who, by making war, make thieves, and then cause them to be hanged?

Who at this day, in our country, would not be shocked to see our places of worship ornamented with the trophies of rapine and violence? Can any thing be found in the annals of the ancient Druids of Britain so palpably inconsistent as the practice of associating the symbols of war with the religion of the Prince of Peace?

THE FIGHTING PRELATE.

"KING RICHARD I. in one of his battles with the French, took Philip de Dreux, Bishop of Beauvais, prisoner. The Pope interceded for his liberty in a letter, wherein he styled the fighting Prelate his dearly beloved son.' The King, by way of answer, sent the Bishop's suit of armor, stained with blood and covered with dust, to the Pope, and asked, whether he knew his son's coat, or no? The Pope was ashamed at the sight, and left the Bishop at Richard's mercy." Boston Intelligencer.

Reflections.

What an odious spectacle! a blood-stained minister of the Christian religion! a sanguinary teacher of the gospel of mercy! a "fighting" disciple of the Prince of Peace! What palpable solecisms! No wonder that the Pontiff was ashamed of his beloved son." Who is not shocked at the thought of a "fighting Prelate?" Who does not perceive that fighting is a business which should be discountenanced by ministers of the gospel, both in preaching and in practice?

In an "Address to the people of Scotland," Dr. Campbell has some remarks, which are worthy of being introduced on this occasion :

"The sense of what became a minister of the New Cov enant, a preacher of good-will to men, was so strong on the minds of the primitive Christians, that when our religion came first into favor with the magistrate, it was looked on universally as a becoming action in ministers, to use their good offices in behalf of an unhappy creature, who had exposed

himself to the stroke of justice, whenever any favourable circumstance could be pleaded in extenuation of his crime. But in no case whatever was it thought suitable, that he should interpose to call for vengeance. That the servant of the Prince of Peace should prove a peace-maker, mediator, and intercessor, was entirely consonant to the nature of his office; but that he should interpose as an avenger, or as an instigator of others to vengeance, or to violent and vindictive measures, was considered as a practical denial of the Lord that bought him, who came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them;'-and as what suitell more the character of that being whom they called the adversary and accuser of the brethren."

Had these primitive views, of what is becoming in the ministers of the gospel, been generally retained among Christians, the pages of history would not have been disgraced by narratives of "fighting Prelates." But if war be a commendable custom and warriors the glory of a country, why should it be deemed incompatible with the dignity of a minister, to take the sword and crimson his path to heaven with the blood of his brethren? or why should he be excluded from the highway to glory and renown?

On the other hand, if the servant of the Prince of Peace should be a peace-maker," and "never interpose as an avenger, or an instigator of others to vengeance," why should not every Christian act on this benevolent principle? If being an avenger or an instigator to violent and vindictive measures," should, in a minister, be regarded as a “practical denial of the Lord that bought him," why is it not even so in the Christian ruler, and in all who profess the christian religion?

Finally, if acting the part of an "avenger or instigator of others to violent and vindictive measures" is "more suited to the character of that being whom Christians call the adversary," than to that of a minister of the gospel, in what light must war be viewed when compared with Christianity?

Surely there must be something very odious and horrible in the business of war, if a Bishop cannot engage in it without a "practical denial of the Lord that bought him," nor without acting a part "more suited to the character of the devil," than that of a minister of the Prince of Peace. A minister may certainly employ his influence in support of every laudable custom, and excite others to every christian duty. The primitive christians," therefore, must have had very incorrect views of what is becoming a minister of the gospel, or war and christianity are repugnant to each other. Is it not then important, that every Christian should consider to what being he bears the greater resemblance when he instigates others "to violent measures," and blows the flames of war?

