Great pains are taken to make a distinction between offensive and defensive war; and, whilst the former is generally reprobated, the latter meets with many advocates. It must, I suppose, be admitted, that in almost every war both parties profess to act on the principle of defence; and where is the criterion which accurately determines the difference? But, supposing an extreme case, and that without any provocation, one man, or one nation, is attacked by another, is there no dependence to be placed on a superintending Providence? and have religion and virtue no resources, but in the arm of flesh? Were our minds brought into a true Christian state, the protection of Divine Providence would be humbly and safely relied upon; so far, at least, as to prevent us from seeking redress, by means destructive of the lives of our fellow-creatures.

Such is the natural state of mankind, that "offences must needs come;" but it ought to be remembered, "that wo is to him by whom the offence cometh." Were those dispositions recommended by our blessed Lord, cherished by that which considers itself the offended party, it would soon appear, that war is not

so necessary and unavoidable, as is by many imagined.

If sound policy were adopted, it would unite with true Christianity, in eradicating this distressing evil. Can any thing in this world compensate for the desolation and misery, which war occasions in the earth? To the loss of life and property, with almost all worldly comforts, let us add the still more important loss, which religion and virtue sustain from a state of war, and from the military life in general: will it not then be difficult to conceive, how men, who really have, what they think, the good of their country at heart, and who also consider themselves entitled to the denomination of Christians, can promote a practice which is productive of so many evils, both natural and moral? In contemplating this distressing subject, we find it necessary to have recourse to that Christian charity, which it is our duty to extend to those, who differ from us in principle and practice. I wish, however, for myself and my fellow professors, that

*

* Our excellent apologist, R. Barclay, manifests the liberality of his mind on this subject, when, after arguing, with his usual ability, in favour of our principle against war, he admits that the practice of non-resistance is the most perfect

we may faithfully maintain our principles on this subject: being at the same time careful to support the doctrine of peace, in the spirit of peace then we may be made instrumental in promoting the increase of the government of the Son of God, whose introduction into this world was announced by an angel, accompanied with "a multitude of, the heavenly host; praising God, and saying: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth Peace, Good-will towards men."

There are a few arguments brought forward in favour of war, from some passages in the New Testament, which it will be proper to consider. Of these, the principal one is, the expression of our Lord to his disciples: "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."+ This passage is generally considered to be of doubtful signification; and some who do not agree with us in our sentiments on war, consider this expression of our Lord as allegorical. When the disciples re

part of the Christian religion, and makes considerable allowances for those who differ from us on this occasion.-See Prop. xv. close of Sect. 15.

* Luke ii. 13, 14.

+ See Luke xxii. 36.

See Dr. Edwards on the Style, &c. of the Scriptures,

page 126.

plied, "Here are two swords," He gave this short answer: "It is enough."* This seems to imply that they did not understand his meaning; for if He had intended the external sword, how could two be sufficient for the number of the disciples, and at a time when they were about to be attacked by a multitude, that came out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? But what seems clearly to show, that our Saviour did not intend to recommend the use of the sword in a literal sense, is the circumstance which occurred very soon after He had used the expression under consideration: for we find, that when Peter, on the very same day, made use of a sword in defence of his Master, he was reproved by Him in this manner: "Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword." It may also be added, that it was on the same, or the succeeding day, that our Lord said to Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." Now, when these important and concurring circumstances are considered, can it be supposed, that

* Luke xxii. 38.

+ Matt. xxvi. 52.

John xviii. 36.

our Lord intended to recommend to his disciples the use of the sword, either in defence of Him or themselves, or on any other occasion?

Another circumstance brought forward as an argument in favour of war, is the conversion of Cornelius, a centurion in the Roman army, and no account given of his having relinquished a military life. As we have not any further account of this pious centurion, than that of his conversion, and the circumstances attending it, no argument of any weight can be drawn from this relation. Some ancient writers inform us, that the primitive Christians did not fight; and we may therefore reasonably suppose, that if the centurion continued firm in his attachment to the Christian religion, he abandoned his military life. At any rate, the silence of the sacred historian cannot, with propriety, be brought forward as an argument in support of war; or as showing it to be consistent with the Christian Dispensation.

It is further argued, that the expression of the apostle Paul, who says respecting the ma

*Acts X. The remarks on this case apply to that of the centurion mentioned Matt. viii. 5.