BEHAVIOUR IN PERSECUTION, &c.

I SHOULD not feel at liberty to go to another land and bring a number of the inhabitants to embrace religion at the risk of their liberty and their lives, and then when the danger drew near, run away and leave my converts to suffer the rage of persecution alone. I could not feel comfortable to do so. I could not ask a person to suffer in the cause of Christ, and yet refuse to suffer in that cause myself. If I must invite people to embrace a persecuted religion, let me be persecuted with them. Either let me be instrumental in driving back the flood of persecution, or let me die with my people. There is a disposition among many to spread religion, but they are unwilling to risk any thing in the cause. They will send books and tracts into a country, but they will not venture into the country theinselves, if there be danger of stripes or death. Those people do not seem to consider, that by sending books or tracts, they may set others to think, and so bring them to the necessity either of violating their consciences, or submitting to sufferings and death. They do not seem to consider, that either their books and tracts must be useless, or else lead people to take such steps as must lead them to suffer those very evils from which they themselves shrink. It does not seem right to do so. I would not expose others to suffer what I would not suffer myself. If I did try to convert people to Christ, I would go and take my portion with them. If liberty was to be had, I would help them to obtain it; if persecution could not be avoided, I would help them to bear it.

I was at a missionary meeting a short time ago, and I heard a missionary give an account of the persecution in Madagascar. I understood, from what the missionary said, that when the persecution began, or when it seemed likely to begin, the missionaries all fled from the country, and left the poor natives, who had been converted to Christianity, to bear the fierceness of their enemies alone. It appeared to me from what was said, that if the missionaries had remained, and acted their part as Christians, they would probably have succeeded in preventing the persecution. But they did not stay either to suffer, or even to expostulate with the persecutors. They left the poor converts to bear the storm

BRE

alone. Some scores or hundreds had embraced the truth, and many stood true to the cause of Christ. Some suffered grievously for the truth, and yet stood firm, and some nobly sealed the truth with their blood. But all this time there was not a missionary among them. The missionaries had brought the poor people into those troubles, and left them in them. Oh, how strangely I felt while the missionary gave an account of those trous bles! I wondered how he could stand forth before the public without shame and confusion. It seemed to manifest that he was out of his place, and that he ought to have kept his place in Madagascar, and either won for his converts the liberty they desired, or like a Christian, set them the example of a noble martyrdom.

The speech of the missionary brought to my mind what Christ said of the good shepherd and the hireling. "The good shepherd calleth his sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, aud the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seethe the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the wolf teareth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine, and I lay down my lifer for the sheep. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life." Why should we profess to be the followers of Christ, if we have not his mind. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Of the probable Practical Effects of adhering to the Moral Law in respect to War: (that is, of abstaining from War altogether.) It has been the ordinary practice of those who have colonized distant countries, to force a footing, or to maintain it, with the sword. One of the first objects has been to build a fort, and to provide a military. The adventurers became soldiers, and the colony was a garrison. Pennsylvania was, however, colonized by men who believed that war was absolutely incompatible with Christianity, and who therefore resolved not to practise it, Having determined not to fight, they maintained no soldiers, and possessed no arms. They planted themselves in a country that

was surrounded by savages, and by savages who knew they were unarmed. If easiness of conquest, or incapability of defence, could subject them to outrage, the Pennsylvanians might have been the very sport of violence. Plunderers might have robbed them without retaliation, and armies might have slaughtered them without resistance. If they did not give a temptation to outrage, no temptation conld be given. But these were the people who possessed their country in security, whilst those around them were trembling for their existence. This was a land of peace, whilst every other was a land of war. The conclusion is inevitable, although it is extraordinary :-they were in no need of arms, because they would not use them.

These Indians were sufficiently ready to commit outrages upon other States, and often visited them with desolation and slaughter; with that sort of desolation, and that sort of slaughter, which might be expected from men whom civilization had not reclaimed from cruelty, and whom religion had not awed into forbearance. "But whatever the quarrels of the Pennsylvanian Indians were with others, they uniformly respected, and held as it were sacred,

territories of William Penn." (Clarkson.) "The Pennsylva nians never lost man, woman, or child by them; which neither the colony of Maryland, nor that of Virginia, could say, no more than the great colony of New England." (Oldmixon.)

i

The security and quiet of Pennsylvania was not a transient freedom from war, such as might accidentally happen to any nation. She continued to enjoy it "for more than seventy years," (Proud,) and “subsisted in the midst of six Indian nations, with out so much as a militia for her defence." (Oldmixon.) "The Penn. sylvanians became armed, though without arms; they became strong, though without strength; they became safe, without the ordinary means of safety. The constable's staff was the only instrument of authority amongst them for the greater part of a centary, and never, during the administration of Penn, or those of his proper successors, was there a quarrel, or a war." (Clarkson.). I cannot wonder that these people were not molested, extraor dinary and unexampled as their security was. There is some. thing so noble in this perfect confidence in the Supreme Protector, in this utter exclusion of "slavish fear," in this voluntary relinquishment of the means of injury or of defence, that I do not wonder that even ferocity could be disarmed by such virtue. A people, generously living without arms, amidst nations of warriors! Who would attack a people such as this? There are few men so abandoned as not to respect such confidence. It were a peculiar and an unusual intensity of wickedness that would not even revere it.

