« AnteriorContinuar »
lives were never secure against such as conspired against them
upon the account of title."
NOTE (9) - Page 193.
That Christianity would surely induce its converts to relinquish the profession of hired soldiers, and yet that it contains no explicit prohibition of that profession, is not more to be wondered at, than that without a single prohibition, (except in the case of bishops, 1 Tim. iii. 2,) it should have abolished polygamy. The result was perhaps, more valuable when produced by the individual, unprompted perception of the incompatibility. It is also possible that there might be some indulgence shewn to those who were already in bondage; at least, a modern historian is of opiņion, how correctly the reader must judge, that such toleration, in the latter case, would have aided a proselyting attempt made some years ago in Jamaica.
“ In the course of an attempt to convert the Maroons to Christianity, polygamy was considered, and the Maroon told, that as a Christian, he could not have more than one wife. Having been attached to two for some time, and having children by both, · Top, Massa Governor,' said he,
top lilly bit; you say me mus forsake my wife.'-—Only one of thern'-'Which dat one? Jesus Christ say so? Gar A’mighty say so? No, no, Massa; Gar A'mighty good; he no tell somebody he mus forsake him wife and children. Somebody no wicked for forsake him wife! No, Massa, dis here talk no do
(Dallas's History of the Maroons, Vol. I.
for me." p. 113.)
It was with an ill grace that this requisition was made of the Maroons, while such an example was before their eyes as the same author has described :
“ The white people on estates have as many sable wives as they please, and change them as often as they please ; and there are few properties in the West Indies, on which families of mulattoes have not been left by each succeeding overseer and bookkeeper. A father parts for life with his child, whom in its very birth he consigns to slavery, with as much indifference as with his old shoes."-/ Ibid. Vol. ). 127.)
NOTE (r) - Page 193.
Valour, or active courage, is, for the most part, constitutional, and therefore can have no more claim to moral merit, than wit, beauty, health, strength, or any other endowment of the mind or body; and so far is it from producing any salutary effects by introducing peace, order, or happiness into society, that it is the usual perpetrator of all the violences, which, from retaliated injuries, distract the world with bloodshed and devastation. It is the engine by which the strong are enabled to plunder the weak, the proud to trample upon the humble, and the guilty to oppress the innocent; it is the chief instrument which ambition employs in her unjust pursuits of wealth and power, and is, therefore, so much extolled by her votaries; it was, indeed, congenial with the re
ligion of Pagans, whose gods were, for the most part, made out of deceased heroes, exalted to heaven as a reward for the mischiefs which they had perpetrated upon earth, and therefore, with them, this was the first of virtues, and had even engrossed that denomination to itself; but whatever merit it may have assumed among Pagans, with Christians it can pretend to none, and few or none are the occasions in which they are permitted to exert it. They are so far from being allowed to inflict evil, that they are forbid even to resist it; they are so far from being encouraged to revenge injuries, that one of their first duties is to forgive them; so far from being incited to destroy their enemies, that they are commanded to love them, and to serve them to the utmost of their power.
If Christian nations, therefore, were nations of Christians, all war would be impossible, and unknown amongst them, and valour could be neither of use or estimation, and therefore could never have a place in the catalogue of Christian virtues, being irreconcileable with all its precepts. I object not to the praise and honours bestowed on the valiant; they are the least tribute which can be paid them by those who enjoy safety and affluence by the intervention of their dangers and sufferings; I assert only that active courage can never be a Christian virtue, because a Christian can have nothing to do with it. Passive courage is, indeed, frequently and properly inculcated by this meek and suffering religion, under the titles of patience and resignation; a real and substanial virtue this, and a direct contrast to the former: for passive courage arises from the noblest dispositions of the human mind, from a contempt of misfortunes, pain and death, and a confidence in the protection of the Almighty;
active, from the meanest, --- from passion, vanity and selfdependence : passive courage is derived from a zeal for truth, and a perseverance in duty; active is the offspring of pride and revenge, and the parent of cruelty and injustice: in short, passive courage is the resolution of a philosopher; active, the ferocity of a savage. Nor is this more incompatible with the precepts than with the object of this religion, which is the attainment of the kingdom of heaven; for valour is not that sort of violence, by which that kingdom is to be taken ; nor are the turbulent spirits of beroes and conquerors admissible into those regions of peace, sabordination and tranquillity."-(Soame Jenyns on the Internal Evidence of Christianity, Prop. 3.)
NOTE (s) - Page 201.
The conclusion of Montesquieu's chapter on War, ought in justice to be subjoined:
“ Le droit de la guerre dérive donc de la nécessité et du juste rigide. Si ceux qui dirigent la conscience ou les conseils des princes, ne se tiennent pas là, tout est perdu : et lorsqu'on se fondera sur des principes arbitraires de gloire, de bienséance, d'utilité ; des filots de sang inorderont la terre.
“Que l'on ne parle pas surtout de la gloire du prince ; sa gloire seroit son orgueil ; c'est une passion et non pas un droit légitime.
« Il est vrai que la réputation de sa puissance pourroit augmenter les forces de son Etat: mais la réputation de sa justice les augmenteroit tout de même."
The passage quoted from Voltaire commences with a sneer at Machiavel, very unworthy of the author; and for the omission of which the reader will be fully compensated, if his taste at all accord with mine, by a comparative sketch of Machiavel and Montesquieu, taken from one of the very few works of temporary politics, which are so written as to be permanently interesting :
“ Machiavel, born and bred in tumultuous and profligate times, and occupied in the affairs of a distempered republic, caught his first principles of politics from what he saw. Montesquieu, more happy in his birth and fortune, enjoying an early leisure, in a quiet and wellregulated monarchy, drew his first principles of politics from what he read. Yet, neither was the first given up to mere personal observation ; nor the last to mere study: in the progress of life, Machiavel applied himself to books, and Montesquieu to men: yet, as was natural, their first habits prevailed, and gave to each his distinct and peculiar character. Hence, though both saw the internal and secret springs of government, (which, in
my opinion, no writer but these two did ever fully comprehend or penetrate,) yet they saw them by different lights, and through different mediums. Machiavel's leading guide was fact; Montesquieu's was philosophy. In consequence of this, simplicity forms the character of the one, refinement of the other. The speculative Frenchman forms a fine system, to the completion of which he sometimes tortures both argument and fact: the plain and downright Florentine builds on facts, independent of all system. The polite and disinterested Sage is warm in the praise of honesty : the active and penetrating Secretary, above praise or censure, gives a bold and striking picture of the ways of