vindictive patriotism, revengeful bravery, and dexterity in destroying enemies, were in high repute; and probably many names have come down to us, as belonging to men of eminent worth, whose virtues were chiefly, if not altogether, of the military kind, and whose enormous vices have been concealed from us by the splendor of that glory, which was acé quired in killing the natives. We know that for ages our ancestors were fighting Christians; and, to the reproach of the Christian world, military renown has long been admitted as a substitute for the virtues which the gospel enjoins. that the vices of this age are very great compared with the vices of former days. But in due time we may perhaps let history speak for itself. Eleventh. In extolling the pi ety of ancestors, persous of dif ferent sects have in view different classes of men; and those who are eulogized by one sect, as em. inent examples of purity in doe. trine and practice, are often justly reproached by persons of another sect, as violent persecutors. In speaking of pious ancestors the Quakers would naturally call to mind their Fox, Barclay and Penn. The papists would have in view another list; the episcopaitan, the presbyterian, the congregationalist, &c. &c. would each have his distinct list, and cach perhaps would admit but very few of the others. Let a genus ine partizan from each of the different sects express his opinions and his prejudices-then exclude from the list of pi ous ancestors all to which objec tions shall have been made, and how few names would be found remaining! Tenth. The vices of the present age-like present calamities are before our eyes, and attract our attention, while the vices of former times are more out of sight, and of course out of mind. How often do we hear persons say, I never saw the like!" while in truth they had often seen the like in former years. It is wisely ordered in providence, that things which are present as to time and place, make a greater impression on our minds, than things past or things remote. A known in stance of drunkenness, theft, robbery or murder in our own neigh-state of morals and religion with borhood, will perhaps affect us what existed among our ancesmore, than the hearing of a thou- tors, that I cannot but seriously sand such instances in a former doubt the correctness of the comage or a distant country. In this mon opinion and complaint. way people may be led to believe, There are so many ways in which people are liable to be misled, in comparing the present SEVEN SANGUINARY CUSTOMS COMPARED WITH THE SIXTH COM MANDMENT. Is the last volume we brought which have been popular among to view seven sanguinary customs, Christians. We may now ob serve how the command "Thou shalt not kill," must have been explained away and tortured, to give place to these customs. I. Killing men for supposed heresy. "Thou shalt not kill:" that is, says St. Augustine, "Thou shalt not kill orthodox believers; but this command does not protect the heretic." II. Propagating the gospel by the sword. "Thou shalt not kill," excepting so many pagans as it shall be necessary to destroy to convert the nations to Christianity. III. Crusades against the Mahometans as infidels. "Thou shalt not kill" the orthodox papists, but this command affords no protection to Mahometans. IV. Private war, under the feudal system, "Thou shalt not kill," excepting the baron who injures you, and his servants or dependants; and such of his relations as fall within the "seventh degree of affinity." V. Judicial combat. "Thou shalt not kill," excepting thy antagonist. But antagonists may be made at pleasure, and when made they may be killed. VI. Private duelling. "Thou shalt not kill," excepting some gentleman speaks a word which impeaches thy hon or. VII. Public war. "Thou shalt not kill," excepting such as thy rulers wish to destroy. But this command affords no protection to the people of any nation, after a war manifesto has made them enemies, whether they have done any injury, or not. Such must have been the comments on the divine command, to justify the several customs. We may suggest another explanation, which is as just as either of the preceding. "Thou shalt not kill," excepting such persons as thou shalt wish to have removed out of thy way. This is making short work, and expressing in few words the spirit of the other explanations, or limitations. This explanation applies most clearly to the custom of public war; and if this custom can be reconciled to a sacred regard for the command which forbids murder, there is not a man on the face of the earth who may not be killed without violating the law of God. For if the unoffending subjects of one nation may justly be put to death, in eonsequence of a declaration of war by the rulers of another nation, a counter declaration will make it just to kill the unoffending subjects of the nation which commenced the war. And if they may justly begin to kill, they may justly continue to kill, till one of the nations shall be totally exterminated. Thus the whole human race may be reduced to one man, without any transgression of the divine command. According to the present eustom of war, it is considered as the duty of soldiers, on each side of the contest, to obey the most sanguinary orders of their rulers. However unjust the cause may be on the part of a government, this is not regarded as any reason why the soldiers should not fight, Towns may be de stroyed, and men, women, and children indiscriminately and wantonly butchered, if the commander gives the word; and neither officers nor soldiers are regarded as guilty of murder. On this principle it may be the duty of soldiers to kill the most innocent and the most upright persons on earth, to gratify an ungodly ruler. In like manner the custom of war treats every precept, which binds men to love one another. The commands of God all go for nothing before a war manifesto, and both of two armies are considered as doing their duty, and acting bravely, in slaughtering ́one another. What is this bet ter than insanity? Of the seven sanguinary customs, four have been totally abolished; and two of the remaining three have lost in a great measure the popularity they once possessed. The custom of propagating the gospel by the sword; the Crusades against Mahometans; privite wars and the judicial combat, are all now reprobated as savage and antichristian. Destroying men for supposed heresy, is perhaps in a few instances still practised in some popish countries; but the custom has lost its popularity among pro testants, and probably with most of the Roman Catholics. The custom of private duelling has ever been limited to a particular class of men, and for a long time it has been sinking into contempt in the view of the serious and conscientious. But the custom of war, which is as savage and unjust as either of the others, and which has destroyed more Each of the