lives. But, alas! their habits are fixed, and perhaps in one month, we shall see each of them pursuing his former road to destruction. Each hopes for better suceess the next time.

Let the history of warring governments be examined, and enquire, whether this illustration is not as applicable to them as to the vicious individuals. If the gambler obtains an advantage in one game, he is encouraged to risk another, in hope of adding to his ill-gotten wealth-If he loses in one game, he will try again, in hope of recovering what he had lost. In like manner, warring nations of former ages, proceeded till they brought ruin on themselves.

Nor is any thing better to be expected of warring governments of the present age, unless the eyes of the people can be opened to see war in its true light. Except something should be done for this purpose, the probability of another war with Great Britain is, in my opinion, much greater than it would have been at this time, had the last war not occurred.

At any rate, I doubt whether there is a single person concerned in the government of our nation, or a single man of common sense in the land, who would have given his own life for all the security that the war has procured to us, against future injuries from the British nation. I indeed hope that the eyes of that nation will be opened to see the evils of war, and that they will refrain from injuring us; but I have no hope that their losses in the war have had, or will have, such an effect. If such should be the effect of the war, it may be regarded as a phenomenon in the history of a powerful, prosperous and warring nation.

The security against a future war between the two nations, which would result from having two intelligent and genuine peace characters in the cabinet of each, would be a hundred fold greater, than all that has been produced by the losses of the last conflict.

But there are considerations, which Mr. Jefferson's statement does not embrace, and which he doubtless expected would be brought to view in this examination.

He stated the losses which we occasioned to Great Britain in the war; but not the losses on our part, or at

the path of true wisdom is the path of PEACE, and that it is for the honor and interest of nations, as well as of individuals, to adopt the pacific maxims of the Christian religion, and to extol no other wisdom in preference to that "which is from above."

To make a more perfect estimate and comparison of the loss and gain by the late war, either to Great Britain or the United States, it behoves individuals of each nation to take into view the value of life, and the worth of immortal souls, capable of endless happiness or misery.

Let every ruler, and every reflecting Christian sit down, and make out a candid estimate of the value of his own life, and his own soul, or state the price at which he would consent to lose them. In the next place, let him consider how many lives were probably sacrificed by the war, and how many souls were probably "hurried into eternity, in an unprepared state." Then take the estimated value of his own life and his own soul, and multiply it by the total of the lives and souls which were probably lost by the war, gainst the sum of the real gain, both nations from the contest. far, let him reflect on this result, and accountable being. Will he not exclaim, in the language of the Savior, "What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul! Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul!" Will he not also add-Of all the delusions that ever afflicted the human family, war is the most bewildering, and the most fatal!

and set the product awhich has resulted to Having proceeded thus as becomes a rational

If such should be the effect of counting the cost of war, let each individual, while under these solemn convictions and impressions, adopt the following magnanimous reso. lution :

"Never again will I employ my influence in favor of making war, till I am as willing to lose my own life and soul, in a bloody contest, as I am to expose thousands of my brethren, each of whom has a life and a soul as important to himself, as mine are to me; nor until I am fully satisfied, that the real profits of a proposed war, would be of more worth than all the lives and souls which would probably be sacrificed, estimating those of each of y brethren at the same rate as I value my own."

It is believed that no ruler, who is not as unprincipled as an atheist, can pretend, that such a resolution would be either unchristian or unreasonable; and that no minister of religion, who loves his neighbor as himself, or who has such a regard for the souls of men, as to be worthy of his office, can adopt the resolution, and still appear as an advocate for war.

REVIEW OF SOME

PASSAGES IN DR.

M'LEOD'S "FIVE DISCOURSES" ON THE LATE WAR.

IN the time of the late war, Dr. M'Leod published "Five Discourses," entitled "A scriptural view of the character, causes, and ends of the present war." The Discourses are written with ability, and not a little of that kind of eloquence which is common in war speech

es.

The work has been presented, as affording a proper subject for review. But, on examination, I could not but apprehend some danger; for I am convinced, that the war spirit is a contagious disease, which may be communicated by books written under its influence; and that it may be displayed in controversial writings as really as in a field of battle. For this reason, I must be excused from a very close and particular examination of the Five Discourses. The principal pillars, however, of the war system may be examined.

No attempt will be made in this review, to vindicate the warring character of Great Britain, which was so much the theme of the Doctor's declamation. I both lament and abhor this trait in the character of Great Britain, as well as in other nations. What she regards as ber glory, is really her disgrace, as a Christian power, and it may eventually prove her ruin. Nor shall I attempt any apology for that conduct in the British government, which was made the ground of complaint by It will not be as an advocate for Great Britain that I shall write, but as an advocate for Christian principles, and Christian practice; and I hope that nothing will find a place in my remarks, which shall be injurious to the author of the Discourses. If he is in an error on this important subject, he will be the gainer,

our own'

should I be able to convince him of his mistake. This benefit it will be my aim to confer; and, in the attempt, I shall have nothing to do with his religion or his politics, except as they relate to war.

I shall, in the first place, exhibit some passages from the Discourses, which I cordially approve :

“ War is an evil. It is a school of vice ; it is a nursery of debauchery. By it, cities are sacked, and countries laid waste. The dearest ties of kindred are unloosed; fathers made childless, children fatherless, and wives converted into widows. You see, brethren, some of its pernicious effects in this city; and you feel and lament the evil You hear of greater evils in other parts of our land, during the short period since war has upon our part existed. You deprecate the calamity. You regret the policy which led to such a state of things. You are tempted to call in question entirely, the legitimacy of war. It is not surprising you should. What more cruel and less congenial with the spirit of the gospel? But England is scarcely ever at peace." p. 96.

"Do you deny the lawfulness of war in any case? So let it be. I shall join with you for the time, in deprecating its numerous evils. It flows from the malevolent paɛsions; and it encourages and strengthens the vicious passions from which it flows. It arrests the progress of improvement in society. It impoverishes countries, and lays wasts the cities of the nations. It exposes to temptations and corrupts the youth. It exposes to danger and to death. It hurries into eternity, in an unprepared state, thousands of our thoughtless fellow-sinners, who might otherwise have had time and space for repentance." p. 1'50.

Is it not astonishing, that with such views of the crimes and calamities of war, a minister of a peaceful religion could become an advocate for an appeal to arms, on a paltry question of " property," or "national honor !" Is it possible, on any principles of reason or religion, to justify a course of conduct which "flows from malevolent passions," establishes a "school of vice,” “ a nursery of debauchery;" a course by which "the dearest ties of kindred are unloosed, fathers made childless, children fatherless, and wives converted into widows;" which "arrests the progress of improvement, impoverishes

countries," "corrupts the youth,"-" exposes to temp tations,"'—" to danger and death," and "hurries into eternity, in an unprepared state, thousands of our thoughtless fellow-sinners, who might otherwise have had time and space for repentance."

"

"But," says the Doctor, " England is scarcely ever at peace." "Her guilt is of older date. It is of greater extent. It is of longer duration." Be it so; the more is her government to be blamed, and her subjects to be pitied; but shall we, therefore, follow her guilty example, and pursue the road to destruction?

May I not appeal to the conscience and feelings of Dr. M'Leod, and ask,—At what rate, or by what standard, does be estimate the crimes and woes, or the lives and souls of his fellow beings, while, with such convictions of the "malevolent" source, and dreadful effects of war, he avows himself as an advocate for the savage and horrid custom?

Is he a husband and a father? If so, for what amount of "property" or "national honor," would he consent to be made "childless," or to have his children made "fatherless," and his wife converted into a widow," by the murders of war? For what amount of "property" or "national honor," would he consent that his children, or himself, should be "hurried into eternity, in an unprepared state," by the custom for which he pleads ? Do his feelings recoil, when the horrors of war are thus brought home to himself and his family. Let him then learn to feel for others.

But, says the Doctor, "I plead in behalf only of defensive warfare." Yet he has given a definition of defensive war, which will perhaps justify every public war which has occurred since the murder of Abel, and every war which will occur to the end of time. The follow. ing is his extraordinary language :—

"My definition of defensive war is, The application of force by one Commonwealth to another, for the purpose of preventing or redressing actual injuries inflicted, or about to be inflicted.

"As to the equity of the war, little depends upon the magnitude of the injury. This consideration will, of course, determine its expediency. If the evil inflicted be small, there is less excuse, upon the part of the aggressor,