Page images
PDF
EPUB

Extracts from Mrs. Elizabeth Hamilton's Series of Popular Essays. "In every state of society, Pride may indeed be very properly represented as the God of War. In the infancy of nations, long before the mental powers had been sufficiently cultivated to systemize ambition; the propensity to enlarge the idea of self, connected with pride, inspires in man the desire of bringing his fellow-men into subjection. From all that is known of the history of savages, it appears that the very first use made of the glimmering light afforded by the dawn of intellect, is to attempt effecting by combination a more complete gratification of pride than any individual could by his single arm procure.

From what yet remains of the poetry of the Barbarians of ancient Europe, we learn, that the savage on returning from his war of pride, raised the song of triumph, in which he recapitulated with exultation all the horrid deeds of cruelty perpetrated by his tribe in the pursuit of vengeance. He gloried in having devoured the flesh of his enemies, and in having converted their skulls into cups from which he quaffed their blood. This was then the Pride of War.

"As civilization advanced, war assumed a somewhat milder aspect; but still through every period of the history of man we may perceive, that in proportion as pride operates in the contending parties, the miseries of war are augmented, and its crimes assume a deeper dye. As the pride of the governing party is always more offended by rebellion against its authority, than by the hostility of foreign states, civil wars are accompanied by more atrocious acts of indiscriminating cruelty, than wars with foreign nations. In foreign wars, the fortified places which bid defiance to the invading army, offend its pride by resistance; and how dearly they pay for the offence, the mourn ful detail of the savage, and worse

than savage cruelties, committed by Christian armies in places taken by assault, can, alas! too amply testify. The horrid outrages committed by the brutal fury of the conquerors, on the innocent and defenceless, give us a complete view of the nature of the pride of war; that pride of which we are accustomed to speak as constituting the soldier's glory.

"I have been led to trespass too far on the reader's patience, in entering into these particulars; but as I am persuaded that much moral evil has resulted from confounding the notions of pride with notions of magnanimity, dignity, and heroism, I have thought it of some importance to show, that pride has no alliance with any quality or sentiment, or feeling, that is the object of esteem or moral approbation.

"In reading the history of the great achievements of princes and warriors of former times, we are presented with frequent opportunities of observing, not only the degree in which the selfish principle operated in their breasts, but the degree in which it operated in the historians by whom the account of their actions has been transmitted to posterity: In the triumphs obtained by the proud and powerful over the humble and defenceless none can sympathize, but in proportion as they identify themselves with the conqueror. No sooner does this identification take place, than his triumphs become theirs. However stained by cruelty, perfidy or injustice, he is henceforth transformed into a hero, and dignified by all the epithets expressive of admiration. The reader, the young reader especially, is apt thus to be surprised into approbation of deeds, which, if stated in their native deformity, his soul would have abhorred. With his notions of heroism he henceforth mingles notions of a pride that disdains all the restraints of religion and morality, and which exults in annihilating the happiness, and trampling on the rights of all other mortals.”

[blocks in formation]

"BEFORE the ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the world was a stranger to the principle of true benevolence. Philosophy gave pompous precepts that astonished the reason, but reach ed not the heart. Amidst the refined and ostentatious lessons of the Sage to explain the secret of human happiness, man still remained a prey to himself, that is, to his worst passions," &c.

"To peruse the records of these periods, one would think that men owed their being to different irreconcileable Creators, who had placed them here below to glut their animosities by all the various horrors of endless wars and extermination. All the crimes and ravages of ambition found an apology in the pursuit of glory and the bitterest indulgence of private vengeance was coloured with the name of public justice; one successful villain or another became the hero of the day; and millions of human victims often paved the way for the parade of a triumph and short-lived possession of pre-eminence and power."

"Such was in a few words, the afflicted state of the world, when a divine and benevolent doctrine presented a remedy to its misfortune. Alas! too few and rapid were the golden days of its influence," &c.

[blocks in formation]

We cannot, indeed, behold the example but at a distance, nor consider it without being struck with a sense of our own debility: every man who compares his life with this divine rule, instead of exulting in his own excellence, will smite his breast like the publican, and cry out, God be merciful to me a sinner!' Thus to acquaint us with ourselves, may but the precept cannot surely be conbe one use of the precept; perhaps sidered as having no other.

