He then stepped forward some paces, near his executioners, and with steady hands and an erect air bound a yellow silk handkerchief round his eyes. Eleven musket shots immediately laid him down low, though he jumped up, before he fell, when the balls pierced him; the twelfth soldier going up to him as he lay on the ground, fired close into his head. You will not wonder that my tears at this crisis blinded me; and when I denied them, I could not see the victim. I said to Lagondie, 'Where is he?' 'Look there,' he answered, pointing with his finger; don't you see a red stripe on the ground?' And sure enough I saw it; his red pantaloons made one part of the stripe, and his bleeding head and body, the other. All the troops then defiled around him. We came down to the spot; but before we reached it, the body had been removed in a cart, and nothing remained but some blood and brains, and a portion of his skull. I returned to my lodgings scarcely able to persuade myself that I had seen a reality. Oh, God! that man, who cannot put life into a fly, can have any excuse for taking it from a fellow-creature!"

Two scenes after battle.-"We could not," says an eye-witness, sketching the retreat to Deventer, in the campaign of 1794-95, "proceed a hundred yards without perceiving the dead bodies of men, women, children, and horses, in every direction. One scene made an impression upon my memory, which time will never be able to efface. Near another cart we perceived a stout-looking man, and a beautiful young woman, with an infant, about seven months old, at the breast, all three frozen and dead. The mother had most certainly expired in the act of suckling her child; as with one breast exposed she lay upon the drifted snow, the milk, to all appearance, in a stream drawn from the nipple by the babe, and instantly congealed. The infant seemed as if its lips had but just then been disengaged, and it reposed its little head upon the mother's bosom, with an overflow of milk, frozen as it trickled from the mouth. Their countenances were perfectly composed and fresh, resembling those of persons in a sound and tranquil slumber. "

The following description of a field of battle is in the words of one who passed over the field of Jemappe, after Doumourier's victory: "It was on the third day after the victory obtained by General Doumourier over the Austrians, that I rode across the field of battle. The scene lies on a waste common, rendered then more dreary, by the desertion of the miserable hovels before occupied by peasants. Every thing that resembled a human habitation, was desolated; and for the most part they had been burnt or pulled down, to prevent their affording shelter to the posts of the contending armies. The ground was ploughed up by the wheels of the artillery and wagons; every thing like herbage was trodden into mire; broken carriages, arms, accoutrements, dead horses, and men, were strewed over the heath. This was the third day after the battle; it was the beginning of November, and for three days a bleak wind and heavy rain had continued incessantly. There were still remaining alive several hundreds of horses, and of the human victims of that dreadful fight. I can speak with certainty of having seen more than four hundred men still living, unsheltered, without food, and without any human assistance, most of them confined to the spot where they had fallen, by broken limbs. The two armies had proceeded, and abandoned these miserable wretches to their fate. Some of the dead persons appeared to have expired in the

act of embracing each other. Two French officers, who were brothers, had crawled under the side of a dead horse, where they had contrived a kind of shelter by means of a cloak; they were both mortally wounded, and groaning for each other. One very fine young man had just strength enough to drag himself out of a hollow partly filled with water, and was laid upon a little hillock, groaning with agony; a grape-shot had cut across the upper part of his belly, and he was keeping in his bowels with a handkerchief and hat. He begged of me to end his misery! He complained of dreadful thirst. I filled him the hat of a dead soldier with water, which he nearly drank off at once, and left him to that end of his wretchedness which could not be far distant."

4. ITEMS OF WAR EXPENSES.

The act of Congress making appropriations for the support of our army during 1836, has the following provisions:

The sum total of appropriations for war purposes by the same Congress, was nearly thirty millions of dollars; and the petty war with a handful of Indians in Florida, occasioned by our own flagrant abuse of them, has already cost us not less than $15,000,000.

A Parisian journal, after stating that the reign of Napoleon lasted nearly ten years, from May, 1804, to April, 1814, subjoins the following list of decrees for the levy of men:

1st. 24th September, 1805,..

24. 7th April, 1807,..

3d and 5th. 21st January, 10th September, 1808,.

6th and 7th. 18th April, 5th October, 1809,.

9th and 10th. 13th December, 1810,..

11th. 20th December, 1811,..

12th and 13th. 13th March, 1st September, 1812,.

