« AnteriorContinuar »
gives a marked and just reproof of their unequal principles, “receiving benefits and rendering none;' to the power of the State. His words are very kind, dignified, and worthy of himself; commending their principles in reference to order and
peace, except their declining to share with others the burthens of the common defence.” He also very exemplarily assures them that “it is his wish and desire that the laws may always be as extensively accommodated to the conscientious scruples of all men, as a due regard to the protection and essential interests of the nation may justify and permit.” Thus nobly wrote WASHINGTON in 1789. He had witnessed during the revolution some of their twistical proceedings; and taken several of their luminaries into his own custody, lest their “scruples” might incline rather too far toward royalty and England. In the last war (1812) some became sudden converts to Quakerism; growing quite conscientious in the time of danger against such profane exposures of life-and either joined the Society, or pleaded a kindred exemption from military responsibilities. In the revolution, a number of courageous and patriotic men of the society, took the field; who were called, on their return, “ Free Quakers, being disowned by Friends. What a pity that their own good sense on some other subjects, can not be brought on this to act with equal light and love of evidence! “Render therefore unto Cæsar, the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God, the things that are God's." Mat. 22:21. m1 Pet. 2: 13-17. We suppose it taught also (7) That the principles of
the magistracy, as divinely sanctioned, are to be held virtually to extend to all communities less than that of the State ; as a school, a family, a ship’s crew, a caravan, an army, or a company socially organized in any way. The means must be adequate to the ends of government. There must be order, law, authority, headship, concentration; and equally there must be subordination, self-denial, harmony, and obedience. There ought also to be, as always there might, mutual benevolence and wisdom. Hence the father or head of a family is a domestic magistrate. He is legislature, judiciary, and police. He presides over the commonwealth of home. He must be able sometimes to coerce obcdience; sometimes to repel invasion ; sometimes to protect his charge by an appeal to the ultima ratio"2—when there is no time to wait for the regum" of ordinary safety or the legum“ of adequate redress. Nor is there any need of anger or malice in the administration ; so that where such passions
1 find sway, it is the man himself, and not the system or sphere of his duties, that is culpable. Malice is incidental, adventitious, corruptive ; and of consequence infers nothing against the established equity and wisdom of the divine constitution.
Hence (8) that abuses in the administration of civil or political government do not affect the principle for which we contend. Those abuses, as such, the worse for what they impiously mar, may be wisely shown, justly resisted, and equitably redressed. In such a world as this, all history proclaims their horrible abundance. But on the
sire endurance scheme, passive endurance is all ! When would this principle have achieved the liberties of America ? The system of magistracy reacts on its incumbents. It tells them to be “just, ruling in the fear of God:” or, his providence may let loose upon them a revolutionary tornado that shall hurl them from their seats, or conduct a regular impeachment which shall instate their succes
Such a lex talionis or in terrorem influence, exists in this country in the civic majesty of the ballot-boxes. Thus society is tempered, balanced, and founded, in obvious principles of reciprocal dependence and responsibility ; and the fierce passions of the worst, for whom especially the criminal code is enacted, 1 Tim. 1:8, 9, are held in check serene ; like the rumbling central fires of an unbroached volcano, with the turbulence of its imprisoned lava surging, beneath the adamantine crust on which a city stands stately and secure !
9. The texts which Friends quote so confidently in favor of their views, show only in their hands what an interpreter the inward light is ! Matt. 5: 38-48. Must these orders be all literalized; or, interpreted in their spirit according to the analogy of faith? In the latter way, they appear in beautiful symmetry and keeping; as absolutely forbidding all malevolence, anger, revenge, and every modification of these diabolical passions ! But do they forbid Paul to stand on his rights as a Roman citizen, at Philippi? Acts, 16:35–39. 22 : 25–30, or to use legal measures, backed with a military cohort, for his redress? 23–28. Besides, Friends
require us to literalize those orders; and yet they practically do it not themselves! Let us see. “ And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also ?" Is this the way of Friends, Orthodox or Hicksites? Witness their mutual litigations for “the uttermost farthing” in dispute between them! Witness their practice when one of “the world's people” would wrong them out of their own, or “take away their coat!” The style of the passage is plainly proverbial and figurative ; and it is for those only to be privileged to literalize its meaning, whose practice discredits the interpretation they maintain, and whose ordinary spiritualizing of passages plainly literal has become itself a proverb! But “ How can thee love a man and yet strike or slay him with thy hand ?"'45 Answer-As well as Samuel could “hew Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.” How can Friends think it not murder, to carry passive endurance to its extravagance in any case “outwardly,” while probably real malice lives and practises within them? Matt. 23: 24–28. Mark, 7: 14-23. There must be a deeper and more thorough cleansing of their characters than the hue of Quakerism can impart, in order to their knowing or showing true wisdom! Their religion, just here, is so external alone, so formal and ceremonial, so hollow and heartless, that appearances, not realities, carry it in the favorable estimation of the populace. What I allege is—that their views are puerile, impracticable, false ; and that christianity is not responsible for them. And if those views ever allow them (as I have reason to think the remark not uncalled for) to enter the temple and the jury-box of their country's justice, when a manslayer is to be tried for his life, and refuse to convict himmbecause their views condemn all capital punishment; and so influence or fatigue their juror peers into a verdict of acquittal ; and this although the evidence may be conclusive and they (virtually) sworn to render accordingly: I feel it to be my duty to write it as no better than a clear example of anti-christianity, fraud, perjury, and covert treason against the commonwealth! Deut. 25: 1. A christian could weep with tenderness, glow with benevolence, and hesitate with interjected prayer for his salvation; and yet inflexiblyutter the verdict of truth and righteousness! Such is the conduct of principle.
10. Friends often adduce Matt. 26 ; 52, (see also Rev. 13 : 10; and 16: 6,) where the Savior said to Peter, “Put up again thy sword into its place; for all, they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Their views here are very objectionable: 1. As they interpret it, it proves that no good man or christian can use the sword at all. It thus disposes of Washington, Colonel Gardiner, Cornelius the centurion of the Italian band, old Samuel, and millions of others not to be numbered. But 2. Does it say any such thing!“shall perishi with the sword;" he shall die by a violence like that which he exerts. Is this necessarily-perdition everlasting ? Such navigators ought to look ahead a little, and they could see the rock against which