Christain, and so much is the practice of its mysterious rites encouraged that the most trifling and insignificant disputes are frequently referred o its decision. As, for example, in speaking of the color of the eyes of a dancing girl, one man should say that they were black, and another aver them to be blue, the common method of deciding the dispute-either between people of style, or such as pant for admission into that honorable class-is the performance of Purekah. The method of performing this sublime ceremony is not, it is true, exactly similar in all respects to that which is so piously observed in India. A little consideration on the genius of the people, and their deficiency in religious knowledge, will however account for the difference-In the Purekah of the English, they neither thrust their hand into vessels filled with boiling oil, nor do they say to the Balance • Thou, O Balance, art the mansion of truth-if I am guilty, O venerable as my own mother, sink me down, but if innocent, raise me aloft in the air!' Neither do they swallow poison nor cast an idol into the water, nor take into their hands the red hot iron. But by means of the diminutive Agnee Astors, called pistols, the two disputants attempt to convey little leaden bullets into one another's bowels or brains. In the opinion of some philosophers a worthless fellow will continue to be as much a worthless fellow after performance of Purekah as before. But in the opinion of the performers themselves, it has efficacy to change the nature of guilt, and to wash away the foulest spot of dishonor! What can I say more?"

The reader will perceive that by the English ordeal or purekah, duelling is intended. This, with great propriety is classed with other modes of the ordeal; for no other forin of it is more absurd and ridiculous, or less likely to do justice by its decisions. As we blush for our ancestors when we read the accounts of their ordeals, so will posterity blush for the people of the nineteenth century, when they shall find that duelling was practised in our day, as an honorable mode of deciding controversies.

Public war is another mode of the ordeal for the adjustment of differences, and more pernicious than any other of which the annals of barbarism have given us any account. It generally involves almost all sorts of crimes and calamities; it shows both parties to be blamable in a high degree; but from its results no one can determine which was the aggressor, or which deserved the greater punishment. As in duelling, so in war, the party least blamable is often the greater sufferer.

The Hindoo Rajah in his letters brings to view the wars of Christians, and their consistency with the precepts of the

Gospel and the example of Jesus Christ. A man by the name of Percy had furnished him with the Gospel, which he calls the Christian Shaster. In speaking of the wars of Christians, he has the following passage ;

"I have in vain sought in their Shaster for some precept that might give a sanction to this custom-for some incident in the life of their great Teacher that might afford a precedent for human butchery. But no; whether I turn to the life and conversation of the Founder, or to the precepts and examples of his first followers, I find but one spirit,-the spirit of peace, of love, the meekness of charity, and the magoanimity of forgiveness. How then comes war, that scourge of mankind, nurse of guilt, and parent of desolation? How comes it to be practised by the professors of a religion which proclaims peace on earth and good wil towards the children of men? I confess that this question has greatly puzzled me; and I can solve it in no other way than by supposing the Christian Shaster, presented me by Percy, is not complete, and that an additional revelation bath in after times been afforded to these Christians,-in which supplement to the gospel it is ordained, that when a sufficient number of christian men are united together to form an army, a brigade, or any other military division, and are dressed in any particular color-blue or scarlet, or a mixture of both, they shall be licensed to commit murder, at the command and by authority of their religious superiors-provided they are in the regular receipt of pay for so doing,-and that all the slaughter, bloodshed, and devastation so committed upon their christian brethren, shall no longer be termed murder, but GLORY." p. 205.

What intelligent person can read the preceding paragraph from the Rajah, without blushing for the inconsistency of Christians! Should a book be found, professing to be a "supplement to the Gospel," of the character described by the Rajah, who would hesitate a moment to pronounce it an abomnable forgery, and this too, on the ground of its contradiction to the spirit, the example, and the precepts of our Lord? Why then are we not equally shocked by the numerous attempts of Christians, to reconcile the crimes and cruelties of war with the purity and benevolence of the Gospel? And what are such attempts better than forgery, falsehood, or delusion? Can "murder" be changed into "glory" by the "number" or the "dress" of "Christian men" engaged in it, or by the "authority" of deluded sovereigns, or the sanction of deluded Bishops? If the highwayman may be justly called a murderer, who kills an individual for plunder, what better

is the broadwayman, the ruler, who makes war to enlarge his dominions, to revenge some real or pretended wrong, or to acquire military fame?

REMARKABLE PRAYERS.

A Prayer of the Osage Indians.-"I want things. Thou, God, makest me poor. God, I want you to have pity on me; I am going to start; I want to obtain some horses; I want to obtain some Pawnee scalps."

A Prayer of the Church of England in their late War with France. O Lord Almighty, enable us to destroy to the uttermost this perfidious people, who have sworn to devour alive thy faithful servants."

