principles of the law of Christ. But it will not be difficult to carry the argument a step further, and to show that one of the precepts now cited from the Sermon on the Mount, appears to bear a specific "Ye have heard that and peculiar allusion to the subject of war. it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies." In the first part of his discourse, our Lord has instituted a comparison between the system of morality, which, under the sanction and influence of the Mosaic institution, prevailed among the Israelites, and that purer and more perfect law of action, of which he was himself both the author and the minister. In calling the attention of his hearers to the sayings uttered "by them of old time" on the several moral points of his discourse, such as killing, adultery, divorcement, perjury, and retaliation-he has uniformly quoted from the law of Moses itself. It was with the principles of that law, as they were understood and received by the Jews, that he compared his own holier system, and he improved, enlarged, or superseded, the introductory and more imperfect code of morals (as was in each particular required) in order to make way for one which is Now the capable of no improvement, and must endure for ever.

precepts of ancient times to which he last refers the precepts respecting love and hatred-formed, in all probability, like the whole preceding series, a part of those divine edicts which were That which related to the delivered to the Israelites by Moses.

love of their neighbour is recognized at once, and is as follows: "Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;" Lev. xix. 18. The reader will observe that the love here enjoined was to be directed to the children of the people of Israel. The neighbour to be loved was the fellow-countrymen; or if a stranger, the proselyte; and the precept in fact commanded no more than that the Israelites-the members of the Lord's selected family-should love one another. So also the injunction of old, that the Israelites should hate their enemies, was exclusively national. They were not permitted to hate their private enemies, who belonged to the same favoured community. On the contrary, they were enjoined to do good to such enemics as these: "If thou meet thine enemy's

ox or his ass going astray," said the law, "thou shalt surely bring it back to him again." Exod. xxiii. 4. But they were to hate * their national enemies-they were to make no covenant with the foreign and idolatrous tribes, who formerly possessed the land of Canaan. "When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it," said Moses to the assembly of his people, "and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them." Deut. vii. 1, 2. comp. Exod. xxxiv. 11-13. On another occasion, a similar injunction was delivered respecting the Amalekites: "Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it." Deut. xxv. 19.

Such was the hatred of enemies enjoined upon ancient Israel, and such was the manner in which it was to be applied-in the persevering, exterminating use of the national sword. Now it is to these edicts, delivered in the times of old, and under the peculiar circumstances of the dispensation then existing, that the law of Christ is placed in opposition: "But I say unto you, Love your enemies." How much soever, then, we may be justified by the

* The verb "to hate," as used in the Holy Scriptures (Heb. v, Gr. μioéw) does not imply malignity of mind so much as opposition and enmity in action; as the reader may be fully convinced on a reference to the concordances; See Schleusner, Lex. voc. μoéw, No. 1.

+ Grotius, in his work De Jure Belli ac Pacis, has himself insisted on this interpretation of the saying of old times respecting hatred, “Odio habebis inimicum tuum, puta septem populos, quibuscum amicitiam colere, quorumque misereri, vetantur; "Exod. xxxiv. 11. Deut. vii. 1. "His addendi Amalecitæ, in quos Hebræi jubentur bellum habere implacabile;" Deut. xxv. 19. Lib. i. cap. 2. § iii. 1. The correctness of the observation thus made by this learned defender of war is, I think, indisputable; but it is surprising that he did not notice the argument which it so obviously affords, in favour of the doctrine, that, under the Christian dispensation, war is unlawful.

undoubted universality of this law, in applying it to the circumstances of private life, we can scarcely fail to perceive that it was principally intended to discountenance these national enmities; and that the love here enjoined was specifically and peculiarly such as would prevent the practice of war. The Israelites were commanded to combat and destroy with the sword the nations. who were their own enemies, and the enemies of God. But Christians are introduced to a purer and more lovely system of moral conduct and the law which they are called upon to obey, is that which proclaims peace upon earth and good-will to men: they are commanded to be the friends of all mankind. If they are sent forth among idolatrous nations, it is as the ministers of their restoration, and not as the instruments of their punishment; and as they may not contend with the sword against the enemies of their God, much less may they wield it for any purpose of their own, whether it be in aggression, retribution, or defence. Armed with submission, forbearance, and long-suffering, they must secede from the warfare of a wrathful and corrupt world; and whatever be the aggravations to which they are exposed, must evince themselves, under the softening influence of universal love, to be the meek, the harmless, the benevolent, followers of the PRINCE OF PEACE.

