a plaster; but, as well might an insect hope to cover the sun with its spreading wings. The lawyer tells us about damnum absque injuria: i. e. if a man attempts to kill me, and I kill him in my own defence, that to him is damnum, but not injuria-damage but not injury. Will this evasion answer in that court where eternal light and justice prevail? Will not the Almighty Judge say, "I commanded you not to resist evil: instead of which, you made resistance and killed a man. Had you obeyed my command, I could have defended you; and, if I had not, which would have been preferable, for you to have died in obedience to me, or by a rebellious act, to send a soul to endless perdition?" "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." What sort of evil and of resistance is here intended by Christ, is explained in the subsequent verses. "But whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man shall sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." It is worthy of observation, that Christ here gives two very different cases of violence. The first is, personal violence, commonly the result of sudden passion, as when one man strikes another. The second is obviously a case of legal violence, where an unjust and vexatious lawsuit is commenced. In these and similar cases, resistance is forbidden. And, Sir, I speak to you with more pleasure and confidence, from your great and just reputation in legal science; assured that you fully comprehend the principles of law, and see remotely into their consequences. I trust that before you I may safely affirm, that our Saviour, in the cases he here gives, evidently intends to establish a principle, from which his followers were not to depart. A rule of conduct for a great and extensive society of people, to be perpetuated through all ages, and to extend through all nations, in relation to injury and violence, must form. at least, one of the chief characteristics of that society. No wonder, therefore, that this great Lawgiver was very explicit. The rule was, that they should not resist injury and violence. Or to reverse the celebrated saying of the Roman orator, "vis non defenditur a vi." The all-wise Saviour, in laying down this great rule, seems to have been aware of the art and power of perversion. He so worded it, therefore, as perfectly to defeat the evasion attempted from the above cited principle of damnum absque injuria which supposes that when a man attacks me and I kill him, my object is not to kill, but merely to defend: that A I may, at the same moment, deplore the necessity of substi tuting his life for mine, and though I hurt, I do him no injustice. The divine Lawgiver absolutely forbids resistance, and predicates the injunction on that idea. He does not go about to say, that we must defend, strike, beat, and kill, with great moderation; taking care to feel no malice, no desire to give pain for its own sake; that we must weed out from among our motives and passions every thing but a pure desire to secure ourselves. "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil." A blow on the right cheek, is evil;-knocking out an eye or a tooth, is evil;-taking away from a man his coat, is evil; but they are evils not to be resisted, or our Saviour's words mean nothing. In reply to this, it will perhaps be said, that these evils are not to be redressed by unlawful or informal means. The divine Lawgiver has anticipated, and answered this evasion. For one of the cases he mentions, is a case of legal violence or oppression. "If a man sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also:" than which no words can more strongly forbid retaliation? i. e. answering suit by suit, and repelling injury by injury. ance. As personal violence was not to be resisted nor resented; as property, when torn away by unjust legal process, was to be quietly surrendered; so when a man's liberty was restrained, a meek and unqualified submission to the bondage was expressly enjoined; so far at least as to exclude every kind of appeal to force for its recovery. I have reserved the notice of this last circumstance to this place, as it is distinct in its nature from the others, and forms a gradation, I may say a complete climax, embracing every topic in the doctrine of non-resist"And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." You will be aware, Sir, that the bold, liberal, and impressive oriental style is here used, as in the case of the coat and cloak. It will certainly not be understood, that the Christian, when some of his property is taken away, is of his own accord to double she sum; or that when his liberty is restrained awhile, he must voluntarily protract or double the term of his duresse: far from it. If that would be overstraining the generous and ardent style of the Evangelist, which as much disdains the pedantic monotony of cold criticism, as it tramples in the dust the pride and selfishness of human ambition; how does that Christian obey Christ's law, who is quick to resent injury and repel force by force; who, when his property is invaded, only abandons the pursuit of redress, far within the invader's territory, crowning his full recovery with damages and cost, and sweetening his triumph with revenge; and who, when his liberty is assailed, instead of going the second mile, would pour out the last drop of his own blood, and that of his assailant, rather than go one rod? How can such a Christian hold up his head before the judgment seat of Christ, who has said, " If ye love me, keep my commandments?" who has said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls!" From the many passages with which the New Testament abounds, I have selected a few, which go fully to prove the doctrine of non-resistance. Whether life, liberty, or property, are invaded, by sudden violence, or by the more deliberate operation of legal process, the Christian is expressly forbidden to seek redress by the application of force in any form. Sir, if the authority of Christ be allowed to be'divine, and of course supreme, no law was ever more expressly repealed than the law of retaliation, by which injuries are repelled, or grievances redressed by force; and the character and conduct of the primitive Christians afford an exemplification of the doctrine