one

thus: "Does Christ allow his servants to break people's heads with truncheons?" It is not a proper answer to this question to say that being commanded to obey magistrates (Titus iii. 1), we are bound to act as special constables if the magistrates order us; because no will deny that this exhortation is governed by the larger precept, that we are to "obey God rather than man (Acts iv. 19). No candid person will contend that Paul meant we were to obey magistrates when their order might be to disobey God. If any such contention is made, it is a sufficient answer to cite the practice of the apostles, who must be allowed to be reliable interpreters of their own exhortations. They were constantly disobeying magistrates in the particular matter of preaching the gospel, and brought themselves to prison and death by this disobedience. There was no inconsistency between this course of theirs, and their exhortation to "obey magistrates;" for in the matters referred to in this exhortation, they were themselves obedient to magistrates. They paid tribute, honoured the ruling powers, and recognised the authority of the law, in all matters not affecting their allegiance to the law of God. This is a duty required of all saints, and cheerfully rendered by them, notwithstanding that they expect all such orders and institutions to be abolished in due time. That time is the Lord's time; and for this they patiently wait. The work is the Lord's work, and for Him they wait.

But are they to be induced or coerced by human law to do what Christ has expressly forbidden? The only question is, has he forbidden what is in question in this case? Has he forbidden violence? As to this, nothing is clearer, "He hath left us an example that we should tread in his steps" (1 Peter ii. 21). This is what Christ himself said to his disciples: "I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you" (John xiii. 15). Now

what is the example of Christ as to the matter in hand? The testimony is that he did no violence, neither was deceit found in his mouth (Isaiah liii. 9). As Peter tells us, "When he was reviled, he reviled not again: when he suffered he threatened not, but committed him self to Him that judgeth righteously” (1 Peter ii. 23).

He

But some say, this refers only to circumstances of persecution: that when he said: "Resist not evil," he meant that his friends were not to fight against those who persecuted them for their faith, but patiently and unresistingly allow them to do their will. It will be found, upon investigation, that this is a mistake. Christ was not speaking of persecution at all. He was speaking of the legal maxims and practices of the Jewish nation. says, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." By whom-to whom, for what purpose, had this been said? It was said by Moses to Israel, as the principle that was to regulate proceedings at law. This will be apparent by referring to Exodus xxi. 22-24, "He (the offender) shall pay as THE JUDGES determine, and if any mischief follow, thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth," &c. When, therefore, Jesus enjoins non-resistance of evil, it is not with reference to persecutors, but with reference to legal proceedings, and the ordinary relations of man with man.

This is perhaps more evident in the next verse. "If any man sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.' Here is no persecutor but a man who simply wants your property and tries to dispossess you by legal process. "Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." A persecutor would not be likely to want your company on the road. It is the case of a wayfarer who wants your comfort and protection on a lonely road, and to whom you are commanded to be

to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee,

turn not thou away.' Surely this is no persecutor, who would take without your leave.

The suggestion that these precepts apply only to circumstances of persecution, is the thought of a combative nature which rebels against Christ's flesh-crucifying precepts, but is not prepared to go the length of openly denying Christ. It is a suggestion that is absurd in itself; for why should we be allowed to fight for ourselves, and be forbidden to fight for the Lord? One would imagine that the distinction, if it existed, would lie in the other direction, viz., that we would be allowed to repel and retaliate when it was the authority of the Lord that was in question, but that we should be submissive when it was a mere question of taking our purse. the fact is, no such distinction is made. The suggestion that it exists is gratuitous. It is a distinction

But

that cannot, in fact, be made; for how are you to know when a man hurts you for your faith, and when from his own cupidity?

The command of the Lord is absolute, that we are to act the part of sheep in the midst of wolves; wise as serpents, but unharmful as doves. The faithful of the first century recognised this as involving non-resistance. This is evident from James's incidental remark to the wanton rich men of the twelve tribes : "Ye have condemned and killed the just, and he doth not resist you" (James v. 6). It is also distinctly evident from Paul's claim in 2nd Epistle Corinthians xi. 20, to be heard on this ground: "For ye suffer if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you in the face. As much as to say, "it is a usual thing with you to submit, without resistance, to personal injury; how much more may you endure my words." He had expressly enjoined :

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written: Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. xii. 19-21). Again, he says, "See that no man render evil for evil" (1 Thess. v. 15). Again, Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? (1 Cor. vi. 7).

