fer upon the "Prince of evil," the power and superintendence of "the kingdoms of this world." Now, "whether it be right, in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."

How, Sir, does your faith accord with your practice? If the governments of this world belong to Satan, then, giving your suffrage for a ruler of any description, is unwarrantable-is criminal. Why? Because, in the first place, if you vote for an abandoned character, for an infidel, you are building up the kingdom and dominion of Satan-which would most assuredly be criminal. And, in the second place, voting for a good man, would be irreconcilable to Christian duty, according to your tenets. It would be placing him on Satan's throne: his spirit and those of his subjects would no more unite than "iron and miry clay." "When the subjects of the Redeemer," you say, "mingle with the world, and unite in its pursuits, they may spiritually be styled adulterers," (p. 43.) Now then, when you give your suffrage for the elevation of a Christian to the chair of power, you do all that you can do, to render him a spiritual adulterer. Is this the duty of a Christian? Pray, Sir, how do you reconcile your practice with your profession?

Sir, your doctrine is unprecedented. It must be an "unpopular doctrine," (as you say,) not only "with the men of this world, and those worldly Christians who are struggling, and teasing, and panting, for the profits and honours of this world,"

(p. 19.) but, (as I should say,) with men of all descriptions, who, with a proper sense of the tendency and consequences of your doctrine, have any just conceptions of Him "for whom are all things;" or any abhorrence of an attempt to limit our Creator's power, "whose is the dominion and the glory."

I am not a little surprised, to find the character of Satan, apparently, enhancing in your estimation. Formerly it was not thus-" surely an enemy hath done this." That the testimony of Satan, (I revert to the reliance which you place on it, a subject which I know not how to leave without expressing, once more, my abhorrence of it;) that the testimony of Satan, I say, should be regarded by wicked men, is to be expected: but, Sir, for a man of your goodness, and standing in a Christian land, to take the naked assertion, (if implication can be called assertion,) of Satan, for the basis of a doctrine of holy writ, resting alone upon his delusive testimony for the support of it, is to me mysterious, yea, more than mysterious. The following language of an eminently pious Christian minister*, will fully convey my views of the subject, without any further remark. I have altered nothing but a letter: "The Devil told a lie when he said, 'all these things are mine, and to whomsoever I will I give them;' for if he had the disposal of preferments, since he knows the effect of them, you and I, brother" D, "should soon be dignitaries."

⚫ Newton.

Having now considered the four leading branches of your argument, I come next to the fifth, your conclusion. I will quote it in connexion with the position from which it is an immediate inference : "If the kingdoms of this world are under Satan's dominion, then we may infer, the great impropriety of the subjects of the Mediator's kingdom using the weapons of this world, and engaging in tumults, wars, and fightings," (p. 19.) No argument can be either convincing or logical, if the premises do not support the conclusion. Try your argument by this test. The substance of it is, "the subjects of Satan use carnal weapons; therefore the subjects of Christ ought not to use them." From what is your conclusion drawn? It is derived from the supposition, either that Satan's subjects do nothing but what is wrong, or that using carnal weapons is wrong in itself. If derived from the first, I answer, that Satan's subjects do many things right in themselves, abstractly considered. It is right for them to eat, and drink, and sleep; it is right for them to attend to moral and religious instruction; and many other things might be mentioned, which it is right for them to do, particularly for the preservation of life. Now, as you have not proved, that using carnal weapons in particular is wrong, and as it is evident that all that they do cannot be condemned, pray, Sir, whence your conclusion? If from the second supposition, that the thing is wrong in itself, I answer, that the conclusion is derived from something

面

besides the premises which you have given, and is, therefore, illogically drawn. In either case, then, your argument is invalid.

But, taking what I conceive to be the proper ground, I have shown, I trust, that the third link in your grand chain of inferences is unsound, and likewise the fourth. What then becomes of your conclusion, which depends entirely on the correctness of the third and fourth positions? I leave you to answer, and proceed to your second great argu

ment.

You attempt to prove the unlawfulness of war, by our Saviour's disapprobation of the use of arms. This disapprobation you infer from the fact, that the Jews were fearful that the "Romans would take away their place and nation," (p. 20.) provided Christ was received as the Messiah; which they could not have been fearful of, you say, if they had not supposed that Christ forbade the use of weapons in their defence. The question now to be determined is, whether the Jews expected destruction by the Romans, because they supposed that Christ prohibited the use of carnal weapons? That this was not the source of their fear, will be evident from the following considerations:

The Jews were already in subordination to the Romans; of course, "taking away their place and nation," the object of fear, must be something more than what was already done-and that must be national destruction. What, then, would induce the

Romans to destroy the Jewish nation? Not quiet submission; for why should peaceable subjects be destroyed? Nothing but rebellion and insurrection would induce the Romans to exterminate a subdued people. The Jews, therefore, could fear no doctrines which taught the people submission; but only such as tended to excite and foster a spirit of rebellion. But as the doctrine, ascribed to Christ, tended to discountenance rebellion, the Jews could not have feared that it would ever call down upon them the vengeance of the exasperated Romans.

Indeed, the very charge which the Jews alleged against our Saviour, that of "perverting the nation," inculcating a refusal of tribute to Cæsar, &c. proves, clearly enough, that they were far from any fears of a doctrine that forbade the use of arms.

Connected with this argument of yours, is the remark which follows: "We may confidently expect, that wherever the same spirit of Christ lifts up a standard against the same carnal policy, and temporal interest, there will follow the same spirit of envy, persecution, and revenge, which was manifested against the Lord of life and glory," (p. 21.)

It seems, in your opinion at least, that you have erected a "standard, in the Spirit of Christ, against the same carnal policy and temporal interest," which he opposed. That, of course, you "confidently expect" the same spirit of envy, persecution, and revenge, which was manifested against him, is implied. Will any one pretend to say, that every Christian,