Page images
PDF
EPUB

tions done upon extreme necessity and out of consternation of mind, arising from imminent danger, and which do, therefore, meet rather with excuse than with approbation, ought by no means to be established for common rules of proceeding."* And this suggests the great evil of putting these extreme cases as tests of right and duty. If it be stated, that one may, in no instance whatever, employ force in his own defence, we admit that it is fair to put any probable case, to try the soundness of the rule. But, while we consider it extremely bad policy, to say the least, to undertake to lay down a rule as absolutely universal, when it cannot be sustained, we deem it still more dangerous to good morals, to give to imaginary, extreme cases that weight and prominence which are sometimes allowed them. For, having once settled it in their own minds, that, in a supposed, possible case, violence may lawfully be used, men are apt, losing sight of the particular circumstances of that case, to retain a general impression that it is allowable to resort to such means. The danger is, that they will frame their rule of conduct from the cases in question, leaving it to their own discretion, whether or not that rule shall be rigorously enforced, in every instance, and setting down any forbearance, they may exercise, to the credit of their exceeding clemency and humanity. But life is not a series of extreme cases; so far from it, scarcely one man in a hundred, during his whole lifetime, meets with what may fairly be called an adventure. Life's texture is made up chiefly of common incidents and occurrences, and therefore its rules ought not to be framed to meet some extraordinary, possible case, but they should be suited to the general tenor of human existence. What it is desirable, then, to have distinctly impressed upon the minds of people, is, that the rule, by which they are to regulate the conduct of their lives, forbids the resort to violence; and that, if there are any cases which allow of such resort, they are exceptions to the rule, and the burden of proof to show them to be exceptions is on him, who would set them up as such.

The fundamental idea on which the non-resistance doctrines proceed, if we understand the matter aright, consists in discarding physical force as an instrument for correcting, controlling, and regulating men. To this principle, speaking generally, we entirely assent, though we entertain the opinion, that the

* Law of Nature and Nations, Book 2, ch. 3, § 11.

principle is carried too far, and that conclusions are attempted to be deduced from it, which are not authorized. We yield to few in detestation of the use of force, for the purposes in question, where any worthier means would be effectual.

Force is a low and brutal instrument. Reason is the characteristic attribute of man; and it is through this and his affections, if possible, that he should be swayed, impelled, and governed.

That violence is abhorrent to the genius and spirit of the Gospel, we think, is clear. Christianity is a dispensation of peace and good-will, of benevolence and mercy, of patience and forgiveness. The glory of its founder" did not consist in fighting with carnal weapons, till he fell in battle; but in the display of a meek and forgiving temper towards insulting and cruel foes, seeking their good with his dying breath."* It scarcely needs be stated, that if all men were habitually under the influence of the Gospel, and regulated their lives by its requirements, there could be no room for the exercise of violence or physical force, in the intercourse of mankind, whether as communities or as individuals. It is very evident, however, that all are not under such influence and direction. does not appear, that we are bound to the same course of treatment towards them, as if that were the case. It was the direction of our Saviour, if a brother shall trespass against you, and shall obstinately hold out against all your kind and friendly efforts to bring him to a right temper of mind," Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."+ Not that you may injure him, or refuse to do him a kindness when opportunity offers; but you may withdraw your fellowship from him, and break off the intercourse and intimacies of life, which would scarcely be justifiable without some fault on his part.

[ocr errors]

And it

We will advert to two further particulars, the law and government. The views of the Non-Resistants are understood entirely to exclude all resort to law, for the settlement of difficulties, or the adjustment of rights. And some one, who was far enough from being a Non-Resistant, has supposed, that when an entire reformation of mind and morals among the worst of men is effected," the gentlemen of the law will be almost, if not altogether, as useless as carnal weapons." This remark

[blocks in formation]

Tract on the Nature and Duty of Self-Defence, p. 4.

proceeds upon a notion which is somewhat prevalent, and which is the foundation of much of the prejudice that exists against the legal profession. People will tell you, as if it were an axiom, that both sides of a case cannot be right, and then proceed very logically to deduce the inference, that half the time a lawyer must, of necessity, take up the wrong side, which, to say the least, would be unfortunate. Two things are assumed here; the first, that one of the parties is, in fact, always precisely in the right, and the other utterly in the wrong; the second, that a lawyer, unlike everybody else, always knows the end from the beginning. Because, in the result, one party usually succeeds, and the other is defeated, persons are apt to fancy the case to be a very clear one, and to take it for granted that the prevailing party had all the right on his side, while the other undertook the prosecution or defence purely to harass and vex his opponent. But the truth is, that even after the whole merits of a case have been fully and fairly laid open, there is not always that overwhelming preponderance, either of law or of justice, on the one side or the other, which seems to be supposed. Then, the client may not himself, at the outset, be acquainted with all the material facts of his case; and, besides, he may, very unwarrantably, to be sure, keep back some part from his legal adviser, either judging it to be unimportant, or else thinking it will do himself no credit personally, or will make against his case; —just as if the whole must not, in the end, come out. In short, a lawyer, from whatever cause, cannot always be so completely in possession of the facts of a case, at the time when it is necessary to act, as to enable him, however competent and honest, to judge unerringly of its merits. It holds here, as elsewhere, that a man can decide better, not always more easily, after he has heard all the evidence on both sides.