66

"

These principles exclude a resort to law on the part of those who obey the commandments of Christ. Going to law is inconsistent with submission to precepts requiring us to accept evil, and to refrain from vindicating ourselves. What is going to law but resorting to the utmost extremity of personal violence and coercion? Those who look on the surface may not see this, but they feel it readily enough when directed against themselves They may imagine it is doing a very gentle deed to pay a visit to a quiet lawyer's office, and ask him to set the law in motion in a "legitimate" way, protesting you want only justice, &c., &c. follow the matter to its upshot: see what it means, and then judge whether as a friend of Christ, you are at liberty to do such a bloody and forbidden thing. You get the judgment of the law in your favour; and let us suppose the debtor is unable to pay. What happens? Your servants (for the agents of the law are your servants, for the time being, and would not act a moment after your authority was withdrawn) enter his house and sell his bed, and cast him homeless on the street. But suppose he is able to pay and won't, and takes it into his head to resist, enlisting, let us suppose,

But

a band of bold spirits to his aid. The myrmidons of the law arrive at the house; the door is locked; admission demanded in vain. Your agents knock the door down, but

they find the passage barricaded. They demolish the barricades, but find the occupants of the house in an attitude of defiance. Your servants of the law push them; the debtor's friends smite your servants of the law. Your servants smite in return, but seeing they are overmatched, they withdraw. The

debtor exults, and fearing a return of the myrmidons, he sends for and obtains a reinforcement of roughs. The bailiffs return with assistance. A melee ensues: heads are broken and property destroyed, and the bailiffs are repulsed. What next? A riot. Part of the people take sides with the debtor and part with the bailiffs. What next? The soldiers are sent for. The soldiers are now your servants. If the men in the house don't give in, brains will be blown out and lives taken; and all this will be done because you have set the law in motion. In fact, this is the law in motion. What is commonly called "the law," is but the smooth end of the bludgeon. It is the fear of the other end that makes people cower at the sight of the handle. A bailiff goes and shews the handle, and this is generally sufficient; but the fact remains, that what is called the law is a terrible instrument of destruction, which will break skulls if there is any resistance. A battered house and blood-covered corpses, are elements in the picture to be considered. The fact that it is rarely needful to push matters to this length does not alter the nature of the transaction, or weaken the conclusion that saints are not at liberty to employ such an engine of offence.

The fact that a man does not personally employ the violence only makes the matter worse, so far as the nature of his act is concerned; for whether it is worse to do the deed honestly and bravely yourself, or to stand behind a curtain and whisper the words that set a lot of heartless ruffians to do it? If you were the personal actor, your debtor might

have some chance of mercy by personal appeal; but when you set the law in motion, you hand him over the tender mercies of men with hearts of stone, and without the power to be merciful even if they had the mind.

It is generally conceded that a brother has no right to resort to law against a brother, because of Paul's express words in 1 Cor. vi. 1-4; but some conceive they may do so against a stranger. The first thought upon such a proposition is, that it is contrary to the entire spirit of Christ's teaching to suppose we are at liberty to apply any process of hurt to strangers which we are not to apply to brethren. His command to be absolutely harmless, extends even to an enemy, still more to a debtor, who may not necessarily be an enemy. The supposed distinction in favour of brethren in this matter would be a return to the spirit of things which said “Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy," which Christ expressly superseded.

a

How comes it that Paul mentions "brother," in connection with lawgoing at all, in 1 Cor. vi? Is it to intimate that a brother may go to law with a stranger, while not at liberty to do so with a brother? There is no such hint in the context. It is rather to illustrate the great extent to which the Corinthians had gone in their disobedience. "Brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. He commands the brethren to judge if there is anything wrong between brother and brother; but does he recommend a resort to even this judicature? On the contrary, he says, “Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?"

The command to be passive in relation to evil, is an ordinance for the present probation merely. In due time, the saints will trample the wicked as ashes under the soles of their feet, if they prove themselves worthy of the honour by a faithful submission to what God requires of

them now.

It is "He that over

cometh and keepeth the words and works of Christ," that is to have power over the nations, and to break them in pieces like a potter's vessel" (Rev ii. 26-27). In this view, it is of paramount importance that the saints remain true to the commandments of Christ; and not to suffer themselves to be led into the path of disobedience by glosses on his word, which while making the way smoother to the flesh will have the effect of depriving us of the crown in the day of glory to be revealed.

5. There are other commands to which the everyday practice of Christendom is totally opposed, but to which, after the great length to which this lecture has already gone, we cannot do more than merely refer. Christ.

α.

Forbids all manner of oaths (Matt. v. 34: Jas. v. 12).

b. Prohibits the taking of the sword (Matt. xxvi. 52; Rev. xiii. 10).

c. Condemns retaliation aud rough speech, and all evil speaking (Matt. V. 44; 1 Pet. iii. 9; Rom. xii. 14).

d. Insists on peace-making and personal private communication with the offended with this view (Matt. v. 24, xviii. 15; Col. iii. 13).

e. Commands kindness to even the undeserving and the evil (Matt. v. 44; Luke vi. 35).

f. Allows marriage with believers only (I Cor. vii. 39).

g. Enjoins modesty of dress and deportment even to shamefacedness and sobriety (1 Tim. ii. 9; 1 Pet. iii. 3-4).

