are capable of being "conquered by beneficence," and strongly attached to their conquerors, are truths clearly attested by the early history of Pennsylvania, and by the uniform attachment of the Indians to the Friends and Moravians. Would it not then be a slander on Christians to say, that they are less susceptible of the influence of benignity than savages? And may not a hope be entertained that the benevolent principle which has appeared in the government paper, will soon be reduced to practice by the rulers of our nation?

Another auspicious ray of light has recently appeared in the West. Eighty five gentlemen of Kentucky have published a testimony against the inhuman practice of duelling. They assert the belief, that "no circumstances can arise between our citizens, where their honor might not be better sustained by a reference to the deliberate opinion of a few judicious and pacific men, than by an appeal to deadly combat." This truth is so clear and familiar to the people of this vicinity, that some of them may deem it unworthy of notice in this report. But the progress of light and civilization, in any part of the world, is connected with the object of Peace Societies; and what has been asserted by these gentlemen is as applicable to the controversies of nations, as of individuals. Their testimony may therefore be regarded as a favorable omen of the diffusion and triumph of pacific sentiments among our western brethren. In the moral world, as in the natural, darkness precedes the dawn, and the dawn ushers in the day.

Since the commencement of the present century, it seems to have been better understood than in earlier times, to what extent men are the creatures of education and habit. The importance of religious instruction is rising in public esteem; and the means and advantages of good education are more generally diffused. Hence a cheering hope may be entertained, that such a direction will be given to the manner of educating the young, that thousands of the now rising generation will grow up with their minds imbued with the principles of peace, and that the next succeeding generation will be able to form a pacific phalanx, which, by the aid of Heaven, will prove invincible.

How glorious will be the result, if, by the combined influence of benevolent institutions, such a change as the following can be effected:-That, instead of the bloody science of war, the science of peace shall be studied, practised, and eulogized, as the most important of all the arts and sciences; that Peace Offices and Peace Academies shall be established in every land, to give celebrity and effect to the art of preserving peace ;--that the crime of involving a nation in war shall be punished as high treason, and the infamy of cowardice attached to those in office, who through fear shall neglect to employ their influence against the barbarous appeal to arms;-that as great renown shall be conferred on peace-makers, as human folly has usually given to the successful destroyers of mankind;-that the Editors of news-papers and other periodical publications shall combine their efforts for suppressing party spirit, and for uniting their fellow citizens, in love one to another, and fraternal affection towards the people of all other countries;-that men of benevolent and peaceable characters shall be uniformly preferred as rulers; and that the revenues of governments shall be as liberally employed in works of beneficence and peace, as they have heretofore been in preparations for war, and in the work of destruction and manslaughter.

Such a change in public sentiment and national policy would insure tranquillity to the world. Such a change is possible. To be instrumental in producing it should be the ardent desire of every human being;-especially of every one who hopes for salvation through the Prince of Peace, whose birth has been this day commemorated in all the countries of Christendom.

Where then is the true Christian, the real Philanthropist, or the genuine Patriot, who will not cheerfully devote his name, his influence, his property, his heart, to redeem our race from the most destructive of all delusions,-the most terrible of all scourges, the popular but inhuman-the celebrated but infamous trade of man-butchery,-the fascinating but murderous game of

war!

NOTE.

THE language quoted in this Report, on toleration, was from an Election Sermon, in 1675, by President Oakes of Harvard University, and a Treatise by Rev. Mr. Cotton in 1647, entitled "The Bloody Tenet made white in the blood of the Lamb." This was written in anwer to Roger Williams, who had published in favour of liberty of conscience, and styled the opposite principle, "The Bloody Tenet."

Belknap's History of New-Hampshire, vol. i. pp. 72-4.

President Oakes says, "the outcry of some is for liberty of conscience. This is the great Diana of the libertines of this age." Again he observes-"I look upon toleration as the first-born of all abominations. If it should be born, and brought forth among us, you may call it Gad, and give the same reason, that Leah did for the name of her son, Behold a troop cometh,—a troop of all manner of abominations."

