abrogate them under another.". We shall leave it with the Christian reader to decide as to the fairness of separating a sentence, so as to make a writer assert a thing, instead of expressing his opinion.

He informs us, (p. 25.) what is the meaning of this command. "The thing censured was that interpretation which sanctioned private revenge." This appears to be begging the question, and taking for granted, what he has not proved. We think that the command of the Son of God is absolute, without any limitation to time or circumstances" but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil;" and we dare not limit what he has not limited. This command was given to his disciples, and through them, it is believed, to the whole body of the Christian church. If the object had been what the author asserts, it is more probable our Lord would have said-But I say unto you, that ye make no private revenge. Let us pass by the assertion of the author, as it cannot be admitted without evidence; and take the words of Christ, and apply them in a practical point of view.

Suppose our country is invaded, and the disciples of Jesus are called upon to resist the enemy. If the enemy is an evil, and they resist him, will they not directly violate the command, "I say unto you that ye resist not evil?"-If the enemy is not an evil, why do we wish to repel him? Does not the spirit of the remaining part of the sentence, (if there is any meaning in words,) fully show that this command not only prohibited private revenge, but inculcated non-resistance to the offender? "But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." The Scriptures may be made to sanction any thing, or nothing, if we may be permitted to put what construction we wish upon them,

and take away or add to the words of the book at our pleasure.

it

His remarks upon this passage, "I say unto you which hear, love your enemies," &c. requires some attention. He addresses the writer as follows: (p. 25.) "Your quotation unquestionably has reference to the conduct of individuals in their treatment of each other in cases of abuse. This is so abundantly evident from the whole tenour of the discourse, that further comment is unnecessary; and I do not hesitate to say, that it has no relation to that extreme case of life and death which calls for the use of the sword." The reader will doubtless perceive, that he has again, instead of bringing scripture proof to establish his opinion, given us his own declaration. We cannot take his authority that · the passage was confined to individuals, while we do not see that the word of God has limited it. But taking upon his own limitation, how does he reconcile it with taking the life of an individual who should assault him? Taking the life of an individual enemy cannot be doing him good. This is not even pretended. The object is, to preserve his own life by taking that of his enemy. But we can find no authority in God's word to confine it to individuals. The commands of the Gospel are universally binding, unless limited by some other precept. We are told that love is the fulfilling of the law; and is this law of love, which fulfils the commands, made only for the regulation of one individual towards another; and not for the regulation of one body of men towards another? Suppose a preacher of the Gospel should define the principle of justice according to the Scriptures, and one of his hearers should say it was correct; but that it was never intended as a rule for the conduct of one nation towards another, but only for the conduct of one individual towards another; who would

not perceive the absurdity of such an application? And what propriety is there in limiting the commands of love, mercy, peace, and forgiveness, any more than that of justice? Was not this command given to the Church universal; and are we permitted to limit it to individuals? Is not this a command of the King of Zion to his subjects; not to individuals only, but to the whole body? We shall leave the question with the consciences of the children of God to decide. it is proved, from Gospel authority, that love to enemies is consistent with destroying them with all the implements of death and cruelty, we must be constrained to believe that this passage is directly opposed to the spi, rit of war in every form: especially since we read "that love worketh no ill to his neighbour."

Until

He next proceeds to this passage, "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your father forgive your trespasses." To this question, "If men invade our rights, and trespass on our privileges, is it forgiveness to repel them at the point of the bayonet? he makes the following reply, (p. 27.) "To this I answer, that forgiveness and defence, (he doubtless means with carnal weapons,) are consistent." Suppose we should take the question for granted, and declare, without proof, that forgiveness and defence with carnal weapons were inconsistent; what would this be to the point? It might perhaps be a fair balance to the declaration of the author, but we could not reasonably expect that our readers would receive it as Gospel authority*.

This precept of forgiveness, we think the author will not attempt to limit to individuals, to the exclusion of na

* We cannot avoid noticing here, that the author has brought but little, that is perceived, against some of the principal arguments in the pamphlet, except his own declaration.

tions; since all professing Christian nations have adopted it as their prayer. France and England pray, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Suppose God, in his holy providence, should forgive France her trespasses, just as she forgives England when she trespasses against her; and forgives England her trespasses, just as she forgives France, when she trespasses against her. Common sense can decide what would be the awful result, without recourse to metaphysical reasoning. Christian brethren, who believe in the lawfulness of war, we intreat you to reflect well upon the import of this prayer when you adopt it, and remember that we cannot be forgiven unless we forgive.

Until it is proved, from the Scriptures, that destroying an enemy is consistent with forgiving him, we cannot admit the principle of war as a gospel doctrine.

The next thing the author has stated is, (p. 27.) that our Lord was lawfully apprehended; because he was assaulted by a company including Roman officers and soldiers from the Chief Priests and Pharisees. The Roman soldiers were not under the control of the Chief Priests and Pharisees, but the Roman government; and if they were sent to guard the temple, they were not on their duty when they left it to apprehend our Lord. He considers it evident that they acted in obedience to lawful authority, because it is not recorded that Pilate reproved them. Whether he did, or did not, it is quite immaterial; for he who could pronounce sentence upon one to gratify the Jews, whom he declared to be innocent, could easily excuse the soldiery for acting unlawfully, at their request. It is quite as probable that the Jews bribed them, (as they did on another occasion,) as that they lawfully apprehended our Lord, according to the opinion of the author. As this point is

it.

not very material with regard to the principal question, it is unnecessary to take up our time any longer upon As we do not perfectly understand the author's exposition, (p. 28.) of the following words" All they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword;" we shall only remark upon his inference, that " it was a caution appropriate to the disciples, and to them only at that time." We have again merely the author's authority, which has already been questioned.

If his ideas have been understood, he considers that the sword properly belongs to the government-if so, is not the penalty denounced against any government who may take the sword?

That it was not exclusively "appropriate to the disciples, and to them only at that time," appears evident from the parallel passage in Rev. "He that killeth with the sword, must be killed with the sword." This passage has a special reference, it is believed, to governments, and not particularly to individuals, which may be seen by the connexion.

He informs us, (p. 29.) that, “we have abundant proof that multitudes, armies, nations, have survived the use of the sword, and gone down to their graves in peace." Since he had " abundant proof," we should have been much gratified if he had given us some, instead of his own declaration, that "nations have survived the use of the sword, and gone down to their graves in peace," since the decree went forth that "all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword." This is a point we question: and when it is proved that nations who have taken the sword, have gone down to their graves in peace, and have not been destroyed by the sword, then we shall acknowledge that this argument is answered.

He next remarks, (p. 29.) upon this passage" From