It is notorious that Christendom habitually violates all these commandments, without the violation of them being supposed to unchristianise the violators in the least degree, although Christ has plainly declared that it is vain for men to call him Lord who do not obey his commandments.

Oaths are regularly administered in public courts (not to speak of the profanities of private intercourse).

The military profession is cultivated as a fitting sphere for the

Christian sons of Christian men. The countenance of the "church is extended to the army in the appointment of chaplains, involving this fearful anomaly that when two so-called Christian nations go to war, Christians on one side cut the throats of Christians on the other side, as a perfectly legitimate business, and Christian ". chaplains' on one side pray to the God of all Christians so considered, to prosper the deadly measures of one set of Christians against the prayers of Christian chaplains and the deadly efforts of another set of Christians, that the latter set may strew the field of strife with their corpses while the others march victoriously over their dead bodies, singing Te Deums to God for enabling them to butcher their Christian brethren!

Retaliation is both preached and practised among the masses of Christendom as the right and the noble and manly thing to do; and arrogant and resentful speech is excused on the score of necessity, while speaking evil and gloating on the frailties of your neighbours, is the daintiest luxury of common life.

Peace-loving and peace-making are looked upon as signs of effeminacy, and the man who should advocate and practice the duty of seeking a private interview with an enemy, with a view to reconciliation, would be regarded as a demented nui

sance.

Kindness to the evil is almost unheard of. Ingratitude and unworthiness are invariably seized on as a reason for not helping anyone in distress. It is the rule to consider yourself justified in withholding help in such a case. It is only excellence (and that, too, carried to the heroic point) that propitiates the grace of Christendom in favour of private distress.

The idea of restricting matrimony to discipleship is scouted as the prejudice of fanaticism.

And as for dress, So far is Christendom astray from the apostolic standard that the mass of so

called Christian women (especially in the upper walks of society), consider it an honourable thing to enter into mutual rivalry in the style and magnificence of their attire. "Fashion " is a goddess whose sway is undisputed. No one owns

to be a worshipper, but everyone acts the part of one. Ambition, the love of display, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, are not acknowledged as the ruling motives, though there is scarcely another at work. All is justified on the score

of "taste."

as

This state of things is grievous to every mind in sympathy with divine aims in human life, as revealed in the Scriptures. There is no alternative but to fight the prevailing corruption. It is for earnest men, in private practice and in public inculcation, so far as there may be opportunity, to uphold the ideal exhibited in the apostolic writings. By no other course can we save ourselves from a generation which is "untoward as the one that listened to a similar exhortation from Peter. The fight may be hard, but the objects are supreme. We can afford to shut our ears to cavils of the adversary. It is not true that the commandments of Christ enfeeble and deteriorate the character. What is considered enfeeblement and deterioration, is only the discipline and restraint of the lower propensities, which re-act in the invigoration of all that is noble and pure. While excluding the animal energies and activities that go to make up what is popularly considered "manliness,' the commandments of Christ draw us into the channel of higher and ennobling obligations in the direction of goodness and duty, activities unknown to the mere man of natural feelings. They give us the fear of God for deference to public opinion; the enterprise of benevolence for the energy of self-assertion; the enlightening stimulus of a clear philosophy for the muddy impulse of

"

self-gratification; the guidance of rectitude for the slavish and uncertain law of expediency; the virtue of self-restraint for the action of resentment; the power of motive for the caprice of feeling; principle for whim; knowledge for feeling; godliness for manliness; life for death.

The unpopularity of the commandments of Christ is due to their opposition to natural impulse; and their opposition to natural impulse constitutes their very power to educate men in obedience of God, that they may be disciplined and prepared for the great glory He has in store for those who please Him. Let us not make the great mistake of following popular disobedience while discarding popular doctrines. If we are to continue in the disobedience which the world practices(though called Christendom)—we had better hold on to their superstitious and theological monstrosities; for the abandonment of the latter, while holding on to the former, will only expose us to all the inconveniences of the faith of Christ, while securing for us none of its glorious benefits.

These lectures must now be brought to a close. Wherein they may be instrumental in showing the truth in contrast to prevalent error, the merit lies not with him who has delivered them, but with another (John Thomas, M.D., of America, now in his grave), who, under God, has been the means of opening the Scriptures in our generation, and removing from them the veil thrown over them by popular theology. These lectures constitute a feeble attempt on the part of the author to render the service to others which has been rendered to himself; and if any mind is exorcised of error,-if any taste attracted to the study of the Word of God,-any judgment matured to the comprehension, belief, and obedience of the truth, the effort will have received a perfect recompense in that which shall have been accomplished for

THE AGES BEYOND.

1