customs has been more or less destructive in proportion to its popularity. When any one of them lost its popularity, its mischiefs abated of course, From what has been, we must infer what may be. If other customs, which were once popular and thought to be just and necessary, have lost all their popu larity, and ceased to exist, such may be the fate of war. Should an impartial comparison of the seven customs be made, it would perhaps be difficult to decide which is the most unreasonable and unjust, or most repugnant to the spirit of the gos pel. Future generations will probably class them all together, as the fruits of savage passions, accompanied by religious or po litical fanaticism, delusion, and insanity. Aside from its present populari ty,no solid reason can be given, why the custom of public warshould be preferred as more equitable, just, or Christlike, than the custom of private wars, or the custom of duelling. Does the custom of duelling expose the innocent and injured person to still greater suffering, as his only recompense for the evils already endured? Just so it is with the custom of war. Does the custom of duelling place the innocent and the guilty on equal ground, as to liability to further injury? So does the custom of war. Does the custom of duelling give opportu nity for the indulgence of the vil M t 料 est passions of the human heart? So does war. Does not the custom of duelling expose innocent families to be reduced to mourning, want and misery, by the death of those on whom they are dependant? War does more, it exposes the innocent families not only to loss of friends and property, but to be killed by the invading foe. Does the custom of duelling deprive the community of persons of eminent talents? So does war. Is duelling a perfect ly uncertain mode of obtaining redress for wrong? So is war. Similar observations might be made in comparing public wars with the ancient custom of private war. In each of the customs success depends more on skill, courage, and force, than on the principles of humanity, and equity. For success as often at tends the offender as the injured. To a considerate person it would be shocking to think how great a part of mankind must appear at the bar of God, either as manslayers, or as persous who have been slaughtered by their brethren! We are not authorized to say what allowance will be made by a merciful God, for the delusions which have resulted from the popularity of sanguinary customs. But if all professed Christians who have been concerned in supporting these customs, and who died in such errors, shall be excluded from the kingdom of heaven; the followers of Jesus since the reign of Constantine may be emphatically called a "little flock." And if in the class of manslayers God shall include all who have been instigaters and encouragers of one or other of the seven sanguinary customs, and shall make no allowance for the influence of delusion, we may with the deepest concern exclaim, "who then can be saved!" Illustrations of passages in the New Testament, which refer to sentiments &c. among the Jews, in the time of our Lord. 46. Luke vi. 12, "And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God." THE Jews, beside their tabernacle, or temple, which was the only place for sacrifice, had two other places for religious exercis. es; proseuchas, or houses of prayer, and synagogues. The differ. ence between these places was, that synagogues were covered edifices, like our houses and church They es,in which the law and the prophets were read and expounded, and the people instructed in the duties of their religion. were also built within the cities. “Moses hath of old time," says Luke, “in every city, them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." (Acts XV. 21) But a proseucha, or house of prayer, was a plot of ground, encompassed by a wall, or by some other means enclosed, and open above; and as the naine imports, was used only for prayer. These houses of prayer were never built in the cities; but in the fields, or by a river side, or on the mountains; and in them, as in the temple, every one prayed apart, for himself. It was into one of these proseuchas that our Lord retired, when he went up into a mountain to pray; and the last expression of the evangelist would have been more accurately rendered, he continued all night in a proseucha, or a house of pray er. Josephus has preserved a deeree of the city of Halicarnassus, permitting the Jews to build proseuchas; in which it is said, "we ordain that the Jews, who desire it, both men and women, do observe the Sabbath, and perform sacred rites according to the Jewish laws, and build proseuchas by the sea side, according to the custom of their country; and if any man, magistrate or private person, should molest them, he shall pay a fine to the city." And Philo Judæus says, applauding the clemency of Augustus Cæsar, "he knew the Jews had their proseuchas, and were accustomed to assemble in them, especially on the Sabbath; yet that he had never molested them, as had Caius." It appears indeed, that in the time of our Lord, the word proseucha, or house of prayer, comprehended also synagogues; yet twice in the New Testament it seems to have retained its original, and limited signification. The first is that which we have cited at the head of this number. The other is in the 18th verse of the 16th chapter of Acts, where we are told that when Paul, and those who were with him, were come to Philippi, on the Sabbath day they went out of the city, by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; according to the Syriac, where there was perceived to be a house of prayer. The o. riginal expression implies, that it was a proseucha, or Jewish house of prayer. Of the origin of these places of worship, we know nothing. The venerable Joseph Mede maintains, with his usual learning, that the sanctuary of the Lord, in Sichem, or Shechem, in which Joshua took a great stone, and set it up there, (Josh. xxiv. 26.) and to which he called an assembly of the people, was a proseucha; or house of prayer, which the Israelites, after they had subdued the country, had erected at the very place where God first appeared to Abraham,where the patriarch built his first altar after he came into Canaan,-and where God had said to him, unto thee will I give this land. This is not indeed certain; but the conjecture is ingenious, and not improbably just. But I would not willingly confine attention, even for a moment, to a subject or a fact of mere useless speculation. We are told by the Evangelist that our Lord, having continued all night in a house of prayer, when it was day, called his disciples, and of them chose twelve, whom he also named apostles. connexion of these circumstances is most interesting and instructive. The choice of his apostles is preceded by a whole night of prayer. And how forcibly are we taught in this conduct of |