80,000

80,000

240,000

76,000

160,000

120,000

237,000

14th and 19th. 16th Jan. 3d April, 24th Aug. 9th Oct. 11th Nov. 18:3, 1,040,000

.2,033,000 men,

Total,... exclusive of voluntary enlistments, departmental guards, the 17,000 equipped horsemen, offered in January, 1813, the levies in mass, organized in 1814, amounting to 143,000 men. The number of soldiers enrolled between the 24th September, 1805, at which period our army was already formidable, and 1814, may be estimated at 3,000,000 men. In 1814, the effective force of our troops, employed in active service, retreated or prisoners of war, amounted to 802,600 individuals. If we deduct that number from the 3,000,000, we shall find that 2,197,400 men fell victims to war during those nine years, or 244,155 per annum.

On the 12th of July, 1814, a document was published, recapitulating the losses of war materiel sustained in 1812, 1813, and 1814, and consisting of the following objects: 210 pieces of artillery of all sizes, 1,200,000 projectiles of all kinds, 600,000 muskets and other

arms, 12,000 artillery wagons, and 70,000 horses. These objects are valued at 250,000,000 francs. This, however, is not all. During a space of thirteen years, from 1801 to 1813, the increase of the national debt leaves, according to the official return, a deficit of 1,645,469,000 francs.

Behold the consequences of ten years' war, of which Waterloo was the finale. Three millions of soldiers, 2,000,000,000 of debt, the agriculture, manufactures, and trade of France sacrificed to a false point of honor, more military than national; has all that, we ask, rendered France more glorious and powerful? Who will dare reply in the affirmative, in presence of the treaties of 1815? Taught by a fatal experience, we must not suffer ourselves to be led astray by empty words. The honor of a nation rests in the power it possesses and exercises. The power of governments now resides less in the force of their armies than in the organization of their credit, and the extent of their commerce.

What a picture of horror does the following paragraph from the London Times present! What blood spilt! What money expended to enable man to butcher his fellow-man! "Since the year 1000 there have been 24 different wars between England and France, 12 between England and Scotland, 8 between England and Spain, and 7 with other countries,-in all 51 wars! There have been six wars within 100 years, viz.: 1st war, ending 1697, cost 21,500,0001. 100,000 slain, 80,000 died of famine.-2d war, began 1702, cost 43,000,000l. Slain not ascertained.-3d war, began 1739, cost 48,000,000l. Slain not ascertained.-4th war, began 1756, cost 111,000,000l. Slain 250,000.-5th, American war, began 1775, cost 139,000,000l. Slain 200,000.-6th, last war, began 1793, cost 750,000,000l. Slain 2,000,000 amongst all the belligerents. At the conclusion of the war which ended in 1697, the national debt was 21,500,000l.; but in 1815, it amounted to no less than 1,050,000,0001, or NEARLY FIVE THOUSAND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS."

ARTICLE VIII.

LITERARY NOTICES.

1. Defensive War. A Letter to WILLIAM LADD, Esq., President of the American Peace Society. By WILLIAM ALLEN, D. D., President of Bowdoin College.

Dr. Allen assigns the following reasons for dissenting from the principle, that all war is contrary to the spirit of the gospel, and for believing defensive war to be in harmony with it: 1. The former principle "will prove an insuperable obstacle to any great results from our society;" because "the statesmen who govern the world, must look upon it as a dream of weak benevolence!" "Have any of the rulers believed on him?'-2. "It is not supported by the voice of the church in any age." Not since her first degeneracy; but it was before, as we believe, and shall endeavor in due time to prove.—

3. "It is founded on a misconstruction of some of the precepts of Christ." A position without proof; while we maintain that the writer's theory is not only a misconstruction, but a direct contradiction of nearly all that the gospel contains on this subject.-4. "It contradicts the plainest and most decisive instructions of the gospel." Only a single passage quoted in proof, and that relating not to the subject of war, but to the duty of obeying magistrates, and their power over their own subjects, not over those of another government. Rom. 13.-5. "God has authorized and commanded wars;" thus proving that all war is not contrary to the spirit of the gospel! very much as the sacrifice of Isaac may be supposed to justify murder, and the example of patriarchs to sanction polygamy and concubinage.

We should have been glad, if our pages had not been preoccupied, to insert this letter without delay; but, as it has appeared in the newspapers too recently to receive as yet any notice from Mr. Ladd through the same medium, it might be deemed premature in us to take any further notice of it at present, except to give the foregoing abstract, to commend its Christian spirit, and intimate our purpose of taking it up in a future number.

1. We cannot, however, refrain from expressing our regret that Dr. Allen should seem, in the first place, to mistake the real point in controversy. The question is not whether human life is strictly inviolable; not whether capital punishments are lawful; not whether government may enforce its laws upon its own subjects, and put down mobs by the sword of the magistrate; but simply whether the GOSPEL allows one NATION to war against another under any circumstances. This point Dr. Allen touches but lightly, and spends nearly all his strength upon the others, about which we have no controversy with him, because they form no part of the peace cause. Correct this misconception and the letter is well nigh powerless.

