8. "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death." Ch. xxiv. 16.

9. Respecting any one among the people who should be found guilty of idolatry, it is written-"Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman-and shalt stone them with stones till they die." Deut. xvii. 2-5.

10. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them; then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard : and all the men of his city shall stone him with stones that he die." Ch. xxi. 18-21.

11. "Therefore it shall be that when the Lord hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about-that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven ; thou shall not forget it." Ch. XXV. 19.

Now will Dr. M'Leod pretend, that a special command from the Author of life, would not be necessary to justify a Christian people in adopting such laws and imitating such examples? But if these laws may not be adopted, and these examples imitated by Christians, his argument from the Old Testament is irrelevant and inconclusive.

These laws cannot be evaded by the pretext, that they were not of a moral nature, but ceremonial or indifferent. For those which related to the conduct of individuals, implied prohibitions of immoral conduct, enforced with awful penalties. These penalties were, by the special command of God, made exceptions to the general law, THOU SHALT NOT KILL. In this respect they stood on the same ground, as the commands to make war; and nothing short of the special command of God could authorize a departure from the general law in either of the cases.

By the last of the injunctions a nation was to be exterminated, for an offence, which had been committed about fort

years prior to the date of the command; and about three hundred and sixty years after the command was given by Moses, it was revived by Samuel the prophet, and made the ground of the following injunction to King Saul :--" Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." 1 Sam. xv. 3.

Should Dr. M'Leod be disposed to prove, that Christian nations ought to inflict capital punishments for every offence which was thus to be punished by the laws of Moses-that it is right for Christians to invade and exterminate heathen nations, and to retaliate an injury, by exterminating a whole nation, four hundred years after the offence had been com mitted, and three centuries after the real offenders have all been dead and buried; he may again repeat his argument in all its parts and with all its force: "Man is essentially the same through all generations. God is the same yesterday, to day, and for ever, &c."-For if his argument will justify Christians in making war, it will justify them in adopting every law, and in imitating every example which has been mentioned.

From the facts which have been stated, is it not evident, that the advocates for war have as great difficulties to encounter, as the advocates for peace, in an attempt to reconcile their own views with the laws and customs under the Mosaick dispensation? If the doctrine, that war is unlawful for Christians, may be said to imply, that "God, the Lawgiver, has undergone mutation, both of nature and of will," so do many other doctrines, which are as common to the friends of war, as to the friends of peace. Nor is it less incumbent on the former than the latter, to investigate some mode of reconciling their opinions with the doctrine of divine immutability. May it not then be hoped, that both classes will attend to the inquiry with candour, and with a

sincere desire to know the truth, and to conform to the will of a benevolent God?

Clearly to perceive all the reasons, why some laws and usages of a moral nature, were binding on the Israelites, which are incompatible with the duty of Christians, while God is the same, requires perhaps a more extensive knowledge of the state of mankind in the days of Moses, and of the various purposes which were to be answered by the laws and customs ordained at Sinai, than is now possessed by any human being. It would therefore be both folly and arrogance in me, to pretend to a perfect knowledge of the case, or to attempt an explanation of all the difficulties it may involve. I may however suggest some thoughts, which may be useful to those who have not examined the subject, and who shall be disposed to pursue the inquiry.

First. There is a striking contrast between the laws of Moses and the precepts of the Messiah, as to the mode of enforcing obedience. Promises of temporal good, and threatenings of temporal evils, were continually employed by Moses, as motives to obedience; and seldom if ever did he urge the retributions of a future state. The Messiah, on the contrary, almost uniformly enforced his precepts by the retributions of eternity.

If we could clearly discern all the reasons, why God, at different periods, adopted such different modes of enforcing obedience, we should perhaps be able to account for the laws of Moses, which appear to Christians of a severe and sanguinary character. But if the change in the manner of enforcing obedience, does not imply that "God, the Lawgiver, has undergone mutation both of nature and of will," neither does the doctrine that making war is prohibited to Christians by the precepts of the gospel.

Second. That the gospel covenant is more perfect than the Mosaick, no intelligent Christian will deny. "For if the

first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for the second." "But Christ is a Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises." He was emphatically the LIGHT of the world; and the light by him as far surpasses the light by Moses, as the light of the sun exceeds that of the moon. Yet all the light by Moses, and by the Messiah, proceeded from the same source. -"The Father of lights, with whom there is no variableness neither shadow of turning."

Third. It was the duty of the Israelites to walk before God, according to the light and precepts by Moses; and Christians are under as great obligations to walk according to the light and the precepts by Jesus Christ. And we may as rationally ask, why God did not send the Messiah as early as he sent Moses, as why retaliation of injuries was permitted to the Israelites, and prohibited to Christians. Let it then be granted, that "Man is essentially the same through all generations"-and that "God is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever;" still it is a fact, that the state of society has been changed, the Mosaick covenant has been abolished. Christians are blessed with a more mild and gracious dispensation, and the light which now prevails, far transcends all that was enjoyed prior to the advent of the Messiah. By all that is dreadful in the future punishment of the wicked, and by all that is desirable in a state of endless love and harmony in heaven, Christians are called upon to deny themselves, to subdue every warring and revengeful passion, to exercise one towards another the spirit of meekness, forbearance, forgiveness, and benignity-to be in word and deed, in temper and in practice, the FOLLOWERS of the PRINCE OF PEACE.

As all Christians profess adherence to him as the "Light of the world," "the way, the truth, and the life," let them "so walk even as he walked," and love one another as he

has loved thein. Then will Christianity appear in its true light, the havock and horrours of war will be banished from Christendom, and the hands of Christians will no more be stained with human blood.*

A SERIOUS QUESTION PROPOSED.

SUPPOSE the slaves in our southern states should thoroughly imbibe Dr. M'Leod's principles of the lawfulness of making a "defensive war," for any "violation of right," or "actual injury inflicted or about to be inflicted," when it can be done "with a rational prospect of success;" what shall hinder them from slaughtering the whites as soon as "the force to be applied" shall, in their view, "be adequate to the object?"

If it be right for white men, to adopt such sanguinary principles, why may not black men imitate their example ? If it be right to encourage and excite white men so to do, and to support them in such a course of conduct, why may not the MILLION of blacks, who are held in slavery, be lawfully encouraged and excited to assert their rights by the sword, and be supported in an attempt to emancipate themselves, by murdering those who hold them in bondage? What war has been waged within a thousand years, which was more just, than would be a war of the southern slaves to obtain their freedom?

Do the feelings of our advocates for war revolt at the thought of a St. Domingo Revolution in this country? Then let them cease to propagate such murderous princi

* A Review of Dr. M'Leod's argument from the New Testament was prepared for this Number, but it has been deferred, to give place to the proceedings of the Massachusetts Convention of Congregational Ministers,