We do not make these remarks to condemn the past, nor to censure the present, but to point out what is our duty for the future. There is a time for all things. We know that men move slowly, and that the progress of ideas is like that of the apparent motion of the sun; we cannot see the sun move, but, after a while, we see that it has moved. We do not complain, because the great truth for which we contend has not been brought out distinctly before. It required time to wear out the old morality, to exhaust theological discussions, and to fix the basis of our ever progressing religious theory. That is now done, and the epoch has arrived for extending our views, and making the exclusively theological element, with which the religious world has been engaged for so many ages, give place to the moral element, which alone constitutes the peculiarity of the Gospel. The Christian world is now distracted, torn into contending sects, and exhibiting a spectacle saddening to the hearts of all the real friends of humanity. These sects must be brought together, these alienated hearts must be united, and these scattered and inoperative elements must be brought into one grand and complete whole. But this cannot be done by any system of theology whatever. It can be done only by striking a chord which shall vibrate alike through all moral nature. We can do it only by a new and a higher view of Christian morality. We have cleared away the rubbish of a false and mischievous theology; we have brought men back, at least in theory, to the simple doctrines inculcated in Scripture, to those which are based on everlasting truth, which are in perfect harmony with man's intellectual nature, those on which Jesus based his morality; and now we must bring out that morality, and hold it up to the admiration and love of all hearts.

The first step to this is to comprehend the extent of that morality, and to obtain the conviction of its practicability. We have said that it is the law of love, a law that requires us to love one another as Christ loved us, that is, well enough, if need be, to die for our fellow beings as Christ died for us. This is the principle of Christian morality. It is, we believe, practicable. Jesus preached it, commanded his disciples to preach it to “ every creature," and that too without ever intimating that all men could not obey it. Let the preacher, when he reads the discourses of Jesus to his congregation, when he calls upon his hearers to love God with all the heart,

mind, and strength, and their neighbours as themselves, catch the meaning of what he utters, and he will want no arguments to prove that men can "have that mind in them which was also in Christ Jesus;" and, when he comes once to believe that they can, he will speak with such firm persuasion of the truth of what he utters, that "his words will be with power." Let him comprehend his mission, and its grandeur will waken all the higher and better principles of his soul, kindle up a moral enthusiasm that will carry him through every difficulty, and make him mighty in the work of turning men's hearts to God. This is what is implied by the ministerial office. It is a practical answer to the objection brought against our hopes; and, till men will admit, that the preacher is inducted into his office to preach an impracticable scheme of morals, we shall consider a further answer, at least to professed Christians, as unnecessary.

ART. VI- An Inquiry into the Accordancy of War with the Principles of Christianity; and an Examination of the Philosophical Reasoning by which it is defended; with Observations on the Causes of War and some of its Effects. By JONATHAN DYMOND. With a Dedication to Sunday-School Teachers and Scholars, and Notes, by THOMAS SMITH GRIMKE, of Charleston, South Carolina. Together with an Appendix, containing Extracts from several of his Writings vindicating or illustrating the Principles of Peace. Philadelphia. J. Ashmead & Co. 1834. 12mo. pp. xx. and 300.

"I was ashamed," said Ezra, in recapitulating the circumstances of his emigration from the land of his captivity, "I was ashamed to require of the king a band of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the enemy in the way because we had spoken unto the king, saying, The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him, but his power and his wrath is against all them that forsake him." This sublime instance of confidence in the divine protection and promises, though under an imperfect dispensation, has too seldom found

66

its parallel beneath the light of the Gospel. For the last fifteen centuries, the example of Ezra has been putting to shame the great body of the professed disciples of Christ. They have had too little faith to believe that "the hand of God is upon all them for good that seek him"; and have therefore required bands of soldiers and horsemen to help them against the enemy in the way." And when the Quakers first appeared, one of the chief grounds on which they were persecuted by their fellow Christians, on which they were whipt, imprisoned, and hung by the Puritans of New England, was that they followed the example of Ezra, and preferred putting their trust in God to trusting in the implements of bloodshed and havock. We cannot but think that they followed the example, breathed the spirit, and obeyed the law, of a greater than Ezra. We cannot but regard all war as entirely opposed to the precepts and the spirit of the Gospel. And this is the view, which we shall present and maintain in the following article. But, while we denounce war as anti-Christian, we do not mean to deny the Christian name and character to all those, who have advocated or conducted There have been some, perhaps many Christian warriors; and so there have been Christian slave-dealers, and there are still some Christian makers and sellers of ardent spirits. With regard to these latter employments, charity readily pronounces the verdict; "The times of ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.' We would cheerfully enter the same verdict with regard to the military profession. But let us, unbiassed by the noble examples of virtue and piety which have confessedly adorned it, view the whole subject in the light of the Gospel.

wars.

We maintain the unlawfulness of all war, first, on the ground that it is opposed to the precepts of the New Testament. "Resist or avenge not evil; rather suffer wrong than do wrong; incur fresh insult and injustice, rather than repel insult or injustice by violence," is allowed on all hands to be the literal meaning of the precepts contained in Matthew v. 39-42; nor is there any thing in the context to show that these precepts were designed for the special guidance of the first disciples; but they occur in that portion of the Sermon on the Mount, in which the Saviour's object is most manifestly to develope the spirituality and the fulness of his religion, in contrast with the external and imperfect character of the

VOL. XVIII. — N. S. VOL. XIII. NO. III.

48

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?

99 66

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 impla cable, 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

66

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.

وو

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.