Pukapuka 1, Nama 2

whārangi 9  (32 ngā whārangi)
titiro ki te whārangi o mua8
10titiro ki te whārangi o muri

Tirohia ngā kupu whakataki o tēnei niupepa



The Evangelical Alliance in England have set apart the first week in Jan-

uary 1862 for special prayer, and have solicited the cooperation of Churches

throughout the world, so that Heaven may be moved to pity our guilty

earth, and bless it with a rich Pentecostal shower. It is ardently hoped

that the New Zealand Christians will arouse themselves from the slumber

into which they have fallen, and join their efforts with those of their British

brethren for the obtainment of the inestimable blessing we so much need—

the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.



The Divine Law, even in the Old Testament, can in no case be cited as countenanc-

ing the principle of Retaliation, strictly defined. And in the New it seems to be ut-

terly forbidden, not only by the general spirit of the Christian Morality, but also in

express terms by the words of our Lord, repealing what " hath been said, an eye for

an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" (Matt. T. 38), and by the words reserving to the Al-

mighty alone the prerogative of vengeance also (Heb. x. 3O. ) The words of inspira-

tion can nowhere be at variance with each other. God cannot contradict himself.

There is a passage, often quoted in what appears to us to be a somewhat mistaken

sense, —a passage which might perhaps appear, at first sight, hard to reconcile in spirit

with the Christian Doctrine enforced in so. many parts of the New Testament, and

which might seem to carry with it into that Dispensation also the authority for vesting

a power of vindictive and expiatory punishment in the hands of men bearing office as

civil rulers. "For he" (the Ruler, as the context is usually interpreted). "is the min-

ister of God; a Revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Epistle to the

Romans, xiii. 4. )

We will venture to submit for consideration that these words may appear to refer,

not to the Civil Power, but to the Power of God—to the Supreme Powers having

dominion over the Soul, as in contradistinction to human authority—"the powers that

be. " It is fit to be remarked that the words " he is the minister, &c., " can hardly

with propriety be held to refer to the plural antecedent " Rulers. " For this would

confuse the sense by a false concord in grammer. Let us shortly examine the whole of

this passage, so often cited in support not only of the Vindictive Authority given to

magistrates, but also of the doctrine of a Divine Bight delegated to them. For, be it

observed, if it can truly be taken ia support of the one, we can escape from taking

it as also asserting the other, and impeaching the lawfulness of the original title under

which the sovereign of these realms now fills the throne. " Let every soul be subject

to the higher powers. " The word thus used in the first verse, and which is rendered

" higher, " we venture to suggest is never found but as signifying dominion over the

thing or person specified in the context—as, for example, in 1st Epistle Peter, xi. 13,

where it is applied distinctly to the sovereign power as supreme in as far as regards the

" ordinances of man; "—and that the Greek word for " soul" is nowhere in the sacred

writings used to signify man in the mere civil or social sense, but bis immortal and

spiritual part; and that the passage must therefore be taken in the plain and simple

construction of the words, " Let every Soul be subject to the Powers which have do-

minion over it, —i. e., the Powers of God. We proceed. " For there is no power but

of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. " How the word here rendered

" ordained" will, on reference to the original Greek, be found to be the very same com-

pound word (only divided here by what the grammarians call a Tmesis) which, in the

former part of the same verse, is properly translated " subject to. " We would then