But

That this obstacle should be thrown in the way of the cause of Peace, more than any other benevolent cause, shows that those who make the objection, have not well examined the subject. It is equally applicable to the cause of temperance, abolition of slavery, or any other good cause. It may even be brought against preaching the Gospel and foreign missions. it is not true, that the passions of the human heart must be eradicated before these benevolent objects can be obtained. The passions were implanted by God in the human heart for wise and benevolent purposes; and I do not know that there is one of them which we should wish to spare. The misfortune is, that the natural passions and instincts have been perverted from their right use. They were meant for self-preservation, the continuance of the species, and rational enjoyment; but, by the fall, they were perverted; and what before was good, became the occasion of evil. The object of Christian and benevolent operations is, to restore the fallen race of man to its original purity, as far as is practicable on this side of the grave.

The great success which has attended the exertions to reform religion, put a stop to the slave-trade, promote the cause of temperance, of emancipation, and other good objects, shows that much good may be effected without eradicating the natural passions of mankind.

We are taught in the word of God to believe that the passions of mankind will be tamed. In the figurative language of prophecy, we read that "the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed together; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp; and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea,' (Isaiah xi. 6-9.) Now, if this is to be done, I ask how is it to be done? Are we to expect some stupendous miracle, or some new dispensation? Or is the Christian religion as it is, adequate to the end proposed; and are the means which are now made use of by the friends of Peace to enforce the precepts of the Gospel, and to make them bear on communities and nations, the proper steps to be taken to bring about the millennium? If not, I should like to know what are the suitable means, and I will be content to drop those used hitherto, and adopt the new ones. A state of permanent and universal Peace is to be brought about by the action of mind on mind, and of opinion upon opinion, until nations are induced to take measures to settle disputes, which may arise between them, and which they may not be able to settle themselves, in the same way as peaceable individuals settle their disputes-by arbitration. I consider a congress of nations as the end, and not the means of accomplishing this great change. When all the individuals of a nation are changed, the nation itself is changed; and when a majority of individuals are changed, the whole nation acts according to the will of the majority; but the opinion of an individual may be changed on this subject, and that the opinion of a whole nation, or at least a majority of a nation may not be changed. Nevertheless, he who has been instrumental in changing the opinion of a single individual, has done something to hasten the time when the nations shall learn war no more.

But still there is a further objection. It may be said that it is not enough that the opinion of one nation should be changed: it is necessary to change the opinion of the whole world, before we can insure permanent and universal Peace. How is the opinion of the whole world to be changed? Is it not by the same means that the opinion of individuals is changed?

Will not the general opinion of one nation have an effect on another nation, just as the opinion of one individual has an effect on another individual? Has not Great Britain had a wonderful effect on this country, in the cause of emancipation? and has not this country had an equal effect on Great Britain, in the cause of temperance? Has not Great Britain moved the whole Christian world, by her efforts to abolish the slave-trade? and has not this country done the same in its efforts to abolish intemperance? It is not necessary to the success of our cause that the whole world should be moved at once. The progress of moral light ever has been, and always will be, gradual. Let Great Britain and America adopt the peace principles, and they not only will keep peace between themselves, by leaving their disputes to arbitration, as has already been done, but this policy will have an effect on France and other nations; and it will induce a nation to lend its aid to prevent war among its neighbours. Had it not been for the progress of peace principles in Great Britain, we should at this moment have been engaged in a bloody war with France; and all this has been done without eradicating the human passions.

It is in the power of the church of Christ to put an end to the wars in Christendom whenever she shall choose to do it. Let the church give her testimony against war as unequivocally as she has heretofore given it in favour of war, and the savage and unchristian custom will be abolished in those countries where Christianity has an influence. The ecclesiastical bodies in Great Britain have not only given their testimony against slavery in the British dominions, but some of them are exerting an influence in this country, by sending messages and delegates to our religious conventions. Let us return the compliment, and send messages and delegates to them, enforcing the principles of Peace and while they remonstrate against the slavery of the black man in this country, let us, in brotherly love, point out to them the greater slavery of the white man in their own country; for there is not a consistent Christian who would not rather be a whip-galled slave on a rice plantation, than an impressed seaman on board a British man-of-war. What man is there that has embraced the principles of Christ who would not rather suffer himself than make others suffer? or who would not endure all the ills of negro slavery rather than send a fellow-creature to eternal perdition? But, alas, we see the mote in our brother's eye sooner than the beam in our own eye.

From the success which has already attended the cause of Peace, its friends have every encouragement to press forward, and exert themselves to restore the human passions, corrupted by the custom of war, to their primitive purity and utility, as far as can be done with our fallen nature.

