of mildness, of placability. It might be supposed that they continually retained in prospect the reward which would attach to "peace-makers.” We ask the advocate of war, whether he discovers in the writings of the Apostles, or the evangelists, any thing that indicates they approved of war. Do the tenor and spirit of their writings bear any congruity with it? Are not their spirit and tenor entirely discordant with it? We are entitled to renew the observation, that the pacific nature of the apostolic writings, proves presumptively that the writers disallowed war. That could not be allowed by them as sanctioned by Christianity, which outraged all the principles they inculcated. "Whence come wars and fightings among you?" is the interrogation of one of the Apostles; and he answers himself by asking, "Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?" James iv. 1. This accords precisely with the argument we urge. Christ forbade the passions which lead to war; and now, when these passions had broken out into actual fighting, his Apostle, in condemning war, refers back to these passions. We have been saying that the passions are condemned, and therefore war; and now again the Apostle James thinks, like his Master, that the most effectual way of eradicating war, is to eradicate the passions which produce it.

We are told not only what the arms of the Apostles were not, but what they were. "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." This not only assures us, that the Apostle had nothing to do with military weapons, but tells us the object of their warfare-the bringing of every thought to the obedience of Christ; and this object I would beg the reader to notice, because it accords with the object of Christ himself in his precepts from the Mount-the reduction of the thoughts to obedience. The Apostle doubtless knew that, if he could effect this, there was little reason to fear that his converts would slaughter one another. He followed the example of his Master. He attacked wickedness in its root, and inculcated those general principles of purity and forbearance, which would abolish war, as they would abolish all other crimes. The teachers of Christianity addressed themselves not to communities, but to men. They enforced the regulation of the passions, and the rectification of the heart; and it was probably clear to the Apostles, although it is not clear to some philosophers, that whatever duties are binding upon one man, are binding upon ten, upon a hundred, and upon the State.

War is not often directly noticed in the writings of the Apostles. When it is noticed, it is condemned just in that way in which we should suppose any thing would be condemned that was notoriously opposed to the whole system-just as murder is condemned at the present day. Who can find, in modern books, that murder is formally censured? We may find censures of its motives, of its circumstances, of its degrees of atroc

1at us next exzmíse tie arguments by which war is defended Here, two imporum courdencions euould be borne in mindfra, that those who urge them, are not simply defending war, uny ere sa deluding themselves If war be wrong, their endurt is wrong; and the desire of self-justification prompts Bem to give importance to whatever arguments they can adyalew in te favor. Their decisions, therefore, may with reason be regarded as in some degree the decisions of a party in the The other consideration is, that the defenders of war come to the discussion prepossessed in its favor. They are attached to it by their earliest habits. They do not examine the question as a puuilosopher would, to whom the subject was new. Their opinion has been already formed. They are discussing # question which they have already determined; and every man, who is acquainted with the effects of evidence on the mind, knows that under these circumstances a very slender argument in favor of the previous opinion, possesses more influence than many great ones against it. Now all this cannot be predicated of the advocates of peace; they are opposing the influence of habit; they are contending against the general prejudice; they are perhaps dismissing their own previous opinions; and I would submit it to the candor of the reader, that these circumstances ought to attach suspicion to the arguments against us.

The narrative of the centurion who came to Jesus at Capernaum to solicit him to heal his servant, furnishes one of these arguments. It is said Christ found no fault with the centurion's profession; that, if he had disallowed the military character, he would have taken this opportunity of censuring it; and that, instead of such censure, he highly commended the officer, and said of him, "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." Matt, viii, 10,

An obvious weakness in this argument is this, that it is founded not upon approval, but upon silence. Approbation, not to his arms, but to his faith, is indeed expressed; and those who will read the narrative, will find that no occasion was given for notic

ing his profession. He came to Christ, not as a military officer, but simply as a deserving man. A censure of his profession might undoubtedly have been pronounced; but it would have been a gratuitous censure, a censure not naturally arising out of the case. The objection is, in its greatest weight, presumptive only; for no man can be supposed to countenance every thing he does not condemn. To observe silence in such cases, was indeed the ordinary practice of Christ. He very seldom interfered with the civil or political institutions of the world. In these institutions there was sufficient wickedness; but some of them, flagitious as they were, he never, on any occasion, even noticed. His mode of condemning and extirpating political vices, was by the inculcation of general rules of purity, which, in their eventual and universal application, would reform them all.

But how happens it that Christ did not notice the centurion's religion? He surely was an idolater. And is there not as good reason for maintaining that Christ approved idolatry because he did not condemn it, as that he approved war because he did not condemn it? Reasoning from analogy, we should conclude that idolatry was likely to have been noticed rather than war; and it is therefore peculiarly and singularly unapt to bring forward his silence respecting war, as an evidence of its lawfulness.

