whence come wars and fightings among you," &c.He says, "the spirit of defensive war does not bear any resemblance to the spirit by which the Jews were actuated." This again needs proof; as it is believed, that the spirit of war is much the same among all nations, and at all times, unless it is carried on by the command of God.

'. In consequence of an opinion being expressed in the pamphlet, (p. 28.) that "we may expect that angels will be sent to deliver the saints in times of trouble," if they take the Lord God for their defence, and trust not in an arm of flesh; the author was pleased to say, (p. 30.) that "This is no new doctrine; it bears an ancient date. And where was it taught? Not in the vale of humility," &c. "It was taught, however, by a no mean personage; by a character highly distinguished; by his Majesty himself, throned on the pinnacle of the Temple." That "God shall give his angels charge over thee to keep thee," &c. is not a doctrine of Satan, but a doctrine of the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of the Psalmist, (Psalms xci. 11.) It is not a doctrine which was applicable to our Lord only; but a doctrine of consolation to his people, who fear and trust in his name. "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation." "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven, their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." Here appears to be a reference to particular guardian angels. "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them."

It is much to be lamented, that his eagerness to display the triumph of sarcasm, should have betrayed him into so extraordinary a mistake, as to attribute a doctrine of the Holy Spirit to the devil.

If he had studied witticism less, and his Bible more, it is not probable he would have made so gross a blunder.

He says, (p. 31.) that "Faith without works is dead." This has never been questioned by the writer ; but the question is, whether we are to work with spiritual or carnal weapons? The doctrine which the writer was advancing, does not inculcate either standing still when there is any prospect of escape, or unnecessarily rushing into danger; both would be presumption. If we are persecuted in one city, we must, if possible, flee to another. But we are not to return evil for evil, but contrariwise, blessing: good for evil, blessing for cursing; and "overcome evil with good." "For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.”

The remainder of his observations under this head, require no reply.

From this sentence-" Perhaps the manifestation of these different spirits, (peace and love, rebellion and war,) here on earth, may fairly be the dividing line amongst its inhabitants, and show to which kingdom they belong," he draws the following inference, (p. 34.): "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 selfdefence, placed at the left hand of God's awful tribunal.". He has declared, (p. 23.) that " we have no right to annex to the words of any writer, inspired or uninspired, any meaning that did not enter into the design of the writer." The following quotations from the pamphlet, will show "the design of the writer" on this subject. › (p. 36.) "It has been further urged, that not only the Reformers, but most pious protestants, have prayed for

the prosperity of the arms of their country, and many have actually fought in the field of battle. All this is likewise admitted; but how many pious men have had a mistaken zeal ?" And we may add, that when protestant nations have been at war with each other, it is probable there have often been pious persons praying and fighting directly against each other. These clashing prayers could not mingle well in the golden censer which was in the angel's hand, when he offered up "the "the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne." Again, (p. 44.) the writer of the pamphlet says, that "he has no expectation of being candidly heard by such," ("worldly political Christians, whose dearest interest is involved in the kingdoms of this world,") "but it is God's own dear children, who have ignorantly mingled with the world, having been blinded by their education, whom he expects to give a candid hearing." Many more might be quoted directly to the point, but these are sufficient to place the charge in its proper light.

From these quotations we may fully see, what was the idea which the writer meant to convey whenever he used such terms as, "worldly political Christians," &c. that he did not mean "God's own dear children, who have ignorantly mingled with the world;" but such as have a name to live, while they are dead. That there are such, is a melancholy truth too evident to be denied.

His remarks upon the writings of the primitive Christians, we shall not particularly notice; although much has been collected from their writings against defensive war: for "by the word of God, and by that only, ought every controversy to be tried." (Med. Kingd. p. 37.).

The writer again begs leave to refer the reader to the pamphlet, (ps. 35, 36, 37, and 38.) upon this subject, and in other parts of it, to the remarks upon the future state of the Church, &c.

After concluding his animadversions upon the pamphlet, he proceeds to adduce testimony in favour of defensive war.

As he has brought forward but little evidence, we shall not be under the necessity of troubling the reader with many remarks.

The first proof that he has been pleased to introduce, are the following passages of Scripture: (p. 37.) " Curse ye Moraz, 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 is he who doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully; and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood."

The intelligent reader will readily perceive the force of these passages, in application to the present question, which were delivered on special occasions, and that under a dispensation where not only defensive, but offensive war had been commanded.

It is believed that he might with equal force have brought forward the command of the Lord to Saul to exterminate the Amalekites-" Now go, and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both men and women, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." The following passages appear to be quite as applicable to the subject: "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm."-" Scatter thou the people who delight in war."" The thoughts of the wicked are to lie in wait for blood." And these under the Gospel

dispensation much more so: good."-"Bless and curse not."

"Overcome evil with

It is quite unnecessary to take up any more of our time, upon testimony which appears to have very little bearing upon the subject.

He then quotes the example of the Father of the faithful. In reply, it is sufficient to say, that Abram was a prophet and the friend of God, and of course knew the will of the Lord. He lived under a dispensation where the command had gone forth, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." He had therefore authority, being a sovereign prince over his own house, to shed the blood of those, who had shed the blood of others.

His attack, however, upon the kings, could not strictly be called defensive war; for it was not one of his own house which he rescued, but his brother's son, who was also a patriarch, the father of nations, and likewise a sovereign prince over his own house. If his example proves any thing, it is believed it proves too much. It appears that the patriarchs not only engaged in defensive, but offensive war. Jacob, while blessing Joseph, said to him; " Moreover, I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren; which I took out of the hand of the Amorite, with my sword and my bow." If the example of the patriarchs prove any thing favourable to war, will it not prove as much in favour of offensive, as defensive war?

The author endeavours to prove, (p. 38.) that defensive war is a part of the moral law itself. The principal argument which has been found, is the following: "This toleration," (of defensive war,) "I affirm without hesitation, is a part of that moral law, of which one jot or one tittle shall not fail." His affirmation cannot be admitted as undoubted authority.