SIR,

LETTER III.

Taking life not required by Divine Authority.

THE most popular, as well as the most forcible argument, in favour of war, is, that it is sometimes necessary. This necessity is urged, if I mistake not, from two principles; 1. The law of God, as revealed in the scriptures: and, 2. The natural law of self-preservation; which also is considered of divine origin.

To take away the life of a man is war. The murderer wages offensive war: the court of justice which condemns him to death, wages defensive war. I propose this extreme case, for the obvious reason, that, if it be right to put a man to death for any crime he may commit, defensive war is right; and, of course, that war is sometimes necessary.

Concerning this argument in favour of war, I submit to your consideration the following observations.

All mankind are naturally free, equal, and independent. The form of government which God gave to the Hebrew nation, together with many of their laws, has long since passed away, and we have now no other form of civil government than what is usually styled a social compact. It is believed that a nation has a right to assemble, en masse, or by delegation, and adopt such a form of government, and such laws and regulations, as the majority may approve: provided, however, that none of their laws are contrary to the law of God, or supervene a divine institution.

Such parts of the Jewish laws as are evidently local, and applicable only to that nation, are unquestionably repealed. On the other hand, such parts as are obviously of universal application and perpetual obligation are not repealed, and such are the ten commands, usually styled the Decalogue.

Concerning the penal code of the Jews, it is here necessary to premise,

i. That several of the penal laws are obviously repealed, because they were local, or ceremonial :

2. That several of the penalties are repealed, although the laws themselves are still in force, as moral precepts.

Our grand desideratum is, to know what part of the Mosaic penal code it is proper for us to retain and adopt. The moral obligation of the decalogue is certainly not to be ques

tioned but how far the penalties annexed to it, under the Jewish dispensation. are to be retained, is a radical question, and goes to the point of our present inquiry. Under the Jewish dispensation, seven of the commands of the decalogue were capitally penal: a transgression of either of the first seven, was punishable with death.

Modern and Christian legislatures have a right, or have not, to annex the same penalties to those precepts. To say they have no right, goes directly ad petitionem principii. But if they have a right, then one of two grounds must be taken. Either, first, they are clothed with that right, discretionarily, and may use, or not use it, as they please: or, secondly, they are clothed with it absolutely, and are left at no option, but are compelled by Divine Authority to use it, whenever the crime occurs, under pain of becoming accessory to the crime.

Now, Sir, the light of day is not more obvious, than that the Hebrew legislature were clothed with no such discretionary power, to take life or not to take it, for the above crimes. When the crime was evidently committed, the judge had nothing to do but to pronounce sentence: for he was but the organ of Divine Authority. And as far as the authority of the law of Moses is concerned, I hope and trust that no such discretionary power will be contended for, for any Christian tribunal.

I therefore confidently trust that the ground, taken for the defence of Christian legislatures in the constitution of their penal code, will be this, that they punish murder with death; while they remit the Mosaic penalty annexed to the other six precepts of the decalogue, not because they have a discretionary right to punish with death, and do not see fit to use it, but because the penalty of the other six precepts has been repealed or rescinded, by God himself, while that of murder still remains.

The reason, then, why idolatry, blasphemy, breach of sabbath, abuse of parents, and adultery, are not by our laws punished with death, is because it is presumed the Divine Authority does not require it, under the gospel dispensation, as it certainly did under the Law. On the contrary, the reason why our laws punish murder, with death, is because it is presumed the Divine Authority requires it; that penalty not being rescinded.

I am now, Sir, prepared to ask, since in six precepts out of seven, capital punishment is rescinded and done away, why is it, or by what authority is it retained in one; viz. that of

睿

murder? It surely will not be contended that the Almighty infinitely wise Ruler has clothed our tribunals with a discretionary power to remit or retain these penalties: as I have noticed the Hebrew legislature was clothed with no such power.

Does the penalty of murder derive its permanence from the authority of the moral law? Surely not: Since the penalty of six of the precepts of that law is acknowledged to be done away. But from what part of the New Testament do we learn that the penalty of six precepts of the decalogue is rescinded, and one retained? I answer, from no part: nor is there a sentence, nor a sentiment in all the New Testament which favours such a construction.

The fact seems to be this: The New Testament recognizes the precepts of the decalogue as forming a body of moral, not of civil law; fully acknowledging its high and perpetual obligation; but regarding its violation as sin against God, and not as crime punishable by civil tribunals. In this light the gospel system assumes and incorporates with itself every precept of the Mosaic law, which is obviously of general and perpetual obligation: but it regards the transgression of them in the light of sins against God, and not of crimes ́amenable to society.

