We have seen that if the kingdoms of this world are not united to the kingdom of heaven, then they are opposed to it; because that Christ has said, "He that is not with me, is against me."

This the author of the "Letter" denies, and to support his position, he says, there is such a thing as no union without opposition, and illustrates his idea by the comparison of France and China. It has been shewn, that there is no parallel, in this respect, between the kingdoms of France and China, and the kingdoms of light and darkness; but the question was rested principally upon the authority of the Son of God.

We have further seen from the word of God, that Satan is permitted, for the present, to be the God of this world. The Lord has styled him the "Prince of this world."

Christian brethren; it is worthy of our particular notice, that when Satan is bound and cast into the bot tomless pit, wars will cease from under heaven, and peace will spread her wings over the earth; but as soon as he is permitted to escape from the pit, war raises her bloody ensign, and the tumult of battle is again heard in the earth.

In view of the remarks which have been made, (if they are correct,) we have seen that all the arguments drawn from the Old Testament, in support of defensive, equally support offensive war. This the author of the "Letter" has reluctantly admitted; but denies, that they can be equally applicable to us; because that circumstances will never be the same. that the circumstances involved the question whether we have, or have not, the authority of God. The words of our Lord have been produced, who not only forbade his servants to fight, but denounced a penalty against those who took the sword.

F

We have found

We have likewise seen, that the author of the “Letter" has brought but little against the principal passages quoted in the pamphlet, except his own declaration. Against his declaration stands the positive precept“ I say unto you that ye resist not evil," as well as many other collateral passages. He denies that they have any application to the question. The candid reader will be able to make the proper distinction between assertion and evidence. A subject may often be much easier dismissed with assertion than proof.

We have also seen, that the moral law is no more in favour of defensive than offensive war; for neither can be contrary to the moral law, when God gives the command.

We have further seen, that the New Testament has given no direct precept, in favour of either offensive or defensive war. This the author has fully admitted.

We have likewise seen, that the author has produced no proof from the Gospel, but negative evidence; which, when put against positive precept, is no evidence at all.

It finally appears from the remarks, if they are just, that the example and precepts of our Lord, and his inspired apostles, are against both offensive and defensive war. The spirit of the Gospel is peace, love, and forgiveness. "Follow peace with all men," &c. "The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace." "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses." "Love your enemies." "I say unto you that ye resist not evil." "Overcome evil with good." Such, and many more, are the commands.

The force of these passages against war, may be denied, and so may the whole of the Scriptures; but it is believed that they can never be made fairly to harmo

mize with war, in any form, unless God should again expressly command it.

If the author of the "Letter" had proved, that there is a clear line of distinction in the gospel, between offen, sive and defensive war, it would have been so far to the purpose. "When it is fairly proved, that under the Gos pel-dispensation our Lord did draw a clear line of distinc tion, between offensive and defensive war; and that he intended all such passages as have been adduced, to apply to the former, and not to the latter; then we will acknow. ledge the weight of the argument. Until this is done, we shall not consider our arguments as answered." (Note, Med. Kingd. p. 34.)

Dear brethren; it is not a matter of little importance, whether we have a right to spill the blood of our fellowmortals, or not. Nothing but the express command of God can justify it. Pleading our necessity, and saying it is a law of our nature, will not do, without the divine warrant; and this is the only question in dispute, whether we have, or have not, the divine warrant.

To the consciences of the children of God we make the appeal. Can you take deathly weapons, and go into the field of battle, and destroy your enemies who trespass upon your rights, with this prayer in your hearts, Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; desiring that God will hear, and answer, and forgive, just as you have forgiven?

The writer believes that the spirit of defensive war is folly-that it does not so often prevent, as provoke in sult-that it does not so often save property, as destroy it-that it does not so often preserve, as destroy liberty

that it does not so often increase, as diminish the happiness of society-that it does not so often mend, as injure the morals of society-that it is hazarding eternal,

to defend temporal interest-finally, that it does not, answer the end for which it is intended.

He believes, that defensive war is inhuman-that it abuses the animal creation-that it oppresses the poorthat it spreads terror amongst women and childrenthat it destroys the youth, and cuts off the hope of gray hairs that it involves men in fatigue, hunger, and thirst, and all the pains of mutilated bodies-that it multiplies widows and orphans, and clothes the land in mourning.

He believes defensive war to be criminal-that instead of keeping from the appearance of evil, it is running into temptation-that instead of humbling, it inflates pride-that it is not forgiving trespasses, as we wish to be forgiven-that it is not loving, and doing good to enemies-that it is resisting evil-that it is rendering evil for evil-that it is not overcoming evil with good-and that it is, finally, doing evil, that good may

come.

Upon all these particulars the writer would be understood as only expressing his present opinion*. As he has them, and a number of others under examination, having been benefitted with several long communications from some of the most respectable, and pious in our churches, who disagree with him on this question.

He intends, (if the Lord will,) to give the subject as full an investigation as he is capable of; trusting that he has but one object in view, viz. to ascertain and spread the truth. Should the writer be satisfied from the in

• While the writer expresses his opinion as above, he does it with much deference to the great number of respectable and pious persons who have, and still do, differ from him in opinion on this subject. Although he esteems and loves them as God's dear children, yet his conscience constrains him to dissent from their judgment; and he cannot but think, that many would change their views, if they would give the subject a more particular, serious, and prayerful investigation.

vestigation, that his present opinion is erroneous, he would not hesitate to make a public acknowledgment of it. But this examination will require a length of time.

In the mean while, if any thing should come before the public, in reply to what is written, of a quibbling jeering kind, it is his intention not to notice it. But should any thing appear with Christian temper and serious argument, which did not satisfy him, he may again, (if the Lord permit,) take up his pen.

Now, dear brethren, permit the writer again to beg that you will bring your hearts to the test on this subject in the light of God's word. Can you satisfy your consciences, that it is an act of love to your enemies to destroy them with carnal weapons? Are the pointed bayonet, the burnished sword, and glittering spear, implements of love? Are the rolling of the drum, the blast of the trumpet, and the thunder of the cannon, sounds of kindness? Are the commands of the warrior to the charge of the battle, accents of mercy?

We must shortly, all stand before him whose eyes are as a flame of fire, and who searches the heart, and tries the reins, and will give to every man as his work shall be.

If those are in an error, who believe it their duty to resist their enemies with carnal weapons, the prayer of the writer is," Father forgive them, for they know not what they do"-They know not what manner of spirit they are of. If the writer is in an error, he begs that the same prayer may be made for himself.

N. B. Read, (p. 34.-7 lines from the top,) We are not informed that our Lord disapproved of Mary Magdalen's profession, &c, instead of, "We are not informed what was Mary Magdalen's profession," &c..