A similar argument is advanced from the case of Cornelius to whom Peter was sent from Joppa, of which it is said that, although the gospel was imparted to Cornelius by the special direction of heaven, yet we do not find he quitted his profession, or that it was considered inconsistent with his new character. The objection applies to this argument as to the last—that it is built upon silence, is simply negative. We do not find that he quitted the service; I might answer, neither do we find that he continued in it. We only know nothing of the matter; and the evidence is therefore so much less than proof, as silence is less than approbation. Yet that the account is silent respecting any disapprobation of war, might have been a reasonable ground of argument under different circumstances. It might have been a reasonable ground of argument, if the primary object of Christianity had been the reformation of political institutions, or perhaps even if her primary object had been the regulation of the external conduct; but her primary object was neither of these. She directed herself to the reformation of the heart, knowing that all other reformation would follow. She embraced, indeed, both morality and policy, and has reformed, or will reforın, both, not so much immediately as consequently, not so much by filtering the current, as by purifying the spring. The silence of Peter in the case of Cornelius, therefore, will serve the cause of war but little; that little is diminished when urged against the positive evidence of commands and prohibitions; and it is reduced to nothingness, when it is opposed to the universal tendency and object of revelation.

It has sometimes been urged that Christ paid taxes to the Roman government when engaged in war, and when therefore the

money he paid, would be employed in its prosecution. This we shall readily grant; but it appears to be forgotten, that, if this proves war to be lawful, it proves too much. These taxes were thrown into the exchequer of the state, and a part of the money was applied to purposes of a most iniquitous and shocking nature-sometimes, probably, to the gratification of the emperor's personal vices, and to his gladiatorial exhibitions, and certainly to the support of a miserable idolatry. If therefore the payment of taxes to such a government proves an approbation of war, it proves the approbation of many other enormities. Moreover, the argument goes too far in relation even to war; for it must necessarily make Christ approve all the Roman wars, without distinction of their justice or injustice-of the most ambitious, the most atrocious, and the most aggressive-and these, even our objectors will not defend. The payment of tribute by our Lord was accordant with his usual system of avoiding to interfere in the civil or political institutions of the world.

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." This is another passage brought against us. 'For what purpose,' it is asked, 'were they to buy swords, if swords might not be used? It may be doubted whether, with some of those who advance this objection, it is not an objection of words rather than of opinion, whether they themselves think there is any weight in it. To those, however, who may be influenced by it, I would observe that, as it appears to me, a sufficient answer to the objection may be found in the immediate context. "Lord, behold here are two swords," said they; and he immediately answered, "It is enough." How could two be enough when eleven were to be supplied with them? That swords in the sense, and for the purpose, of military weapons, were even intended in this passage, there appears much reason for doubting.

This reason will be discovered by examining and connecting such passages as these: "The Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them," said our Lord. Yet, on another occasion, he says, "I came not to send peace on the earth, but a sword." How are we to explain the meaning of the latter declaration? Obviously, by understanding "sword" to mean something far other than steel. There appears little reason for supposing that physical weapons were intended in the instruction of Christ. I believe they were not intended, partly because no one can imagine his Apostles were in the habit of using such arms, partly because they declared that the weapons of their warfare are not carnal, and partly because the word "sword" is often used to imply dissension, or the religious warfare of the Christian. Such an use of language.is found in the last quotation; and it is found also in such expressions as shield of faith, helmet of salvation, sword of the spirit, I have fought the good fight of faith.

But it will be said that the Apostles did provide themselves with swords, for that on the same evening they asked, "shall we smite with the sword?" This is true; and it may probably.

be true also, that some provided themselves with swords in consequence of the injunction of their Master. But what then? It appears to me that the Apostles acted on this occasion upon the principles on which they had wished to act on another, when they asked, "Wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?" Their Master's principles of action were also the same in both-"Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." This is the language of Christianity; and I would seriously invite him who now justifies "destroying men's lives," to consider what manner of spirit he is of.

I think, then, that no argument arising from the instructions to buy swords, can be maintained. This, at least, we know, that when the Apostles were completely commissioned, they neither used nor possessed them. An extraordinary imagination he must have, who conceives an Apostle preaching peace and reconciliation, crying "forgive injuries, love your enemies, render not evil for evil," and, at the conclusion of the discourse, if he chanced to meet violence or insult, promptly drawing his sword, and maiming or murdering the offender. We insist upon this consideration. If swords were to be worn, swords were to be used; and there is no rational way in which they could have been used, but some such as that which we have been supposing. If, therefore, the words, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one," do not mean to authorize such an use of the sword, they do not mean to authorize its use at all; and those who adduce the passage, must allow its application in such a sense, or they must exclude it from any application to their purpose.

It has been said, again, that when soldiers came to John the Baptist to inquire of him what they should do, he did not direct them to leave the service, but to be content with their wages. This also is at best but a negative evidence. It does not prove the military profession wrong, and it certainly does not prove it right. But in truth, if it asserted the latter, Christians have, as I conceive, nothing to do with it; for I think we need not inquire what John allowed, or what he forbade. He confessedly belonged to that system which required "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth ;" and the observations which we shall by and by make on the authority of the law of Moses, apply therefore to that of John the Baptist. Although it could be proved (which it cannot be) that he allowed wars, he acted not inconsistently with his own dispensation; and with that dispensation we have no business. Yet, if any one still insists upon the authority of John, I would refer him for an answer to Jesus Christ himself. What authority He attached to John on questions relating to His own dispensation, may be learnt from this-"The least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

It is perhaps no trifling indication of the difficulty which writers have found in discovering in the Christian Scriptures argu