"the

When the mission of the Messiah was accomplished, sceptre departed from Judah," and the Jewish civil government, whose origin and constitution were divine, passed away, to give place to the gospel kingdom, which was to consist" in righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

You will recollect, Sir, that our Saviour, even before the Roman tribunal, declared himself a King at the same time, he declared that his kingdom was not of this world. I need take no time to show that the kingdom of Christ is his Church. The phrase, not of this world, has been too long and too well understood, to need in this place an exposition or defence. The Church of Christ is a spiritual kingdom; its laws are moral; and their sanctions are spiritual, divine, and eternal.

:

The Gospel is a system of pure and perfect benevolence. Its first grand law, which is but the spirit of the Mosaic laws concentrated and purified from mixtures, is supreme love to God the second is substantially the same, though objectively different, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." The penalties and sanctions of the Mosaic dispensation indicated not a moral or spiritual, so much as a civil government and respected crimes against society, rather than sins against

God. In a far different light does the gospel, and in fact the government which Christ has instituted over his kingdom, contemplate transgressions: i. e. not as crimes, but as sins.

Sir, I cannot but felicitate myself even more than Paul did when he addressed Agrippa, not that I would institute any personal comparison, because I not only know you to be "expert in all customs and questions," but have full confidence that you feel a sacred regard for the Church of Christ. And should I express a confidence unbecoming the occasion, in matters about which there is a diversity of opinion, I am sure your benevolence will not fail to ascribe it to the ardour of my feelings on a subject of such importance. And if I should at any moment seem to lose sight of an earthly dignitary, for whom I feel the greatest respect, it is because I know I speak in the presence of the King of kings and I wish faithfully to plead for the suffering interests of his kingdom, which consisteth in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. I am, Sir, yours, &c.

LETTER IV.

The ancient Law of Retaliation abolished by theGospel.

SIR,

In the early ages of the world, God saw fit to distinguish a family, above the other families of the earth. He took them from among the nations, adopted them as his people, and condescended to charge himself with the office of being their king, their civil ruler and head. He gave them a system of laws and regulations, some of which were given in condescension to their weakness, ignorance, and prejudice; some for the hardness of their hearts; some as a punishment for their wickedness: as the whole code was loaded with bloody rites, ceremonies, and penalties; a yoke which St. Peter, Acts xv. 10, declares. neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. But they were adapted to the nation to whom they were given, and were blended with many privileges of incalculable value.

Some of the laws of this system our Saviour declares were given to them for the hardness of their hearts; and some of them, God himself, by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel, declares, were not good. I gave them statuies which were

66

not good, and judgments by which they should not live, Ezek. xx. 25. The meaning of which doubtless is, that they were not good in themselves; but were such as God, in his sovereign displeasure, saw fit to impose upon a stiffnecked, rebellious nation. The heavy and tremendous penalties attached both to moral and positive precepts, in this system, formed one of its characteristic features.

The lex talionis, that is, the principle of rendering like for like, or in plain words, the law of revenge, was fully recognized, and abundantly interwoven throughout the Mo saic penal code. This law is most sententiously expressed, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burning for burning, limb for limb, and head for head.”

God has at all times a right to punish the wicked in whatever way and by whatever instrument he pleases. He therefore, beyond all doubt, had a right to establish the lex talionis, in the penal code of this nation, which long before the time of Moses, had been adopted by other nations; and is defended by many under the dignified character of the law of nature. In what sense it is the law of nature, I shall in a subsequent letter explain; but that it is explicitly abolished, and done away by the gospel, I now proceed to show.

That a man should love his neighbour as himself, is the second grand pillar of the gospel. This noble pillar, Sir, is no where inscribed with LEX TALIONIS. Instead of that bloody inscription, the man foaming with hatred, and panting for revenge, is often shocked and confounded to see in large characters RENDER NOT EVIL FOR EVIL :" and elsewhere, "Beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."

66

66

With regard to the law of retaliation, our Saviour is explicit, Mat. v. 38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."

But, "No," says the modern Christian, "If a man strike me, I will knock him down, if I can: if he seize and detain by law, I will replevin my goods, and make him pay cost if he injure me, I will injure him with interest.”

Sir, the grand question is. whether the Christian has a right to repel injury by injury; or in other words, to render evil for evil. I know the subtilty of the civilian has invented