ping from his hands! Yet in time of war, how much pains is taken to excite and maintain this bloodthirsty disposition, as Ossential to success!

The profession of a soldier exposes him to sudden and untimely death, and at the same time hardens his heart, renders and him regardless of his final account. When a person goes into the army, it is expected of him, that he will rise above the fear of death. In doing this he too commonly rises above the fear of God, and all serious concern for his soul. It is not denied that some men sustain virtuous characters amidst the contaminating vapors of a camp; and some may be reformed by a sense of the dangers to which they are exposed; but these are uncommon occurrences.

The depravity, occasioned by war, is not confined to the army. Every species of vice gains ground in a nation during a war. And when a war is brought to a close, seldom, perhaps, does a community return to its former standard of morals. In time of peace, vice and irreligion generally retain the ground they acquired by war. As every war augments the amount of national depravity, so it proportionably increases the dangers and miseries of society.*

* It has been suggested by a friend that there is an exception to this ac count-that Great Britain has been engaged in war the greater part of the time for a century, and that probably the moral and religious character of the nation has been improved during that period.

Admitting the correctness of this statement, it amounts to no more than one exception from a general rule; and this one may be accounted for, on the ground of singular facts.

1. The Island of Great Britain has not been the seat of war for a long course of years. The wars of that nation have been carried on abroad; and their army and navy have had little intercourse with the population at home. This mode of warfare has tended to remove from their own country the corrupting influence of military camps. Had their Island been the seat of war for eighty years out of a hundred, the effects would, in a great measure, have been reversed. But

2. There have been within 20 years, singular efforts in that nation, which have had a tendency to counteract the moral influence of war. Their Missionary Societies, their Bible Societies, and a vast number of religious moral, and charitable institutions, must have had a powerful and favorable influence on the character of the nation. By these, and not by wars, the gral state of the nation has been improved.

Among the evil effects of war, a wanton undervaluing of human life ought to be mentioned. This effect may appear in various forms. When a war is declared for the redress of some wrong, in regard to property, if nothing but property be taken into consideration, the result is not commonly better, than spending five hundred dollars in a law suit, to recover a debt of ten. But when we come to estimate human lives against dollars and cents, how are we confounded!" All that a man hath will he give for his life." Yet, by the custom of war men are so deluded, that a ruler may give fifty or a hundred thousand lives, when only a trifling amount of property is in question, and when the probabilities are as ten to onc against him, that even that small amount will not be secured by the contest. It must however again be remarked, that war makers do not usually give their own lives, but the lives of others. How often has a war been declared with the prospect that not less than 50,000 lives must be sacrificed; and while the chief agent in making the war would not have given bis own life, to secure to his nation every thing that he claimed from the other? And are rulers to be upheld in thus gambling away the lives of others, while they are careful to secure their own? If people in general could obtain just views of this species of gambling, rulers would not make offensive wars with impunity. How little do they consider the misery and wretchedness which they bring on those, for whom they should exercise the kindness and care of a father! Does it not appear that they regard the lives of soldiers as mere property, which they may sacrifice, or barter away at pleasure ?. War is in truth the most dreadful species of gambling. Rulers are the gamblers. The lives and property of their subjects are the things they put to hazard in the game; and he that is most successful in doing mischief, is considered as the best gamester.

After all, we are perhaps not very adequate judges of the present de. pravity in that nation. Their army and navy may still be considered in estimating the amount of national depravity, as well as of population. Let these return home, be disbanded, and mixed with the general mass of cit izens; what then would be the moral state of society in Great Britain?

If by the custom of war, rulers learn to undervalue the lives of their own subjects, how much more do they undervalue the lives of their enemies! As they learn to hear of the loss of five hundred, or a thousand of their own men, with perhaps less feeling than they would hear of the death of a favorite horse or dog; so they learn to hear of the death of thousands after thousands on the side of the enemy, with joy and exaltation. If their own men have succeeded in taking an unimportant fortress, or a frigate, with the loss of fifty lives on their own side, and fifty one on the other, this is a matter of joy and triumph. This time they have got the game. But alas! at what expense to others! This expense, however, does not interrupt the joy of war makers. They leave it to the woundod and the friends of the dead to feel and to mourn.

This dreadful depravity of feeling is not confined to rulers in time of war. The army becomes abandoned to such depravity. They learn to undervalue not only the lives of their enemies, but even their own; and will often wantonly rush into the arms of death, for the sake of military glory. And more or less of the same want of feeling, and the same undervaluing of human life, extends through the nation, in proportion to the frequency of battles, and the duration of war.

If any thing be done by the army of one nation, which is deemed by the other as contrary to the modern usages in war; how soon do we hear the exclamations, of Goths and Vandals! Yet what are christians at war, better than those barbarous tribes? and what is the war spirit in them, better than the . spirit of Goths and Vandals? When the war spirit is excited, it is not always to be circumscribed in its operations, by the refinements of civilization. It is at best a bloody and desolating spirit.

What is our boast of civilization, or christianization, while we tolerate, as popular and justifiable, the most horrid custom which ever resulted from human wickedness! Should a period arrive when the nations" shall learn war no more ;" what will posterity think of our claims, as christians and civilized men? The custom of sacrificing men by war, may appear to

them as the blackest of all heathen superstitions. Its present popularity may appear as wonderful to ages to come, as the past popularity of any ancient custom now does to us. What! they may exclaim, could those be Christians, who would sacrifice men by thousands to a point of honor, falsely so called; or to obtain a redress of a trifling wrong in regard to property! If such were the customs of christians, what were they better than the heathens of their own time?

Perhaps some apologist may rise up in that day, and plead, that it appears from the history of our times, that it was supposed necessary to the safety of a nation, that its government should be quick to assume a warlike tone and attitude, upon every infringement of their rights; that magnanimous forbearance was considered as pusillanimity, and that christian meekness was thought intolerable in the character of a ruler.

To this others may reply-Could these professed christians imagine, that their safety depended on displaying a spirit the reverse of their Master's? Could they suppose such a temper best calculated to insure the protection of him, who held their destiny in his hands? Did they not know that wars were of a demoralizing tendency, and that the greatest danger of a nation resulted from its corruption and depravity? Did they not also know, that a haughty spirit of resentment in one government, was very sure to provoke a similar spirit in another? that one war usually paved the way for a repetition of similar calamities, by depraving each of the contending parties, and by fixing enmities and jealousies, which would be ready to break forth on the most frivolous occasions?

SECTION V.

That we may obtain a still clearer view of the delusions of war, let us look back to the origin of society. Suppose á family, like that of Noah, to commence the settlement of a country. They multiply into a number of distinct families. Then in the course of years they become so numerous as to form distinct governments. In any stage of their progress, unfortunate dis

putes might arise by the imprudence, the avarice, or the ambition of individuals.

Now at what period would it be proper to introduce the custom of deciding controversies by the edge of the sword, or an appeal to arms? Might this be done when the families had increased to ten? Who would not be shocked at the madness of introducing such a custom under such circumstances? Might it then with more propriety be done when the families had multiplied to fifty, or to a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand? The greater the number, the greater the danger, the greater the carnage and calamity. Besides, what reason can be given, why this mode of deciding controversies would not be as proper when there were but ten families, as when there were ten thousand. And why might not two individuals thus decide disputes, as well as two nations?

Perhaps all will admit that the custom could not be honorably introduced, until they separated, and formed two or more distinct governments. But would this change of circumstances dissolve their ties as brethren, and their obligations as accountable beings? Would the organization of distinct.governments confer a right on rulers to appeal to arms for the se*. tlement of controversies? Is it not manifest, that no period can be assigned, at which the introduction of such a custom would not be absolute murder? And shall a custom, which must have been murderous at its commencement, be now upheld as necessary and honorable!

But, says 'he objector, in determining the question, whether war is now the effect of delusion, we must consider what mankind are, and not what they would have been, had wars never been introduced.

To this we reply: We should consider both; and by what ought to have been the state of society, we may discover the present delusion, and the need of light and reformation. If it would have been to the honor of the human race, had the custom of war never commenced, it must be desirable to dispel the present darkness, and exterminate the desolating scourge. The same objection might have been made to the proposition