nabis“ You tell us, you have not directly violated the alliance, or the friendship established between us. How many instances must I produce of your having done so ? But I will not go into à long detail : I will bring the matter to a short issue. By what acts is friendship violated ? Most effectually by these two : by treating our friends as foes : and by uniting yourself with our enemies.”+ Agathias, in his history of the reign of Justinian, tells us, that he is an enemy who does that which pleases an enemy. I Procopius, likewise, in his books of the Gothic wars, reckons him to be in the army of an enemy, who supplies the army of an enemy, with warlike stores of any kind.l! In a similar way, Camden records, that when the Hanse-towns complained to Queen Elizabeth, of the seizure of some of their ships carrying warlike provisions into Spain, which was then at open war with
* See Hooker's admirable "Two Sermons upon part of St. Jude's Epistle,” Jude, 17—21. The passage to which we have referred, is one of the most touching and eloquent of this immortal writer's productions. His description of Mockers is most striking—“Men that use Religion as a cloak, to put off and on, as the weather serveth; such as shall, with Herod, hear the preaching of John Baptist to-day, and to-morrow condescend to have him beheaded; or with the other Herod, say they will worship Christ, when they purpose a massacre in their hearts; kiss Christ with Judas, and betray Christ with Judas. These men laugh at you as the maddest people under the sun, if ye be like Moses, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, these are not only deriders of all Religion, but also disputers against God, using truth to subvert the truth; yea, Scriptures themselves to disprove Scriptures. Being in this sort Mockers, they must also be followers of their own ungodly lusts. Being Atheists in persú asion, can they choose but be beasts in conversation?”
+ Thucydides, lib. iii. chap. i.
* Livy, lib, xxx. chap. xlii.
Agathias, lib. iii. The History of Agathias, is a sequel, in five books, of the eight books of the Persian, Vandalic, and Gothic wars by Procopius. For the characters of both, consult Fabricius (Bibliot. Græc. tam, vi. lib, v, chap. v.), and Vossius (de Historicis Græcis, lib. ii. chap. xxii.)
|| Procopius, Goth. lib. i.
England, the Queen told them—" That the right of Neutrality is so to be regarded, that whilst we help the one we hurt not the other.”* Thus Demosthenes also thought, for, says he, “ He that makes or contrives such things, whereby I may be taken, though he neither strikes me, nor throws a dart at me, is mine enemy." Manius Acilius Glabrio is said to have told the Epirots, who though they sent no supplies of Soldiers to Antiochus, yet as they were accused of supplying him with money, were regarded as having broken their treaty of Alliance, and that therefore “ he did not yet know whether to regard them as friends or foes.”+ To the same purpose also we are told by Livy, that Lucius Æmilius Regillus, commander of the Roman fleet, charged the Teians with “having assisted the enemy's fleet with provisions, and with having promised a supply of wine, and if they would furnish the same supplies to the Romans, they would be treated as friends; otherwise, they should be treated as enemies." I Plutarch records a similar sentiment of Augustus Cæsar, who said—“ That City has lost its right to Peace, that receives and protects an enemy."|| The following Pagan recommendation of the Roman historian, is one that need not be spurned by our Christian legislators, when he instructs his countrymen, that—" It behoves those that are friends to both parties, to endeavour to make Peace, but not to engage themselves in War on either side.” S Nor is it less instructive to hearken to the laconic, but * Camden Ann. A.D. 1589. + Livy, lib. XXXVI. chap. xxxv. Livy, lib.xxxviii. chap. xxviii. || Plutarch. in vitâ Bruti.
§ Livy, Book xxxv.
expressive advice of Archidamas, the King of Sparta, when perceiving that the Elians inclined to take part with the Arcadians, he wrote to them an Epistle, with these words only—“ It is good to be quiet."* We will not insult the common sense of our readers, to show from these precedents, how that the cruel perfidy, and treacherous alliance of our Ministry, in respect to their bearing to our ancient ally of Portugal, is directly at variance with the Law of Nations, yea, even the Law of Nature, and utterly derogatory to the public faith, and dignity of a Christian land. Many more examples, does the history of all the countries of the World supply us with, but enough has been already produced to uphold the true patriotism of those, who have been endeavouring to rescue England from that pitfall of degradation, into which she is daily sinking deeper, from the overpowering load of infamy, that many desire to heap on her, for no other purpose, than to strengthen the interests of their faction, at the expense of common principle, and integrity. In the violation of the manifest Law of Nature, the perpetrators of such villany, cannot be assailed with too much reproof and scorn; for we may well say with the profoundest writer on Law, that ever adorned human naturem" There is no reason that any one commonwealth of itself should, to the prejudice of another, annihilate that whereupon the whole world hath agreed.”+
* Kanòv souxía.
+ Hooker, Eccles. Pol. Book i. sec. 10. “The strength and virtue of the Law of Nations, are such (says Hooker), that no particular nation can lawfully prejudice the same by any their several laws and ordinances, more than a man, by his private resolutions, the Law of the whole commonwealth or state wherein he liveth.”
For it is most clear, that if a people violate the Laws of Nature and of Nations, they do but pull down those Bulwarks that should henceforth secure their own peace and safety; and what Nation is of itself so strong, as never to require the need of foreign aid, either by way of commerce, or to defend itself, against the united forces of many foreign nations confederate against it? The pages of History; may answer this question. Let us then bear in mind, that they who infringe the Law of Nations, commit as great a crime as private people, who violate the Law of Nature, with this marked difference, that the unjust actions of public functionaries, are always attended with more dreadful consequences than those of individuals. To this effect has one of the most accomplished, modern, Christian philosophers of France, expressed himself—“If a private person, offend without cause a person of the same station, his action is termed an injustice; but if a governor attack another governor without a cause, if he invade his territories, and ravage his towns and provinces, this is called waging war, and it would be temerity to think it unjust. To break or violate contracts or agreements, is esteemed a crime among private people : but among governors, to infringe the most solemn treaties, is prudence, is understanding the art of government ! True it is, that some pretext is always sought for; but those who trump up these pretexts, give themselves very little trouble whether they are thought just or not.”*
* Bernard, “Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres," Mars 1764, p. 340. This was a Literary Journal, which M. Bernard with great reputation conducted, in continuation of that commenced by the French Bayle, who from bad health was obliged to discontinue it.