dictates of common justice, and even of common sense. Would mankind be astonished at an act of any government, like the above? I take it upon me to say, that all the difference between that individual war, thus proclaimed, and a national war, proclaimed for inadequate reasons, lies in favour of the individual war: all the arguments in favour of the former, are still stronger in favour of the latter; and all the objections to such an individual war are infinitely stronger against proclaiming an unjust war against a nation. The conduct, therefore, which one man ought to pursue, being authorized as above, to fall upon another, ought to be pursued by a nation, thus let loose on another nation, by a wicked and merciless government.

In the above individual war, the guilty person would be punished, and the offended person be the punisher. But should it be said reparation might be obtained another, and much better, way; so might it in the case of a nation: nor is there one war among a thousand, in which, with a proper spirit of accommodation, a due redress might not have been obtained. And the fact is, that in most cases, aggressions are provoked, or take their origin from such minute and intricate collisions, that no human tribunal would be competent to settle the question of original blame, though never so truly 'disposed to do impartial justice.

Would it be said that in every well regulated state, there are laws for the recovery'of rights and the redress of wrongs; and that of course no government has a right to proclaim war between one citizen and another? Neither, I answer, has any government a right to proclaim war against a nation without an adequate cause; and the sin in the latter case is as much greater than in the former, as millions are greater than one. Besides, whose fault is it that there are not established laws among neighbouring nations, for the adjustment of disputes, as well as among individuals? Is it not but too evident, that nations have carefully avoided any arrangements that would effectually shut the door against war on the most frivolous pretences: that they desire no such arrangements, because they choose to keep the door for war perpetually open; so that every nation may choose its own time and occasions for falling upon its neighbours?

Again, I ask, whose fault is it, that it is not as unpopular, as disgraceful, as abhorrent to the common sense of mankind, as contrary to established custom, and to known rules and laws, for one nation to fall, justly or unjustly, upon another, as for an individual? Those laws are thought wise which

forbid an individual to be his own avenger, although there is much personal gratification; although the injured person avenges and the agressor suffers: why then should a nation be its own avenger, which can feel no gratification, and has no power to reach the true and real aggressor?

Ör, on the other hand, will it be said, that nations ought sometimes to go to war on very small provocations, for the sake of national honour? What is national honour? Surely not any thing that is sinful; for sin is a reproach to any people. No sinful act, or series of acts, in which a nation, as a body, concurred, ever promoted the honour of that nation. I hope and trust, Sir, there need be no difficulty in convincing Christians of the solidity of this ground. Among devils, indeed, it may be accounted honourable to act like a devil; but Christians are taught to estimate honour by a different standard. The author of five sermons, in defence of war, above alluded to, is indeed of the opinion, that "the equity of a war little depends on the magnitude of the injury; and if the evil inflicted be small, there is less excuse for the aggressor." But whether he measures honour by the Christian or diabolical standard, I shall leave all men to judge. It is, indeed, of little consequence to him how men may judge, and will make nothing for him, should nations approve his principles, which they probably will, so long as they wish for some cloak to hide their guilt; but God will try this work, as by fire, and a day will declare it of what sort it is.

The custom of war has been so universally and so long prevalent, that mankind generally make no distinction among the causes from which it originates; and no odium rests on any nation, on the ground of having waged an unjust war. While all mankind unite their imprecations to express the deepest abhorrence of a man who commits one murder, they will, as readily, unite their voices in praise of Alexander, Cæsar, or Bonaparte, whose cruel ambition thinned the world of its inhabitants, and shed the blood of many millions of peo ple. Even the Church of Christ is carried away with this torrent, and all wars are legitimated simply by the consideration, that they are waged or carried on by a nation or government. Men will readily allow, when speculating on the question, in thesi, that a war may be unjust; but when the case occurs, in fact, they give themselves no trouble about a question, so perplexing as the true cause of a war. The sovereign authority of a nation has done it, and is supposed to be alone accountable for it.

I have shown that a declaration of war, even admitting

defensive war to be right, cannot screen a nation from guilt; either,

1. When peace might have been preserved by amicable negociation; or,

2. When the declaration sets forth false reasons; or

3. When the reasons assigned are inadequate. It is not to be doubted, that most declarations of war come under one or another of these descriptions. Of what avail, therefore, they will be before the Judge of nations, every one may form his own estimate.

But the reader is ready to demand, what we are to do? To this I have already answered: but I will add, if we are commanded to engage in an unjust war, we have but one question to decide, and that is a very plain one; whether we ought to obey God or man. For I repeat what I have already said, even if it be admitted that in some cases it is right to kill a man, yet that act cannot be performed by any human being short of the guilt of murder, who does not clearly know why or wherefore it must be done, and what the ground of his right is to do it.