I know of nothing in the New Testament which has any appearance of contravening the force of these divine precepts, or of the deductions now made from them, but a single passage in the gospel of Luke. We are informed by that sacred historian that after our Lord's paschal supper, and immediately before he was betrayed into the hands of his enemies, Jesus thus addressed his disciples: "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, That this that is writter. must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors:' for the things concerning me have an end;" chap. xxii. 35-37. The words employed by the Lord Jesus on this occasion may, when superficially considered, be deemed to

66

inculcate the notion that his followers were permitted and enjoined to defend themselves and their religion with the sword; but the context and the circumstances which followed after these words were uttered, evidently decide otherwise. The disciples appear, after their usual manner, to have understood their Lord literally, and they answered, "Here are two swords," and Jesus replied, It is enough. Now in declaring that two swords were enough, although they were then exposed to aggravated and immediately impending danger, he offered them an intelligible hint that he had been misunderstood-that the use of the sword in defence of their little company, was neither consistent with his views, nor really implied in his injunction. But the opportunity was at hand on which the disciples were to be completely undeceived. The enemies of Jesus approached, armed and caparisoned as if they were in pursuit of some violent robbers. When the disciples saw what would follow, they said unto Jesus, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" and Peter, the most zealous of their number, without waiting for his Master's reply, rushed forward and smote the servant of the High Priest, and cut off his ear. Then were he and his brethren clearly instructed by their Lord, that it was their duty not to fight, but to suffer wrong. "Suffer ye thus far," said he to Peter, and immediately afterwards he confirmed his doctrine by action he touched the wounded man and healed him. Then, in expressions of the greatest significancy, he cried out to Peter, "Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" See John xviii. 11: and as an universal caution against so antichristian a practice as that of using destructive weapons in self-defence, he added, "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword:" Matt. xxvi. 52. Lastly, when soon afterwards he was carried before Pilate the Roman governor, he plainly declared that his kingdom was of such a nature, that it neither required nor allowed the defence of carnal weapons. My kingdom," said he, "is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence." John xviii. 36.

66

It is sufficiently evident, therefore, that when our Lord exhorted

his disciples to sell their garments and buy swords, his precept was not to be understood literally. Such, indeed, is the explicit judgment of the generality of commentators. We may, therefore, either conclude with Erasmus that the sword of which our Lord here spake was the sword of the Spirit -the word of God, (see Com. in. loc.) or we may accede to the more prevalent opinion of critics, that the words of Jesus imported nothing more than a general warning to the disciples, that their situation was about to be greatly changed-that they were soon to be deprived of the personal and protecting presence of their divine Master-that they would be exposed to every species of difficulty, and become the objects of hatred and persecution—that they would no longer be able to trust in their neighbours, and would, therefore, be driven to a variety of expedients in order to provide for their own maintenance and security. See Estius, Vatablus, and others, in Poli Syn., Gill, &c.

In order to complete the present branch of the argument, I have, in the last place, to remark, that the doctrine of the Society of Friends respecting the absolute inconsistency of warfare with the moral code of the Christian dispensation, was one which prevailed to a very considerable extent during the early ages of the Christian church. Justin Martyr, (A.D. 140) in his first apology, quotes the prophecy of Isaiah, (already cited in the present Essay,) respecting the going forth of the law and of the word of God from Jerusalem, and the consequent prevalence of a state of peace. "That these things have come to pass," he proceeds, "you may be readily convinced: for twelve men, destitute both of instruction and of eloquence, went forth from Jerusalem into the world, and by the power of God gave evidence to every description of persons, that they were sent by Christ to teach all men the divine word: and we who were once slayers of one another (that is to say, commonly engaged in warfare) do not fight against our enemies;' ;"* Apol. i. cap. 39, p. 67, Ed. Ben. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, (A.D. 167) discusses the same prophecy, and proves its relation to our Saviour, by the fact that the followers of Jesus had

* Οὐ πολεμοῦμεν τοὺς ἐχθροὺς.