The Osage prayer has been published in the newspapers, as translated by a respectable missionary, the Rev. Mr. Vaill, "for the purpose of awakening the sympathy of Christians" toward the poor Indians. Mr. Vaill says, "this is one of their sweetest and best prayers. War with them is the great road to honor." Well might this missionary be deeply affected with the condition of a people so ignorant or so deluded that "with them war is the road to honor," and who in their prayers tell God that they want to obtain some Pawnee scalps!"

66

The prayer of the Church of England has been copied from Pillet's "Views of England." This writer was a French General, who, in the late wars, was several years a captive in Britain. He evidently wrote his "Views of England" under the influence of strong prejudices; and the prayer just quoted is of a character so anti-christian, so repugnant to the feelings of benevolence. that I was half inclined to suspect it to be a forgery. But the General says, this prayer was addressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to all the parishes, with an order to read it every Sunday ;" and it seems hardly credible that he should have had so little regard to his own reputation as to make this assertion, if it had no foundation in facts. He doubtless intended that his book should have a powerful effect against the people of England; but if he asserted for truth what a million of witnesses would know to be false, how could he hope that any reliance would be placed on his veracity in any part of his work? On the other hand, it seems incredible

that the clergy and Christians of the episcopal church of England would consent to utter a prayer so murderous and horrible. The prayer of the Osages is in no respect more anti christian than the one said to be ordered by the Archbishop to be used in all the episcopal churches in Britain. For the Osages there might be this excuse, that they had never heard of Jesus Christ or his gospel; but what excuse can be formed for the clergy and the Christians of the established church of England? They had doubtless often heard and seen the precepts of our Lord, enjoining the spirit of love and forgiveness even to enemies. They had also been acquainted with his example while on the cross, in praying for his enemies ;"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." How striking the contrast between the precepts or this example of Christ and the prayer-" O Lord Almighty, enable us to destroy to the uttermost this perfidious people!" This seems to be a prayer that God would enable the Britons to destroy the whole French nation. Can men in the spirit of Christ thus pray for the destruction of any portion of their brethren of the human family? No, verily.

How then are we to account for such an inhuman prayer? What Mr. Vaill says of the Osages is true of the Britons--of the greater part of Christians in the United States, and even throughout the nations of Christendom." With them war is the great road to honor!" This is not less true of Christian nations than of the Pagans, the Mahometans, or the Savages of North America. So far and so long as this delusion prevails, we may expect that men will pray for the “scalps” or the destruction of one another.

It may be worthy of remark that the Osage prayer is far less bloodthirsty and vindictive than the English prayer. The Osages do not ask God to "enable them to destroy to the uttermost" the Pawnee tribe; but only that they may "obtain some horses" and "some Pawnee scalps." Thus far the Osages ask God to "pity" them. Were Christians unaccustomed to war-prayers, they would doubtless be shocked at the thought of asking God to "pity" or show favor to them, while they are disposed to destroy to the uttermost" a race of their fellow christians.

Not only is the Osage prayer the more moderate, but the more modest of the two. It neither slanders the Pawnees as "perfidious people," nor does it assume that the Osages are God's "faithful servants." We therefore submit it to our

readers to say, which of the two prayers is the more anti-christian. We shall only add-in time of peace it becomes all professed Christians seriously to reflect on the nature of the prayers which they offered up in time of war, and on the nature of their conduct in destroying one another, and making 'war the great road to honor."

MRS. MORE'S APOLOGY FOR GEORGE III.

IN a Review of the reign and personal character of George III, Mrs. Hannah More alludes to the conduct of his Majesty in relation to the war which separated our country from Great Britain. She says of the king--" The fear of God seems to have been supremely his governing principle; and a deep sense of his own awful responsibility, the corres ponding result of that principle." But knowing that he had been blained respecting the American war by many good people, she introduces the following apology.

"If, from the too tenacious hold of an opinion once adopted, he might be chargeable with a political error in a persevering contest with the western continent, yet even then his pertinacity was principle; and if he was wrong, it was his judgment which erred and not his intention: but he knew, even in this case, how to retract gracefully a favorite opinion, when the event required concession. In a visit he made from Cheltenham to Dean Tucker at Gloucester--who had written strongly in favor of a separation, the king had the candor to say, If, Mr. Dean, we had followed your advice by an earlier termination of the war with America, we had acted wisely; you were in the right. This the Dean repeated to the writer a few days after, together with the whole conversation, which was so honorable to the good sense, general knowledge, and rectitude of mind of his majesty, that it is to be regretted that it had not been preserved."

Christian Observer, Sept. 1820.

That George III. was a good man seems to have been the general opinion of his subjects in Britain; and the same opinion prevailed in this country, till the prejudices of the Revolution gave a different complexion to his character. In his conversation with Dean Tucker, he had become convinced of an error in continuing the contest so long, but not in commencing the war. Yet people of the present time are perhaps generally agreed in the opinion, that error governed his coun