[ocr errors]

We do not doubt that litigation is sometimes carried on for purposes of sheer vexation and oppression; but we rejoice to believe that such litigation is becoming daily less common, and the sooner it is done away with, altogether, the better. But this is not the only use of the law. Men who mean to do right, and have no desire to take advantage, may honestly differ in their views of what is right, in a given case. It would not be difficult to find cases, in which two men, equally honest and intelligent, and both personally disinterested, would come to directly opposite conclusions, on the question of right. Now, it is of less importance which way such cases are decided. than

that, for the convenience and peace of society, they should be authoritatively settled, one way or the other. The uncertainty of the law is proverbial. Its principles, however, when once settled, are as stable as anything human; the uncertainty consists in the application of those principles to all the infinitely diversified complications of facts, which new cases are constantly presenting. If there were no artificial landmarks to guide in the settlement of these cases, but everything was left to be disposed of in such way as the parties might, at the moment, be able to agree upon, there is reason to apprehend, that things would soon get entangled in an inextricable maze. Besides, there are many instances in which men act in a representative capacity, having charge of the property and affairs of others. Now, admitting, what is true only with large qualifications, that one may do what he will with his own, he cannot justly exercise that unlimited discretion in the disposal of others' rights. He ought not to demand more than is fairly his due, and he is not at liberty, in such a case, to receive less; and in the event of a difference of opinion as to what is right, there is needed some regularly constituted authority, to which he may submit the decision of the matter, and be justified in acting conformably to such decision. On the whole, so long as men are actuated by human passions, and subject to human infirmities, we apprehend that something in the nature of judicial tribunals, independent, enlightened, and authoritative, will continue to be indispensable.

Non-Resistants are sometimes charged with seeking to overthrow human governments. The only way, however, in which they aim to do this, is, as they tell us, "by the regeneration of the individuals who compose them, not by destroying, but by superseding them."* This we consider a very laudable purpose. The more thoroughly men are reformed in their characters, and imbued with the spirit of the Gospel, the less governing will they need from without. Were all habitually actuated and controlled by correct, Christian principles, there would be no occasion to employ force, in the administration of government. But that happy consummation is not likely to be witnessed, at present; and as things are, the right to resort to compulsory measures may be regarded as necessary. Still, the danger is, lest people be governed with too much rigor, rather than with too great lenity.

* Non-Resistant, Vol. II. p. 67. VOL. XXXI. 3D. S. VOL. XIII. NO. II.

25

To the proposition which has been advanced, that the lifetaking power is the only means by which government can enforce obedience to its regulations,* we cannot assent. There are no means which will accomplish that object perfectly, but, we conceive, there are others than this, that are fully effectual, so far as any means can be so.

The idea, that any condition of society, however virtuous, would wholly supersede the necessity of government, of any kind, we regard as chimerical. That if all men were what they should be, a forcible government might be dispensed with, we have already said. But, if mankind are to live together in society, if they are to be engaged in human pursuits and vocations, and are, therefore, of necessity, to maintain communication with each other, their mutual convenience and well-being will ever require, that there should be some supervisory and directive power, to expedite the business and intercourse of the community, and to guide them in their proper channels.

C. M.

ART. III.

ON THE USES OF THE COMMUNION, AND THE PROPRIETY OF a General Attendance upon it.

I WISH to offer some thoughts in this Essay, upon the uses of the Communion, and the propriety of a general attendance upon it. From various causes, some of which are to be traced to historical events, others to doctrinal errors, and others still to a superstition ever lurking in men's minds, from various causes, I say, it has come to pass that a ritual service, intended for the edification of the whole body of believers and worshippers, has been consigned over to the charge of a few. That which was meant to be a bond of union has become a badge, not of sectarian, but what is worse-of personal distinction. A bolic observance, of easy interpretation and of wide comprehensiveness, designed to be a common ground among different nations, and a common expositor of the faith among differing languages, has been made a peculiar and a profound mystery. A broad and generous institution is turned into a mystic singular

* Non-Resistant, Vol. II. p. 59.

sym

« PreviousContinue »