denied without denying Christianity, and it must prevail before ever we shall see the millennium. Many changes must take place before that time. The law of violence must be abandoned. Not only must religious persecution and the torture of criminals be given up, but the use of the sword, and many other unchristian practices. We now look upon religious persecutions and the torture of criminals and witches as belonging to the dark ages; but before the millennium comes, the present age will be reckoned among them.

If men duly considered the infinite value of the soul, they would not destroy a single life to save a whole city from conflagration. I do not suppose that this argument will weigh much with men of the world. If they do not value their own souls, it is not to be expected that they will value the souls of their enemies. But the Christian values the souls of all alike, and would not send one of them to endless perdition to save his own life, much less his property. If, then, an attempt is made to put down a mob with deadly weapons, a Christian should have nothing to do with it. So long as God suffers the law of violence to prevail in the earth, he may suffer a contrary violence to suppress it.

But I am asked, "What would you do, if an armed mob were coming to plunder and burn your house, murder yourself and your wife, ravish your daughters, and burn all your children at the stake?" And imagination is racked to invent a case, however improbable, in which a Christian would be justified in resorting to deadly weapons, in hopes, if overcome by his feelings he gives up the case, to found an argument on his concession, in favour of war. But let us examine the Gospel. What did Christ and his apostles do in cases which come nearer to the supposition above stated, than any can be expected to do in these days? When the chief-priests, and scribes, and elders raised a mob consisting of "a great multitude," to come out against him, did he use the sword? Did he not rebuke Peter for using it, and denounce the use of the sword for ever after? Did the apostles or early Christians use the sword in similar cases? No; and both He and they left us an example that we should walk in their steps.

Much more may be said against opposing a mob by deadly weapons; but what I have said is, I think, enough to convince a candid christian.

SECTION XV.

The objection that, if the principles of Peace were generally adopted, it would destroy civil government, considered.

I COME now to the last objection to the prevalence of Peace principles, which belongs to the class mentioned in my thirteenth section. It is also the last which I mean to discuss, before I begin to answer objections to our principles taken from the Scriptures. The objection, which is the theme of this essay is, if the principles of Peace were generally adopted, it would destroy civil government.

This objection looks so formidable on the first view of it, that I wonder our opponents have not made more use of it long ago. Probably they would have done so, had they thought at all on the subject; but those who do think, and think candidly, mostly come over to our side.

I might evade this subject, as it is not necessarily connected with the cause I advocate. It relates to the internal regulations of a nation, and has no connection with international war. Opposing the custom of war is our proper province; and perhaps we should leave this subject for the theologians and civilians to decide. If the magistrate should be allowed to use the sword in civil cases, where the accused is considered innocent until he is condemned by a jury of his equals,-I might almost say of his

choice, and by laws he has consented to live under; all this would not justify international war. Even though we should consent, for argument's sake, that a ruler is justified in punishing, even unto death, those over whom the providence of God has placed him, this would not justify a nation in taking the sword against another nation, over whom they have no jurisdiction. The principles of Peace, as laid down in the Gospel, even when carried to their utmost extent of non-resistance, do not at all infringe on the rights of the magistrate, nor interfere with the proper functions of civil government.

In the first place, it must be conceded that if everybody adopted the principles of Peace to the utmost extent, it would leave nothing for the judicial part of civil government to do; for the law of love would take the place of the law of violence; offences would be rare and would be forgiven,- -or at the most, the offenders would only bear the natural punishment of their offences in the disgrace they would bring on themselves; there would be few or no crimes to punish; the jails would be without tenants; pillories, dungeons, the gallows and the gibbet would follow in the wake of thumb-screws and racks, the wheel and the fagot; and would only be remembered as the mementos of a barbarous and bygone age. Yet all these were once thought necessary to the support of government and the security of the public. I very well remember when the whippingpost, the stocks and the pillory, adorned the chief place of concourse in my native village. Already they would seem strange appendages to the court-house of a shire-town.

I further concede, as I did in my thirteenth section, that physical force may sometimes be used in perfect consistence with the law of love. It is only when physical force is carried so far as to take life, that I am opposed to it. If any one contends that this can be done with perfect consistency with the law of love, I must confess, I cannot agree with him. I cannot conceive how sending souls into eternity, either by the sword of the magistrate, or war, offensive or defensive, is consistent with the precepts, "love your enemies," "resist not evil," " overcome evil with good," &c.

:

That the time is coming when the law of love is to take the place of the law of violence, and mankind be governed by moral power instead of physical force, is evident to me from four considerations. 1. The law of violence is much less used now than it was formerly. The criminal code of most Christian nations has undergone a great change for the better, since the cessation of the late extensive and bloody wars of Europe; and there is no reason to doubt that, as the world advances in civilization, refinement and Christian morals, this change will go on. 2. We never now think of applying the law of violence to any case of church discipline. In refined society, disgrace is infinitely more feared than physical punishment-often more than death itself. 3. As religious light increases, the principles of Peace will advance and wars, which always have been the hot-bed and nursery of crime, will gradually cease; and when the laws of God shall no longer be trampled under foot by nations, with the consent and countenance of the church of Christ, individuals will be more in dread of offending the great Avenger of all wrongs. 4. The prophecies plainly predict that such a time is to arrive. It is worthy of remark, that the cessation of crime is to be a consequence of the abolition of war. The same prophecy which predicts the abolition of war, predicts also that of the passions of wicked men-under the beautiful similitude of taming the ferocity and completely changing the nature of ravenous creatures and beasts of prey. Thus the glorious and genial reign of the Redeemer is predicted (Isaiah xi. 1-9.) " And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the

24

OBSTACLES AND OBJECTIONS TO THE CAUSE OF PEACE.

fear of the Lord; and shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them," &c.

