War Essentially Wrong.

THAT the history of the human race is one of progression ; that conflicting ideas of right and wrong, on many points, have prevailed in different ages of the world; that the light and knowledge of one age have been much inferior to those of a succeeding age; all this is beyond controversy. To whom much is given, of the same much shall be required '— and less where less is given. But this does not prove that God, in any age, commanded acts to be done which are in themselves wrong, as the best method he could adopt to educate and discipline any portion of our race for a higher destiny. His moral attributes are absolute and immutable; his relations to mankind, and theirs to him and to each other, have ever been essentially the same. What is derogatory to his character now—what is morally injurious to them— must have always been so, whether so regarded or not.

There are certain moral propositions which need no argument or proof. God cannot lie; he cannot, therefore, authorise lying. God cannot steal; he cannot, therefore, enjoin theft as a duty in any case. God cannot commit

murder; he cannot, therefore, require any of his children to be murderers. God cannot be cruel or vindictive; he cannot, therefore, approve or enjoin acts of cruelty or revenge. God cannot enslave; he cannot, therefore, require or sanction slavery, under any circumstances.

On

Now, on what are right and wrong dependant? recorded declarations? on ancient parchments or modern manuscripts? on sacred books? No. Though every parchment, manuscript and book in the world were given to the consuming fire, the loss would not in the least affect the right or wrong of moral actions. Truth and duty, the principles of justice and equity, the obligations of mercy and brotherly kindness, are older than all books, and more endur

ing than tables of stone. If we find any thing contrary to these, in any book or on any tablet, is it not to be repudiated, even though it may claim to be divinely commanded?

The question at issue is-WAR, its nature, tendencies, results: WAR, whether in ancient or modern times, whether under the Jewish or Christian dispensation: is it right? was it ever justifiable? How shall this question be settled? Not arbitrarily by an appeal to any volume, however sacredly regarded; for every volume is of human composition, and therefore liable to error. Besides, if war be a malum in se, it needs no other evidence than its own intrinsic character to procure for it a verdict of condemnation. In short, we must judge of the tree by its fruits; and this we can easily do.

War is as capable of moral analysis as slavery, intemperance, licentiousness, or idolatry. It is not an abstraction, which admits of doubt or uncertainty, but as tangible as bombs, cannon, mangled corpses, smouldering ruins, desolated towns and villages, rivers of blood. It is substantially the same in all ages, and cannot change its moral features. To trace it in all its ramifications is not a difficult matter. In fact, nothing is more terribly distinct than its career; it leaves its impress on every thing it touches, whether physi cal, mental, or moral. Why, then, not look it in the face? Why look any where else? Is it not in this demonstrative way that abolitionists triumphantly meet their opponents on the subject of slavery; that the friends of total abstinence grapple with the advocates of moderate drinking; that the opponents of the gallows drive from the field the partisans of capital punishment?

War is the antagonist of Peace, as Slavery is of Liberty, as Sin is of Holiness. The mission of Jesus was that of Peace. All Christians profess to believe, that when his spirit universally prevails, mankind will sit under their own

vines and fig trees, with none to molest or make them afraid. What is this but to concede that war is opposed to his spirit? Has he come to condemn or extirpate, as morally wrong, that which his Heavenly Father expressly commanded to be done as a test of religious obedience, and to promote true piety among the idolatrous nations of old?

To this simple issue, the vindicators of the Jewish wars must be kept. They but travel in a circle when they quote from this or that portion of the Bible, passages to prove that those wars were just and holy.

'The Powers that be are ordained of God.”

THERE is something not only extremely unfair, but positively slanderous, in the naked charge, so frequently preferred against non-resistants, that they deny the necessity of human governments.' As thus stated, without explanation or qualification, a person ignorant of their principles would be justified in supposing that they advocated the profligate doctrines of Jack Cade, were for removing all moral and legal restraints upon the people, and were a band of Jacobins and anarchists, who took delight in shedding innocent blood, crying havoc, and letting slip the dogs of war. Every such representation is something more flagrant than a broad caricature; it is both false and wicked. Non-resistants do not deny that some form of government, however arbitrary and despotic, is better than a state of anarchy; that a limited monarchy is infinitely to be preferred to

an absolute despotism; and that a republican is far better than a monarchical form of government. Just as they concede that the cholera is more dreadful than a slow fever, and a slow fever more to be to be deprecated than the ague. They also readily admit, that the abrogation of existing laws and governmental regulations for the punishment of evil-doers would be most calamitous, without a moral and spiritual regeneration of the people. But they affirm that, under the gospel dispensation, man is no longer empowered to take the life of man, or to demand an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth. They maintain that, whether many or few are willing or able to pardon their enemies, Christ requires it of all who would be his disciples; that the government is upon his shoulders; that there is no foundation in reason or scripture for incarcerating in prison, or suspending upon gibbets, domestic foes, and allowing foreign invaders to lay waste the land and commit all manner of excesses with impunity; that if it is right to slay one man in self-defence, or to save community from destruction, it is equally right to slay two, one hundred, any number of men, for the same reason—and, therefore, defensive war is justifiable. They would not only disarm mankind of their deadly weapons, but remove from their hearts all incentives to do evil, all desire for revenge. In short, they can use no other weapons than those which are spiritual, in their conflict with the evil that is in the world, and believe that they may safely treat their enemies as Jesus did his. The Society of Friends, in approving of governments which are upheld by the sword, and the laws of which are written in blood, is false to its own principles. It must either recede from its present position, or march on to the ground of entire non-resistance. Its inconsistency is too glaring to escape the observation even of those who make no pretensions to a pacific character. An acute writer in the 'New

York Observer,' objecting to the doctrine of Friends, that war, under all circumstances, is inconsistent with the precepts of the gospel and the spirit of the Christian dispensation, says:

Here is the fundamental error of the English Peace Society, and also of the American, which expressly adopts the same principle as an article of its Constitution. Both Societies deny to a nation the right of self-defence; for they regard all war, defensive as well as offensive, as repugnant to the Christian dispensation. They would require rulers to surrender their subjects, without resistance, to every company or horde of evil-doers, coming from abroad in the shape of an army; and thus they would annihilate all government, which is nothing without the employment of physical force for the punishment of evil-doers.

'In vain do some of the peace men, whose actual principles are those of non-resistance, endeavor to escape the reproach of the non-resisting doctrines, by distinguishing between the employment of force by the magistrates against citizens, and its employment against an enemy; for it is a distinction without a difference. In all reason, the magistrate, who bears the sword for the protection of the people and the preservation of order, is bound to use it as readily against a band of pirates coming in a ship, or an invading army, as against a solitary robber or murderer.'

Surely, nothing can be more dangerous than the doctrine, that the moral obligations of men change with the latitude and longitude of a place. Surely, it is a gross paradox uttered by the Society of Friends, that if there be domestic troublers of the public peace, Christianity requires that they should be confined in prison, and deprived in some instances of their lives; but if a band of lawless invaders should throng these shores from abroad, for the purpose of ravaging the country and reducing the people to slavery, then Christianity requires that there should be no physical force arrayed against them, and the people are bound to suffer unresistingly. Such a doctrine is not less absurd than it is