justly be deprived. In this measure of natural right, exist life, liberty and property. Should one individual, therefore, be attacked by another Individual, or a number of them in connection, in quest of life, liberty or property, the injured individual has a just right to use his weapon to defend himself, and if blood and life are lost in the contest, the guilt falls upon the assail.

ants.

If no resistance can be justly offered to repel violence, it would follow of course, that one or two individuals might arm themselves, and destroy whole nations.

This kind of assault began with the first man that ever was born of a woman. His works were evil, and he slew his brother, and has ever since been called a murderer.

In process of time, individuals found it necessary to form into collective bodies, to withstand the aggressions of daring individuals and banditti. And what was unjust or expedient among individuals at first, became unjust or expedient among these collective bodies, now called governments and nations of the earth.

As an individual who assaults and kills another, is a guilty murderer, so the nation that wages war, out of vain glory, from enmity, through covet. ousness, or from any other motive than self-defence, is guilty of murder, and will be treated by the King of kings as such. For notwithstanding any use that the Almighty may make of war, as a scourge to wicked nations, yet the nation that plunges voluntarily into it, is always criminal. Let all unrighteous, offensive wars cease, and there cannot be any righteous defensive wars on earth: for, if there is no assailant, there can be no defend

ant.

When one nation or government encroaches upon the territory or property of another government, dictates the other about her laws or rulers, or sheds the blood and enslaves the persons of her citizens, whether it is done under a proclamation of war or not, it is offensive war. And after the injured government has remonstrated and exercised all becoming patience, if a cessation and restitution do not follow, a defensive war seems not only justifiable but imperious; for the nation that does not contend for its own right, contends for the wrong of the encroaching nation.

Although Christianity, in its purest state, was not national, but personal and ecclesiastic, yet it is now become a national characteristic, to distinguish those nations where Christianity is professed, from Pagans, Turks and Jews.

Granting the propriety of the title, (which in fact is very disputable,) these nations, as bodies politic, may wage war upon the same footing as other nations, and on no other, viz., to defend their lives, liberty and property from the hands of those who assault them without cause. Nothing can be more horrid and wicked, than for these Christian nations to form their

crusades and holy wars to convert the heathen, violently take away the land of the savages and make slaves of the prisoners.

But supposing there was a kingdom or commonwealth, of not only nominal Christians, but of real disciples of Jesus, whose hearts and practices were as perfect as this state of the world admits of, would it be lawful and duty for them to proclaim war, on any account?

This question is predicated upon a supposition which has never existed. it is presumed, since Christianity was introduced among men. The tares and the wheat have grown together, and will continue to do so until the harvest. Some colonies, however, have been settled by companies that made some advances towards it; but Roger Williams, Mr. Davenport and William Penn, with their respective associates, in Rhode Island, New Haven and Pennsylvania, found so many tares among themselves, that they were obliged to have civil law (which is always sanctioned by the sword) to govern by. And notwithstanding Williams and Penn were great favorites of the savages, yet those colonies were involved in war.

There is no doubt but many of those good people, who condemn national war of every description, are sincere in their profession; but should there be a commonwealth, in which all the leading characters, who control the destinies of bodies politic, were real saints, and conscience bound against all war, should that commonwealth be invaded by a hostile army, of less physical strength than the commonwealth possessed, is there any doubt but what the citizens of said commonwealth would sincerely change their opinion? Would they not be guilty of neglecting the means which were in their hands, to defend themselves from the wrong of others, if they did not? Could not the most pious saint meet the hostile foe, in such a case, with the high praises of God in his mouth, and a two edged sword in his hand? Could he not do as a venerable old man did at Deerfield, in an Indian war? Said he, "I met an Indian, and I loved him; but to defend my right from his wrong, after praying the Lord to have mercy on his soul, I shot a bullet through his heart."

In the first settlement of Hartford, the inhabitants lived in a fort; but a young woman going out of the fort, was taken by two Indians and led to their canoe in the river. As soon as she was missed, two of their gunners took their guns and ran to the river, accompanied by Mr. Hooker, their preacher. The Indians had placed the young woman in the canoe, and were rowing off, keeping the canoe in such direction, that the gunners on shore could not well hit them without hitting the young woman. gunners saw that in a short time the canoe would be out of gunshot, and cried out, "Mr. Hooker, what shall we do?" The venerable man stretched his hands and turned his eyes towards heaven, and answered, "Take good sight, and heaven direct the balls." They shot and killed both the Indians and the girl rowed back to the shore.

The

In this case, I ask whether the war, proclaimed by Mr. Hooker, and carried on by the two hunters, against the Indians, was according to the spirit of Christ, or not? I think the question answers itself.

We may reason from a unit to a universe: that which is right or wrong in an individual, would be the same in a government. Such kind of defensive war, is the only war that can be justified upon the principle of eternal right; all other wars are robbery, piracy and murder. And yet, the misanthropy and barbarity of fallen men are so great, that wars waged in avarice, on purpose to plunder—in ambition to rise high in esteem—or through hatred to a rival, are called honorable wars; and the more they can slaughter, the more splendid is the battle; while those who fall of their own, are said to be covered with glory; and, if they succeed to deprive the nation with whom they are at war, of all its sovereignty and rights, Te Deum is chanted, and the leaders of the war are led in triumph.

