Testament, addressed to individual Christians, are equally applicable to professing Christian states and political bodies." Yet why? Are not all states and political bodies composed of individuals; and must not the same injunctions which are binding on them as individuals, be considered as regulating their conduct in their associated state? Is there one set of precepts in the Gospel addressed to individuals, and another to states? Is not the monarch an individual; his prime minister the same; and so on of the other authorities throughout the kingdom? Will they not be judged as individuals? And what is required of them, but that the same pacific principles which they acknowledge in their individual capacity, should become influencial in their official condition?

In reply to the remark, that "war includes bloodshed, not unawares, which is the scriptural definition of murder;" your correspondent asks a series of questions, to all of which he might easily have given the same answer, had he recollected that the transactions he alludes to occurred under a Theocracy, and that the scale of punishments was distinctly graduated by God himself. Until the same can be affirmed respecting our duty under the Christian dispensation, it is useless to propose such queries.

X Y Z observes, that "it is not the duty of every Christian to occupy himself with the more profound questions of political economy." To this I would answer, No, not of every Christian. But, are not Christians more competent to discuss such questions in their most important moral connexions, than other men are, and more likely to do it with calmness, and with due respect to the ruling powers ? I have read the "Pictures of War," as well as X Y Z; and it appears to me, that the author or compiler has been studious to avoid every thing of an

In a conver

In a work recently published, entitled, "Letters descriptive of a Tour on the Continent in 1816," there is, inter alia, an account of the Anabaptists in the valley of Moutier; and it is said of them, that they are believers in the Trinity, and in the Atonement of Christ; but they agree with the Quakers in denying the lawfulness of oaths and of war. sation held with some of them by the Tourist, they stated, "that neither the Prince Bishop of Basle, a Roman Catholic, under whose government they formerly were, nor Bonaparte, to whom they had since been subjects, had ever exacted military service of them; but that now, on this district's being recently annexed to the canton of Berne, that Protestant Republic required them to find substitutes, which had cost about twelve of their number about eighteen louis each; that this demand was very grievous to them as a poor tenantry, to say nothing of their conscientious objections; that

it had induced them to think of the painful alternative of emigrating; and that a few of their young men were already gone to America, to report to the rest;-that there was no doubt of their reluctance, on account of their numerous families, and that many proprietors in the country were much concerned at the risk of their being driven to quit it, as they were good tenants." What would X Y Z say to such a statement? Would he pity both Anabaptists and Quakers, as being under a delusion, in regard to their scruples about war; or finding that Quakers in England, Baptists in Germany and Switzerland, the Saints in Norway, the Duhbortzi in Russia, the Waldenses in Piedmont, and the Shakers in America, are all averse to national hostilities, will be inquire what authority these conscientious men find in Scripture, or what they discover in the Christian character, that produces or perpetuates this aversion? Perhaps, a closer examination not merely of the letter but of the spirit of the New Testament, might render X Y Z much less disposed to the toleration of hostile practices, without depriving him of a single particle of his loyalty.

In page 25 of the Christian Observer, X Y Z imputes to the author of the " Pictures of War," sentiments, which, on turning to the book, I find, belong rather to Dr. Rush of Philadelphia, and ought to have been placed to his account, although quoted by Ire. nicus.

To conclude; I beg leave to propose the following questions for the consideration of your correspondent:

Does Christ, or do his Apostles, any where in the New Testament, enjoin the practice of war, either directly or by implication?

Do the passages in the New Testament, which mention the ruler or supreme magistrate, relate to his military duties, or to the administration of justice?

Do the same passages describe him, in relation to his wars with other nations, or in relation to the government of his own subjects?

Do the passages in Rom. xiii. or elsewhere, descriptive of the duties of Christian subjects to their rulers, include or imply an obligation on them to enter into the army aud perform military duties?

