years? Who then would not rather appear at the bar of a benevolent God, with the name of a pagan, and the character of Alia Bhye, than with the name of a Christian, and the character of a sanguinary sovereign, who gloried in the destruction of human beings? In Alia Bhye we see what is wanting in Christian rulers to preserve their dominions from internal tumult and external violence. It was not by armies trained to blood, but by the force of her own wise, just, and beneficent character, that she preserved her subjects from the horrors of insurrection and public war. Well may the warring rulers of christendom blush when they compare themselves with the pagan princess, Alia Bhye! Shall, then, Christians remain so blind as to listen to the highest eulogiums on the greatest pests of human society, the greatest tormentors and destroyers of the human race?

CONTRAST OF JUGGERNAUTS AND THEIR DEVOTEES.

THE Missionary Magazine for October, 1824, gives the following paragraph, as spoken before the Christian Missionary Society, by a gentleman who had resided in India. He thought, that in several respects, the missionary labours in India had been useful; but he observes:

"It has been stated erroneously, that the worship of Juggernaut has decreased. It is but two years since, that I saw at least one hundred thousand persons worshipping that idol. I saw the dead lying in the roads and in the fields, and jackalls and dogs collected in vast numbers, devouring the victims of that hideous superstition. If this assembly could behold such a sight, how would it stimulate them to redouble their exertions to communicate to the Hindoos the glad tidings of great joy!"

This is indeed a horrible and moving picture of the influence of superstition among the Hindoos. But Christians, too, have their Juggernauts, called Military Glory, to which innumerable human sacrifices have been offered. During the career of Napoleon, the fields of Spain, Prussia, Germany, and Russia, exhibited spectacles of horror, far surpassing what was seen in the vicinity of the Hindu idol. It may suffice to mention one example.

When the devotees of Military Glory met for the worship of their Juggernaut at Borodino in Russia," the thunder of a thou

sand pieces of artillery" on the part of the French, "was answered by an equal number on the part of the Russians. A veil of smoke shut out the combatants from the sun, and left them no other light, to pursue the work of death, than the flashes of musketry, which blazed in every direction. The sabres of forty thousand dragoons met each other, and clashed in the horrid gloom; and the bristling points of countless bayonets, bursting through the rolling vapor strewed the earth with heaps of slain. The dreadful contest continued without cessation until the darkness of the night. Thus closed the memorable day, and with it terminated the lives of eighty thousand human beings," and "twenty-five thousand horses." On the next morning after this day's worship, in the space of a square league almost every spot was covered with the dead and wounded." More than fifty days the dead were seen above ground, exposed as food for vultures and beasts of prey! Labaume and Porter.

Now all christendom may be challenged to produce a scene of Hindoo worship, a hundredth part so horrible, so inhuman, or so offensive in the sight of Heaven, as the one we have now described from history. The fanaticism of professed Christians, in the homage they pay to Military Glory, is surely not less to be deplored than the "hideous superstition" of India.

The Hindoo sacrifices are in accordance with the spirit of the religion they profess, and imply no hatred to fellow-men; but the sacrifices offered by Christians are in direct contradiction to the precepts and the spirit of their religion, and involve the vilest passions of hatred, revenge, and murder, towards their brethren. We cannot but approve the philanthropy which would deliver the Hindoos from their delusion; but we must censure and deplore the blindness of Christians to a species of idolatry, far more criminal and destructive, which is yet popular in all the countries of christendom. "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Never, perhaps, were these words of Christ more applicable than in the present case.

LETTER FROM COMMODORE HILLYAR TO CAPTAIN PORTER. "Phœbe, April 4, 1824.

"MY DEAR SIR, "Neither in our conversations, nor in the accompanying letter, have I mentioned your sword. Ascribe my remissness in the first instance to forgetfulness; I consider it only in my servant's possession, with my own, until the master may please to call for it;

and although I omitted, at the moment of presentation, from my mind being much engrossed in attending to professional duties, to offer its restoration, the hand that received, will be most gladly extended to put it in possession of him who wore it so honourably in defending his country's cause.

"Believe me, my dear sir, very faithfully yours,

"CAPTAIN PORTER."

(Signed)

"JAMES HILLYAR.

[Porter's Journal, p. 160.

This letter was written after the bloody conflict between these naval officers. In speaking of his antagonist, Captain Porter says: "In justice to Commodore Hillyar, I must observe, that he has, since our capture, shown the greatest humanity to my wounded, and has endeavoured, as much as lay in his power, to alleviate the distresses of war, by the most generous and delicate deportment towards myself, my officers, and my crew." This acknowledgment is, however, accompanied by parenthetical complaints, on the justice of which, I shall not attempt to decide.