Military force, whether armed with staves, stones, battle-axes, swords or fire-arms, should never be called forth, but to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the laws. The words of Washington, in his last will and testament, breathe forth the spirit of a good citizen. In bequeathing his sword to his kinsman, he adds, "Never draw it but in defence of your country's rights; and, when drawn, never sheath it until the object is attained."

It is a melancholy thought, that, in all ages, men, as individuals and as nations, have been so ungrateful, covetous, and full of misanthropy, that justice and goodness could not restrain them without the scourge of severity; but, when the King of kings gives orders to "loose the four angels, which are prepared to kill the third part of men," it is "in righteousness—HE doth judge and make war." So individuals, in prosecuting other individuals, and nations, in warring with other nations, should do it out of love to right, and not from a spirit of hatred.

The man who prosecutes his neighbor before a legal bar, does, in fact, declare war with him, as much as one nation does with another when it commences military hostilities. How happy it would be for the world, if there was so much virtue in it, that no kind of war would be necessary! If every man and every nation would do right to their neighbors, there would not and could not be any war on earth. But the reasoning is irrefutable, that those individuals who conduct in a manner that justifies a legal prosecution against them, when collected together in a political body, would conduct so as to justify a war of hostilities against them.

The path is plain before us: let no individual work ill to his neighbor, and let no nation be unjust to another, and war will cease forever.

As things are managed at present, if not an individual, yet a few control the destinies of each nation. The mass of the people are so ignorant that they know not why war is proclaimed, or so circumstanced that they

cannot help it. In such cases, some fight for a living, and others because they are forced to. To conquer or to be conquered leaves them in the same predicament. This is a sore evil under the sun, but it is common among men.

The religion of Jesus, in its genuine course, fills men with such meekness and philanthropy, that, if it was universally possessed, there would be no prosecution at law, nor any wars among men. But, when Christianity is prostituted, to be the characteristic of an unhallowed nation—a prin. ciple of state policy—a test to office—a footstool to promotion—a sinecure to religious orders, and a piece of merchandise, it ever will be, as it ever has been, followed by war and slaughter.

Among nations, as among individuals, it frequently happens that each party has injured the other; and, if they plunge into war in that predicament, it is like the potsherds of the earth striving with the potsherds of the earth. Innocency has nothing to plead; justice has nothing to hope. If they mutually make confession and restoration, war will be prevented. If one party only makes all reasonable concessions, and the other party makes none, but rushes into war, the offence lies on the side of the last party, and the first is the defendant.

In this wrong world, right does not always take place. "Truth faileth in the streets, and equity cannot enter;" hence, victory and triumph often attend the basest tyrant, while the unoffending are trodden down like the mire of the street. The king of Babylon conquered and subjugated more than twenty-five kingdoms (see Jeremiah xxv.) and made them drink the bitter cup. The Lord used him as a scourge to those wicked nations; but, as they had done the king of Babylon no harm, he was wicked in his offensive wars upon them; and, therefore, in his turn, the king of Sheshach (Babylon) was made to drink after them.

Right will finally take place. Though the contest between truth and error, right and wrong, is long, and, to appearance, very doubtful in its issue, yet truth and right must triumph at last.

A RAY FOR THE SUN.*

In a parody between Dean Swift and Alexander Pope, the following fracas took place. Swift was a Churchman, and Pope was a Papist. The Dean offered Pope twenty pounds to change his religion, to which offer the ingenious poet replied: "the Dean of St. Patrick's cannot be serious! twenty pounds to change my religion! it is more than any clergyman ever gave for any religion, from the days of Moses until the present time."

In the Mosaic economy, the Levites lived on tythes, but a tenth part of their tythes they gave to the Aaronites: this was the tax which the Levites paid. But is there not too much truth in the implication of Pope, in these days, that ministers stimulate others to honor the Lord with their substance, but touch not the burden themselves with one tip of a finger? To accuse them of covetousness would be illiberal; perhaps the whole defect arises from the want of system. I would, therefore, propose a scheme to raise a fund for the relief of the indigent, by items which the people will never feel. Let every minister retrench his expenses so that he may give a tenth part of his salary, including what he gets from parish votes, donations, and marriage fees. And let him labor in the field one day in ten, (Sundays excepted,) the wages to be applied to benevolent uses. Moreover, as ministers are exempted from bearing arms, and paying taxes, some returns to the public are due therefor, otherwise they would be partially eased, while others would be partially burthened.

Suppose there are four hundred settled ministers in Massachusetts, (which is a moderate estimate,) and that in average they receive five hundred dollars per annum, this would make a sum of two hundred thousand dollars. The tenth part of which would be twenty thousand dollars, which might be considered as the first item.

of

The tenth part of the days of labor, in a year, is more than thirty, but let thirty be accepted of. Each of the four hundred ministers laboring thirty days in a year, would be twelve thousand days. State the wages each day at twenty-five cents only, (for it is possible that some of them would make but awkward work with the hoe and pitchfork,) and the amount will be three thousand dollars.

Published in the Pittsfield Sun, 1818.