Mosaic system. "Love your enemies," says he; and he holds forth as a motive to the discharge of this duty, "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust," a motive, which from its very nature renders the precept of universal obligation; for it is manifestly every man's duty to do what will render him like his heavenly Father. Now no one will surely pretend that he, who wages war even in a righteous cause, obeys this precept. In the parable of the Samaritan, Jesus bids us regard as our neighbours even those, whom the most bitter national animosity divides from us. Could the Christian warrior contemplate the good Samaritan binding up the wounds of his fallen enemy, and then go his way, and with a good conscience wound or murder on the battle-field his own enemy?

In accordance with the spirit that breathes throughout our Saviour's teachings, are also the Apostolic precepts: "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; "Avenge not yourselves;" "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;" "Overcome evil with good." We all admit the obligation of these precepts, as well as of our Saviour's, upon us in our individual capacity and our social relations. We all are ready to quote them, condemning the murderer, the duellist, the quarrelsome, the revengeful, the implacable, as requiring forbearance under the greatest personal injuries, forgiveness of the greatest personal wrongs. Now there cannot be two standards of right and wrong, one for individuals and one for communities; for the public will is but the aggregate of individual wills, and the public conscience is but the expression of the majority of individual consciences. Every man, who participates in a public act does his part of that act individually, and, as an individual, recognises its propriety and justice. He who votes for a retaliatory, revengeful measure, he who gives his voice in favor of recompensing evil for evil to a community or nation, as truly sins against the precepts of the New Testament, as if he lifted his hand in revenge against his next-door neighbour. It cannot be right for bodies of men to do what it is wrong for individuals to do. But it is said that these precepts of Jesus and the Apostles are not to be interpreted literally, that they are to be modified by the existing habits and circumstances of society. To this

we reply, that they bear no limitation on the face of them, that the terms in which they are written are unqualified and full, and that it was the design and anticipated result of the mission of Jesus Christ to revolutionize the previously existing customs and habits of mankind, to create "a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." All his precepts were in advance of the age in which he lived, nay even of the present age. Why not modify them all? Why is it not as reasonable to modify the precept, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," by the habitual worldliness and ingratitude of mankind, as to modify the precept, "Love your enemies," by military institutions and customs? Or why is it more absurd to assert that blasphemy is perfectly consistent with love to God, than to assert that killing our enemies in battle is consistent with love for them? We cannot suppress our unfeigned surprise, that, while so many divines and moralists have taken war under their protection and sought to justify it on Gospel grounds, no one has shown pity to the lovers of gain or of pleasure, and undertaken the equally easy task, perhaps, of so expounding the New Testament as to justify them. There is no limit to the impiety and absurdity, to which we should be led by the principles of interpretation, which the Christian friends of war are compelled to adopt.

Moreover the primitive Christians, who were the most likely to know what was the mind of Christ, generally interpreted his precepts so as to forbid all war. The instances are numerous, in which they suffered martyrdom rather than enlist in the Roman armies. "I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight; "—"I cannot fight, but I can die ; "It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly considerations; " - such were the last words of some of these martyred followers of the Prince of Peace. * The earliest Christian fathers declare in express and strong terms the unlawfulness of war, even in cases where it would seem the most necessary. We cite the following instances of such a declaration from the work, the title of which we have placed at the head of this article.

"Justin Martyr and Tatian talk of soldiers and Christians as distinct characters; and Tatian says that the Christians declined

* See Grimké's Dymond, p. 61.

even military commands. Clemens of Alexandria calls his Christian contemporaries, the 'Followers of Peace,' and expressly tells us, that the followers of peace used none of the implements of war.' Lactantius, another early Christian, says expressly, 'It can never be lawful for a righteous man to go to war.' About the end of the second century, Celsus, one of the opponents of Christianity, charged the Christians with refusing to bear arms even in case of necessity. Origen, the defender of the Christians, does not think of denying the fact; he admits the refusal, and justifies it, because war was unlawful. Even after Christianity had spread over almost the whole of the known world, Tertullian, in speaking of a part of the Roman armies, including more than one third of the standing legions of Rome, distinctly informs us, that not a Christian could be found amongst them.' p. 62. "Tertullian says; 'Though the soldiers came to John and received a certain form to be observed, yet Jesus Christ, by disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier afterwards; for custom never sanctions any unlawful act.' 'Can a soldier's life be lawful,' says he, in another work, when Christ has pronounced, that he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword? Can any one, who possesses the peaceable doctrine of the Gospel, be a soldier, when it is his duty not so much as to go to law? And shall he, who is not to revenge his own wrongs, be instrumental in bringing others into chains, imprisonment, torture, death?'"

