edly with the same views of peace and justice; but we too well know how deeply other views have mingled with them, and how schemes of aggrandizement, partition, support of despotic power, and interference with the internal measures of other States, have evinced the prevalence of selfish and oppressive principles. I am not projecting the concurrence of governments and nations in maintaining peace and justice, from a fanciful or ignorant persuasion that they have been long well disposed to this, and that nothing more was needed than for some retired and unknown Christians to remind them that it is right and desirable. I well know that there must be, in order to their doing so uniformly, a mighty change of principle and feeling: it may be far too long for our wishes before the progress of that change is so great in our own country, as decisively to influence national measures; but, be it more or less remote, the change will, in my opinion, be commensurate with the growth of true Christianity; in the mean while, it is the duty of the consistent Christian, in every country, even if he stand alone, not to swerve from the principles of peace and justice, by subjecting himself to be an instrument of their violation. On the contrary, it becomes him to be instrumental in their diffusion; and by contemplating, as we have now done, their future probable effect, he will receive the greatest encouragement to adhere to them with firmness, and plead for them with pacific zeal. 158 LETTER X. The fourth objection, respecting the assistance of the injured in foreign countries, adverted to.---Specific service would suffice for this.---General remarks on such service.---Peculiar facilities of Great Britain for pursuing a defensive system.---No decision on cases of specific service as yet needful.---Refusal of that which is unlimited, the great principle.---Effects to be anticipated from the settled adoption of this by Christians. I BELIEVE no observer of human affairs and national feeling will doubt, that the three objections, already discussed, have severally much greater weight with those who condemn the refusal of unlimited service, than that which remains to be considered.* It is, indeed, plausi * It may be said, that I have shunned another important objection; "Our nation could not have punished insults or injuries committed against itself."-I have shown, in my fourth Letter, (page 51.) that this punitive or reparative right must be held very dubious by a Christian, until some rule be established for rendering such acts, by the sanction of other States, more properly judicial. I may add, that wrongs and insults of a minute and debateable kind, form, at once, a most inadequate and an ever-recurring plea for involving whole nations in bloodshed, while, in general, they are mere pretexts, disguising other motives no less at variance with policy and justice. This objection, also, if insisted on, would be liable to the same general an ble, to say;" Without a regular army, our nation could not have punished the criminal, and assisted the injured, in foreign countries;"-or, omitting the mention of punishment, which is but a means to the further end, (since, where there is a criminal, there must also be an injured party,) it is still more plausible to say;" Without a force at the full disposal of the State, we could not have defended the weak, or delivered the oppressed." Doubtless, when this aid is supposed to involve our own aggrandizement, or promote our own security, when it tends to humble a rival, or remove the seat of war from our shores, it is felt, by many statesmen, and by many subjects, to be a moral obligation of the first order. Every feeling of generosity, every sentiment of brotherly kindness, is then supposed to dictate interference. In this favourite connexion, however, of subserviency to our own advantage, the duty of martial beneficence towards others, (whether in the shape of men or money,) has been already commented upon; and without this subserviency, taken quite abstractedly as a duty of the chivalrous disinte swer which has been addressed to the former, that it supposes a grand revolution in the temper and practice of one State, without any coeval change in the dispositions and conduct of others, or in the general rules by which the great community of States consent to be guided. rested sort, I have not observed that it is often dwelt upon by grave politicians. It is true, there can be no public beneficence purely of the disinterested sort. At the least, some attachment or respect to be derived from it, will be anticipated as a consequence, if not admitted as a motive. If an invaded or oppressed community be assisted by another, the interference tends to weaken an unjust and dangerous power; and, also, if there be such a thing as national gratitude, to excite that sentiment in the people which has been succoured, and thus to insure their friendship and reciprocal aid. We may, however, conceive a case in which an armed interposition might take place on behalf of a smaller oppressed community, where nothing of what is usually termed interest could be contemplated. If the King of Sardinia should revive the cruel persecution of his ancestors against the Waldenses in his Piedmontese vallies, (and, from information which I obtained when in his capital, I am persuaded that no prince in Europe is more likely to receive and to follow the counsels of bigots, though fear, probably, will check both them and him,) Great Britain ought to hear, and would hear, with deep concern, the wrongs of suffering Protestants. If our |