the latter, as unspeakably the most wise, humane, and glorious?

In the course pursued, Great Britain displayed the character of a petulant, domineering parent, attempting to reform or subdue her children by fire and sword; and the colonies appear like stout, high spirited sons, who fight with an overbearing Mother, and free themselves from her control. But do such wars and fightings become christian communities? Shall Christians always be barbarians, and never discover a more rational and benevolent method of deciding their controversies?

A majority of the people of each country regarded that war as both just and necessary, as one which could not be avoided. We grant that the war was indeed necessary from the principles and passions which then governed the two parties. But we ask, would the war have been necessary under the influence of just and enlightened principles and benevolent dispositions? This question can never be answerred in the affirmative, by any well-informed Christian. Was it necessary, on any other than savage principles, for Great Britain to send over her military legions, to convince the colonies of the justice of her laws? If not, the war became necessary by the influence of an erroneous policy, barbarous principles of government, and unhallowed passions.

But however clear it may be to us, that Great Britain was in the wrong and the aggressor in the war, it would be far too much to pretend, that there was no wrong on the part of our people. The real patriot will not justify wrongs in his own countrymen, even when done on what he believes to be the right side of a controversy. Prior to the commencement of the war, many things were said, written and done, on the part of the Americans, which were of an exasperating tendency, inconsistent with christian meekness and benevolence, and, at best, no better than rendering evil for evil, and railing for railing.

At that period the writer of these remarks was but a youth. He was however old enough to observe the passing occurrences, and to take an active part, on what he believed to be the side of justice as well as of liberty. But, on reflection, he has found much cause to regret the indulgence of unchristian feelings and passions, towards brethren of another country, and such of his own countrymen as dissented from the popular creed. Such he believes must have been the case with many thousands of others, if they have suffered themselves to reflect, and to compare the passions which they then deemed justifiable, with the temper of him who died that sinners might live. On all such occasions it is common for men on both sides of a contest, to expose themselves to this reproof Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the son of man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Nor is it uncommon for those of the successful party, to regard their success as evidence of the rectitude of their motives and actions; or at least as cancelling whatever on their part was immoral or antichristian. But this is dangerous ground to take; for however just may be our cause, however wrong may be our opponents, our own conduct can never be approved by God, unless we act from benevolent motives, and conform to the rule of equity.

In the common course of events, one war lays the foundation for another. Our second war with Great Britain originated in a great measure from the prejudices which resulted from the first; and, on account of the prejudices engendered by these two conflicts, we are now probably in more danger of another war with Britain, than with any other power. Of this danger the people of the two countries should be duly apprized, that they may be on their guard and adopt the proper means for avoiding such a calamity. For this purpose we have exhibited the example of Mr. Adams and the King of Great Britain in their interview, as worthy of universal respect and imitation; and without

pretending to the spirit of prophecy, we may venture to say, that so long as this example shall be duly regarded by the rulers and people of the two countries, the present peace between them will never be interrupted.

Had the King and Mr Adams been disposed to indulge a spirit of rancor, sarcasm, and mutual crimination and reproach, on account of the past occurrences; they might easily have given such a complexion to the interview as would have produced an immediate renewal of hostilities between the two nations. But they wisely suppressed every thing of this tendency, and peace was of course preserved.

On such easy terms the nations might be exempted from all the expenses, the crimes, and the calamities of war. Shall it then be deemed impossible to abolish this cruel and atrocious custom, of resorting to arms, to supply the defect of prudence and "good nature" in those who bear rule over men!

Happy would it be for the several nations, if, as substitutes for their military schools, they would establish institutions for the particular purpose of teaching all candidates for office, the art of self-government, and the art of preserving peace.

TROPHIES OF VICTORY.

TROPHIES of victory or conquest are preserved and exhibited as the pride of individuals and the glory of nations; and they have been employed as means of exciting the same spirit of rapine and violence, as that by which they were obtained. Savages preserve the scalps of those they kill in war. More polished nations preserve standards, statues, paintings, and other articles which they have plundered from the inhabitants of conquered countries. Young men are directed to regard these trophics as proofs of the virtue and prowess of their ancestors. This practice has been

adopted by Christian nations; and perhaps the people of every country have treasures of this kind in which they glory.

But what does reason, enlightened by religion, say of such a practice, and such memorials? It says the practice is barbarous, derived from pagans and savages, unworthy of existence among Christians, and a reproach to any country. What! shall Christians preserve Memorials of the robberies and bloodshed committed by their ancestors, or their cotemporaries, to stimulate the young to follow such examples! With equal propriety they might preserve the idols and altars of pagan forefathers, to excite in children a veneration for idolatrous worship, and a delight in human sacrifices.

Trophies of victory have generally been trophies of barbarity, injustice, murder, and desolation. What should we think of a band of robbers or pirates, so hardened or so blind, as to preserve trophies of their destructive exploits, to encourage their children to imitate their examples? This would be as just, as humane, and as wise, as the policy of Christian nations now under review Are not the trophies of the Spanish conquest of South America-of the British conquests in India-of Napoleon's conquests in Europe, and of our victories over the natives of this country. in general, Memorials of injustice, rapine, and violence,-as inconsistent with the Christian religion, as the conduct for which pirates and robbers are doomed to die? What essential difference can be discerned in the cases, except on the principle, that rulers may honourably and safely commit such acts of robbery and violence, as would expose common people to infamy and to hell?

Trophies of victory are so far from operating to preserve a nation from war and to promote its prosperity, that they have a direct tendency to its ruin. They are the means of exciting envy, pride, ambition, malignity and revenge. They tend to intoxicate and bewilder the minds of men,— to make them thirst for war,-to overlook its crimes and

>

calamites, to seek occasions of strife,-to take offence at trides, and rashly to expose a people to misery and destruction.

The numerous trophies treasured up in Paris by Napoleon, were fuel to keep alive the fire of war, till France was made to feel the terrible effects of a war policy, and was stript of her Memorials of conquest. But while these trophies remained in Paris, what did they prove in regard to Napoleon? Did they witness to his benevolence and justice? Far from this. They were ample proofs that he was an atrocious or deluded man-killer--a successful but abandoned robber. The same may be said of the trophies of all the mighty conquerors of nations and desolators of countries. Instead of being the objects of applause and panegyric, such men should have been exhibited to the world as a curse to their species, and as much worse than common highwaymen, as their crimes were more numerous, more atrocious, and more afflicting to mankind.

What would have been thought of M'Carty, had he, after his victory at Bladensburg, taken the musket and the scalp of General Mason, preserved and exhibited them as trophies to excite others to imitate his wonderful heroism? Would he not have been regarded as a merciless barbarian, unworthy of a place in civilized society? Yet, considered apart from the influence of a savage practice, such conduct in Burr, M'Carty, Barron, or any victorious duellist, would have been no more inhuman, immoral, irreligious, or detestable, than the common practice of preserving trophics in public war.

It will perhaps be said that Christian nations do not take the scalps of the slain to preserve as trophies. Truly they do not; but when they have deprived men of their lives, it is less inhuman and less unjust to take the scalps of the dead, than to add to the misery of survivors, by destroying their dwellings or taking any thing which would be necessary to their subsistence or their comfort.