scenes they witnessed while on earth. Think of these spirits now in prison; think what must be their reflections in view of the fact, that they have bartered eternal joy for the sins of a moment on earth. Oh! how must re

morse prey upon them as they at this moment lift up their voices in woe, exclaiming, "the harvest is passed, the summer is ended, and we are not saved."

And is it so? Have thousands of years already elapsed, while they still continue the victims of sin? So says unerring truth. They wearied out the long suffering of God, and grieved away his spirit. And shall eternity still roll on while they remain in their abode of sorrow? Nothing can be more sure. Their own hand has planted thorns in the pillow upon which they will forever in vain seek repose.

And is this our danger? Are we exposed to so fearful a doom! "Verily," saith the Scripture to us, "unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Yes, very soon the graves, in which our bodies have mouldered to the dust, will disappear under the influence of time. Centuries will

away;

pass away, and not an individual shall know our names; not a vestige shall remain of our ever having existed. The world shall be busy; the hum of business and the notes of pleasure shall be heard. The sun shall shine; the rain shall fall; the storm shall rage; but we shall be far, far the veteran souls of many centuries. Oh! what is life, when we look forward to explore those regions where we must forever dwell? What are earth's joys, when we think of Heaven's undying glory? What are earth's trials, when we think of banishment eternal from the presence of God? But Heaven's gates are now open wide. Heaven's smiling fields now invite our steps. The angels' cordial welcome now bids us enter. The Father pleads; the Saviour invites; the Spirit strives. Oh! let us all hear, and accept, and live.

A CORRESPONDENCE.

WAR.

LETTER I.

Letter from Mr. C. K. Whipple, to the Author of the Corner Stone.

Boston, May 4, 1836.

DEAR SIR: The recollection of your constant readiness to hear questions, and explain difficulties while I was your pupil in Amherst College, induces me to request an explanation of a passage in your recently published work, "THE WAY TO DO GOOD." I refer to the observations on "Contentions," pp. 96, 8, concluded by the note on p. 99. Your remarks on the duty of forbearance and concession, and your reply to a supposed antagonist (p. 97) seem to me to be in exact accordance with the Christian rule, — especially, since you settle the question simply on the authority of Christ, and before urging those considerations of expediency which are so well introduced afterwards. But those remarks, and that reply, seem to me to apply with equal force to the case which you have formally excepted in your note, in which a savage, foreign soldiery, attack a peaceful community, defenceless, except by force. I suppose I may, without unfairness, consider your interrogation, Did he mean, &c., as the expression of your opinion that Christ did not mean so to do. And I can think of no reason for this variation from the general rule, except that such forbearance would place the community supposed in a state of the most complete exposure to every species of injustice and oppression; a reason which you have previously proved insufficient to justify violent self-defence, on the part of individuals. I do not understand how such exposure releases a community, or, in other words, the individuals who manage the affairs of a community, from the obligation to feel and manifest Love towards their enemies.

It seems plain that the gospel has authorized civil governments to exercise certain powers, which it has not ex

tended to individuals. (I suppose, however, that such powers must always be used in conformity with the other rules of the gospel.) Hence, the right of governments to seize and try offenders against their laws, and, after full and impartial examination, to inflict upon them such punishment as their crime deserve. And any citizen may lawfully and properly be the instrument of inflicting such punishment. But, may the authorities of any State require a citizen to shoot or stab an offender against its laws, without trial, without defence, without any of those forms of law to which, in all other cases, the most obvious and atrocious criminals are admitted? May the civil authorities, in cases of emergency, dispense with all the ordinary machinery for the execution of justice? May they authorize the principal judge to pass through a city or a province, and selecting such persons as he supposes to deserve death, sentence them, without trial, to immediate execution? If not to a judge, may they commit the power to a general? Could any citizen righteously execute the arbitrary commands of a judge thus constituted? Can any citizen righteously engage in the service of a general, to whom is committed such power as this; especially when it is distinctly understood, by the very first principles of the engagement, that he is to hold himself ready to kill, to rob, to secularize the Sabbath day, either by simple parade, foraging, pursuing the regular line of march, or entering into actual engagement in battle, at the pleasure of his commanding officer; and all this without the least exercise, either of his judgment or conscience, perhaps in direct opposition to both?

