he estimate the crimes and woes, or the lives and souls of his fellow beings, while, with such convictions of the “malevolent" source, and dreadful effects of war, he avows himself as an advocate for the savage and horrid custom?

Is he a husband and a father? If so, for what amount of "property" or "national honour," would he consent to be made "childless," or to have his children made "fatherless," and his wife "converted into a widow," by the murders of war? For what amount of "property" or "national honour," would he consent that his children, or himself, should be "hurried into eternity, in an unprepared state," by the custom for which he pleads? Do his feelings recoil, when the horrours of war are thus brought home to himself and his family. Let him then learn to feel for others.

But, says the Doctor, "I plead in behalf only of defensive warfare." Yet he has given a definition of defensive war, which will perhaps justify every publick war which has occurred since the murder of Abel, and every war which will occur to the end of time. The following is his extraordinary language :—

"My definition of defensive war is, The application of force by one Commonwealth to another, for the purpose of preventing or redressing actual injuries inflicted, or about to be inflicted.

"As to the equity of the war, little depends upon the magnitude of the injury. This consideration will, of course, determine its expediency. If the evil inflicted be small, there is less excuse, upon the part of the aggressor, for persisting in it at the risk of an appeal to arms. He is not entitled to impunity, on account of its being unimportant, provided it be a violation of right. It is for the offended party to judge of the proper measure of his own patience under suffering, and of the time and place, in which it is expedient for him to seek redress. Although the injury be only about to be inflicted, he may justly apply force to prevent it: a declaration of war previous to actual hostility, entitles the other to commence hostilities; and actions, which amount to a declaration, give the same right." p. 127.

Could the most rash and unprincipled war-maker wish for greater latitude, or a more unlimited license, than is here given by a minister, whose professional business is, to preach PEACE by Jesus Christ, to beseech sinners to become reconciled unto God, and to love one another, as Christ has loved them?

It is hardly possible that two nations can have intercourse for a single year, but one or the other will think he has cause of complaint, of "actual injuries inflicted, or about to be inflicted." If either thinks he has cause for complaint, and adopts the Doctor's principle, he will think he has just cause to make a "defensive wur." Thus, for one reproachful and petulant remark, or an injury in property to the amount of ten cents, a course may be adopted which will involve two nations in a bloody and ten years' conflict; fill each country with every species of crime and misery, and "burry into eternity" a hundred thousand "thoughtless sinners, in an unprepared state." In addition to this, the war may "corrupt the youth" of both nations, and confirm myriads of fellow beings in habits of irreligion and vice, from which they may never be recovered, and which they may be the instruments of transmitting to their children, and to unborn posterity.

This is not all. If wars may be lawfully made on the Doctor's principle, they may, on the same principle, be as interminable as the existence of nations; for there never was a war, which did not multiply "actual injuries inflicted, or about to be inflicted." We have now far more reason for such a complaint against Great-Britain, than we had the moment when the last war commenced: and the people of Great-Britain have ground to affirm the same, in respect to the injuries we inflicted on them during the war. The peace has made no reparation for the "actual injuries inflicted" by either nation on the other.

Therefore, on the

Doctor's principle, each of the two nations might to day lawfully commence a "defensive war." This, however, would but multiply the "actual injuries," and increase the grounds of complaint on both sides: And thus, for as good reasons as the last war was commenced, the two nations may now begin another contest, and prolong it, till one or the other shall be totally exterminated.

The Doctor has, however, one saving and astonishing paragraph:

“In the application of force to the correction of injury, reason ought to guide; and if the force to be applied, is obviously inadequate to the object, it is in vain to make the application. It is madness to attempt to remove mountains by human agency; and it is criminal to risk treasure and life, by engaging in a bloody warfare, without prospect of any success. In such a case, although cause of war exists, it is better to suffer than to contend. Upon this principle, those directions which are given in scripture, and which some have mistaken for a prohibition of resistance in any case, are to be understood. Upon this principle the martyrs acted, taking joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and passively submitting, under a righteous providence, to an injustice which they had no power to control. They suffered without resistance, because resistance would have only augmented the measure of their pains. This was right. It was what was required of them by their God." p. 120.

In page 103 the Doctor says, "Lawful war is defensive with a rational prospect of success."

Remark 1. Let us be thankful, that this writer was enabled to discern one case in which war would not be lawful, even when "actual injuries" have been "inflicted." Perhaps the principle on which the exception was made, may be extended to other cases, and even to all cases. If it be "criminal to risk treasure and life, by engaging in a bloody warfare, without prospect of any success," is it not criminal to risk them in any case, except there is a “prospect" of such "success," that the amount of gain will overbalance all the losses which may reasonably be antici

pated? A candid and enlightened mind will not answer this question in the negative. In what war, then, has the gain overbalanced the loss, except in the view of those with whom lives and souls, and the sufferings of common people, go for nothing, or are accounted as cyphers? Suppose the result of our last war conld have been perfectly foreseen; was there a man of serious reflection, either in GreatBritain or the United States, who would have given his own soul, or even his life, for the sum total of all the benefits which the two nations have gained by the war? Besides, when it shall be duly considered, who are the gainers, and who are the sufferers by war, something will occur which must be revolting to every honest mind. For not only is all the gain of one nation by the sufferings of another, but the gainers by a war are, as often as otherwise, those who were the real aggressors or offenders; and the sufferers are generally those who had no concern in making the When all this shall be duly considered, who that has a spark of honesty, or Christian compassion in his breast, can plead for war? Admit, then, that in a case of "actual injury," there is a "prospect of some success" in making war, by destroying or distressing such people of another nation, as had no hand in the injury done; who, that has not the heart of a savage, would be willing to revenge the wrong of a wicked ruler on his unoffending subjects?

war.

Remark 2. The principle of martyrdom, exhibited in the paragraph now under review, is too extraordinary to be passed over in silence. "Upon this principle the martyrs acted." Upon what principle? The principle is this, that "it is criminal to risk treasure and life by engaging in a bloody warfare, without prospect of any success." "They suffered without resistance, because resistance would have only augmented the measure of their pains !" May not then the most abandoned and unprincipled war

maker or murderer suffer as a martyr, without any change of temper or principle?

But was this the principle on which "Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps?" Did he neglect to fight and "suffer without resistance, because resistance would have y augmented the measure of his pains." Did he forbear an attempt to destroy his enemies, because "the force to be applied was obviously inadequate to the object;" or because those who were against him, were more powerful than those who were for him? If not, is it not presumption in any one of his ministers to encourage fighting, on account of "actual injuries," whenever it can be done "with a reasonable prospect of success?"

Remark 3. This writer has not only given us a new principle of martyrdom, but he has ventured to say, “upon this principle those directions which are given in scripture, and which some have mistaken for a prohibition of resistance in any case, are to be understood." If this doctrine be true, it is time that its truth should be made to appear. If it be untrue, it is time that its falsity should be exposed. The best method which now occurs to try the principle is, to attach it to those "directions" which have been supposed to forbid "wars and fightings." If the principle be correct, a text cannot be injured by annexing the principle to it, as a condition, limitation, or explanation. This method will therefore be adopted with a serious desire, that every reader may have a fair opportunity to judge for himself, whether the passages "are to be understood" in the limited sense for which the Doctor contends. A few examples may be sufficient to test the principle.

1. "Ye have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth: but I say unto you, resist not the injurious"-unless you can do it "with a rational prospect of success."

* Matt. v. 38, 39. Campbell's translation.