It is necessary that we get some definite idea of the spirit of the moral law, before we can be prepared to see its bearing upon the question before us: we shall, for that reason, make a few general remarks.

The Lord our God is the moral governor of the universe; all his laws must, therefore, be morally good. The Son of God has given us the summary of these laws in the following words: "Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind: this is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commands hang all the law and the prophets;" "therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.” But how is this love to be expressed? Our Lord has furnished the answer;-" If ye love me, keep my commandments." We have now come to this plain definition, that the essence of the moral law requires cordial obedience to the divine command. Obedience, then, in heart and life to the revealed will of God, fulfils the moral law, and disobedience violates it; because disobedience can never be an expression of love to God*. We are now prepared to make application of the doctrine.

When the Lord forbade our first parents to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their disobedience violated the moral law. When Noah was commanded to build an ark for the saving of his house, if he had disobeyed, he would have broken the moral law. When Abram was commanded to offer up Isaac, if he had refused to obey, he would have been guilty of breaking the moral law. When the Lord commanded Joshua

* The Assembly's Shorter Catechism gives an excellent definition of the moral law, in answer to the following question: "What is the duty which God requires of man? A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obe dience to his revealed will.”

to make war upon the inhabitants of Canaan, if he had refused, he would have been guilty of disobedience to the moral law. When Saul was commanded to utterly exterminate the Amalekites and all that they had, by not fulfilling the divine command, he violated the moral law. When the Lord was pleased, for special purposes, to command the prophet to take two wives of the daughters of whoredom, if he had refused, he would have broken the moral law of God.

Now, if God commands us to go to war, whether offensively or defensively, if we refuse, we violate the moral law; but, if he has forbidden us to go to war, and we go, whether offensively or defensively, we are guilty of violating the moral law of God.

It all then returns to this single point; what saith the Lord on the subject? He hath said, "I say unto you, that ye resist not evil,"-" Recompense to no man evil for evil," but overcome evil with good."

From this view, it evidently appears that the moral law is no more in favour of defensive, than offensive war; because it is not contrary to either, when God gives the command; and when he prohibits, it is equally contrary to both. The reader will now be able to judge of the force of the author's affirmation, that defensive war is a part of the moral law itself. This is begging the question, and taking for granted, that we have the command of God for defensive war.

It is believed, that appealing to the moral law as a rule of action, without regarding the precepts of God, is like appealing to a standard without dimensions.

He informs the writer of the pamphlet, (p. 36.) that, "between the Old and New Testaments there is an inseparable connexion." What the connexion is, he has not been pleased to inform us unequivocally. He however says, (p. 44.) "it must appear evident, that what was

proper and duty for Christians under the old dispensation, must be equally proper and duty under the new, circumstances being the same." But," circumstances being the same," would make an essential difference. The people of God were commanded, under a former dispensation, to go, and utterly destroy a nation of men, women, and children, and all that they had; but the " circumstances" now are widely different. It is believed that no one will pretend that the children of God have any such command at the present day. The "circumstances," then ," then are, whether we have, or have not the authority of God to engage in war; and these “circumstances" involve the whole question before us.

The author has admitted, (if he is understood, p. 39.) that his reasoning from the Old Testament, must justify offensive, as well as defensive war; but denies that it is equally applicable to us, because that "circumstances" will never be the same. As we have seen what the "circumstances" are, it is unnecessary to take up any more of our time upon this part of the subject.

We now come to consider the author's evidence from the New Testament: as he has produced but little, it will require but little attention.

The first thing he has noticed is, (p. 40.) what he calls, "Christ's approbation of the station and character of the Centurion." The Bible informs us it was his faith, instead of his station, which our Lord commended. Christ did not say, I have not found so great a station and character in Israel; but he said, " I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." He informs us that this "approbation is evinced by Christ's silence with regard to his profession." The reader will decide how this accords with "Christ's approbation of his station," &c. It does not follow that silence is always

E

approbation. It is not recorded that Christ disapproved of the conduct of the impenitent reviling thief. But he proceeds as follows: "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," &c. We are not informed what was Mary Magdalen's profession while she was possessed with seven devils. It may be said, that we have no evidence that she followed the same profession after her receiving the favour of our Lord. It is true, we have not, neither is it recorded, that the Centurion continued in his profession. It is believed that the most that can be made of this, is but negative evidence, and of course no evidence at all.

But we would inquire of the author, Who informed him that our Lord did not direct the Centurion to leave his profession? since an inspired apostle has told us, "there are also many other things which Jesus did; the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

He next introduces what John the Baptist said to the soldiers.

Upon this we would only observe, that John the Baptist was a herald to sound the approach of his Lord, and was under the Mosaic dispensation. His directions, therefore, cannot be testimony under the Gospel dispensation; for he did not, like his Lord, not only fulfil the Mosaic requirement, but establish the Gospel economy.

Admitting that he had given such directions under the Gospel dispensation, it is very questionable whether it would, on the whole, prove any thing favourable to war. If it did prove any thing, it is believed that it would be as much in favour of offensive, as defensive war; for the Roman soldiers were as often engaged in the former, as in the latter.

He then brings forward, (p. 41.) the history of Cornelius the Centurion, and inquires, "Did Peter tell him to forsake his profession? No such thing." We would again inquire how he knows that he did not; when Cornelius requested Peter to tarry with him certain days. Surely he would not attempt to give a history of all the directions Peter gave. We demand stronger evidence than the author's assertion. But we have just seen, that if the example of the Roman soldiers proves any thing, it proves too much. He observes, (p. 42.) that "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."

The first thing we shall notice is, his confession, that there is no express command in the New Testament, to defend ourselves.

The next is, his supposition, that a villain has no restraint, but can, and will, at his pleasure, take the life of God's children.

No event takes place without divine permission; all the power that any person has, is ordained of God. Pilate said unto Jesus, "knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above." No person can have any power to take the life of another, except it be given him from above. The objections of the author only have force, when we set aside the command, the providence, and the promise of God. "All this must go upon the supposition, that he who has said he will never leave nor forsake his people, and is a very present help in every time of need, will take no care of them." (Med. Kingd. p. 38.)