- p. 62. "Irenæus, who lived about Anno 180, affirms, that the prophecy of Isaiah, which declared that men should turn their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, had been fulfilled in his time; for the Christians,' says he, 'have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight.' Justin Martyr, his contemporary, writes,

That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies.' Tertullian, who lived later, says, 'You must confess that the prophecy has been accomplished, as far as the practice of every individual, to whom it is applicable, is concerned.'" p. 63.

We could quote, did our limits permit, numerous declarations of similar purport from no less than thirteen of the earliest and most eminent Christian Fathers, (including those cited above,) all of whom assert that the precepts of Jesus forbid war, and that his followers had, from the first, resolutely refused to bear arms. It is as certain as any historical fact of that date can be, that, for the first two centuries, Christians in general refused, as such, to become soldiers; and very

numerous are the instances on record, in which even officers of high rank, on becoming Christians, threw down their commissions at once, deeming their profession no longer lawful.* Nor was it till late in the fourth century, when the church had lost its primitive simplicity, and become the ally of tyranny and oppression, that any considerable number of Christians could be found in the ranks of the Roman army; and even then the doctrine of the lawfulness of war had not found its way into the works of Christian writers.

But, if war is opposed to the precepts, it is still more so to the example of Jesus. It must not be forgotten, too, that he was placed in circumstances, in which, had he deemed war in any case justifiable, he might have been expected to advocate one and take the lead in it. His native country was, at the date of his public ministry, groaning under far heavier burdens than our fathers ever felt or feared from British tyranny. Indeed, it was subjected by the Romans to a military occupation and despotism, not unlike that to which Russia subjected the portion of Poland which fell to her share. Now, if it was right for Christian ministers to offer their invocations of wrath and bloodshed over banners to be sent to the insurgent Poles, if it was the duty of Chris

[* The distinction here made is recognised by the Fathers of the church. "Even Tertullian himself, the warm opponent of the profession of arms among Christians, did not feel himself authorized altogether to condemn those who, having become Christians while they were soldiers, continued in their old profession, provided it was unattended with any thing which caused them to violate their fidelity as Christians."-Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. I. p. 304, who refers here to Tertullian's work, De Corona Militis, c. xi. Neander also quotes (p. 306) a remarkable passage from Tertullian's Apologet. c. xlii., to be explained, perhaps, by reference to the same distinction; where the latter, in defending the early Christians against the charge of being useless citizens, says: We, therefore, inhabit this world in common with you, and we make use of baths, of shops, workshops, and fairs, and all that is used in the intercourse of life. We also carry on, in common with you, navigation, WAR, agriculture, and trade; we take part in your occupations, and our labor, when needful, we give to the public service." The editors, however, would observe generally, that they must not be held responsible for, nor be considered as going along with, all the reasonings and illustrations contained in this article. They would only say, that on such a subject all but bigots must be willing and glad to hear a strong statement of the argument on either side. EDD.]

66

tian ministers and people to foment the war of our revolution, then may we not presume, that it would have been right for the Saviour, nay, his duty, to have lighted the torch of war on the hill-tops of Judea, to have unfurled his banner as a conquering Messiah, to have blasted and destroyed the Roman legions by that miraculous power which healed even Roman diseases; to have cried aloud on the feast-day to the thousands that came up to the temple to worship," Up, my countrymen, unsheathe the sword, avenge your invaded liberties, lay the usurper low, deluge your plains with his blood; let Victory or Death be your watch-word; it is the cause of God, and I, his annointed Messenger, lead you to conquest." But is there a word of all this? No. He pays tribute to Cæsar, and exhorts his countrymen to do so; he advises and practises a quiet submission and external respect to the powers that be, is ready to bestow his miraculous aid upon the oppressors, and always takes himself out of the way, when there is danger that his presence will give rise to any hostile movement. In fine, he sanctions by his example what it has been fashionable among his professed followers to term the tame, spiritless endurance of injuries. And would it shock, reader, your moral sensibilities to think of your Saviour as a man of violence and blood? Would it do away that tender reverence which you now cherish for his character to know, that, even in what you call a righteous war, he had destroyed human life? Why is it not as much out of character for one of his disciples to be a shedder of blood, a destroyer of life, as it would have been for him? His disciples. are commanded to imitate him, and are expressly told, that, if they have not the spirit of Christ, they are none of his. Can a maker or lover of war have his spirit? If he was a peace-maker under circumstances, in which, if ever, war was justifiable, how can his followers fight?

Yet again, the example of Jesus in connexion with his personal enemies merits particular consideration. He never rushes into danger, he often retreats and hides from the malice of his foes; and yet he is able, by a miracle of destruction, at any moment to save himself from their hands. At last, when he can no longer elude their artifices, and the only alternative is to suffer evil or to do evil, he calmly chooses the former, meekly meets the traitor's hollow embrace, bids the angry Peter sheathe his sword, heals the wound that