But, not to dwell further upon the minutiae of war, its first principle, its essential spirit is to avert a threatened evil by inflicting injury upon the enemy. I confine myself here, as you have done, to what is called defensive war, though I see no propriety in that distinction, since the term may often be applied to both parties, and since at least one half, perhaps nine-tenths of all the operations in every such war have been directly offensive.

The object of defensive war is to inflict so much inju ry upon the enemy, (be the same more or less,) as shall

* For instance, are the Indians of Florida, or the United States army, the Texans, or the Mexicans, on the defensive?

prevent them from injuring us. Even on the very liberal supposition, which I suppose you do not expect to find realized in actual warfare, that the combatants are free from passion, revenge, and every nuhallowed motive, and are simply desirous to protect themselves with the least possible injury to the enemy, I do not see how they are countenanced by the gospel of Christ. I do not see how their course can be consistent with the spirit of the command, 'Love your enemies.' Do they not inflict the greatest possible injury upon those who fall? Do they not say - Our rights shall be maintained, though at the sacrifice of your lives and souls? How can this be consistent with that charity which suffereth long and in kind -seeketh not her own beareth all things- endureth all things - and own-beareth never faileth?

It is true that no tribunal now exists, to which the disputes of nations might be referred for adjustment. But I do not see how this excuses those who manage the affairs of nations from the exercise of forbearance, forgiveness and love to the enemies. I suppose you will not maintain that individuals are free from those obligations while their country is in a state of anarchy, and the regular administration of justice destroyed. Is a man in such a case authorized to maintain his own rights by injury to others? to lay aside the spirit of forbearance inculcated by the gospel, and constitute himself judge, jury, and executioner, in his own cause? If the absence of an umpire does not justify individuals in acting thus, how can it justify nations? You see, dear sir, what my difficulties are. If you can, without too much inconvenience,satisfy me respecting them, you will much oblige Your obedient servant, C. K. WH¡pple.

LETTER II.- REPLY:

Roxbury, May 7, 1836.

MY DEAR SIR: Your letter, raising some inquiries respecting a passage in the Way to Do Good,' I have this day received. If your making the inquiries had arisen from any misconception of my meaning, or from any want of acquaintance with the subject, I might have perhaps hoped

to have satisfied your mind by some additional explanations. As it is, however, the difficulty obviously is a difference of opinion between us, settled and confirmed; on a subject too, which you have probably examined more fully than I have. I can only say, therefore, a word or two on the subject, and that, not with any hope of altering your views, but only to explain my own.

I agree with you fully, in all your remarks about the guilt which governments have usually incurred by waging war, and individuals, by the temper and spirit with which they have carried it on. Bloodshed, in this world, has been, almost invariably, unmingled and most aggravated guilt. The only question between us is, whether the supposed right of the community to employ the extreme of physical force in great emergencies, is to be still maintained, to be used in a totally different way from what it has been, or whether it is to be abandoned altogether.

When I wrote the note on p. 99, my mind was not fully ly settled hence, the form of interrogation. It has since become well satisfied that the power, on the part of the civil government above referred to, is not to be altogether abandoned. It seems to me, on the whole, perfectly clear, that Providence has conferred upon communities of men, regularly organized for the purposes of civil government, the power to enforce law and order, and to protect public justice, at all hazards, and at any sacrifice of human life, that may be really necessary for this purpose. The principle seems to me established by the following considerations.

1. The fact that the exercise of such powers is spoken of, apparently with approbation, in the Old Testament, and that too, when it was not expressly directed by God himself: as for example, Abraham's interference to rescue Lot by military violence. God did not direct it, but yet it is narrated in such a way as to leave on our minds the impression that it was approved. So with the preparations for defence in the building of Jerusalem, and many other cases.

2. The model of government which God formed for the Jews, one of the most efficient as to physical force, that ever existed. I think it impossible that God should have countenanced such a government as that administered by