And when was the security of Pennsylvania molested, and its peace destroyed? When the men who had directed its counsels and who would not engage in war, were out-voted in its legisla. ture: when they who supposed that there was greater security

in the sword than in Christianity, became the predominating body. From that hour the Pennsylvanians tranferred their confidence in Christian principles, to a confidence in their arms; and from that hour to the present they have been subject to war.

war.

Such is the evidence derived from a national example, of the consequences of a pursuit of the Christian policy in relation to Here are a people who absolutely refused to fight, and who incapacitated themselves for resistance by refusing to possess arms; and these were the people whose land, amidst surrounding broils and slaughter, was selected as a land of security and peace. The only national opportunity which the virtue of the Christian world has afforded us, of ascertaining the safety of relying upon God for defence, has determined that it is safe.

If the evidence which we possess do not satisfy us of the expediency of confiding in God, what evidence do we ask, or what can we receive? We have his promise that he will protect those who abandon their seeming interests in the performance of his will; and we have the testimony of those who have confided in him, that he has protected them. Can the advocate of war produce one single instance in the history of man, of a person who had given an unconditional obedience to the will of heaven, and who did not find that his conduct was wise as well as virtuous, that it accorded with his interests as well as with his duty? We ask the same question in relation to the peculiar obligations to irresistance. Where is the man who regrets that in observance of the forbearing duties of Christianity, he consigned his preservation to the superintendence of God? And the solitary national example that is before us, confirms the testimony of private life; for there is sufficient reason for believing, that no nation in modern ages has possessed so large a portion of virtue or of happiness as Pennsylvania, before it had seen human blood. I would therefore repeat the question, What evidence do we ask, or can we receive?

This is the point from which we wander:We do not believe in the providence of God. When this statement is formally made to us, we think, perhaps, that it is not true; but our practice is an evidence of its truth; for if we did believe, we should also confide in it, and should be willing to stake upon it the consequences of our obedience. We can talk with snfficient fluency of "trusting in providence;" but in the application of it to our conduct in life, we know wonderfully little. Who is it that confides in providence, and for what does he trust him? Does his confidence induce him to set aside his own views of interest and safety, and simply to obey precepts which appear inexpedient and unsafe? This is the confidence that is of value, and of which we know so little. There are many who believe that war is disallowed by Christianity, and who would rejoice that it were for ever abolished; but there are few who are willing to maintain an undaunted and unyielding stand against it. They can talk of the loveliness of peace, aye, and argue against the lawfulness of war, but when difficulty or suffering would be the consequence, they will not refuse to do what they know to be unlawful, they will not practise the peacefulness which they say they admire. Those who are ready to sustain the consequences of undeviating obedience, are the supporters of whom Christianity stands in need. She wants men who are willing to suffer for her principles. -DIAMOND ON MORALITY. ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS IN EXISTENCE.

Published by I. DAVIS, 22, Grosvenor-street, Stalybridge; Bancks and Co., Exchange-street; Heywood, Oldham-street, Manchester; R... Groombridge, 6, Panyer Alley, Paternoster Row, London; and may be had of all Booksellers. [CAVE and SEVER, Printers, Manchester.]

EVANGELICAL REFORMER.

AND YOUNG MAN'S GUIDE.

BY JOSEPH

BARKER.

Published every Fortnight.-Price One Penny, or in Monthly Parts, price Two-pence.

No. 26.

SATURDAY, DEC. 28, 1839. VOL. III.

FREE AGENCY, RESPONSIBILITY, &c.

"PROVE that man is a free agent, that he has power over his actions or feelings," say the Socialists, " and we will acknowledge then that man is responsible." We answer, no man needs any argument to prove that he is free, every man knows and feels that he is free, without proof. Infidels themselves acknowledge, that on the subject of freedom and responsibility men's feelings are against them, and infidels themselves, whatever they may profess, feel in their own souls the proof that they are free, and that they are responsible too. To ask us to prove that man is free, until they have brought some proof that man is not free, is out of place. It is soon enough for us to argue on the subject of freedom, when infidels have brought forward something to make the matter doubtful. It would be folly to attempt to prove that man is free, and yet it would be folly to doubt man's freedom. There are some things so plain, that man cannot prove them, and man's freedom is one of these things. I cannot prove my own existence. I cannot prove that the fire is hot, or that ice is cold; I cannot prove that twice two are four, or that seven are more than six; I cannot prove that I ever felt pain or pleasure; I cannot prove that I had ever a father or mother; I cannot prove that a stone is a stone, or that light is light, or that sense is sense, or that folly is folly; I cannot prove any of these things. But are