SECTION X.

The objection, that no special effort is necessary, considered.

A GREAT obstacle to the success of the cause of Peace originates, not in any objection to our principles, but in the opinion that no special effort is necessary, that the ordinary preaching of the Gospel is fully sufficient of itself to abolish the custom of war. "Make all men Christians, and wars will cease of themselves," say the objectors.

This is a formidable obstacle to the success of Peace Societies, because the objection is made by pious and good men, who acknowledge our principles to be correct, but who make use of it to quiet their consciences, while they refuse to us their countenance and co-operation. The objection allows on the face of it, that war is inconsistent with the Gospel; for if it be not, if the Gospel sanctions war in any case whatsoever, how will preaching the Gospel put an end to it? If the Gospel allowed of fornica

tion, adultery, theft, or murder, in any case, how would the preaching of the Gospel ever put an end to those sins?

66

I fear there is something wrong in those ministers of the Gospel, who make use of this objection to excuse themselves for refusing to take an active part in this great work. I will give an instance. A preacher of the Gospel once said to me, "Sir, I cannot join you; your principles are too low-far below the Gospel standard. Now I go further than you do, for I am opposed to all war on all occasions." Well, sir," I replied, "have you ever preached on that subject?" "Why, no; almost half the male members of my church are militia officers, and I should injure my usefulness." "Then, sir, you are the very man to preach these principles; 'Christ came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' How can you say you go further than I do, when you have never moved an inch?" The minister was offended, and withdrew his subscription from the Peace Society. This is not a singular case; I have known many who never subscribed, and have discouraged others from subscribing, on the plea that the ordinary preaching of the Gospel is sufficient to put an end to the custom of war, but who have never preached a sermon against war, nor ever given an intimation in any sermon that they are opposed to it. If there is not insincerity in such conduct, there is certainly inconsistency. I acknowledge that by preaching the whole Gospel truth on this subject, a minister lays himself liable to persecution; but if the fear of man prevents his declaring the whole counsel of God, is he a good soldier of the cross? and how can he answer it to his Master?

Is not this objection as valid against any benevolent enterprise as against the cause of Peace. But daily experience confutes this reasoning. The Gospel has been preached these eighteen hundred years; and yet to the present day, good men have engaged in war, and prayed for the success of their arms, and have got up from their knees, and gone out and shot down their fellow-creatures, and sent immortal souls-each worth more than an empire-to endless perdition; and the church has looked on with approbation, and offered her prayers for victory, and sent out her chaplains, and consecrated monuments of war, and her members have even taken the instruments of death into their own hands and joined in the bloody conflict. The first Indian killed at Lovell's fight was shot and scalped by a minister of the Gospel. Without a great change, both in preaching and practice, when are we to expect wars to cease? I am happy to say that a change has already commenced, and more than a thousand ministers, of the different denominations of Christians, are now pledged to preach in favour of the cause of Peace at least once a year; and already we see the happy effects.

Were there no Christians engaged in our two wars with Great Britain, on both sides? It is related of a church in Vermont, near the Canada line, and composed partly of Canadians, that during the revolutionary war, the members partook of the sacrament together on the Sabbath, and before the next Sabbath these Christian members of the same church were engaged in battle, sending one another to their last account, to appear before their awful Judge, red with their brother's blood.

I acknowledge that the number of pious persons in an army is comparatively small; the temptations are so many, and the prevalence of the vicious characters so great, that it may seem no inconsiderable praise and felicity to be free from dissolute vice; and the few who do escape should be reckoned heroes indeed, and highly favoured of Heaven. Yet pious persons send their children to military academies, to learn the art of human butchery and thereby expose them to all these temptations. Few, indeed, have the courage, like Captain Thrush, of the British Navy, to resign their commis

sions, and give up their pay, because, on examination, they have found that war is utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel. I believe that British officers, especially in India, have put off their red coats during a temporary peace, and put on their black ones, and taken furlough to go and preach the Gospel to those very nations they had just been fighting against, and who would again return to their bloody work as soon as orders for war should arrive from government. What inconsistency would there be in it for a fighting Christian? If it be right to fight the natives, and right to preach the Gospel to them, where is the great harm in the same person doing both alternately? But how long must such a Gospel be preached before wars will cease?

But does any one say that Christians should be allowed to murder one another, and destroy unbelievers, until all men become Christians? Should nothing be done in the mean time to set a better example to the heathen, and shew them the wonderful loveliness of the Christian religion? If any should say that the preaching of the Gospel by ordained ministers is amply sufficient to abolish the custom of war without peace societies, peace tracts, and periodicals, agents, conventions, speeches, resolutions, newspaper essays, and all the other means which are made use of to act on public opinion in favour of the cause of Peace, as well as the cause of temperance, why, then, if they are ministers, let them preach on the subject, and preach often. But, alas! for consistency, those ministers who object to peace societies and rely on preaching alone, are generally the very persons who never preach at all on the subject.