In speaking of the battle, Captain Porter has the following remarks:

"To possess the Essex, it has cost the British government near six millions of dollars.' The loss in killed and wounded has been great to the enemy. My loss has been dreadfully severe; fifty-eight killed, or have since died of their wounds; thirty-nine severely wounded; twenty-seven slightly, and thirtyone are missing; making in all, one hundred and fifty-four"" [See pp. 167, 168, 169.

It is not for me now to discuss the justice of the lamentable war in which this battle was fought; but I may safely say, that on one side, if not on both, it was needless, aggressive, and murderous. One or the other of these officers must have fought in a bad cause; yet probably each imagined the war, on his own part, to be just and necessary, and on the other wanton and unjust.

Hillyar indeed says, respecting Porter's sword, "The hand that received, will be most gladly extended to put it in possession of him who wore it so honourably in defending his country's cause." But this is technical language, importing only that Porter had fought bravely; it was not intended to imply any approbation of the cause in which he fought. If he did not think that Captain Porter was engaged in a bad cause, he

must himself have been an unprincipled man, or have been so deluded as to think himself bound to fight in any cause, good or bad, when required so to do by his government. This, however, is but a common delusion among military men, whether officers or soldiers.

Is it not time that such delusions should be eradicated from the minds of men? and that they should be taught, that, as moral beings, they should examine the nature of those actions, which they are required to perform by fallible rulers? If a ruler requires me to kill my brother, ought I not to consider whether his command agrees with the command of God? If I perceive that God forbids what my ruler requires, can I be at a loss which I ought to obey?

The common practice of praising military or naval men for bravery in doing mischief, is a proof of public delusion. Bravery displayed in doing good at the hazard of life, is worthy of commendation; but bravery displayed in doing evil, deserves censure, and not praise.

During the conflict between Commodore Hillyar and Captain Porter, each sought the other's destruction; yet, after the fight, Hillyar praises Porter for his bravery, and Porter praises Hillyar for his humanity! Had bravery and humanity been justly displayed before the conflict, in exertions to save the lives of men, and promote each other's welfare, they would indeed. have been worthy of praise. But am I bound to praise a man for bravely attempting to kill me? Or if, after having given me a wound, in his efforts for my destruction, he sends a physician to my assistance, am I obliged to call this humanity? Seasonable and proper exertions of Christian courage and humanity would have prevented all the mischiefs and horrors of the battle between Hillyar and Porter, and of the war between Great Britain and the United States. Is it not then to be lamented, that there was not, in both countries, enough of true courage and humanity to prevent such a wanton destruction of human life? What Captain Porter says of the cost of obtaining the Essex, may give a pretty correct view of the benefits obtained on both sides, by three bloody campaigns. The Essex, when obtained by Commodore Hillyar, was of far less value than one human life; and the same may be justly affirmed of all that either party gained by the war, or by the sacrifice of perhaps more than thirty thousand lives, and a hundred millions of property. Perhaps, however, there are many who think that the renown

we acquired by fighting, is an ample compensation for all our sacrifices. Let such calculators imagine themselves to have been of the number of the slain, and then compare the value of the renown with the cost.

A DESCRIPTION OF WAR.

[From the Analectic Magazine.]

In the eighth volume of the Analectic Magazine, we have the Life of John Paul Jones, who, in the time of the American revolution, escaped from prison in Britain, came to America, was employed as a naval officer, to fight against his own country. The writer of his Life gives the following account of modern warfare.

"One of the evils of modern warfare is, that it confounds all human character, destroys all distinction of virtue and vice, and produces a regular system of calumniation, the effects of which remain rankling in the bosom, long after the real evils of war are forgotten. In this disgraceful contest, all regard to truth is sacrificed—the distinction between the authorized and the unauthorized modes of hostility are lost sight of-all that are opposed to us, are bad—all that are friendly, are good; the one is represented as wanting every virtue, the other as without a stain; and thus, the man, who, on one side of a river, is little less than a demon, is, on the other, little less than a divinity."

A more correct delineation of the character of war has perhaps seldom been given in so few words. But be it remembered, that this description was not written by a Quaker, nor by a man of Quaker sentiments, but by an advocate for war, who could applaud the piratical conduct of Jones, while fighting against his own country. It would seem, that this writer was still under those delusions of war, which he so forcibly described-delusions which "destroy all distinction between virtue and vice."

The reader is requested to review with care this writer's account of war; and then ask himself, whether rulers can possibly be justified in producing such a state of society. Let him also inquire, whether it be possible for an enlightened Christian, a genuine philanthropist, or a real patriot, to be an advocate for a custom which thus "confounds all human character, destroys all distinction of virtue and vice, and proVol. III. No. 3.

10