The words of Mr. Cotton are,-" Nor is it frustrating the end of Christ's coming, which was to save souls, to destroy, if need be, the bodies of those wolves who seek to destroy the souls of those for whom Christ died."-The persons to whom he referred were such as differed from him in opinion-Roger Williams, and probably the Quakers.

Of the Election Sermons of that day, Dr. Belknap observes"These Election Sermons may generally be accounted the echo of the public voice, or the political pulse by which the public opinion may be felt."

RED AND WHITE WARRIORS COMPARED.

To the Author of the Friend of Peace.

IT being thy desire to have some of the particulars of the treatment of the Indians, and American army towards the people called Shakers, on the Wabash, I will state some of the circumstances, as related to me by those who had a knowledge of the facts at that time.

At the time of Gen. Harrison's expedition, the white people dwelling near the Shakers all gathered into forts, while the Shakers kept peaceably about their business, as usual. Some of the white people were so offended at the Shakers for not gathering into forts as they did, that they swore if the Indians did not kill the Shakers, they would.

It was well known that while the Indians were killing the whites all round the Shakers, and burning their houses across the creek, in sight of the Shaker settlement, they did not molest the Shakers in the least. This excited an inquiry by the officers of the American army to an Indian Chief whom they had taken, why they did not meddle with the Shakers, while they were murdering and burning all around them? His reply was,-" We warriors meddle with a peaceable people!—That people, we know, will not fight.-It would be a disgrace to our nation to hurt such a people."

And their practice fully agreed with their principle during the whole war.-Though their tracks were often seen round the Shakers' houses, they never offered to hurt their persons or property, in the least.

Very different was the conduct of the American army-although they did not go so far as some of them had sworn they would—namely, to kill the Shakers,—yet their conduct was such (although they were treated with the utmost kindness by the Shakers, as the officers publickly acknowledged,) as to make it necessary for the whole society to remove to Kentucky and Ohio, as stated in the "Declaration."

It ought, however, in justice to be mentioned here, that the personal conduct of Gen. Harrison, and his officers generally, was not such towards the Shakers as that of the private soldiers. But the licentious nature of those who generally com

pose an army, when not restrained by the strictest discipline, will generally discover itself by such conduct, as is abhorrent to every Christian feeling.

Probably you have seen the Petition of the inhabitants of Illinois Territory, praying Congress remuneration for their losses during that campaign. I have not seen the Petition, but have been told, it is there stated, that the destruction of their property by the American army, during that campaign, was greater than all that was destroyed by the Indians, during the war.

How shocking the destruction of temporal things which is made by an army !-But when we consider the sacrifice of lives; -and most of all, the horrid destruction of morals, in this worst of all schools of vice,-how can it be that any one who possesses any philanthropic or christian feelings, can be so blinded by the god of this world, as to advocate or justify the practice of war?

I have often thought it strange, that any one who reads the New Testament, and makes any pretence of obeying the precepts, and following the example of Jesus Christ, can be so blind as not to see its entire repugnance to the spirit of Christianity, and the example of its Founder. But the time will certainly come when men will either renounce any pretence to Christianity or renounce the practice of war, as being utterly inconsistent and contradictory one to the other.

We have in the above relation, a fair opportunity of observing the different effects of the spirit of war, and the spirit of peace, upon the morals, the conduct, and the protection of those who are exercised by them. On the one hand, the defenceless peopl protected by their innocence and peaceable conduct from being hurt by the ferocious savages, in the midst of war, while their spirits were exasperated to the highest pitch. On the other hand, an army, while professedly protecting the country, doing more damage to their own countrymen than an enemy themselves. We see in this instance,-in the instance of the Quakers being protected nearly 70 years in the first settlement of Pennsylvania, and many other instances that might be brought, how much more protection there is in the simple effects of the spir itof peace, than in the expense and parade of armies.

A LOVER OF PEACE,