When wars shall cease, private violence will cease also. Again, in Hoa ii. 18, the prophet, speaking in the place of God, uses the same figurative language, with regard to the safety of the righteous from the assaults of the wicked, as it respects either individuals or nations. "And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break the bow, and the sword, and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely." There are many prophecies of a similar import with which the devout reader of the Bible must be familiar. I think the great error has been, that Christians have looked upon the cessation of war, as a consequence of general holiness, instead of the cause of it. How can the church expect general holiness while she allows a custom which is the fruitful mother of every abomination? I allow that there is in this, as well as in other reforms, a re-action between cause and effect. Holiness and Peace go hand in hand. As wars become less frequent, crimes will gradually cease; and as men become more inclined to holiness, they will be less inclined to war. But this could not be the case, if waging

war were at all consistent with the Christian virtues.

The great question is, How shall we behave, until God grants us the millennium, in answer to prayer and our exertions? Shall we continue to overcome evil with evil? or shall we overcome evil with good? Shall we, for an injury received, take vengeance into our own hand? or employ the magistrate as the minister of vengeance? or shall we leave vengeance to Him who hath said, "Vengeance is mine?" Let every one answer these questions according to the dictates of his own conscience.

But, however Christians may settle these questions, so far as it relates to themselves, another question remains. What is the duty of a magistrate, in case of a violation of law? I answer, let him exercise his functions in a manner consistent with the law of love: but how far he can use physical force consistently with that law, must depend upon circumstances; and men perhaps will never agree on the circumstances which would warrant a resort to violence. This difference of opinion ought not to interfere with the cause of Peace.

Civil government is necessary, and probably always will be so, even in the millennium. It is necessary, to regulate the intercourse of nations, to watch over the health and welfare of the people, to make laws declaratory of what is right and what is wrong, and to give force and efficacy to public opinion. So far is the propagation of the principles of Peace, to their utmost extent, from being subversive of government, they are the only principles on which government can stand, consistently with the liberty of the people.

But is there no way of governing a country except by physical force? Our churches are not governed by it. It was tried once in the church, in the dark ages, and what bloody scenes and awful sins it caused! The public are not generally governed by it. Not one man in a thousand fears corporal punishment for crime, so much as he does the disgrace attached to it.

END OF PART I.

Tract No. XIII., Part II. of the Society for the Promotion of Permanent and Universal Peace.

OBSTACLES AND OBJECTIONS

ΤΟ

THE CAUSE OF PERMANENT

AND

UNIVERSAL PEACE,

CONSIDERED.

BY

A LAYMAN.

(REVISED AND ABRIDGED FROM THE AMERICAN EDITION.)

66 SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES."

London:

THOMAS WARD & CO., PATERNOSTER ROW;

BY ALL OTHER BOOKSELLERS; AND

AT THE DEPOSITORY, NO. 91, BISHOPSGATE STREET.

1840.

TO THE

CAUSE OF PEACE.

SECTION XVI.

Objections to the Principles of Peace brought from the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

FINDING my remarks on the obstacles and objections to the cause of peace increasing beyond my first intentions, I had resolved to let what was said in the last section, on the objection that the principles of peace, if generally adopted, would destroy civil government, suffice when I received a communication from a lady, already well known in the benevolent operations of the day, to whose departed brother the cause of peace is under great obligations. As her remarks are very pertinent to the subject, and ought not to be lost to the Christian public, I here insert them in preference to anything of mine. After having made some general observations on peace and war, she continues thus:-

"I shall now endeavour to give my views on this portion of sacred writ, Romans, ch. xiii, because it is a part of the Scriptures wrested more frequently than any other from its true inport, in order to countenance the system of war, and delude the perverted reason of man into a belief, that he is only fulfilling the Divine command, when he yields himself as a voluntary agent of the powers that be,' to go forth to spread devastation and death among those whom he ought to cherish as brethren, and to pray for his fellow-sinners, for whom Christ poured out his precious blood-those who are heirs of a glorious immortality, or of an inconceivable state of eternal misery.

"I presume it is known that the division of the Bible, into chapters and verses is purely arbitrary, and is comparatively a modern invention, being utterly unknown to the ancient Christians; the want of judgment manifested in the partition, which often destroys the relation between passages closely connected, must be obvious to every attentive reader.

"Nothing is more important than to keep in view the supreme sovereignty of God, and that his laws must be paramount to those enacted by man; the Scriptures afford some striking illustration of the distinction between rendering that obedience to a magistrate which violates the command of God, and that passive obedience which submits to suffering for righteousness' sake. Darius made a decree that 'whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.' What then was the conduct of Daniel? 'When Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house, and his windows being open towards Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God as he did aforetime.' He refused obedience to this unrighteous decree, although he had expressly declared, 'that God setteth up kings,' because a compliance with it would have been a direct infringement of that law uttered by Jehovah himself from Mount Sinai,--"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. And what was the consequence of Daniel's preferring his God to his king? -he was cast into the den of lions. Daniel was at this time invested with all but royal authority; he was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him, and the king thought to have set the whole realm.' Had he not been persuaded that it was his

him over