ces, of illustrating the celebrated saying: that there is but one step between the sublime and the ridiculous.-The power of association, too, is tested to the utmost: well if it do not become the tyranny of congregation. We dignify it by the name of the force of Opinion. Is there not room to fear it may well be called force, by seeming to aim not so much, by presenting truth to the reason and motives to the affections, to secure a free and cordial choice, as to compel a formal concurrence by threats and denunciation ?

It is not our intention to express the least doubt that all are devoted, in honesty and good faith, to what each one respectively believes the cause of truth and righteousness. We proclaim, too, our conviction that it is every one's duty to become the herald and apostle of what he believes to be the truth. We know, also, that there is no standing without withstanding; that where there are differences of principle and opinion, they must come into opposition and conflict. We believe, too, that by this counteraction, God works good, the advancement of truth and his designs. But surely we may be permitted to say that no infusion of evil temper is necessary to the most zealous discharge of the duty of advocating the truth and opposing error; nor will bitterness and rancour in the least contribute to the great result. We may, therefore, in all kindness, suggest the danger there is lest corrupt passion mingle with the very activities which profess to advance the cause of God and man. We ought surely to be continually on our guard, lest, along with the pure flame of love to God and man, there mingle the unhallowed fire of human passion. God will not accept our advocacy, even of the cause of righteousness, if he sees it actuated more by a spirit of party-love, than of brotherlylove to man.

Now the Peace Society stands aloof from all the differences by which the church is divided, from all the conflicting interests of the times. The object is great and good; in harmony with the plans of God and with the world's true welfare: to lead nations to abstain from a custom unnatural, brutal, and unchristian, the source of boundless crimes and miseries.

About the result at which Peace Societies are aiming, there is no ground for difference of sentiment. Here all can labor heart and hand together; and catch a spirit too that will be good for them in every thing.

Such is this noble cause. It is an object for the eye to dwell upon, full of beauty and repose. It catches the sight like a Holy Temple, rising in silent majesty, remote and far from the noise of the streets. Here, in the morning, the wearied spirit of Christian Love, can strengthen itself with the living breath of Heaven which floats through its aisles, before it goes down to its day-work among the lower elements of life; here, at noon, find a refreshing coolness;-and at night lie down to still and soft sleep in the chambers of PEACE.

ARTICLE II.

THE INFLUENCE OF WAR UPON THE WEALTH OF NATIONS.

BY WILLIAM M. HOLLAND, PROFESSOR IN WASHINGTON COLLEGE, Hartford.

WHEN some person, in the presence of Fouchè, denounced the execution of the Duke d' Enghein as a most detestable act of cruelty and wickedness, the wily statesman is said to have added" Nay, sir, it was worse-it was a grand political blunder!" Had it been seasonably presented to Napoleon in the latter point of view, it is probable that history would have been spared the melancholy task of recording that outrage upon humanity. Considerations of policy would have restrained his violence, when justice and humanity had plead in vain. An act of cruelty or wickedness had fewer terrors for the Emperor of the French, than an act of impolicy; and he, who did not hesitate to disregard the most sacred principles of morality, would have shrunk from the perpetration of a political blunder.

Perhaps one line of argument, founded upon this distinction,. may have weight with the war-makers of the present day. No doubt the most conclusive objection to war is, the violation of moral right, involved in it. Its relation to temporary expedi-ency is a subordinate consideration, of altogether inferior importance, in the estimation of those, who, in all questions of duty, have the firmness to follow the rule, strike where it may, of doing what is right, and avoiding what is wrong. But the origination and termination of war, unfortunately, seldom falls within the direction of men, who will be guided by so just and so simple, but often times, so severe a rule of conduct. It is disgraceful and painful, but doubtless true, that monarchs and men in power are more strongly swayed by what may appear to be politic, than by that which is right. It is a more curious study with them, to avoid the commission of one "grand political blunder," than of twenty crimes against morality and justice. And so long as wars shall be regarded as expedient, their consistency, either with religion or with the happiness of man, will have but little weight in determining ambitious governors to undertake or to avoid them. But let the question of expediency be once well settled in favor of a pacific policy; let the world be convinced that fighting is folly, and that wars are political blunders, and those very rulers who fear not God, nor regard man, will yet have too much respect for that public fame which is the food of their ambition, to embroil the subjects of their administration in unnecessary warfare. Ambitious men more deeply shrink from a policy which may disgrace their discretion, than from the darkest moral disgrace. No monarch is contented to bear the character of projecting a weak course of policy; though not a few are indifferent to the imputation of sustaining a wicked one.