2. Dr. Allen does not, in our view, appeal to the gospel as the only judge in this matter, but relies for the success of his argument far more on popular misconception, prejudice and passion. Here lies nearly all the force of his letter; but the point in dispute can be settled to entire satisfaction only in the light of the gospel. We inquire not what statesmen think, nor what was allowed under a dispensation confessedly imperfect, nor what public opinion formed under the war-influences of sixty centuries will approve and applaud; but what the New Testament teaches by a right construction of its precepts.

3. Our Society is charged with adopting its fundamental principle from complaisance to "the radicalism of the age." The charge is as groundless as it is ungenerous.

4. Dr. Allen apparently supposes, that the friends of peace, while differing in their views concerning wars strictly defensive, cannot cooperate under the same organization in accomplishing a common object. Such a coöperation we have long hoped to see; but, while Dr. Allen starts back from us because we go too far, others still keep aloof from us because we do not go far enough. Will our friends on each side tell us what to do? Or will they never learn the candor, forbearance and wisdom indispensable to the success of such an enterprise as this? Shall we spend all our energies in contention among ourselves, and thus expose our cause to reproach and failure?

2. A Farewell Discourse to his late charge in Framingham. By Rev. GEORGE TRASK. Boston. Whipple & Damrell. 1837.

66

Mr. Trask, in taking leave of his former charge, dwells on the importance of a faithful exhibition, and a cordial reception of moral and divine truth; and, among other peculiarities of the gospel, he marks with emphasis the principles of peace:

"The New Testament breathes the notes of peace and love, and he is deaf, indeed, who is insensible to these gracious sounds. It enforces forbearance, patience, forgiveness, and all those virtues, which, in a world sinful even as is this, array their possessor in a shield far better than all others. This sentiment, men, and Christian men, are slow to admit; though David Hume, a prince amidst infidels, long before you and I were born, long before our nonresistance advocates had uttered a syllable, with his keen eye saw the bearings of the gospel on war. He gives us to understand, that he despised the gospel, because it inculcated the mean virtue of meekness, and because it would not permit its adherents to fight for their rights. Happy had it been for the world, if Christian nations, churches and ministers had seen the truth with half the clearness, which blessed the vision of that arch foe of God and revelation! Then Christians would not have been reproached as being the most sanguinary warriors that ever fought. The Jew would not have tauntingly said, the Messiah has not come, for the Messiah is the Prince of peace. Then we should not have seen so great an amount of treasure, and blood, and genius, devoted to the work of human butchery.

The evil is apparent, too apparent. Where is the remedy? The remedy to war is non-resistance, non-resistance on gospel principles. A remedy, you are aware, which strikes many a champion in the church, and out of it, as worse than the disease. This, however, is no valid objection. Pray, what truth of revelation does not encounter opposition from a depraved heart and a depraved world? The doctrine of non-resistance is indeed attended with difficulties; a child can state them; and so is every other doctrine on war, and in my humble opinion in the proportion of a thousand to one.

My friends, if we would put an end to unholy strife between individuals and communities, we must do what the Christian world has not yet done; we must adopt the adequate remedy; we must adopt the right principle in the case, and no longer beat the air. We must show that war is wrong, totally wrong. We must reason from the depraved elements of human nature, as we find them. We must show that war is necessarily a state of malice; that it can no more exist without malice, than hell can exist without malice. We must show, that Jesus Christ, our Master, forbids it; that Christians will not fight in the Millennium; that what will be right in the Millennium, is right now, and is the only efficient and Christian principle of action.

If, however, we can contend in love, in Christian love, where love to God and love to man, where the sweet benevolence of the gospel constitutes the animating and controlling passion, where wrath, and malice, and unholy ambition are laid aside; such warfare is evidently right; let it go on, let it be carried beyond the skies; it may innocently reign in heaven. And if we can point to any war, in this age, or in past ages, in this land, or in other lands, conducted on this evangelical principle, such a war was right; but if not thus conducted, as I interpret the Scriptures, it was wrong, essentially wrong, Jesus Christ being judge.'

We are glad to mark how often and how prominently the subject of peace begins to be brought before the community by its leading minds. We find it woven into publications too numerous to be noticed in our pages; and in sermons, orations, and other performances on public occasions of importance, we hear it frequently introduced in a way which augurs well for the cause.