which is maintained by Christians themselves. Is it not then time, that efforts should be made to enlighten the minds of Christians on a subject of such infinite importance to the happiness of the human race?

That such a state of things is desirable, no enlightened Christian can deny. That it can be produced without expensive and persevering efforts is not imagined. But are not such efforts to exclude the miseries of war from the world, as laudable as those which have for their object the support of such a malignant and desolating custom?

The whole amount of property in the United States is probably of far less value, than what has been expended and destroyed within two centuries by wars in Christendom. Suppose, then, that one-fifth of this amount had been judiciously laid out by peace associations in the different states and nations, in cultivating the spirit and art of peace, and in exciting a just abhorrence of war; would not the other four-fifths have been in a great measure saved, besides many millions of lives, and an immense portion of misery? Had the whole value of what has been expended in wars, been appropriated to the purpose of peace, how laudable would have been the appropriation and how blessed the consequences !

"Shall the sword devour for ever?"

To

In favour 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 Canaan. 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 Israeli es did, let the order be obeyed. But until they have such a comm.ssion, let it not be imagined that they can innocently make war

As a further answer to this plea, we have to observe, 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 sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Micah iv. 3. If this prediction shall ever be fulfilled, he present

delusion in favour 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 peacemakers," 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 favour 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?

Besides, is it not awful to think of sending vicious men beyond 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 ensure 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 multiplied 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 confederacy 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 honour, 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 honourable, more safe, and more certain, as well as more benevolent, than for the individual to attempt to obtain 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 such 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.

But is this plea founded on facts and experience? Does it accord with what is well known of human nature? Who 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 remarkably 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 believed, 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 favourable to the point in question.

Should any deny 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 negociation 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 for ever?"

Some of the evils of war have already been mentioned, but the field is almost boundless. The demoralizing and depraving 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 ardour, 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 dripping from his hands! Yet in time of war, how much pains is taken to excite and maintain this blood-thirsty disposition, as essential to success?

The profession of a soldier exposes him to sudden and untimely death, and at the same time hardens his heart, and renders 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 vapours 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 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 a war. As every war augments the amount of national depravity, so it proportionably increases the dangers and miseries of society.*

Among the evils of war, a wanton undervaluing of human life ought to be mentioned. This effect may appear in various forms.

It has been suggested by a friend, that there is an exception to this account-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 this 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 twenty 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 favourable influence on the character of the nation. By these and not by wars, the moral state of the nation has been improved.

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