and such armies neither actually exercise any confidence in God, nor have they the least reason to exercise it. He who first uses them to execute his awful chastisements on others, may be expected afterwards to break "the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.""Through the voice of the Lord shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod." Examples of this have been presented in all ages, and have constrained even infidels to say, (as I have heard French officers remark on the destruction of their armies in Russia,)" The Supreme Being willed it."* But a Christian, using arms conscientiously, in a manner strictly defensive, will really exercise confidence in God, will ascribe success to his favour and protection, and will persevere, (so long as perseverance can be founded on reasonable hopes,) from a conviction that the cause is just. He will will know, nevertheless, that the secret arrangements of the Divine Government are paramount to the justice, or rather to the success, of any particular cause; and he will, therefore, not infer from defeat, whether partial or final, that resistance was unchristian. If the Supreme Ruler, in his inscrutable counsels, should permit such defenders of their country to be finally

"L'Etre suprême l'a voulu."

discomfited, it would be, indeed, one more striking and mysterious proof, on on the great scale, that the triumph of rectitude is not designed to be complete or certain in this world; but their fall or overthrow would, at the same time, be a martyrdom to Christian principles, adapted to astonish mankind, and to convert them, by force of shame, from lending themselves as gladiators to the bloody sports of ambition. It would be a more impressive lesson on the horror and odiousness of unjust war, than all those successive slaughters of unnumbered armies, which have mutually marched and fallen with almost as little of true moral feeling as the horses which some of them rode. I may be told, even by Christians, "You condemn retaliation, precautionary aggression, and the appeal to force for reparation of injuries; at least, you would have these measures first sanctioned by other States; but a nation which should be known, in the present state of the world, to act on principles like these, would be continually provoked, insulted, and wronged, from the expectation of impunity. It would be attacked with little hazard, when found to confine itself to defence, and to be scrupulous in avenging its wrongs by reciprocal attack, spoliation, and conquest. Always exposed to aggression, and hesitating to make those prompt reprisals which would weaken and intimidate

its enemies, it must, at length, fall under their unjust power." I may here remark, that it would be strictly right, (provided it were politic, which I do not decide,) that a nation, pursuing consistently the Christian principles which I have attempted to advocate, should treat its enemies (who must, by the supposition, be always aggressive and unprovoked enemies) with more of judicial rigour than the customs of modern war admit. Those customs have an aspect of humanity; and, as far as they relate to the sparing of life, humanity and religion require them; but what is called the "parole," of those superior prisoners, who, as leaders of an unjust war, merit more severe and longer durance than their inferiors, springs from, and suits, the false opinion, which (with or without a little colouring) prevails among the higher ranks throughout Europe; that wars of aggression and retaliation are an honourable employ, a pastime of noble spirits. This favourite illusion, a nation which never warred aggressively, would do well, by every means that is not sanguinary, to correct.*

* Why should not that wholesome discipline of labour, which is so much needed for our imprisoned criminals, and even debtors, extend to prisoners of war of every rank, supposing their hostility to be aggressive and unprovoked? Nothing, I think, but the impolicy of such a proceeding, as tending to exasperate and to produce yet harsher retaliation, can be justly objected.

But, when it is said, that, in spite of every expedient, such a nation would be exposed to perpetual insult and destructive attack, I must again ask, Is it fair to suppose, that these truly pacific principles (whose prevalence, we have reason to fear, is not yet at hand, even in Our own country) would, if they should prevail among ourselves, have no contemporaneous growth and extension in other nations? Is there not even now some probable evidence of a disposition to act upon them, or, at least, an admission of their propriety and excellence, in the declarations of sovereigns? May we not suppose, that, if professed by governments, they are much more felt by suffering subjects? And is it to be doubted, that their further progress and practical adoption by so great a nation as this, would extend their influence? May we not, therefore, conclude, that their advocates in other countries, and even the governments of those countries, (however imperfectly imbued with them,) would interpose by powerful mediation, and, if needful, by defensive succours,

• I am very far, indeed, from pledging myself for the sincerity of those professions, still less for their consistent fulfilment. But, at all events, the duty of a Christian and pacific policy has been more fully and formally recognised by the great powers than before.

to support the rights of a people who consistently pursued these principles of peace? In other words, if we admit, that there are any germs of Christian justice in other professedly Christian countries, is it unreasonable to expect that they would be developed and strengthened in some degree of proportion with the growth of similar sentiments in our own, and that something like a court of international appeal, compelling aggressors to peace and restitution, could be then established by the common consent of Christian nations? Or, if such an institution be impracticable, from the refusal of independent States to acknowledge a superior authority even of their own constituting, why may we not suppose a Christian State, referring the consideration of an injury received to the envoys of several independent States, entering on no preventive or reparative act, without their previous mediation, and their public official declaration, (consequent on its failure,) that justice was unattainable by pacific means, that the hostility of the injured nation is therefore strictly judicial, and as such will have the sanction and effective support of their several governments?-I am aware, that the names of coalition and mediation have been long current among European States, profess