Let us bring the argument, then, upon this ground; and if the appeals of the friends of peace to higher principles, meet no response in the consciences and hearts of those who ought most of all to be guided by conscience and good feelings, let us appeal more directly to that selfish sense of discretion, with which they

are for the most part largely endowed, who have the sagacity to force their way into stations of influence among men.

Fortunately, no principle dependent on moral proof, can be made to approach, in certainty, nearer to demonstration than that war, in every possible aspect, is a grand political blunder. It is a blunder, if the object proposed to be obtained, be national glory. Every step that a nation takes in the path of glory, leads her from the savage wilderness of war to the elysian realms of peace. Ferocious natures, revengeful dispositions, blood-thirsty passions, and brawny, muscular power, which seem to have been the elements of national greatness in the iron age of war, are no longer allowed to confer a desirable notoriety on individual or national character. The mild rays of peace alone, mingle and shine in the halo of national glory. The arts-which flourish not in war; commercewhich only takes root amid the quietude of peace; learning— which abhors all violence and contention, now confer upon nations the only distinction to be coveted or endured. Observation has taught mankind that personal courage is a brutish quality; and that they who least know the value of life, are ever the most ready to rush upon death; so that indifference to danger is rather an indication of barbarousness and ignorance, than of moral culture and intelligence. The rays are fast fading from the brows of those ancient monarchs whose fame rests upon their exploits in war. The conquering nations of antiquity, are daily losing that respect, in the estimation of mankind, which gathers around the relics of those whose literature and arts remain to enrich all coming ages. Never, until the wheels of civilization are rolled back-until the sun of intelligence recedes, and falsehood and vice drive truth and virtue from the face of the earth, shall national honor be hereafter won, or national glory be maintained, by murderous war. Under the present bright light of history, and within the echo of the loud voice of truth, the attempt to win fame by violence, would be the grossest political blunder.

Grossly absurd, too, is that policy which leads a nation into war, at the present day, in the fancied exercise of duty.—But

it is not our object now to illustrate this point; or the equally obvious axiom, that war is always a blunder, if undertaken with any reference to the promotion of national happiness. Its name is synonymous with misery; and they who madly resort to it, to escape from "ills they feel" but "fly to others which they know not of."

Last of all, war is the most absurd policy to be adopted in the pursuit of national wealth. To this point, we propose chiefly to direct the attention in these remarks, in the hope that some views may be opened not altogether unworthy the further examination of those, whose opinions of war may be determined by higher principles; while in regard to others, we may chance in the bare estimate of profit and loss, to touch the highest principle of action, of which they are susceptible. For there is a magic in the word wealth, which may steal into the callous heart of the politician. Nations, like individuals, are tinged with the love of lucre. Romantic glory and patriotism are guides, all too shadowy, for modern statesmen to follow. In all the politics of the age, there is a strong flavor of what, in ordinary life, we call good bargaining; and however lofty, magnanimous and disinterested are the outward professions of monarchs and law-makers, we strongly suspect, that could the most secret shrine of their devotions be disclosed to view, not the image of glory alone, but also of the god of gold, would be seen to adorn the altar.

If we may presume to hope that our humble voice will reach the ear of any who hold in their hands an influence over the fate of a nation, we beg them, by the love each man must bear to his own good name, thoughtfully to inquire, whether, even discarding the higher considerations of conscientious duty, national glory, and human happiness, there may not be found sufficient reasons for exploding a barbarous custom, even in the cool calculations of political economy, and in the humble estimates of the influence of that custom upon national wealth. In this inquiry, at least, no reputable statesman can plead ignorance. However indulgent posterity may be to those in