for a declaration of war; and these manifestos are generally stuffed with groundless or exaggerated allegations, adapted to excite enmity and inflame the passions of men.

Is it not even so in the wars between different sects? What says Investigator? After assuring us that the paragraphs in the Pastoral Letter, of which he complains, are not to be understood as "the voice and sentiment of the fathers and counsellors of the Presbyterian church," he adds, "I recognise in this act the features of some fierce and furious spirits, who, in an inauspicious hour of darkness and incaution, gained so much the ascendant in that body, as to produce this abortion of a Bull." Yes, a Bull,' which probably involves in a sentence of condemnation, nine-tenths of all the professed, and all the real Christians on the face of the earth, and perhaps all who are now in heaven. But is not this liberality with a vengeance, and just such stuff as war is made of?

Third. In the publick wars of nations, each party imagines itself to be in the right, while both are in the wrong in a greater or less degree. Each is blind to its own faults, but quicksighted to observe the aberrations of the other. Such we may presume is always the case in the wars between Christians of different sects. However orthodox contending Christians may be in their opinions, they are too ge

nerally heretical in their tempers and proceedings.

Fourth. In modern times the delusive influence of custom, is both a cause and a support of national contests. Had no such thing been known in former ages, as deciding controversies by the sword, at the bare proposal of such a course, the people of any nation would shrink with horrour. But now they can flock to the military standard, glory in the most destructive exploits, and rush on death "as the horse rusheth into the battle!" In like manner, custom has its influence in the wars of contending sects. Had it not been customary in past ages, for the majority to make their own creed the standard for other people, the conduct of the Synod of Philadelphia would have appeared as irrational as that of Procrustes, who ordered other men to be measured by his own bedstead; and "if too long lop them, if too short stretch them." But as it was the custom in past ages to employ, not only the denunciations of councils, but the sword, the stake, the faggot and the fire, in support of the opinions of the majority; it is now thought a proof of lenity and moderation, if dissenters escape with their lives, although they are robbed of their reputation, and the community of their usefulness.

Fifth. Publick war is a curse to community. It injures those by whom it is commenced, as well as those against whom it

is waged. During its continuance, it diverts the attention of people from their best interests, bewilders their minds, injures their morals, and leads many to imagine that they are in the way to happiness and glory, on no bet

ter ground than that they are brave to fight.

All this is true of the less bloody conflicts of conflicts of different sects. Is it not then time to form peace societies for the abolition of ecclesiastical wars?

Melchizedek was an eastern prince, remarkable for his pacifick disposition, and was the founder of an extensive empire. He published a code of laws expressive of his heavenly temper, which he made the rule of duty to all his subjects. His object was to establish a kingdom which should be distinguished by "righteousness and peace," and by the kindness of his subjects one to another. To this end his laws were wisely adapted. They not only prohibited acts of violence or injury, but required of his people, a benevolent and forbearing spirit towards all mankind. Obedience to his commands, and love one to another, he constituted as the badge by which his faithful subjects were to be known, and by which they were to be distinguished from the warring multitudes with which they were surrounded.

That his people might be well informed, and furnished with a variety of motives to obey him, he accompanied his laws with many important lessons of instruction, relating to his own charac

ter, the nature of his government, his affection for his people, what he had already done for them, and what might be expected of him in future.

So long as his subjects kept their eyes and their hearts fixed on the laws of the empire, as the rule of duty, and the criterion of fidelity, the affairs of the kingdom prospered; the people were known by their mutual love, and by their meek and peaceable disposition towards all their fellow beings. The king was honoured by their obedience, and he rejoiced in their happiness.

But the lessons of instruction, accompanying the laws, were written in the language of men, which is ever liable to some changes, and to some ambiguity. Certain words and phrases were found capable of different acceptations, which gave rise to seve ral abstract inquiries; but these were of very little importance as they related either to duty or happiness. However, on these points there were different opinions among the people; each supposing his own, not only the more correct, but the more hono

rary to the sovereign. Controversies commenced; bad passions were enlisted into the service, which made the differences of opinion appear ten times greater than they otherwise would have done. As the heat of controversy increased, the attention of the subjects was diverted more and more from the laws, as a rule of life; and became fixed on the controverted questions, as the things of primary importance. Each opinion had its advocate, who became the demagogue of a party. New standards of excellence and fidelity were established, which the king never thought of, and which were entirely distinct from the laws he had enjoined. Each party had a standard of its own, to which others must conform or be treated as rebels to the prince. Obe dience to the laws was considered as nothing, or no better than hypocrisy, unless accompanied with a professed belief of some party dogma, which nobody understood. But such was the unhappy state of things, that if a man assented to the dogmas of one party, he was sure to be condemned and reprobated by another. Mutual revilings, unqualified censures, and violent quarrellings became the order of the day; and were regarded as the fruit of love to the king, and zeal in his cause. The very things which he had forbidden, were esteemed as proper expressions of regard to his name. His benign precepts were trodden under foot, or made sub

servient to the very passions which they prohibited. At length the people became so perfectly deluded, as even to imagine that it was no violation of the laws of love and good will, to rob and murder one another.

Thus, by changing the standard of duty and excellence, or the test of a true and faithful subject, this bewildered people introduced "confusion and every evil work." Still professing obedience to the pacifick prince, they became warriours, and gloried in their shame. Some indeed, fought only with pens, surcharged with venom, or with tongues, "set on fire of hell;" but others, with equal propriety, armed themselves with swords and engines of death, and became renowned for the murders they committed, and for the havock, desolation, and wo which they spread through the empire.

After many days, the leaders of the several parties were summoned to the seat of government. While on their way, each one was animated with the hope of hearing the approving voice of the king-"Well done, good and faithful servant!" Each was called upon to produce evidence of his personal fidelity; and each had much to say of the time he had spent in combating the errours of others, and in bringing into disrepute, or to the stake, such of his brethren as had been so impious and rebellious as to dissent from him on the GREAT POINTS of controversy.