Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-05-09

gods and worship them. shall presume
that the Christian will regard these acts as
being, under every possible circumstance,
unlawful. The night offers me an oppor-
tunity of assassinating him. Now am
placed, as far as the argument is concern
ed, in preciselythe same situation with re-
spect to this man, as traveller is with re-
spect 10 ruffian with pistol. Life in
both cases depends on killing the offender.
Both are acts of self-defence. Am at
liberty to assassinate this man! The heart
of the Christian surely answers, No.
Here then is a case in which may not
take violent mans life in order to save
my own. We have said that the heart of
the Christian answers, No. and this, we
Thick, is Just species of appeal. But if
any one doubts whether the assassination
would be unlawful, lief him consider wheth-
er one OF the Christian apostles would
have committed it in such case. Here,
| at any rate. the heart ofevery man answers
No. And mark the reason, because ev-
cry man perceiyes hat the at would have
been palpabiy inconsistent with the apos-
tolic character and conduct; or, which is
the same thing, with a Christian charac-
ter and conduct. .. 81"
Or pul such case in somewhat differ
ent form. A furious Turk holds scimi-
TAR over my head, and declares he win in.
stantly dispatch me unless l abiure Chris
tianity and acknowledge the divine lega-
ton Of "the Prophet" Now there are
two supposable waysin which | may save
my life ;--one by contriYing to. stab the
Turk, and one "by denying Christ before
men" You say am not at liberty to de.
ny Christ, but l am at liberty.to stab the
man. Why am l not at liberty to deny
Him2 Because Christianity forbids it,
Then we require you to show that Chris
tianity does not forbid you to take his life
Our religion pronounces both actions to be
wrong. You say that under these circum-
stances the killing is right. Where is your
proofl What is the ground of your dis
tinction2 But, whether it can be adduced
or not, our immediate argument is estab-
lished-That there are some things which
it is not lawful to do in order to preserve
our lives. This conclusion has indeed
been practically acted upon. A company
of inquisitors and their agents are about to
conduct good man to the stake. Ii he
could by any means destroy these men,
he might save his life. Ii is a question
therefore of selfdefence Surprising these
means to be within his poweEs--supPqsins
me cUgTu contFT9e mine. and by suddenly
firing it. blow his prosecutors into the air,
would It be lawful and Christian thus
n L n II
mankind respecting the right temper and
conduct Of the martyr pronounce it to be
wrong. Il is pronounced to be wrong by
the language and example ofthe first teach
ers Of Christianity. The conclusion there.
fore again is, that all extremities are mol
allowable in order to preserve life that
there IS a limit to the right of selfde-
fence. X
It would be to no purpose to say that in
some sof the instances which have been
proposed, religious duties interfere with
and limit the rights of self-defence. This is
a common fallacy; religious duties and
moral duties are identical in point of obi.
CATION, forthey are imposed by one author.
;ty Religious duties are not obligatory
! for any other reason than that which at.
taches to moral duties also; namely, the
{ will Of God. He who violates the moral
law is as truly unfailhful in his allegiance
to God, as he who denies. Christ before
men So that we come at last to one sin.
gle and simple question, whether taking
: the life Of a person who threatens ours is
or is not compatible with the moral law
We refer for an answer to the broad prin
Iciplesof Christian piety and Christian be.
nevolence; that piety which reposes habit
: ual confidence in the Divine Providence.
and an habi,ual preference of futurity tc
the present time; and that benevolence
which not only loves our neighbors as our
: selves, but feels that the Samaritan or the
: enemy IS a neignbor There is no con.
juncture in lifein which the exercise ofthis
benevolence may be suspended none in
/, which we are not required to maintain and
10 practice It Whether want implore:
our compassion, or ingratitude returns i'll;
for our kindness;-whethe felIow-crea
ture is drowning in a river or assaiIing u:
on the highway; everywhere, and under
all circumstances, The duty remains.
Is killing an assailant, then, toiLhin OF
icithoHt the limits Of this benevolence 3
As TO the man. it is evident that no good
will IS exercised towards him by shooting
. him through the head. Who indeed vii
4 dispute that before we can destroy him
benevolence towards him must be exclud
2 ed from our minds % We not only exercis'
nobenevolence. ourselves, but preclude hin
from receiving It from any human heart
e and, which is serious item in the account
Z we cut him off from all possibility of re-
4 ormatioD. To call sinners to repentanc
: was one Of the great characteristics Of tn
y mission Of Christ. Does itappear consis