console yourself with the reflection that many an able player before you has been in the same predicament, for the problems are really of the first quality."

Here the bell rang for dinner; and so ended a dialogue, to which I contributed no more than what you see, T. E. COUR.

IX.

WAR NOT UNCHRISTIAN.

A LETTER TO THE AUTHOR OF A DIALOGUE ENTITLED WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY?"

66

DEAR

Kentish Town, May 14, 1860.

CCEPT my thanks for your interesting "Dialogue" on Christianity. The subject, author, and handling, demand considerate answer;

but adequate discussion of the topics in your pamphlet would quickly run to a pamphlet in return, and I content me, therefore, with stating, briefly as I can, my opinion on some of the points on which you request it.

The development theory, glanced at in p. 4, I have ever rejected as irreconcileable with the scope of the Christian scheme, and especially with its prime claim of being the gospel of the poor. The world may grow richer, wiser in all worldly knowledge, and illimitably increase in its command over the powers of nature, but it will not better the Christianity of the Apostles after Pentecost. I say Pentecost, taking that as the period of their full enlightenment, and the subsequently written Scripture, viz. the whole of the New Testament, as the result of that enlightenment. In that Scripture lies the Chris

tian's code, but in the whole of it, not in one part only, though it be that sweet and prominent portion, the Sermon on the Mount.

Taken, then, as a code, what is its aim? Is it social or individual? I believe individual. It aims at making every individual in the whole world a Christian, but as to the social combinations of those individuals into nations, governments, and the like, it has nothing to say. It claims to sway the heart and will of the individual in whatever sphere of action, but as to that sphere is silent, because no condition but yields ample scope for Christian obedience, which is claimed only within the range of voluntary action. Hence it hath, roundly speaking, no word on social arrangements, or forms of society, not even of the Christian community in itself, and so is all but silent on what hath vexed so many earnest and good men, Church Government; on which disputes are, perhaps, the more lively for the disputants not pausing sufficiently to consider what is meant by a church, and what ground there may be for their particular notion of it in the Scripture itself.

Hence, also, it deigns no word of rebuke of that most accursed of all the arbitrary conventional postures into which the passions of the sons of Adam have cast them, viz. slavery; which it hath yet so largely diminished, and is ultimately destined to destroy, not by kindling impatience in the slave, but by troubling the conscience of his master in keeping him.

It declines to prescribe for social aggregate action, and wisely; for social aggregate action covers but a small part of the entire life of the individual, and is, moreover, beside the main aim of religion, which regards the motive even more than the act; while it is manifest that much excellent aggregate social action might proceed on mixed motives, not one of which would Christianly clear the individual.

For politics, as for science, we shall look in vain to Scripture. Is any course then politically open to the Christian? By no means; for Christ claims the Christian throughout his life, public and private. In considering, however, what course conscience dictates, let him not mistake precepts that touch him solely in his individual capacity, as fettering the conscientious enlightened discharge of duty in his social capacity. The key-note of Christian ethics is self-subjugation and self-sacrifice, and it would be hard to put any limit to the degree it might acceptably reach, so long as it is confined to self, but not a step beyond.

Our Saviour's loving invitation to the rich young man to sell all and give to the poor, involved a sacrifice confined to the youth himself, for he had no children, or he would have pleaded that: but "he went away sorrowful because he had great possessions." The voluntary sacrifice of time, wealth, energy, which religion demands, is limited to that which we hold not in trust. And clearly something of each is due to the society in which we live, and which protects us in the enjoyment of what we have and are; how much is due, let the laws of each state, and the zeal of the patriot determine. Religion will never seek to divert it.

But taking the New Testament as the code for individual guidance, how interpret it? I answer so as every part shall harmonize with the whole, and the breadth and scope of a passage, that points in one direction, be modified by that which points in another. Human speech is an imperfect medium, and, even in conveying a divine message, some of its imperfection may be expected to cleave to it, for it lies in the hearer. Even in divine message, therefore, time, place, and occasion must be considered in interpreting its scope. From such consideration no absolute rule of literal interpretation, on the one hand, or of figurative

on the other, will relieve us. In the very Decalogue itself, plainly as it speaks, such consideration was called for. "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not steal," were indeed to be taken in the absolute and full sense of the words: but "Thou shalt not kill" required a limit, viz. this, that like the entire Decalogue, it was addressed to the individual and not to the nation: for taken absolutely in the literal force of the phrase it would else have militated with the employment of human agency in inflicting death, the very penalty annexed to breach of the Decalogue, and so amply provided for in other parts of the Mosaic Code.

Such considerations are applicable to every part of the Old and of the New Testament. And in dealing with that exquisite portion of the latter, commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount, remember we have neither the ipsissima verba of our Lord, for he spoke in the dialect of the country, Hebrew or Syriac, and not in Greek; nor have we the whole of what he then spoke, nor in its sequence. We have rather, I should say, disjointed heads of what the Evangelists retained of his discourse, or actual topics or texts, on which the Saviour expatiated at large, and which were to be retained by his hearers along with the explanations and discourse they grounded.

To me, it seems that the discourse, while containing so much that is sweetly applicable to all, at all times, was yet mainly addressed to his disciples (though," in the audience of the people "), and some of it with particular reference to their condition of being charged with divine message, but so unpalatable to the rich and the powerful. Luke's account of the matter (chap. vi.) tends to confirm me in this view.

And so considered, the injunctions to his disciples to check the very feeling of resentment at the violence and contumely they would infallibly encounter, have a sublime,

and, at the same time, eminently practical character. For as, on the one hand, resentment at the ill reception of their message and ill-treatment of themselves would have been vain, and, without special miracle, have put abrupt end to their mission; on the other hand, a patient and voluntary exposure to every personal ill, even to the death, in order to deliver the message out of pure love, and for the good of those that were inflicting the evil, could not ultimately fail to command respect, and insure a hearing.

It was indeed a sublime counsel, and as practical as sublime; but the most emphatic expression of it was not more than the disciples needed-earnest men, of quick feeling, whose very zeal had more than once to be checked by our Lord, as when they would have called down fire from Heaven to consume the Samaritan villagers, and when Peter drew upon the high-priest's servant. The injunction not to resist persecution in whatever form was an admirable missionary precept, and addressed, it seems to me, to the Apostles in their missionary capacity; and as our Lord did not vouchsafe miraculous forcing of conviction, it pointed to the only possible successful means of carrying out their mission. It was entirely suited to their position of few among many; and, indeed, the whole force of such conduct lay in their being few among many, and so inspiring respect with the many by its very boldness. But similar submissive behaviour from a multitude, or a nation, towards a handful of persecutors would hardly impress the latter so favourably. What was heroism in the first case would be construed pusillanimity in the last, and encourage a continuance of contemptuous ill-treatment.

In fine, the directions as to extreme forbearance addressed to the disciples, who had to go forth and evangelise the nations, were rather like the sending ambassadors, or a flag of truce, viz., specially applicable to them, and not to the nation or host at large. And as to the Apostles, it should