ed with a certain degree of respect, and fairly heard in his own defence, even though guilty of great crimes. He must be regularly condemned before being subjected to the treatment of a felon. This was nothing but a dictate of plain justice and common sense. But observe, Paul had not recently gone and purchased his privilege of Roman citizenship, in order to provide against such contingencies as these. He was "free born." All he did was to remind those who were about to violate the Roman law by scourging him uncondemned, of his rights. He threatens nothing; he only throws them upon their own responsibility. It was his right and privilege to be dealt with civilly, till fairly tried. He pleaded his rights in the most unassuming manner possible, and left those who had his person in their power, to act for themselves. How just, how honorable, how meek, how noble, how non-resistant was his conduct! There is nothing in it which any non-resistant, in like circumstances, might not and ought not to copy.

The next instance followed soon after. It is recorded in the 23d chapter of Acts. Paul still a prisoner in the castle, had received a partial hearing before the chief priests and their council. Meantime forty of his most violent enemies banded together under oath not to eat or drink till they had killed him. To find an opportunity for their deadly assault, they agreed to request the chief captain to bring Paul again before the council for further hearing; intending while he was imperfectly guarded to rush upon him and effect their purpose. Paul's sister's son, getting knowledge of this conspiracy, communicated it to his uncle, who, thereupon called one of the centurions, and said: "Bring this young man unto the chief captain, for he hath a certain thing to tell him." The

young man did his errand to the chief captain, who kindly sent him away under a charge of silence respecting the matter. To prevent bloodshed and all further violence, the chief captain ordered four hundred and sixty of his soldiers to convey Paul during the night to Cesarea, to Felix the governor. Thus was the threatened mischief avoided. This is what some understand to be Paul's application for a military force to protect his person. Did Paul apply for protection? Did he demand a military escort? Did he ask anything, or recommend any thing, except barely that the centurion would conduct his nephew to the chief captain, that he might communicate his message? No, nothing. He was a helpless prisoner, guarded by the chief captain's soldiers. It was the duty of that officer to afford him such personal protection as was due to all Roman citizens. Paul knew from his preceding conduct, that the chief captain was desirous of discharging his duty according to law. He was apprised of the deadly conspiracy formed against him. Had he been his own man, non-resistance would have admonished him to escape the danger by flight. But he was a prisoner. He was to be brought within reach of his foes, under treacherous pretences of a desire to give him a further hearing, and then murdered in spite of his Roman guard. What could he, or ought he to have done, either to save his own life, or pay proper respect to the chief captain, less than to cause the simple facts to be communicated? Nothing. It was his duty. He would have been most criminal had he done otherwise. He meditated no counter attack on the guilty. He sought no means of punishing them. He counselled no measures of violence. He recommended nothing, threatened nothing, demanded nothing. He caused the proper

information to be conveyed to the captain, and meekly left all to his'discretion. And the captain proved his good sense, as well as pacific disposition, by so disposing of the prisoner as to prevent all violence and danger. In all this matter Paul acted just as any Christian non-resistant, in such circumstances, should act most unexceptionably. His "appeal to Cæsar" followed in the train of these events. It is mentioned in the 25th chapter. What was the nature and design of that appeal? He had been falsely accused, subjected to a long imprisonment, and partly tried for heresy and sedition. His trial was still pending after a two years delay of justice. Festus, the new governor, found Paul still in bonds. The high priest and chief of the Jews, now moved their suit afresh and requested that Paul might be sent to Jerusalem"lying in wait in the way to kill him." But not succeeding in this plot, the Jews went down to Cesarea to renew their accusations before the governor's judgment seat. Paul reaffirmed his innocence of all their charges, and nothing could be made out against him, Festus, the governor, "willing to do the Jews a pleasure, asked Paul if he would "go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things." "Then said Paul, I stand at Cæsar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged; to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof they accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Cæsar." How noble and Christian like this appeal! Jerusalem was no place for an impartial trial. It was only adding insult to injury, to propose under such circumstances

1

pretexts, to take him back among those prejudiced and blood thirsty men. If he must be further tried, he claimed his privilege to appear before a higher and more impartial court--to go to Rome. God had directed him in a vision to do so, for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel in that great city. His defence was in fact nothing but the defence of the gospel. He therefore appealed to Cæsar. He was not the accuser, but the accused. He had not come into court to complain of and procure the punishment of his enemies. He was not the prosecutor in this case; but a prisoner, falsely accused, detained in bonds unjustly, and now laid under the necessity of going to Jerusalem or to Rome for the conclusion of his trial. He might have his choice; it was his acknowledged privilege; and he availed himself of it as a duty to the cause of Christ, no less than as a right. And in this, as in the other instances, he acted just as he ought to have acted-just as any Christian non-resistant would be bound to act. Neither of the cases cited implies the slightest inconsistency of conduct with the doctrine to which they are brought as objections.

CONCLUSION.

Having thus thoroughly canvassed all the important objections to my doctrine, which I recollect ever to have seen presented out of the Scriptures, I may now confidently appeal to the understanding and conscience of the Christian reader for a favorable verdict. Have I not triumphantly demonstrated that the Holy Scriptures teach the doctrine of non-resistance as defined in the first chapter of this work? Have I not fairly answered the objections urged from the Scriptures against it? Is there any doctrine or duty taught in the Bible, which

can be sustained by more convincing testimony? Or that can be more satisfactority freed from objections? It seems to me that candid minds, after seriously investigating the subject, can come to no other conclusion. I know that it is a momentous conclusion, drawing after it the most radical change of views, feelings, conduct and character throughout Christendom and the world which can. well be imagined. But will it not be a most glorious and salutary revolution? When all who sincerely reverence the Bible, as in any sacred sense the word of God to mankind, shall contemplate the Old Testament as the prophecy and preparative of the new, pointing forward · to the perfect development of moral excellence under the reign of Jesus Christ; when they shall see in his precepts, examples and spirit a perfect manifestation of the divine wisdom and goodness; and shall feel that his righteousness, imbibed into the hearts and exhibited in the lives of mankind, is the only remedy for all the world's disorders!