.6

We rejoice in the belief that the time has arrived, when neither prelates nor any other ministers of the gospel can acquire renown, either by fighting, or by instigating others to fight; and we sincerely lament that there is even one that bears the name of a Christian minister, who is not convinced, that the spirit of Christ and the spirit of war are as really opposed to each other, as love and hatred, or peace and war. With regard to those ministers who still remain among the advocates for war, we shall only request them to read once more the history of the Prince of Peace, carefully observing the temper he displayed on all occasions of injury and insult, his precepts enjoining on his disciples the spirit of love, forbearance, and forgiveness, and his dying prayer for his insolent murderers :-Then let each one ask himself this question,-Can any Christian, with the temper enjoined and exemplified by the Messiah, make war on his fellow men?

THE ROBBER DISARMED BY CONFIDENCE.

DURING a civil war in the reign of Henry VI. of England, "Margaret," the Queen, "with her son fled into a forest, where she

was descried by a band of robbers, who stripped her of her jewels and treated her person with great indignity. Fortunately she escaped, while her plunderers were quarrelling about their booty; and penetrating into the depth of the forest, she wandered about till she was exhausted with fatigue and terror. At length, seeing a man approach with a drawn sword, she summoned resolution enough to go out to meet him, saying, Here, friend, I commit to you the son of your king, for that protection which I am unable to afford him.' The man, though a robber, was disarmed of every ill intention by the confidence which was reposed in him, and devoted himself to their service. After concealing them some time in the woods and providing for their support, he conducted them in safety to the sea-coast, whence they took an opportunity of escaping to Flanders." Cyclopedia, article, "MARGARET of Anjou."

Had the Queen, instead of this intrepid and magnanimous course, assumed airs of defiance or defence, it is probable that both she and her son would have been murdered. But even a robber may be susceptible of the influence of magnanimity and confidence, whether they be real or feigned.

What then would be the effect, if the rulers of different countries should display as much apparent confidence in each other, as Margaret did in the robber? Might they not safely renounce most of their hostile preparations, relieve their subjects of grievous burdens, and be less exposed to danger, than they are while each pursues a distrustful and menacing policy? What could have a more injurious effect on the characters of men, than cherishing towards each other the spirit of jealousy,, rivalship, and war? And what can be more absurd than to cherish such a spirit as the mears of preserving peace ?

THE ORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT OF HEROES.

DR. GOLDSMITH, in his "History of Animated Nature," remarks on the size of serpents and their terrible devastations in earlier times, when the earth was but thinly inhabited by men. It then might have happened," he says, "that serpents reigned the tyrants of a district for centuries to

gether. To animals of this kind, grown by time and ra pacity to a hundred or a hundred and fifty feet in length, the lion. the tiger, and even the elephant itself, were but feeble opponents. At that time men had not learned the art of uniting the efforts of many to effect one great purpose. Opposing multitudes only added new victims to the general calamity, and increased mutual embarrassment and terror. The animal was, therefore, to be singly opposed by him who had the greatest strength, the best armor, and the most undaunted courage. In such an encounter, hundreds must have fallen; till one more lucky than the rest, by a fortunate blow, or by taking the monster in a torpid interval and surcharged with spoil, might kill, and thus rid the country of the destroyer.

"Such was the original occupation of HEROES; and those who first obtained that name, from their destroying the ravagers of the earth, gained it much more deservedly than their successors, who acquired their reputation only for their skill in destroying each other."

Reflections.

Is it not a remarkable and humiliating fact, that since men have learned the art of uniting the efforts of many to effect one great purpose," and since they have been in a great measure freed from the dangers and ravages of beasts of prey and the more formidable enemy, the serpent, they have become the worst of serpents to their own species, and have employed their ingenuity, skill, and courage, in destroying one another! In this, however, they bear some resemblance to the serpentine destroyers. For Dr. Goldsmith informs us, that serpents "frequently are seen to devour each other.” This is not the character of the common beasts of prey, but it is of the serpent and scorpion; and this odious character has been assumed by men. Instead of the monsters of ancient times, the renowned military conquerors have been for ages the great serpents of the earth, and more deserving of the censure of mankind than their predecessors.