what expense to others! This expense, oes not interrupt the joy of war-makers.

however,

How soon does an army learn to undervalue not only he lives of their enemies, but even their own lives: and will often wantonly rush into the arms of death, for the ake of that phantom called military glory. And accorling to the frequency of battles, and duration of war, loes an undervaluing of human life, and a want of feeling for the distressed, more or less prevail in a nation.

What is our boast of civilization, while we tolerate as popular and justifiable, the most horrid custom which ever resulted from human wickedness?

We regard with horror the custom of the ancient heathens En offering their children in sacrifice to idols. We read with astonishment of the sacrifices made in the papal crusades, and in the Mahometan, and Hindoo pilgrimages. We are shocked with the customs of the Hindoos, En prostrating themselves before the car of an idol to be crushed to death; in burning women alive on the funeral piles of their husbands; in offering a monthly sacrifice, by casting living children into the Ganges to be drowned. But that which is fashionable and popular in any country is generally esteemed right and honourable, whatever may be its nature in the views of men better informed.

But should the Hindoos become acquainted with Christ's sermon on the mount, and be informed that Christians professed to be governed by its precepts, of "loving enemies;" "doing good for evil;" and that they laid claim to the blessings announced to the merciful, and the peace-makers; would they not have just cause to be more shocked at our horrid custom of slaughtering each other in war, by thousands and millions, than we have to censure them in their customs, which, though barbarous, their religion sanctions, and they doubtless suppose it requires? whilst the religion we profess is expressly against our inhuman custom of butchering each other? We regard the Algerines as barbarians, pirates, robbers, and murderers, because their modes of warfare are in some respects different from those adopted by

Christian nations; but these barbarians have toms as well as other people; and they can their inhuman practices are not only authoriz rulers, but by their religion. Their mode of w their making slaves of other nations is, inde nable inhumanity; but can Christians plead n either case?

That we may obtain a clear view of the o war, let us look back at the origin of society. a man to commence the settlement of a count a lapse of time, he dies, and leaves two sons wi they multiply into a number of distinct famili the course of years they become so numerous, distinct governments. In any stage of the disputes might arise.-Now, at what period proper to introduce the custom of deciding co by an appeal to arms? Might this be done families ? Surely not; unless we justify Might it be done when the families had in ten ? Who would not be shocked at th of introducing such a custom under su stances? Might it then with more proprie when the families had multiplied to fifty, to a or a thousand, or ten thousand? The great ber, the greater the danger, the greater the c earnage. Besides, what reason can be give mode of deciding controversies would not b when there were but two, or ten families, as were ten thousand?

Perhaps all will admit that the custom honourably introduced until they separated, two, or more distinct governments. But change of circumstances dissolve their ties as the same parent, lessen their love as Christian

But, Hom wachte a suites active with power to alig

na republican government? Is it not from the people? Doubtless it is. Have the people a right to take their own lives, or the lives of others? If not, which I conceive will be readily granted by all, they cannot then have submitted their lives, or the lives of others, to the dispo sal of rulers, to be deprived of them at their pleasure. By what authority then do rulers make war, and calculate upon thousands being slaughtered by it?

A man may transfer to others a right to control his person, and to regulate his conduct; and for these he may receive an equivalent: but what equivalent can he receive for his life? Man's life, therefore, is his own to preserve, but not to transfer, or destroy. His life, his conscience, and day of probation, are unalienable.

A plain case will therefore be stated, which has often occurred ;-in which rulers have exercised a power over the laws of God and lives of men.

The dominions of two governments are separated only by a geographical line. Numerous settlements are made adjacent to the line on each side; and the people of the two states live together as neighbours, friends, and brothers. They often meet in the same house of worship, become members of the same religious society; intermarriages are frequent; the sons on one side purchase lands and settle on the other; and in a multitude of ways they become united, endeared, and attached to each other.

The next news is, a dispute has arisen between the two governments. An ambassador has been insulted, or a question of property, or of a boundary line, has occurred. The dispute is managed in a haughty menacing tone on one side, and thus retorted on the other. Next, out comes a flaming manifesto, or declaration of war, or, in other words, a sweeping death-warrant, which involves the innocent with the guilty, and friends with foes.-The peaceful inhabitants, on the different sides of the line, are declared to be enemies to each other; they are required to take up arms, and meet each other in the field of battle, neighbour against neighbour, brother against

brother, and father against son. All the me malice can suggest, or ingenuity invent, are a inflame their passions, alienate their hearts, e enmity, and make them forget they are f brethren. They must fight, or be punished or cowards. They must kill or be killed, an both.

Now the laws of God are superseded by t tion of war-theft is no longer considered st killing murder. Nay, it is now declared to honourable to plunder and to kill; and he who be the most hardened and successful, acquires est share of renown. After years of mutual desolation, the sound of peace is heard by happen to be alive. The people are require from slaughter; and killing again becomes the mere mandate of rulers.

We may boldly and solemnly ask, who gav lers power to suspend the laws of God, during and thus to sacrifice the lives of men? Who a right to change the relations of these citi friends and neighbours to political enemies? thorized the rulers to inflame their subjects wi and to arm them for mutual havoc and murde

Must not that ruler be under strong delusion fect insanity, who can suppose that a mandate self can dissolve the obligations which men are love one another, or absolve them from guilt in innocent blood? Can rational beings be so inf a popular custom, as to suppose, that the mere fallible, and perhaps ungodly ruler, is of suffic to suspend the laws and authority of God; so der that honourable to-day, which yesterday w been wanton cruelty, and deliberate murder?

ets of killing, and every murderous passion, must be ondemned at the bar of God.

To support the sanguinary custom of war, rulers are bliged to adopt sanguinary laws, which expose the lives f their own citizens. Cowardice in an officer exposes im to death. Here a capital crime is made out of mere atural infirmity. Desertion is also punished with death, whether in consequence of ill usage, abuse from officers, or other causes. And yet the officers of an army will ›ribe or entice the soldiers of the opposite army to desert. If desertion does not deserve death, the ruler who inlicts the punishment is guilty of unjustly taking human ife. If he views the crime as deserving of death, and still will entice others to commit it, what is he but a deluded or an unprincipled mortal.

Similar to this is the custom of punishing and employing spies. Each army will employ spies. And yet if a spy from one army is detected by the other, death is his portion. Now it is a question, which God will decide, whether that ruler who will both employ a spy and punish a spy with death, is not chargeable with blood guiltiness, and the most glaring inconsistency.

In a word, fraud and falsehood, robbery and murder, impiety and injuctice, which God forbids, are authorized by the maxims and usages of war. That love and kindness, which God requires, the custom of war prohibits ; and that hatred, violence and revenge, which God forbids, the custom of war requires.

Unless the laws of nations, the maxims of war, and the authority of rulers, are sufficient to subvert the authority of God, and change vice into virtue, the customs of war must incur the most awful retributions. For it is manifest that both rulers and subjects do act on the presumption that a declaration of war can authorize the most flagrant violations of the moral law, and the benevolent precepts of the gospel.

Now let us trace the advantages to nations produced by war.

Frederick the 2d, King of Prussia, in three volumes