of non-resistance, and a confirmation of the construction I have given of the preceding passages, which, I trust, cannot be denied. Their meek, pacific, and humble deportment developed before the world a new character, a new institution, a new religion; and, while it excited admiration and commanded respect, it also roused resentment and inflamed the spirit of persecution. In this mild, unresisting, benevolent, and truly pacific character, the Church of Christ was founded, in the midst of enemies, and flourished amidst the severest storms of persecution. They calmly surrendered their goods when demanded, their liberty when invaded, and their lives when assailed. Tell me, Sir, what exonerates the Church called Christian, at the present day, from obedience to the laws of Christ? Have they procured a new dispensation to resist, to retaliate, to kill, to mingle in all the bloody contests, the wild projects of ambition, which agitate the elements of society? Alas! Sir, Christianity assuredly presents to the world a far different exterior from what it did in the primitive Church, when Christians did not resist injury by violence, nor engage in war. And where is the difficulty? what hinders their assuming, at once, the simplicity, meekness, and pacific character C commanded by Christ, and exemplified by the apostles and primitive Christians? Nothing but pride, ambition, and worldly lusts. Such a state would be as truly beneficial to the Church, in reference to her spread and prosperity, as it would be to the advancement of the Redeemer's glory. Sir, there is a grandeur, a magnanimity, a purity, and glory, in the primitive Christian character, which nothing on earth ever equalled. If the state of society, and general texture and character of nations and governments, in the first ages of the Church, rendered the meek and unresisting Christian peculiarly obnoxious to contempt and danger; the present state of civilization and manners in Christendom, affords innumerable facilities and inducements to adopt that character, which, at first, was deemed essential to the Christian. Comparatively speaking, there is now nothing in the way, and the present state and respectable standing of the society called Quakers, who disclaim all war, is a proof that Christians might assume that character with safety. But what did I say? with safety! Gracious and Almighty Redeemer, forgive an expression which seems to imply, that our personal security is first to be consulted, and then thine awful authority! where is safety to be found, but in obedience? To obey, is better than sacrifice, and to hearken, than the fat of rams. Sir, how deplorably have Christians forgotten that reiterated declaration of Christ, "He that will save his own life shall lose it, and he that will lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, shall find it." It is this false and hollow estimate of safety, which raises an impediment among Christians to the pacific and unresisting character. They say, "If I do not resist, I shall be crushed-if I do not defend myself and property, wicked men will take all away." They seem to have lost all confidence in that Almighty Protector, who, when his own glory required it, was able to defend the three children in the consuming flame of a furnace. But as the doctrine of self-preservation is generally considered as intimately connected with the lex talionis, and as both are regarded by many as parts of the great law of nature, I shall take notice of it in a subsequent letter. I hope, Sir, I have adduced sufficient evidence from the New Testament, that those parts of the Mosaic law, which admitted of resisting injury by the application of force in any form, are repealed by Christ, and that Christians are peremptorily forbidden to resist evil. This being admitted, Sir, the fountain of human blood, which has so incessantly flowed by the hand of man, is in a measure staunched. From these constructions it is, as well as from the whole tenor, drift, and spirit of the New Testament, that the capital. and sanguinary penalties of many of the Jewish laws, and particularly of the six precepts of the Decalogue, above noticed, are justly considered as rescinded and done away. The Christian regards those laws as of moral and irrefragable obligation; but that their ancient penalties are not to be inflicted by a Christian tribunal. Precisely the same reasons which release a Christian tribunal from inflicting capital punishment for the violation of six precepts of the Decalogue, release the same tribunal from obligation to punish capitally for murder, or the seventh. For they all stand on the same footing, divine authority; they stand connected on the same level, in the same code of laws; were equally pronounced in thunder, by the voice of God, from Mount Sinai; and their transgression was equally punishable with death under the Jewish dispensation. And I deem it necessary only to add that there is no precept and no hint in the gospel, which makes an exception of one, with a view to retain its penalty, in distinction from the rest. : : The gospel is a dispensation of mercy its grand law is love its great author was the messenger of life and not of death he came not to condemn, but to pardon; not to destroy, but to save, and to give his life a ransom for many. The law dispensation is justly called the ministration of death it abounded in bloody sacrifices, and bloody rites, and was, as a system of civil government, supported and sanctioned by bloody penalties. These were altogether abolished in Christ, and the last blood sanctioned by the divine law, flowed in the blood of the atonement. That I take not too high ground in this assertion, I think, will appear by the following ditribution, or analysis, of the foregoing observations. 1st,-It is granted on all hands, that the sacrifices and bloody rites of the ceremonial law were abolished. 2d, The gospel no where recognizes and incorporates, as its own, one of the penalties of the Jewish civil or criminal code: because the gospel makes no provision for the organization and constitution of a form of civil government: whence the gospel recognizes no transgression in any other light than as a sin against God. 3d,-Our tribunals, which claim the right of punishing with |