However just it may be to hold generals as responsible for the wrongs done by soldiers under their control, it is manifestly unjust to treat soldiers as responsible for the wrongs done by their general; or to inflict evil on the inhabitants of one territory to revenge similar evils done to the same class of people in another Yet such have been the usual modes of revenge adopted by christian warriors!

In former ages of barbarity, when the people of Scotland were divided into clans, like the natives of America, it is said they had "a law that when a person belonging to one clan murdered a man belonging to another, the murderer, if found, should be hanged as he deserved; but if he could not be found the first man of the same clan that could be found, should be hanged in his stead." Now who does not see that this was a savage and unjust law? But is it not at least as reasonable as the modes of retaliation which are adopted by christian nations? These nations are seldom contented with retaliating by an equal injury; ten, twenty or even a hundred fold is often regarded as lawful; and, like the ancient barbarians of Scotland, they will inflict these retaliatory evils on persons who never injured them.

If the gospel had required revenge as positively as it has forbidden it, what worse might have been expected of christian nations, than they have usually done in retaliating injuries ? That they should allow themselves to revenge wrongs when it can be done on the guilty agents, is certainly as much as would be reasonably expected of men who hope for pardon through a Mediator who has absolutely prohibited rendering evil for evil, and who has made a forgiving spirit in man, one towards another, a condition of their obtaining the forgiveness of God. What then shall be thought of their conduct in revenging upon subjects, the wrongs of their rulers-upon soldiers, the wrongs of their generals, and upon the innocent, the wrongs of the guilty!

It is said that among the aborigines of South America, revenge was one of the first things which the parents instilled into the minds of their children; and were we to examine, impartially the history of Christian nations, should we not more

naturally suppose that they were educated like these savages, than that they had been brought up as disciples of the Prince of peace? Nay, is it not an undeniable truth, that, among professed christians, a meek, forbearing spirit is branded with the name of pusillanimity, and that revenge is the very thing to which they attach the names of honour and glory? And has it not been esteemed a very honourable thing to murder subjects for the real or pretended faults of their sovereigns, and to sacrifice soldiers to atone for the sins of their generals!

How much more magnanimous would a ruler appear, in boldly refusing to descend to such acts of inhumanity, than in reaking his vengeance on the innocent, for crimes which they never committed, and which it was not in their power to pre

vent.

Some, however, will plead, that rulers and their subjects form one body politic; that wrongs must be retaliated on some part of the body, and that as rulers do not choose to be personally assailed, there is no way to retaliate but by striking the subjects. So then rather than not violate the laws of Christ at all, you would have the ruler act the part of a barbarian by destroying the innocent for the offences of the guilty?

Suppose that similar modes of revenge should be generally. adopted in society-that when a man has received an injury from the head of a family, he should go and retaliate the wrong on the children or servants of the offender, suffering his own exasperated spirit to dictate the measure of vengeance to be inflicted. Would the state of society be improved by such a eustom? Or shall we say that rulers are the only Christians who have a right to adopt the inhuman principles of savages!

There are but a few of any civilized community who will not, on serious reflection, reprobate those acts which are usually termed measures of retaliation. Let this point, then, be fully understood and admitted, that it is absolutely unjust and barbarous to revenge the wrongs of rulers on their subjects, or the wrongs of the guilty on the innocent. Then a great point will be gained and the operations of war will soon be circumscribed and limited. In that case rulers would be compelled

either to renounce the custom of war or to fight their own battles. Nine times in ten the real or pretended wrongs for which wars are made, are the wrongs of rulers themselves, and not of those who are doomed to suffer in the contest; and frequently he who declares the war might very justly adopt the words of David-"Lo, I have sinned, I have done wickede ly; but these sheep, whạt have they done!"

A. diw no' 2

ON COUNTING THE COST OF A. PROPOSED WAR.

"What King going to make war against another King sittethnot down first and consulteth, whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?" Luke xiv. 31.

THE question mentioned by our Saviour in the words now, before us seems to have embraced almost every thing whieh rulers have been accustomed to consider in determining on the expediency of going to war-namely, whether they be able to meet their antagonists with a prospect of success.There are however, other questions which ought to be taken into view in all such consultations.

In the course of the present year much has been said on the probability of a war with Spain, on account of the imprison ment of Mr. Meade. A Committee of the Senate of the United States made a Report on that subject which concluded with the following language :

"Nothing but a confidence that the representations of the President, who has demanded the liberation of Mr. Meade, will produce the desired effect, would have restrained your committee from recommending the adoption of measures of severe retribution."

The term "retribution" is here but another name for revenge-and the import of the whole is, that nothing but a confidence that the representations of the President would produce the liberation of Mr. Meade, had any influence to restrain the Committee from recommending war measures,

We shall concede that Ferdinand was in the wrong in re taining Mr. Meade in the prison of Cadiz; but we must regret that no other considerations, than the one which was stat ed, had any influence on the minds of this Committee, to res

strain them from recommending measures of vengeance and slaughter. However, as that supposed just cause for war has been removed, we shall only state concisely some questions which we think ought to have had some influence on the Committee, and which may possibly be of use in future consultations :~ -11s revenge a principle which is authorized by the precepts of that religion by which we hope to be saved?:

2. On whom would the measures have fallen with the greater weight, on his innocent subjects?

of " severe retribution" on the guilty King, or

13. Is it perfectly and clearly just, to destroy the innocent for the crimes of the guilty? a late

4. If the measures of "severe retribution” had been adopted, would not thousands of our own citizens have been involved in far greater evils than Ferdinand had inflicted on Mr. Meade? If so, which government would have been the more unjust and cruel to American citizens, the Spanish, or our own?

5. Is it certain that the citizens of the United States have intentionally delegated to Congress the power of sacrificing their lives at pleasure on the altar of revenge?

6. If our rulers think that it is commendable patriotism to. offer human sacrifices to the idol Revenge, ought they not to give an example of this patriotism, by placing their own names first on the list of victims to be offered? One Member of Congress might perhaps answer for a hundred other people.

A due consideration of these questions, had they been seasonably attended to, might have varied the Report of the honorable Committee.

Since the liberation of Mr. Meade, there has been much said of a war with Great Britain, on account of the execution of Arbuthnot and Ambristie by General Jackson. From the News-paper discussions it appears, that some of our British brethren think that these executions are a just ground of war on our country. On the conduct of the American General we shall offer no opinion. But supposing it to have been wanton and murderous, and that our government think otherwise, and refuse any concession or redress-Can the British government be justified in making war on us for that offence?

On the present hypothesis we have indeed a strong case, and as good ground for public war as has generally been found for the wars of Great Britain, or other Christian nations.

meas

It must also be admitted that on the supposition made, our government ought to be as prompt in giving redress, as they were in complaining of the wanton attack on the Chesapeake. But if they neglect or refuse any redress, the British rulers will doubt less consider, whether they are able to meet us with ures of severe retribution? This question they will answer in the affirmative. But will it not behove them, as Christian rulers, to consider all the questions which have been proposed relative to the menaced war on Spain? Particularly whether revenge be one of the Christian vir tues? On whom will the evils of the war fall, the guilty, or the innocent? Is it just to punish innocent soldiers for the crimes of their generals, or innocent subjects for the crimes of their rulers? Will it be a wise measure to sacrifice twenty thousand British subjects to revenge a wrong done to two of their fellow citizens? Hare even, Monarchs a right thus to offer human; sacrifices?

ឌ

To their list of questions they may also add the following: Would it not be as wise and as equitable, to call out 20,000 of their subjects and butcher them at home, as to send them to this country to murder and be murdered ?

But the enormous sacrifice of human victims, on each side of the contesty is not the only thing to be considered in counting the cost of such a war. Other items of great, weight, may be added to the account-such as the following, od 3.lt Several hundred "gangs of robbers" must probably be again licensed to infest the seas and prey on the property of innocent merchants, and to obstruct, the trade of the two coun tries. In this way thousands will be distressed and ruined. The national debt of each country will probably be augmen ted more than a hundred millions of dollars. Thousands and thousands more g

in each

of mourners will

be

seen

country lamenting the loss of murdered relations. Prohibitory acts will be, 11 be passed by each government, which