I know it will be said, that our passions are not in our power, and that therefore a precept to love or to hate is impossible; for if the gratification of all our wishes was offered us to love a stranger as we love a child, we could not fulfil the condition, however we might desire the reward.

that we cannot love an enemy as we But admitting this to be true, and love a friend, it is yet equally certain, that we may perform those actions which are produced by love from a higher principle: we may, perhaps, derive moral excellence from natural defects, and exert our reason

How far the Precept, to love our Ene- instead of indulging a passion. If

mies is practicable. [From the Adventurer.] To love an enemy, is the distinguishing characteristic of a religion, which is not of man, but of God. It could be delivered as a precept only by Him, who lived and died to establish it by his example.

At the close of that season, in which human frailty has commemorated sufferings which it could not sustain, a season in which the most zealous devotion can only substitute

our enemy hungers we may feed him, and if he thirsts we may give him drink: this, if we could love him, would be our conduct; and this may still be our conduct, though to love him is impossible. The Christian will be prompted to relieve the necessities of his enemy by his love to God; he will rejoice in an opportunity to express the zeal of his gratitude and the alacrity of his obedience, at the same time that he appropriates the promises and anticipates his reward.

But though he who is beneficent upon these principles, may in the Scripture sense be said to love his enemy, yet something more may still be effected: the passion itself in some degree is in our power; we may rise to a yet nearer emulation of divine forgiveness, we may think as well as act with kindness, and be sanctified as well in heart as in life.

Though love and hatred are necessarily produced in the human breast, when the proper objects of these passions occur, as the colour of material substances is necessarily perceived by an eye before which they are exhibited, yet it is in our power to change the passion, and to cause either love or hatred to be excited, by placing the same object in different circumstances, as a changeable silk of blue and yellow may be held so as to excite the idea either of yellow or blue.

No act is deemed more injurious, or resented with greater acrimony, than the marriage of a child, especially of a daughter, without the consent of a parent: it is frequently considered as a breach of the strongest and tenderest obligations; as folly and ingratitude, treachery and rebellion. By the imputation of these vices, a child becomes the object of indignation and resentment: indignation and resentment in the breast therefore of the parent, are necessarily excited; and there can be no doubt but that these are species of hatred. But if the child is considered as still retaining the endearing softness of filial affection, as still longing for reconciliation, and profaning the rites of marriage with tears; as having been driven from the path of duty, only by the violence of passions which none have always resisted, and which many have indulged with much greater turpitude, the same object that before excited indignation and resentment, will now be regarded with pity, and pity is a species of love.

Those indeed who resent this

breach of filial duty with implacability, though perhaps it is the only one of which the offender has been guilty, demonstrate that they are without natural affection, and that they would have prostituted their offspring, if not to lust, yet to affections which are equally vile and sordid, the thirst of gold, or the cravings of ambition; for he can never be thought to be sincerely interested in the felicity of his child, who, when some of the means of happiness are lost by indiscretion, suffers his resentment to take away the rest.

Among friends, sallies of quick resentment are extremely frequent. Friendship is a constant reciprocation of benefits, to which the sacrifice of private interest is sometimes necessary it is common for each to set too much value upon those which he bestows, and too little upon those which he receives; this mutual mistake in so important an estimation, produces mutual charges of unkindness and ingratitude; each, perhaps, professes himself ready to forgive, but neither will condescend to be forgiven. Pride, therefore, still increases the enmity which it began; the friend is considered as selfish, assuming, injurious, and revengeful; he consequently becomes an object of hatred; and while he is thus considered, to love him is impossible. But thus to consider him, is at once a folly and a fault: each ought to reflect, that he is, at least in the opinion of the other, incurring the crimes that he imputes; that the foundation of their enmity is no more than a mistake; and that this mistake is the effect of weakness or vanity, which is common to all mankind; the character of both would then assume a very different aspect, love would again be excited by the return of its object, and each would be impatient to exchange acknowledgments, and recover the felicity which was so near being lost.

But if after we have admitted an

acquaintance to our bosom as a friend, it should appear that we had mistaken his character; if he should betray our confidence, and use the knowledge of our affairs, which perhaps he obtained by offers of service, to effect our ruin; if he defames us to the world, and adds perjury to falsehood; if he violates the chastity of a wife, or seduces a daughter to prostitution; we may still consider him in such circumstances as will incline us to fulfil the precept, and to regard him without the rancour of hatred or the fury of revenge.

Every character, however it may deserve punishment, excites hatred only in proportion as it appears to be malicious; and pure malice has never been imputed to human beings. The wretch, who has thus deceived and injured us, should be considered as having ultimately intended, not evil to us, but good to himself. It should also be remembered that he has mistaken the means; that he has forfeited the friendship of Him whose favour is better than life, by the same conduct which forfeited ours; and that to whatever view he sacrificed our temporal interest, to that also he sacrificed his own hope of immortality; that he is now secking felicity which he can never find, and incurring punishment that will last for ever. And how much better than this wretch is he, in whom the contemplation of his condition can excite no pity? Surely if such an enemy hungers, we may, without suppressing any passion, give him food; for who that sees a criminal dragged to execution, for whatever crime, would refuse him a cup of cold water?

