at one time as much as at another, and as necessary to the existence of the Christian as of the Jew. But this cannot be said of the institution of the priesthood, sprinkling of blood, sacrifices, passover, circumcision, &c. which were appropriate to Jews, Those laws, and not essential to the life of man. too, which you have mentioned as ceremonial laws, and which are therefore abrogated, (I mean those respecting polygamy, divorce, and stoning for adultery,) are totally different in their character, from a toleration of self-defence; as they are not indispensable to man's existence. So that, if the ceremonial laws are abrogated by our Saviour, it by no means follows, that a law, totally different in kind, and which must be classed with moral laws, (for it can be classed with no other,) is also abrogated. The passages have produced from the New Testament, to prove that our Saviour recalled the toleration of self-defence, I think I have shown, in a former part of my letter, to be insufficient to establish your point. The toleration, then, extends

to us.

which

you

But you say, my argument proves too much; for if it justifies defensive, it equally justifies offensive war, (p. 34.) Not at all. When we are in those circumstances which justified the Jews in waging offensive warfare, then even offensive war will be justifiable in us. But, as we shall never be in that state, we can never justly wage offensive war. On

the other hand, when we are in those circumstances. which justified the Patriarchs or Jews in defensive war, we shall be justified in defending ourselves; in the latter state, we shall, doubtless, be often. Now the reason of the difference is, that similarity of circumstances may justify the one species of war, while, as that similarity will never exist as to the other, we cannot plead Jewish precedent in our justification.

Consider, next, the spirit of the New Testament. The first thing which I shall notice, is Christ's approbation of the station and character of the Centurion; and this approbation is evinced by Christ's silence with regard to his profession. The instance of the woman taken in adultery, goes to show that Christ would mention his disapprobation, if it existed. His language to the woman was, (6 go, and sin no more." And the language to the Centurion, would doubtless have been, if his profession was not approved of, " go, and sin no more.' I presume to say, that no instance can be produced in holy writ, of persons coming to Christ, and receiving his benediction, when their profession did not correspond with his will, without his admonishing them of the necessity of relinquishing their customary pursuit.

Among the multitude which came to John the Baptist for divine instruction, were soldiers, who, in their turn, demanded," And what shall we do ?"

"And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages." It is conceived, Sir, that the phrase," do violence to no man," cannot be considered as forbidding any other violence, than the lawless violence of an unprincipled soldiery; for the concluding part of the advice would not harmonize with a precept of greater latitude. The last injunction proves clearly the meaning of the Baptist; which is, that they should continue soldiers. For, to enjoin as a duty, to be content with wages, and at the same time inculcate the idea, that the pursuit from which the wages are derived, is unlawful, would be absurd. It would sanction the " wages of iniquity." Upon such a principle, accumulation of wealth, in any way whatever, would be justifiable. Upon this ground, a harlot, for instance, might have made application to the Baptist, for a knowledge of her duty;-" And what shall I do?" The answer must have been, "Do violence to no man, 'neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages."

I might mention also the instance of Cornelius, Centurion of the Italian band, who was a "devout man" himself, and had at least one "devout soldier," under his command. He assembled "his kinsmen and near friends," to "hear" from Peter, "all things that were commanded him of God." Did Peter tell him to forsake his profession? No

F

such thing. But Peter would have done it, if the profession was wrong.

Such is the spirit of the New Testament. That there is no express command in it, to defend ourselves, is probably owing to the fact, that no person, at that day, ever thought that he was to give up his life at the demand of any villain that chose to require it. Self-preservation, is a law of our naturea law written in our hearts; and a violation of it, unless directed by revealed law, will be ground of condemnation in the day of judgment. Are we then to abolish this law of self-defence, without an express, clear, explicit, undoubted command from the mouth of God himself? Nothing short of such a command can warrant a surrender of life. You certainly have not shown that the command of Scripture on this subject is clear and undoubted. And you call on man in vain, to hazard on a doubt, a subject so momentous as life and salvation.

The consequences of your doctrine, are enough to alarm even that "faith that could remove mountains." As we have no where the promise of supernatural aid in the discharge of our duty, we are always to look, more or less, at the natural consequences of our opinions and conduct; and though where a command is clear and undoubted, we are to obey it at all hazards, yet, if doubtful, consequences may, and ought to be considered. On the inevitable consequences of your dubious doctrine, I shall

quote the language of the pious DODDRIDGE; "The doctrine we have here been opposing, would make every desperate villain irresistible, and consequently would give up all the property and lives of a city or province, to one such person; and this, even though the person denying resistance or war, should allow of magistracy: for the decree of the magistrate against such a one, could not regularly take place, till he has been brought to trial, which, on this hypothesis, he could not be: or till he proceeded for want of such appearance to an outlawry; and then it could not be executed, without such a forcible attack upon that person as this principle opposes. The common law, therefore, of benevolence to society, requires an assault on such a person, which does not imply any such malevolence to him, as is inconsistent with the Christian temper in its greatest heights."

I come now to consider, in a more special manner, the duty of a Christian in a trying situation. From what has been said, it does not appear that we, as Christians, are in duty bound to sacrifice our own lives or salvation for those of another, (attacking us,) in any situation whatever. After particular attention to the great truths contained in Scripture, relative to this subject, it is abundantly manifest, that the right of self-defence is so far from being forbidden in the New Testament, that the lawfulness of it was not even called in question. Hence it is not forbidden in the New Testament, by the