If there really exists such an obligation, are not French, Spanish, or German Christans only obeying their own rulers, when they invade Britain, murder British Christians, and do them all the mischief they can? And are they not rather to be treated with respect, as acting loyally to their several governments, than viewed as robbers and murderers?

Is not this also making the will of a fallible (not to say an ambi tious or a vindictive) ruler the sole guide of the Christian's conduct in such matters?

As there may be public national laws which are contrary to the laws of Christ, so may there not be public national wars contrary to the whole spirit of Christianity, in which a conscientious Christian cannot warrantably take an active part?

Is it at all probable, that any practice can be sanctioned by Scripture, which leads to so many abuses, moral, political, and personal, and which is so inconsistent with that amiable and tranquillizing spirit which reigns throughout the Christian scheme?

A B C.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. Respected Friend

A FEW days past, I wrote a letter to a clergyman in my neighbourhood, who had lent me the Number for January of the Christian Observer, that I might see a few observations, under the signature X Y Z, respecting the Peace Society. Soon after I had written

"I consider myself under obliga. tion to thee for the loan of the Christian Observer, containing some strictures on the publications of the Peace Society. I believe the cause of truth never has suffered, nor ever will suffer, from mild and candid discussion. I can well believe that the writer of these strictures apprehended he was engaged in a good cause; but his arguments appear to me very far from conclusive. In the first column of page 23, he says, Were it possible to realise the views of this Society, the effect must be to paralyse the arm of power, introduce discord, confusion, and bloodshed, into the very bosom of society, and lay the country open, as an easy prey to any unprincipled and ambitious aggressor.'

"I have a small book now before me, written by a valuable member of the Society of Friends, lately deceased, in which he says: We come now to the arguments used in defence of war, the principal of which I apprehend to be, that it is unavoidable and necessary. Whilst mankind are disposed to live under the influence of their passions, and to sacrifice their dearest interests to their avarice or their ambition, this plea will not be wanting. But let us consider what proofs have been given that war is really unavoidable. Has any nation fairly made the experiment, and failed? Where is the country that has regulated its conduct by that jus tice, that liberality, that love, that humility, and that meekness, which Christianity requires, and yet has found war unavoidable? Can we coutemplate the characters of the

individuals who have been the rulers of nations, and say, that such have been the dispositions which regulated their public and private conduct, and that stil they have not been able to preserve their country from war and bloodshed? Till all this can be clearly proved, the argument from necessity is of no weight. But that F may not be thought to reason chimerically, I shall shew that a people hath existed, who, acting upon those Christian principles, preserved their country from war and bloodshed, even while their neighbours were frequently involved in them. Pennsylvania, it is generally known, was originally the property of one called a Quaker, who filled most of the offices of the government with persons of his own persuasion. Had not the conduct of these people (Pennsylvanian Quakers) towards their neighbours, both Indians and Europeans, been recorded by men totally unconnected with the Society, my relation might appear partial and interested: but history, impartial history, has transmitted the conduct of these people to postérity in such a manner, as renders it unnecessary for me to say more, than that, so long as they retained their ascendency in the state, which was about sixty or seventy years, neither internal nor external war was permitted to disturb their peaceful habitations. We do not say, that occasions of difference never occurred; but other means of settling their differences than those generally resorted to were pursued; and if not successful, submission was wisely preferred to the violent and precarious decision of the sword. If it cannot be shewn that men, living and acting in a truly Christian spirit, have found war to be necessary and unavoidable, the argument assumed must be considered as destitute of foundation.'

"I should have been glad to refer thee to some other instance of the

beneficial effects of truly pacific principles in government besides that of Pennsylvania; but I really do not know where to find one. If my life and the Emperor of Russia's should be preserved for twenty years longer, I would gladly hope to see those principles brought conspicuously into action on a large scale; for does not Christian charity require us to believe that his profession in the holy league' was sincere? And has not his conduct since the time that league was formed, been conformable to that profession?

"In the second column of the same page, something is said by X Y Z of Peace Societies attempting to overawe the civil government. In the smaller tract which I now send, (Solemn Review of the Custom of War), thou wilt find prefixed, An Address from the Peace Society in this Nation,' and a copy of the constitution of the Massachusett's Peace Society. I do not perceive any thing like a spirit of overawing in either of these. Thou wilt also observe, by the letter of the Secretary of the Massachusett's Peace Society to the Emperor of Russia, what that Society's views really are; and, in the answer, what the Emperor, whom I consider to be a man of some penetration, thinks of them.

"T. Clarkson, in p. 6 of the third tract of the Society, says: With respect to the opinions of the first Christian writers after the Apostles, or of those who are usually called the Fathers of the Church, relative to war, I believe we shall find them alike for three hundred years, if not a longer period. Justin the Martyr, one of the earliest of those in the second century, considers war as unlawful.' And in page 15; • Every Christian writer of the second century, who notices the subject, makes it unlawful for Christians to bear arms. Also in page 8; With respect to the practice of the early Christians, it may be observed, that there is no well

authenticated instance upon record of Christians entering into the army for nearly the two first centuries; but it is true, on the other hand, that they declined the military profession, as one in which it was not lawful for them to engage.'

"X Y Z endeavours to turn the attention of his readers from the view of military robbery, fraud, &c. to the Christians of our army and navy.' Alas! what proportion is there of real Christians in our fleets and armies? How very few Gardiners, Burns, or others of kindred spirit!

The writer, in page 24, col. 2, undertakes to criticise the volume entitled, 'Pictures of War.' It does not consist entirely of extracts, though it contains many, and I think very excellent ones, and very judiciously and neatly arranged: but there are several original observations, or at least what the compiler, if he may not be called the author, considers as such. Permit me to hand thee a short extract from the Preface.

"His (the compiler's) intention has been, not so much to obtrude his own remarks, as to display the sentiments of eminent writers, who have, either incidentally or otherwise, handled a subject which is confessedly of universal impor tance, but seldom discussed, and perhaps too frequently decided upon without full examination.' The author is of no political party, and has no private interest to serve. Submission to the powers that be,' on Christian principles, forms the basis of his political creed; and he trusts that nothing of a contrary tendency will ever be suggested or contended for by him.' And again: What is here said on the subject, is not designed for the purpose of reproach against any class of men, but with a desire to befriend and benefit all who have not examined it closely; and to rouse Christians to the consideration of their apparent duty; namely, to unite in propagating and

in exemplifying pacific principles.' -Dost thou see any thing in this declaration, or in a conduct conformable to it, inconsistent with the character of a genuine Christian? I confess that I do not.

"I think no Christian pastor who sincerely adopts the petition, Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done

on earth as it is done in heaven; can avoid desiring to see universal peace extended over the earth.

"With desires that thou mayest acquire and preserve a large portion of that wisdom which is so beautifully described by the Apostle James, (iii. 17), I remain, &c."

be the more productive for its means being husbanded with prudence, or the more beneficent for its operations being directed with judgment: and hence, for a long series of years, the profligate mendicant intercepted the alms which should have gone to the domestic sufferer; idleness obtained more relief than merit, because it created greater want; and acts of humanity were measured, not, like the proceedings of an infirmary, by the number of patients cured, but rather, like its apothecary's bill, by the cost of the medicines distributed! Their amount was valued without taking notice of the good which was done by their interference.

Thus, in estimating the benevo▴ lent spirit of our laws, which we are far from disputing, it has been usual to cite the sums annually raised for the benefit of the poor in parish rates throughout the country, without at all moving the question, in what degree the poor were enriched or essentially benefited by the tax. Six millions a year! This was at once the proof and measure of the national bounty; and the nature of the calculation would go far to shew, that even the charity of the country partakes of its mercantile character; though certainly the prudence of a mercantile proceeding does not appear in its proceedings.

The Report of the Committee on Mendicity helped to raise the po