citizen the object of just and general abhorrence, are regarded by many, as honorable traits in the character of one, who is exalted to rule over men. If in the exercise of this haughty, unfeeling and vindictive temper he declares war, this declaration, he fancies, will secure him from the guilt of murder. Thus thousands after thousands are sacrificed on the altar of his ungodly ambition; and every means, which ingenuity can invent, is employed to delude the unfortunate victims, and make them believe, that with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

There is, however, one circumstance usually attending public wars, which renders them more detestable than private duels. The duellist usually has the generosity to do his own fighting, but war makers usually have the meanness to avoid the dangers which they create, and to call on other people to fight their battles.

Duelling is indeed a horrible custom; but war is as much more horrible, as it is more desolating and ruinous. As to the principles on which war is practised, it has no advantage of duelling. It is in fact national duelling, attended generally with this dishonorable circumstance, that those who give and accept the challenge, call together a multitude of seconds, and then have not the magnanimity, first to risk their own lives, but they involve their seconds in a bloody contest, while they themselves stand remote from danger, as spectators, or at most as directors of the awful combat. Or perhaps more commonly, after issuing their bloody mandate, they indulge in pleasure, regardless of the suffering of others. So "the king and Haman sat down to drink ; but the city Shushan was perplexed."

SECTION III.

"Shall the sword devour forever ?"

In favor of war several pleas will probably be made. First. Some will plead that the Israelites were permitted, and even commanded to make war on the inhabitants of Ca

tinan. To this it may be answered, that the Giver and Arbiter of life had a right, if he pleased, to make use of the savage customs of the age, for punishing guilty nations. If any government of the present day should receive a commission to make war, as the Israelites did, let the order be obeyed. But until they have such a commission, let it not be imagined that they can innocently make war.

As a farther answer to this plea, we have to obserye, that God has given encouragement, that under the reign of the Messiah, there shall be such a time of peace," that nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Micah iv. 3. If this prediction shall ever be fulfilled, the present delusion in favor of war must be done away. How then are we to expect the way will be prepared for the accomplishment of the prediction ? Probably this is not to be done by miraculous agency, but by the blessing of God on the benevolent exertions of individuals to open the eyes of their fellow mortals, in respect to the evils and delusions of war, and the blessings of peace. Those who shall be the instruments of producing so important a change in the views of men, will be in an eminent sense "peace makers," and will be entitled to the appellation and privileges of" the sons of God." How much more glorious the achievement, to conquer the prejudices and delusions of men on this subject by kindness and reason, than to conquer the world by the edge of the sword!

A second plea in favor of the custom of war may be thisthat war is an advantage to a nation, as it usually takes off many vicious and dangerous characters. But does not war make two such characters for every one it removes ? Is it not in fact the greatest school of depravity, and the greatest source of mischievous and dangerous characters that ever existed among men? Does not a state of war lower down the standard of morality in a nation, so that a vast portion of common vice is scarcely observed as evil? Let any one who was

old enough to observe the state of morals prior to our revolu tion, ask himself, What was the effect of that war on the mor als of New England?

Besides, is it not awful to think of sending vicious men be yond the means of reformation, and the hope of repentance! When they are sent into the army, what is this but consigning them to a state where they will rapidly fill up the measure of their iniquity, and become "fitted to destruction !"

Thirdly. It will be pleaded, that no substitute for war can be devised, which will insure to a nation a redress of wrongs. In reply we may ask, Is it common for a nation to obtain a redress of wrongs by war? As to redress, do not the wars of nations resemble boxing at a tavern, when both the combatants receive a terrible bruising, then drink a mug of flip together and make peace; each, however, bearing for a long time the marks of his folly and madness? A redress of wrongs by war is so uncommon, that unless revenge is redress, and mul tiplied injuries satisfaction, we should suppose that none but madmen would run the hazard.

But if the eyes of people could be opened in regard to the evils and delusions of war, would it not be easy to form a con federacy of nations, and organize a high court of equity, to decide national controversies? Why might not such a court be composed of some of the most eminent characters from each nation; and a compliance with the decision of the court be made a point of national honor, to prevent the effusion of blood, and to preserve the blessings of peace? Can any considerate person say, that the probability of obtaining right in such a court, would be less than by an appeal to arms? When an individual appeals to a court of justice for the redress of wrongs, it is not always the case that he obtains his right. Still such an appeal is more honorable, more safe, and more certain, as well as more benevolent, than for the individual to attempt to obtain a redress by his pistol or his sword. And are not the reasons for avoiding an appeal to the sword, for the redress of wrongs, always great in proportion to the calamities, which snch an appeal must naturally involve? If this be a fact, then

there is infinitely greater reason, why two nations should avoid an appeal to arms, than usually exists against a bloody combat between two contending individuals.

In the fourth place it may be urged, that a spirit of forbearance on the part of a national government, would operate as an invitation to repeated insult and aggression.

Who

But is this plea founded on facts and experience? Does it accord with what is well known of human nature? are the persons in society that most frequently receive insult and abuse? Are they the meek, the benevolent, and the forbearing? Do these more commonly have reason to complain, than persons of quick resentment, who are ready to fight on the least provocation?

There are two sects of professed christians in this country, which, as sects, are peculiar in their opinions respecting the lawfulness of war, and the right of repelling injury by violence. These are the Quakers and the Shakers. They are remar kably pacific. Now we ask, does it appear from experience that their forbearing spirit brings on them a greater portion of injury and insult than what is experienced by people of other sects? Is not the reverse of this true in fact? There may indeed be some instances of such gross depravity, as a person's taking advantage of their pacific character, to do them injury, with the hope of impunity. But in general, it is belived, their pacific principles and spirit command the esteem even of the vicious, and operate as a shield from insult and abuse.

The question may be brought home to every society, How seldom do children of a mild, forbearing temper experience insult or injury, compared with the waspish, who will sting if touched? The same inquiry may be made in respect to persons of these opposite descriptions of every age, and in every situation of life; and the result will be favorable to the point in question.

Should any dery the applicability of these examples to national rulers, we have the pleasure of being able to produce one example, which is undeniably applicable,

When William Penn took the government of Pennsylvania, he distinctly avowed to the Indians his forbearing and pacific principles, and his benevolent wishes for uninterrupted peace with them. On these principles the government was administered, while it remained in the hands of the Quakers, What then was the effect? Did this pacific character in government invite aggression and insult? Let the answer be given in the language of the Edinburgh Review of the Life of William Penn. Speaking of the treaty made by Penn with the Indians, the Reviewer says:

"Such indeed was the spirit in which the negotiation was entered into, and the corresponding settlement conducted, that for the space of more than seventy years-and so long indeed as the quakers retained the chief power in the government, the peace and amity, which had been thus solemnly promised and concluded, never was violated; and a large though solitary example afforded, of the facility with which they, who are really sincere and friendly in their views, may live in harmony with those who are supposed to be peculiarly fierce and faithless."

Shall then this "solitary" but successful " example" never be imitated? Shall the sword devour forever?"

SECTION IV.

Some of the evils of war have already been mentioned, but the field is almost boundless. The demoralizing and deprav ing effects of war cannot be too seriously considered. We have heard much of the corrupting tendency of some of the rites and customs of the heathen; but what custom of the heathen nations had a greater effect in depraving the human character than the custom of war? What is that feeling usually called a war spirit, but a deleterious compound of enthusiastic ardor, ambition, malignity and revenge? a compound, which as really endangers the soul of the possessor, as the life of his enemy! Who, but a person deranged or deluded, would think it safe to rush into the presence of his Judge with his heart boiling with enmity, and his brother's blood drips