But it will be said in reply to this, "If every man in a nation, and every soldier in an army, has got all this to learn, before he can go to killing, war would be a very slow business." So it would, and in the name of heaven, so it ought to be. The very lowest instruments of war, the private soldiers of an army, and especially all who fight by profession, without regard to the cause, are certainly guilty of murder. The man who kills his fellow-man, without knowing him to be worthy of death, and also knowing himself to have a right to take his life, is a murderer. The man that kills men, merely because it is commonly said, "we are at war with them," without any knowledge of the reasons why, is a murderer. The man that kills, in a cause which he knows to be unjust, is a murderer, and such are all cases which come under the three cases just above stated.

In fine, if there were no wars but such as are strictly defensive, and none were to kill, but such as have a right to do it on the principle of justice, there would be few wars, and few men would fall in battle. But, alas! we decline after a multitude to do evil. Mankind are wedded to the false idea, that numbers sanctify a deed. When war is proclaimed, however unjustly, and when numbers, when multitudes, when nations rush to battle, they forget that there is a God who judges in the earth, who will make inquisition for blood.

But I have dwelt too long upon mere hypothesis, and

especially on one, to which it would be as difficult to bring nations of men, as to the eternal truth of the gospel. For the principle which makes mankind so avaricious of blood, has no inclination to restrict the dreadful right of killing. For that right they are willing to substitute any pretext; and indeed, where all pretext and subterfuge fail, they cheer, encourage, and support themselves, by no consideration but that of numbers and example; never considering that God will punish nations as well as individuals.

I HAVE endeavoured to show that war cannot be vindicated under the sanction of a Divine command, nor of Divine permission, importing equal authority. In the course of this disscussion, I have, I trust, shown that the lex talionis naturæ, or natural law of retaliation, which was known in the antediluvian world, admitted and recognized in the Divine direction to Noah, and fully explained and incorporated in the penal code of Moses, was entirely and expressly repealed by Jesus Christ. For as it is admitted, on all hands, that several precepts of the decalogue are repealed, under the gospel, as capitally penal, though not as moral laws; and as that precept in special, which regards taking life for life, is the highest case of retaliation, as well as of resisting evil, both of which Christ forbids, I conclude that the authority of the law of Moses, in regard of taking life is done away. Indeed, I presume, that our tribunals, which still continue to take life for murder, will readily admit that it is done away, so far as to leave it discretionary with the supreme authority of every nation to say whether life shall be taken, or some other punishment substituted. As they in fact use this discretion in several other penal precepts, which the Mosaic law rendered capital, and as no such discretion was used by the ancient Hebrew tribunals, they must derive this license from the mild spirit of the gospel. The gospel, no doubt, from its genuine spirit, as well as particular precepts, extends its dispensing and softening power to every case and form of capital punishment.

3

I have shown that men's solicitude for self-defence adds nothing to their security; that their promptitude to revenge is an arrogant invasion of the rights of God; and that, taken both together, they have shed torrents where they have spared drops of blood, and where they have saved one, have destroyed millions of lives. And, even admitting that defensive war is right, yet, I have, I think, clearly shown, where a war is unjustly waged, that neither a formal declaration of war, nor the ready co-operation of nations, does in any degree lessen the guilt arising from that war: nor is that guilt limited to a few men at the head of affairs, but extends like a sudden and dreadful contagion to all the armies, to all the people, and probably to every individual soul co-operating.

I have never seen this point sufficiently illustrated. It surely has not been duly considered by people who have some conscience, some fear of God, some horror at incurring the guilt of murder. It is in this way that whole nations of people become murderers, are imbued and blackened in that horrid guilt again and again. In nothing has the human mind been so blinded, so surprisingly infatuated, as in the sanguinary business of war. If this point were duly understood, it would not be so easy a matter for the most bloody tyrant to set his people at war. Every man would consider what he was going about.

Is the Divine government so feeble, partial, and capricious, then; does it pay so great and scrupulous a regard, when a man way-lays and stabs his neighbour, and yet no regard when whole nations bleed? Does eternal justice sleep when the dying groans of thousands pierce the skies? when the blood of millions cries from the ground?

Who killed these people? Oh! nobody. They died in battle. They were killed by the opposite army, who are soldiers by profession! And this answer is satisfactory to a wretched infatuated mortal, who considers not that the eye of God is on this scene of carnage, and views every dead body as one distinct and individual murder. Never was there a delusion so deep and dreadful! Of all errors it is the most destructive and atrocious that ever seized on the human mind. "We are at war!" In that one little sentence there is a charm which makes man totally forget the value of life, or the immortal destinies of the soul; which makes him careless of murder, and fearless of the wrath of God. Apprehensions, perhaps, may flit about him some times, and a little remorse of conscience; but he is ready to say, "No matter, that is not my business. It is the business of the nation, the