On the contrary, he whom God has forgiven must necessarily become amiable to man: to consider his character without prejudice or partiality, after it has been changed by repentance, is to love him; and impartially to consider it, is not only our duty but our interest.

Thus may we love our enemies, and add a dignity to our nature of which pagan virtue had no conception. But if to love our enemies is the glory of a Christian, to treat others with coldness, neglect, and malignity, is rather the reproach of a fiend than a man. Unprovoked enmity, the frown of unkindness, and the menaces of oppression, should be far from those who profess themselves to be followers of Him who in his life went about doing good; who instantly healed a wound that was given in his defence; and who, when he was fainting in his last agony, and treated with mockery and derision, conceived at once a prayer and an apology for his murderers; Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.

The Rights

of Cesar subordinate to the Rights of God.

[From the Friend of Peace.] IN the Republican Advocate for August 5th, printed at New-London, an article was inserted containing remarks on "The Excuse" of some persons who had declined what is called "Military duty," in which article we find the following paragraph

"That Christians are not to engage in war, as such, no man in his sober senses can doubt. The kingdom of Christ and the kingdoms of this world are distinct. Both can exist without infringing on the rights of either. The same Saviour who said 'Render unto God the things that are God's,' also said, 'Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's.'

These are not the sentiments of the individual only, who wrote the article, but the sentiments of a great portion of Christians, perhaps, in every country. They are therefore entitled to a respectful and candid examination.

"That Christians are not to engage in war, as such"-that is, as Christians, is a very important concession;

and one which naturally resulted from a view of the glaring contrariety between the spirit of war and the spirit of Messiah-between every thing which usually pertains to war, and every thing in the example of the Prince of Peace. But having been educated in the belief that war is a necessary and lawful calling, Christians have invented this distinctionthat what they cannot do as Christians, they may do as subjects of an earthly ruler.

At first view it would seem a clear case, that if a Christian cannot wage war as a Christian, he must practically renounce his Christian profession whenever he engages in that sanguinary work. Yet this conclusion is supposed to be set aside by the consideration, that he is the subject of an earthly king, as well as the subject of the King of kings, and that what he cannot do as the subject of the former, he may do as the subject of the latter.

We readily grant that, in certain respects, "the kingdom of Christ is distinct from the kingdoms of this world," and that "both may exist without infringing on the rights of either." But they do not, and cannot so exist, when the requirements of the one interfere with the requirements of the other. If an earthly king requires of any man what the King of kings forbids, one or the other must necessarily be disobeyed. For in such a case No man can serve

two masters.'

[ocr errors]

It is moreover granted, that "the same Saviour who said Render unto God the things that are God's-said also, Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's." But what are the things that are Cesar's?" Most certainly Cesar has no claim to any homage or service which would imply disrespect to God, or a violation of his commands. We have then to inquire, what are the commands of God to every Christian; and having ascertained the things which belong to God, we may the more clearly

discern the just claims of Cesar, or of an earthly ruler.

'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: This is the first commandment. The second isThou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.' Hence we safely infer, that no command of an earthly sovereign can annul these commands of the Most High, or suspend either of them for a single moment.

In exact accordance with these commands our Saviour has said to all his disciples, 'Love your enemies;' and both by precept and example he has taught them not to render evil for evil, but to overcome evil with good. These commands should be regarded by every Christian as sacred, permanent, and irrevocable by any human authority whatever.

Suppose then that some ferocious Cesar, who has no regard to these commands, should require me to love him with all my heart, and to hate and destroy those of my neighbours whom he is pleased to call enemies. Is it not absolutely impossible for me to obey this Cesar and the King of kings? And if I cannot obey both, can any one doubt whose command ought to be regarded by me as Supreme, or whose as subordinate? May a guilty worm like myself presume to suspend my duty to God and my neighbour? Or to require of me a disposition to hate and destroy such of my fellow-beings as God requires me to love, and for whom the Saviour died?

There is another prevalent opinion, which is a perfect counterpart to the one which has been considerednamely, That a Christian king cannot make war as a Christian, yet he may as a ruler. Thus by two gross delusions men have contrived to absolve the whole Christian world from their obligations to obey the moral precepts of the Gospel-and that too in

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »