of the civilized world. Let me call your attention to some historical facts." Judge Jay then recapitulates the illustrative events of our history in reference to St. Domingo, Hayti, Mexico and Cuba. Thus was this Christian patriot always vigilant and faithful in rebuking and warning his countrymen.

He was equally faithful in regard to the church and the ministry. "Many of the clergy," said he, "have acted as the tools of politicians. The church in this country, taken as a whole, is the mighty buttress of WAR AND SLAVERY, and if it is not also of the rum-traffic, it is because the latter is ceasing to be popular and genteel. I remember when a bishop of my own church proclaimed to the public, under his own signature, that the triumph of temperance societies would be the triumph of infidelity! He would not say so now; but slavery is still popular, and he is now its avowed champion."

"It is understood that a minister is at full liberty to preach morality in the abstract, but it is none of his business to apply gospel principles to the ordinary affairs of life, when such application would interfere with the political or pecuniary interests of his hearers, or with their prejudices or pleasures. He may enforce the general duty of justice, but not in relation to the treatment of colored men. He may tell us that God is love, and that we ought to love all men; but he may not denounce the WARSPIRIT as contrary to the law of love, nor may he condemn a profession which consists in human slaughter. Thus great sins find a most comfortable lodging-place in the very temple of God"

Here we see the fundamental grounds of Judge Jay's claim to the character of a great practical Christian philanthropist. His policy, as well as his piety, was rooted and grounded in the Word of God. His piety was not one thing, and his policy another, his piety angelic, his policy that of the Jesuit; but the same principles that directed, and the impulses that inspired him as a Christian, also guided his determinations as a Statesman. He took the highest comprehensive view of our national and moral responsibilities, and threw himself, with great power of argument, intensity of feeling, and perseverance of effort, into the battle of Christian truth and righteousness against slavery and war. The cause of Peace he knew to be most intimately allied with the cause of human freedom against slavery. The worst wars that ever desolated our globe have been wars of oppression, wars of conquest, for the very purposes of bondage.

And the oppressor sanctifies his slavery as a system by the very first war he succeeds in provoking against it, because he assumes to be the injured defender of his vested rights. In our own country's history, even within the short period of fifty years, more than one war has been undertaken and maintained for the consolidation and defence of this wickedness. In the purposes and progress of the Florida and Mexican wars, Judge Jay has traced, with a fine and masterly hand, our nation's peculiar guilt. The facts, as he unveils them, are revolting every step of the way. Perhaps the embrace of war and slavery never was witnessed on earth in more disgraceful, hideous, tragic forms than in the prosecution of the Florida atrocities. The brave and unoffending Indians were massacred by the United States government, as a sacrifice for the Moloch of slavery. It would scarcely be possible for a Christian nation to commit a greater, more detestable wickedness, than the waging of that wholesale, diabolical, exterminating murder, under the name of war. Mr. Giddings, as well as Judge Jay, has made this palpable, with proof that amazes and horrifies the mind, that such transactions, as of the malice of the infernal world, so fiend-like, and with such malignant object and end, could be endured and adopted in a nation not only not pagan, nor savage, but civilized, and enlightened by the Word of God. He has drawn aside the veil of obscurity and falsehood, and opened up to view the realities of this vast and dreadful crime.

As the advocate of Peace, Judge Jay relied wholly on the gospel. He believed that in giving us the gospel, God has bestowed all that is necessary to secure peace, all the power for this object that we need, if we will be faithful with it. The thorough legitimate use of the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, will prevent the necessity of any recurrence to any other sword. The true and faithful application of the fire of God's Word, will prevent the necessity of any other fire, any other musketry. But the Word of God has never yet, except at brief intervals, been tried. Its power has never, a hundredth part, been put forth, not even with such restraint as that which blasted and drove out of heaven the rebel angels, but without annihilating them. With the angels of its lightnings once loosed, and its vials poured forth, there would be no more possibility of questioning its divine omnipotence or its plenary inspiration.

NATURE OF THE SOLDIER'S PROFESSION.

Use has so long familiarized the practice of war, that it is very difficult to conceive aright its real character. Its supporters and admirers would be shocked at a minute, thorough, fearless analysis of its moral elements. What is it, in sober truth, but legalized, wholesale robbery and murder? In what respects, if any, does it differ from such deeds?

Take a case in point. Every reader must remember what was called at the time, the "Salem Tragedy." Joseph and Francis Knapp, distant relatives of a rich old gentleman in Salem, by the name of White, instigated Richard Crowninshield, by the offer of a thousand dollars of the plunder, to kill the old man, and seize his treasures. Crowninshield, entering the house of his victim at midnight, and creeping softly up stairs to the room where he was sleeping, struck him over the head with a bludgeon, and then turning down the clothes, stabbed him several times in the` heart with a dagger. Everybody called him a hired assassin; and he would have been hung as an atrocious murderer, if he had not in his prison hung himself. The two Knapps were tried, convicted and hung for hiring Crowninshield to assassinate Mr. White.

Here is a clear case of hired assassination; and wherein does it differ from the profession of a soldier? Doubtless there is some difference; but in what does it consist, and to what does it amount? How far are the two professions or acts alike?

Let us look at the facts. Here is a nation of ten, twenty, or fifty millions, that hire you, as one of their soldiers, to kill whomsoever they may wish to have killed, and promise to give you, besides your food and clothing, some ten or twenty cents a day. The nation, indignant that the Chinese spurn their opium, or that the Affghans reject their favorite ruler, or that the Seminoles will not give up their lands, the inheritance of fifty generations, to some avaricious white men, order you to go and kill them, burn their dwellings, and butcher, without distinction or mercy, thousands of unoffending men, women and children.

We see now the facts in the two cases; and what is the difference? The deed is the same, except that in one case a single man was killed, and in the other thousands, or scores of thousands. The motive, too, is essentially the same with the em

ployers, self-aggrandizement; with the hired agents, pay. The difference, for there is some, will not redound much to the soldier's credit over the assassin. The soldier hires himself to millions of men called a nation; Crowninshield hired himself to only two men. The soldier hires himself out to kill whomsoever the nation may wish to have killed at any time; the assassin engaged to do a specified act, to kill a single man at a given time, and that man named beforehand. The soldier is hired to kill by the month or year; the assassin was hired by the job. The soldier is a day-laborer in the work of blood; the assassin is a jobber at the same trade. The assassin is better paid than the soldier; for the former was promised a thousand dollars for killing one man, while the latter might kill a hundred in a day without getting half a dollar for the whole. The soldier agrees to kill any and all

whom the nation may bid; and, if required to shoot his own father or mother, brother or sister, wife or child, he must shoot them, or be shot himself; whereas the assassin, had he refused to kill the old man according to agreement, would not himself have been liable to be hung. The soldier makes a fearful bargain; for, though aware that if he refuse to kill any whom the nation may bid him kill, he must himself be put to death, he nevertheless enters into the bloody compact, not knowing but he may be ordered to shoot or stab his own parents, wife or children. Not so bad the assassin's bargain. Had Crowninshield engaged to kill at any time anybody whom the Knapps might wish to have killed, with the understanding that he should himself be put to death if he ever refused to kill any one they should bid, there would be a pretty close analogy between his case and that of the professed soldier. But the assassin's position was not so terrible. The soldier must kill whomsoever his employers may bid him kill, or the terms of his contract make him liable to be shot or hung himself.

Now, let every reader judge between the two, and tell us, if he can, why a hired assassin, like Crowninshield, should be hung as a monster of wickedness, while the soldier, hired by twenty or forty millions to do the same deed by wholesale, is admired and eulogized as a hero? To kill mullitudes at the bidding of millions, is deemed patriotic, glorious, Christian, worthy of songs, and eulogies, and monuments; but to kill one man at the bidding of another one, is denounced as base, infamous, diabolical, deserving

of the gallows, of eternal infamy. Well did Bishop Porteus say,

"One murder makes a villain:

Millions a hero."

Now, is it possible to gainsay this view of the soldier's profession? Must he not in time come to be classed with the hired assassin, and be held in far deeper abhorrence than the hangman ? How much longer will men of any principle, conscience, or selfrespect, hire themselves out to the work of robbery and murder? How long will professed Christians, or any Christian community, respect or even tolerate the military profession, the trade of human butchery?

GEN. HAVELOCK:

OR THE WARRIOR AT BEST A VERY DEFECTIVE CHRISTIAN.

Much has been written eulogistic of this distinguished individual. At his death, men of all ranks, profane and religious, on both sides of the Atlantic, vied with each other in doing him honor. The religious press was not behind in paying homage to the Christian warrior. The London Daily News said of him, "He is evidently a Christian warrior of the right breed; a man of cool head and resolute heart, who has learnt that the religion of war is to strike home and hard, with a single eye to God and his country." Says the American Presbyterian, "Much as we deplore war, and deeply as we lament its horrors and its sins, we yet rejoice to recognize (in Gen. Havelock) the truly Christian soldier. In him is distinctly recognized the consistent Christian, as well as the brilliant soldier." In view of such sentiments, doubtless entertained by the vast majority of the Christian church, is it wonderful that such fulsome praise is bestowed upon men of arms? Is it not plain that, with these views, it will be long, very long, before the nations learn war no more.

But I began this article with the intention of examining a little more carefully into the private life of this celebrated Christian hero, or, as one writer declares, this "model of a Christian hero." His life has been written by Brock in England, and Headley in the United States. Brock evidently is the more reliable, because he was a fellow-countryman, and had access to the most trustworthy sources of information placed at his disposal by Gen. Havelock's family and friends.

It is not my purpose to make extended observations upon his early life. It seems that in 1823 he avowed himself a regenerated disciple of the meek and lowly One. To such an one, it would seem that the soldier's profession, in every way at variance with the Christian profession, could have no charms, and that he would have taken the earliest opportunity to retire from its scenes of strife. Here follow his own words from his own diary: