minal Christians, this statement is perhaps correct; but as it respects the real disciples of the Mediator, it is to be questioned," (p. 35.)

The other is, "Perhaps the manifestation of these different spirits," (that of “ peace and love," and that of "rebellion and war,")" here on earth, may fairly be the dividing line amongst its inhabitants, and show to which kingdom," (that of heaven or hell,)" they belong," (p. 30.)

How unexpectedly do I find, (if these passages are correctly understood,) all, without exception, and without the least apology for your opinion or their conduct, who differ from you in sentiment, on the subject of self-defence, placed at the lefthand of God's awful tribunal. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of" interpreting "prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

I have now briefly replied to your arguments against the lawfulness of war, and have therefore accomplished the principal design of this epistle. But I cannot conclude, without suggesting a few 'ar

guments in support of the other side of the question.

As the arguments which your candour has furnished for me, are such as could leave little doubt of your glorious triumph, I shall let their ghosts slumber unmolested, rather than hazard my reputation by calling them up to my aid.

Before proceeding, however, to this part of the subject, a few observations upon the opinions and practices of the primitive Christians, may not be improper. Their example is a fallible guide; and I do not introduce it as proof of the lawfulness of war, but for the purpose of correcting an error in your pamphlet I allude to the following remark, and the inference which you would have us make from it:-"We hear of no Christians, in the first ages of the Church, engaged in carnal warfare; until we hear of great corruptions in the Church,” (p. 35.) In answer to this it may be said, in the first place, that thousands and tens of thousands may have taken up arms, and yet the fact not come to our knowledge. Secondly, upon the supposition that none took up arms, what is the conclusion? That they, therefore, thought defensive war unjustifiable? By no means. Other considerations may have operated. That there were Christians opposed to entering the Roman armies, cannot be denied: but this opposition is readily accounted for. The armies were under the control of heathen Emperors. In consequence of which, the soldiers could not,

but with difficulty, avoid countenancing idolatry and idolatrous worship. The oaths and tests, generally exacted, were inconsistent with the Christian profession. That true Christians should manifest a dislike to the army, under such circumstances, is no proof of a prevailing opinion that war would be unlawful, under other circumstances; for instance, under a Christian Emperor. This reason, it is presumed, will be thought sufficient to account for the smallness of the number of Christian soldiers, in the early ages of the Church. But, thirdly, it seems probable that there were some, at least, that did enter the army, in spite of the oaths and tests; which, doubtless, were dispensed with. Weigh candidly the following testimony. TERTULLIAN, when the Pagans pronounced the Christians useless to the commonwealth, says, "vobiscum militamus," we unite with you in your wars. CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS remarks, " 'tis decent for a man to go barefoot, unless he be a soldier." BASIL is more to the point-speaking of the early Christians, he says, "Our fathers thought bloodshed in war excusable." You recollect the story of the "Thundering Legion;" from which the least conclusion that we can make is, that there were Christians in the army of ANTONINUS. I have no remark to make on these testimonies. I proceed therefore, as proposed, to suggest an argument or two in justification of defensive war.

Between the Old and New Testaments there is

an inseparable connexion. Let us consider the spirit of the former, the conduct and precepts of the patriarchs and prophets. "Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord; curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof, because they came not up to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty." Again, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully; and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood." Here the mind of the Lord is revealed in the most explicit and awful manner. In the former case by his angel, and in the latter by his prophet, the Lord denounces on the children of Israel a most tremendous curse.-Why? Because they were disposed to keep back their sword from blood. Abraham was the "friend of God,” "the father of the faithful." Returning from conquest, with his sword stained by the blood of the battle, he was met by Melchizedek, "priest of the most high God," who conferred on him the richest benedictions of heaven. "And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Sampson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and of Samuel, and of the prophets." In these several instances, we have presented to our view the essence of piety, tinctured with the spirit of war; and this spirit was not only agreeable to the will of God, but was countenanced and supported by the operation of the most astonishing miracles in its behalf.

That the moral law is binding under all dispensations, is universally granted; but the appendages of it may vary with times and circumstances; may be obligatory under one dispensation, and be abrogated by another. Thus the observance of the Sabbath was the duty of the antediluvian, the patriarch, the Jew, and the Christian, and is a part of the moral law; but the Jew must keep holy the seventh day, while the Christian is to observe the first, in conformity with ceremonial law. With regard to the abolition of the ceremonial laws of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, there can be no more doubt, than that the moral law is identically the same, and equally binding, under every dispensation. You say, (p. 24.) that toleration of defensive war existed under the patriarchal dispensation. This "toleration," (I use your own word, toleration, though an improper one, for the sake of making use of your concession,) this toleration, I affirm, without hesitation, is a part of that moral law, of which "one jot, or one tittle shall not fail." The nature and design of this toleration, bear no resemblance to the nature and design of ceremonial laws. It had no reference to forms of worship, to appropriate rites, to sacrifices, to types, to national peculiarities of any kind, which are the characteristics of ceremonial and temporary laws. It was a toleration, growing out of the necessities of man's nature, and indispensable to his existence; a toleration required