then, God is unalterable in his perfections, it follows that such punishments cannot be contrary to justice or true goodness. (2.) From the directions of the New Testament. The magistrate has the sword placed in his hand, which "he "beareth not in vain, for he is the minister "of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him "that doeth evil." (Rom. xiii. 4.) Now the na. tural signification of his carrying the sword is, that he has an authority for punishing capitally, since it is upon those occasions only that he can be said to use it as a revenger. (3.) From the good effects they are calculated to produce. It is highly probable that as nothing but a proceeding of this kind could stop the progress of injustice and wickedness, so nothing is more likely to be the means of bringing the individual to repent of his sins than to condemn him to die for his crimes. Capital punishments, therefore, are not only necessary to human society, but often real blessings to him upon whom they fall, for a man who can harden himself against the terrors of death when they come upon him so solemnly, so slowly, and so certainly, while he is in full health, and therefore capable of reflecting on its consequences, is not likely to be wrought upon by a longer continuance of life. Nor can it be said that such punishments are opposed to Christian charity. The charity which the Gospel requires does not annul the rules of equity

and justice, by which we may maintain our possessions, or recover them out of the hands of violent aggressors; it only obliges to do that in a gentle manner, without rigour or resentment. We owe to human society, and to the safety and order of the world, our endeavours to check the wickedness of men, which a good Christian may do with great internal tenderness. When, therefore, a man is called upon by the constitution under which he lives, to act as the avenger of blood, or of other crimes, he cannot refuse to comply with such a demand. He can only forgive that of which he is master, and the private pardoning of the wrong done to himself cannot reach to that obligation which he owes society, and which it is not in his power to give away.

It is not easy to fix rules by which capital punishments ought to be inflicted. It is certain that in strictness life can only be given for life; but there may be many other crimes, that must end in the ruin of society, and in the dissolution of all order and the commerce that ought to be among men, if they are left unpunished. In this all princes and states must judge according to the real necessity of the case, ever recollecting that since man was made after the image of God, and since his life is precious, great caution should be observed in

disposing of it, and that it should never be taken except when the safety of society demands it. IV. The Article asserts the lawfulness of

wars.

The truth of this assertion appears from the following circumstances: (1.) God allowed of wars in that government which he himself constituted. And here we should distinguish between those things that were permitted by reason of the hardness of their hearts, and those which were expressly commanded by God, and which cannot therefore be immoral. (2.) When the soldiers came to be baptised by St. John, he did not charge them to relinquish that course of life, but only "to do violence to

no man, neither accuse any falsely, and to “be content with their wages." (Luke iii. 14.) In like manner St. Peter did not desire Cornelius to forsake his post when he baptised him. (Acts x.) (3.) The Primitive Christians conceived they might continue in military employments, in which they still preserved the purity of their characters, as appears from the works of Tertullian and the history of Julian's reign.

Against this assertion, however, an objection has been raised, founded upon our Lord's words: "I say unto you, that ye resist not "evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.". (Matt. v. 39.) From which it is inferred by

66

analogy that societies should be bound by the same rules of non-resistance which affect individuals. Now though this objection is certainly plausible, and apparently well founded, yet in answer to it we may observe: (1.) it is evident that these words cannot be understood literally, since such a command would cast the world loose, and expose it to the injustice and insolence of wicked persons, who would not fail to take advantage of such a submission. It is to be considered therefore that these words are addressed to private persons, that they relate to smaller injuries, which can more easily be borne, and that they are figures of speech which are not to be taken in their fullest sense. The true meaning therefore is, that private persons ought to be so far from pursuing injuries to the equal retaliation of an " eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," that they ought in many cases to bear them, when the offence is slight and the wrong tolerable. And such patience. under insults ought particularly to be exerted when by it we hope to overcome evil with good," or to show to the world the power that Christianity has over us in checking our passions. In this case we ought certainly to sacrifice our just rights, either of defence or reparation, to the honour of God, and of his religion. (2.) St. Paul gives us a clear commentary on our Saviour's words. He reproves the Corinthians

66

for " going to law with one another, and that with unbelievers," (1 Cor. vi. 6,) when it was so great a scandal to the Christian religion in its infancy. He says, Why do ye not rather "take wrong; why do ye not rather suffer "yourselves to be defrauded?" (v. 7.) Yet he does not deny that they might claim their rights, and seek for redress, and accordingly he proposes their doing so by arbitration among themselves; so that his reproof does not fall on their suing one another, but only the scandalous manner of doing it. Men, therefore, are not prevented by the Gospel from seeking relief before a Christian judge, and consequently our Saviour's words are not to be urged to the full extent of which they are capable.

Hence it follows by analogy, that if private persons may seek reparation of one another, they may also seek reparation for the wrongs done by those who are subjects to a different power. In such cases the prince owes a protection to his people, for "he beareth not the sword in vain.” He may demand satisfaction by such forms as are agreed on amongst nations, and if not granted, he take it by force. Much more may he use the sword to protect his people, if another comes to invade them; and further, as a private man owes assistance to another, whom he sees in the hands of thieves and robbers, so kings may assist other kings who are unjustly attacked,

may