with Christianity would supersede the necessity of issuing direct prohibitions, which would only have increased the odium under which its professors laboured.

"When the soldiers demanded of John the Baptist what they should do, he said unto them, 'Dọ violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages.' In which answer we do not find that, in order to prepare themselves for the reception of the kingdom of God, it was required of soldiers to relinquish their profession, but only that they should beware of the vices of which that profession was accused. The precept which follows, 'Be content with your wages,' supposed them to continue in their situation." To this a reply may be borrowed from Barclay. (Apology, Prop. 15, Sect. 15.) "The question is not concerning John's doctrine, but Christ's, whose disciples we are, not John's; for Christ, and not John, is that prophet whom we all ought to hear. But what was John's answer, that we may see if it can justify the soldiers of this time ? Consider, then, what he dischargeth to soldiers, viz. not to use violence or deceit against any; which being removed, let any one tell how soldiers can war. For are not craft, violence, and injustice, three properties of war, and the natural consequences of battles?"

"It was of a Roman centurion that Christ pronounced that memorable eulogy, 'I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.'

The Jews generally besought Christ to touch them, that they might be healed.

first expressed a conviction of his

The centurion ability to work

a miracle on a person at a distance. Our Lord's commendation of the centurion's faith by no means implies that he was engaged in no pursuit or profession, which the clearer light and milder spirit of Christianity would induce him to relinquish.

"The first Gentile convert who was received into the Christian Church, and to whom the gospel was imparted by the immediate and especial direction of heaven, held the same station; and in the history of this transaction we discover not the smallest intimation, that Cornelius, upon becoming a Christian, quitted the service of the Roman legion; that his profession was objected to, or his continuance in it considered as in any wise inconsistent with his new character."

If the narrative had begun, instead of ending, with the adinission of Cornelius into the Christian Church, there would have been some force in this observation. As it leads us not a step further than his conversion and baptism, there is none. Connecting this want of evidence in the historical part of the New Testament, with the

total omission of moral precepts addressed to soldiers in the epistles, and with the fact that the early Christians frequently, if not universally, renounced the military profession, we cannot but form a very different conclusion from that which our author has deduced from the silence of the historian. Here closes his feeble and meagre array of evidence to prove the compatibility of the military profession with Christianity.

The wars of the Jews are passed over in silence, and properly, because they are quite inapplicable as an example, though they have sometimes been forced into the discussion. If it be lawful for Christians to make war because they did, it must also be lawful to make war as they did. This is happily impossible. The power that should attempt to repeat the frightful scenes of the conquest of Canaan, would soon be blotted out of the map of the world, by an universal combination of civilized states. Their example proves too much, or nothing. It justifies massacre, or it does not justify war. Besides, their battles were fought by an armed nation, for a national object, and not by a hired military under arbitrary controul: and the will, to the direction of which they resigned themselves, is recorded to have been the will of God, miraculously expressed. If it be said that the Deity would not command what was morally wrong, the objector is referred to the command for

Abraham to sacrifice his son; and if this does not satisfy him, he may, if he so please, consult Dr. Geddes.

Passing over Dr. Paley's statement of the difficulty of applying the principles of morality to the affairs of states, his supposed cases in which the faith of treaties may be violated, and his remarks on that pliable code, called the law of nations, we come to his considerations on the causes and conduct of wars. There can be no hesitation about admitting, that "the family alliances, the personal friendships, or the personal quarrels of princes; the internal disputes which are carried on in other nations; the justice of other wars, the extension of territory or of trade; the misfortunes or accidental weakness of a neighbouring or rival nation;" are "insufficient causes or unjustifiable motives of war." It is equally certain and deplorable, that these are the most usual sources of that dreadful calamity, and that they have caused the sacrifice of the lives of millions, and of the well-being and prospects of improvement of millions more. Great, indeed, and joyful would be the victory gained for mankind, could means be devised for averting in future their pestiferous operation.

"The justifying causes of war are, deliberate invasions of right, and the necessity of maintaining such a balance of power amongst neigh bouring nations, as that no single state, or

K

confederacy of states, be strong enough to overwhelm the rest. The objects of just war are precaution, defence, or reparation. In a larger sense, every just war is a defensive war, inasmuch as every just war supposes an injury perpetrated, attempted, or feared."

What a text is here!

War is justified by "deliberate invasions of right." Of what right? Of whose right; and who being judge? We need not look far back in history to meet with ample proof of the inexpediency, and consequently of the wickedness and folly of asserting rights by war, whether they be rights of sovereign, subject, or parliament.

In 1715 and 1745, Charles Stuart appealed to arms against what he deemed the "deliberate invasion of right," by the house of Hanover, in withholding from his father the British crown. The result was, that, after a considerable effusion of blood in the field and on the scaffold, the hopes of his family sunk for ever.

In 1739, war was declared by this country against Spain, on account of "deliberate invasions of the right" of British subjects to navigate the American seas without being subject to search. A war with France was soon added to that with Spain, and when at length peace was concluded, in 1748, all conquests were restored, the original cause of hostility was not even mentioned, and all the fruits of the contest