up arms? Here none of my disciples take up arms, nor offer to fight for me; which is a plain evidence that I pretend to no kingly power, in disturbance of the Roman government." I pray you, Sir, to extend your "comment," and show me what there is in this argument, which forbids the use of arms in necessary self-defence. Because our Saviour chose not to be a rebel, must all his followers quietly suffer themselves to be murdered by the first assassin that thinks proper to attack them? I see no connexion, or parallel, or similarity, between the cases.

Next comes a part of Christ's sermon on the Mount. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Upon this you observe, that it is "directly opposed to the one our Lord quoted from Exodus, and disannulled it," (p. 25.)

Consider, I pray you, the design of the passage in Exodus. It was a judicial ordinance, prescribing the duty of the magistrate in certain criminal offences. But the Sadducees, with their customary spirit of perversion, interpreted the law as authorizing private revenge; not only inflicted by the injured person directly, but through the instrumentality of the magistrate. The design, then, of our Lord, is clearly manifest; to reprove the Sadducees for their interpretation of the law, and condemn

" in all

them for their unjust and unlawful practices. This, however, was no abrogation of the law as a judicial ordinance, for, (as you very justly observe,) things, our Saviour avoided interfering with the governments of this world," (p. 11.) The thing censured was, that interpretation which sanctioned private revenge; but as the character of necessary self-defence does not assume that garb, it must be evident, that the prohibition extends to individuals or nations, no further than they are actuated by a revengeful spirit.

The third passage adduced, is, "I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you." Which precept you declare to be inconsistent with defensive war;-" for who would receive the thrust of a sword as an act of kindness?" (p. 26.) Your quotation, unquestionably, has reference to the conduct of individuals, in their treatment of each other in cases of abuse. This is so abundantly evident from the whole tenour of the discourse, that further comment is unnecessary; and I do not hesitate to say, that it has no relation to that extreme case of life and death, which calls for the use of the sword. To attack another, or take his life, with a spirit of revenge, malice, or hate, is not the conduct of a Christian. But, as the just Judge may pronounce the condemnation of a criminal with a spirit of love, forgiveness, mercy, goodness, long

D

suffering, kindness, and every Christian virtue; so the Christian may love his enemy, forgive him, pray for him, and painfully regret that dire necessity, which requires the thrust of the sword. Is there revenge, hatred, or malice in all this? If not, the passage which you quote, does not forbid it.

Besides, we are no where commanded to love our enemy better than ourselves.

But this would be implied in preferring his life to our own. "Love

your enemies," is indeed the language of Christ; but die for your enemies, is the language of a different teacher.

While you are upon this head, your fancy takes fire; and we behold the Christian "advancing amidst the lamentations of the wounded, and the shrieks of the dying, to meet his foe in arms. He sees his wrath kindled, and his spear uplifted; and in this trying moment, he hears his Lord say, love your enemy, and render to him good for evil," (p. 26.) I beg leave to alter your language. "In this trying moment, he hears his Lord say, "" as thy days, so shall thy strength be,"-" My grace is sufficient for thee,”—" Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood."

Lastly, you adduce this passage, "if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your father forgive your trespasses;" and then triumphantly ask, "if men invade our rights, and trespass on our privileges, is it forgiveness to repel them at the point

of the bayonet?" (p. 27.) To this I answer, that forgiveness and defence are consistent.

"A lit

You now take different ground, and say, tle before our Saviour was betrayed, he ordered his disciples to take swords. The object of this must have been, either to use them for defence, or for some other purpose. The event proves, that they were not taken for self-defence; but to prohibit, by way of example, the use of them for self-defence, in the most trying situation possible;" (p. 27.) and you endeavour to prove, that resistance would have been justifiable then, if in any case justifiable, by saying, that they were assaulted by a mob, contrary to the statutes of the Romans, and the laws of the Jews," (p. 27.) Surely, when you said this, you must have forgotten that Judas received" a band of men and officers from the chief priests, and pharisees ;" and that this "band of men," was part of a Roman cohort, set to guard the temple, under the command of the chief priests; and that these men were then commanded by officers commissioned by the proper ruler. If If you had not forgotten this, you could not have called them a mob, and declared the seizure of Christ to be contrary to the laws of the Romans. Pilate was, probably, as well acquainted with the statutes of the Roman nation, as an American merchant; but he says nothing of any illegality in the arrest, though it was his business to see that Roman law was not violated, Considering, then,

(until you make it appear otherwise,) that resistance in this case, would have been opposition to legal government, I cannot see how it forbids the use of the sword, when it can be used without violating the command of "obedience to the powers that be."

When Peter smote Malchus with the sword, Christ said, All they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword." This you consider, (p. 28.) if I understand you, as a penalty denounced upon them that use the sword in self-defence. It appears that the "officers and men," made an attempt to take the disciples, and that the disciples manifested a design to resist this attempt to seize them, at the hazard of their lives. It was a rash design; but when they saw the whole body of Roman soldiers fall prostrate at the rebuke of their master, they, doubtless, expected the miraculous aid of heaven. Christ then told them that they expected such aid in vain; "for how shall the Scriptures be fulfilled," if I do not suffer myself to be taken? But, he adds, without such aid, they would surely be overcome by the Roman soldiery; and if they took the sword, they would certainly be slain-" would perish by the sword." If this natural and obvious interpretation of the passage be correct, it certainly does not prohibit the use of the sword in defence of our life; as it was a caution appropriate to the disciples, and to them only at that time.

The literal construction of the passage, (which is