A great reason of the general prevalence of this opinion is, that men have mistaken the means for the end. They say, Make all men Christians, and wars will cease; while we say, You must abolish war before you can make all men Christians. War is the greatest obstacle to the conversion of the heathen and the prevalence of vital piety in Christian countries; and therefore it is the duty of every Christian to do what he can to put an end to it.

Since writing the above, I have received a copy of the Prize Peace Essay of the Bengor Theological Seminary. The author has some excellent remarks on the subject; I add the following:

"The grand measure to be employed for the abolition of war, as of any evil, is the promulgation of Christianity. But the universal promulgation of Christianity cannot be effected at once. Must we remain idle, in regard to the peace enterprise, until this vast work is fully accomplished, and the world is evangelized? As well might Wilberforce have aimed at the extinction of the slave-trade only through the thorough Christianization of the British people! As well might it be affirmed that we may hope to effect the reformation of a dissolute friend only by effecting his regeneration in the orthodox sense. The world must be taken as it is. A good enterprise must not be suffered to languish, because it cannot be prosecuted in just the way we wish. Effective means may be employed for the abolition of many an evil, under the full sanction of Christianity and in full accordance with its principles, while itself is not visibly engaged as their antagonist."

SECTION XI.

Fear of consequences,

THERE is a large class of objections against the cause of Peace, which are urged by those who cannot deny the conformity of our principles with the religion of Christ, "in the abstract," but which are suggested by the fear of consequences, should the principles of peace be adopted in the present state of society.

One of the most powerful objections which arises from this cause, is the fear that, if a whole nation should adopt the pacific principles laid down in the Gospel, it would become an easy prey to other nations. They say, for instance, "If we, in this country, should adopt the pacific policy, we should be immediately subjugated by Great Britain." If you ask the objector, "If the British nation should adopt the pacific policy, would they be in danger from us?" "Oh, no," is the reply. But what reason is there to believe that we are so much better than they? If they would be safe from us, why should we not be safe from them?

But our main inquiry should be, whether the principles of peace be agreeable to the precepts of the Gospel; and not, what would be the consequences of acting up to the principles of him whom we call our Master. If the wisdom of man be superior to the wisdom of God, we should have no need of a revelation from heaven. Our Master tells us, not to fear "those who have power to kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do; but to fear him who, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell.” Had Daniel acted on the fear of consequences, he would have ceased praying, at the command of Darius. Had the three children acted on the fear of consequences, they would have worshipped the golden image. Had Paul acted on the fear of consequences, he never would have gone up to Jerusalem, where he knew that bonds and imprisonment awaited him. Would the apostles and the primitive Christians, that "noble army of martyrs," have preached Christ crucified, if they had been moved by a cowardly fear of consequences? Would not Maximilian, Marcellus, Taracus, and a host of other Christian heroes, have consented to enlist in the Roman armies, if they had feared the ignominious death which awaited them more than the displeasure of their blessed Redeemer? God knows how to succour those who trust in him, and to deliver them from the power of the lions, or the fiery furnace, when it shall be most for his glory and the good of his creatures, or to take them to their reward when they have done the work appointed them.

But the danger of making the precepts of Christ the rule of our conduct is not so great as is apprehended. I need not here mention the case of the Quakers in this country, or in Ireland, as they are already familiar to the public. Nor will I be very particular in giving an account of the adventure of Major Gray, who commanded an exploring party sent by the British Government into the interior of Africa. He found that the strongest walled cities in that barbarous country had become a prey to war. At length he came to Barra Cunda, "which was surrounded only by a slight stake fence interwoven with thorn bushes ;" and this city was perfectly secure and safe; and no one had molested it. "This arises," says the Major, "from their never engaging in war."

In reference to the attack on Port Cresson, where seventeen of the settlers were murdered and some houses burnt, after getting all the information I can on this subject, I am fully of opinion that this case, so far from weakening the argument in favour of the pacific policy drawn from actual experiment, only confirms it. But, to be protected by the principles of peace, one should be consistent, and put on the whole armour of the Christian. A failure in one point may be fatal.

There are many other incontrovertible arguments and facts, which could be brought on this question; but to state them all would require a volume, instead of a single section. After all, I am not pleading the doctrine of expediency, but only attempting to show that following the precepts of Christ is not so dangerous to our temporal welfare as some appear to apprehend.