on earth, which he may form for himself, by the cultivation of the kindly virtues of life, where the confusion of tongues shall be dissolved in the union of hearts, where there shall be a perpetual jocund spring, and sweet strains borne on "the odoriferous wings of gentle gales," more pleasant than the vale of Tempe, richer than the garden of the Hesperides, with no dragon to guard its golden fruit.

Let it not be said that the age does not demand this work. The mighty conquerors of the Past, from their fiery sepulchres, demand it; the blood of millions unjustly shed in war crying from the ground demands it; the voices of all good men demand it; the conscience even of the soldier whispers "Peace." There are considerations, springing from our situation and condition, which fervently invite us to take the lead in this great work. To this should bend the patriotic ardor of the land; the ambition of the statesman; the efforts of the scholar; the pervasive influence of the press; the mild persuasion of the sanctuary; the early teachings of the school. Here, in ampler ether and diviner air, are untried fields for exalted triumphs, more truly worthy the American name, than any snatched from rivers of blood. War is known as the

Last Reason of Kings. Let it be no reason of our Republic. Let us renounce and throw off forever the yoke of a tyranny more oppressive than any in the annals of the world. As those standing on the mountain-tops first discern the coming beams of morning, let us, from the vantageground of liberal institutions, first recognize the ascending sun of a new era! Lift high the gates, and let the King of Glory in the King of true Glory-of Peace. I catch the last words of music from the lips of innocence and beauty;*

And let the whole earth be filled with his glory!

It is a beautiful picture in Grecian story, that there was at least one spot, the small Island of Delos, dedicated to the Gods, and kept at all times sacred from war, where the citi

* The services of the choir at the Church, where the Oration was delivered, were performed by the youthful daughters of the public schools of Boston.

zens of hostile countries met and united in a common worship. So let us dedicate our broad country! The Temple of Honor shall be surrounded by the Temple of Concord, so that the former can be entered only through the portals of the latter; the horn of Abundance shall overflow at its gates; the angel of Religion shall be the guide over its steps of flashing adamant while within JUSTICE, returned to the earth from her long exile in the skies, shall rear her serene and majestic front. And the future chiefs of the Republic, destined to uphold the glories of a new era, unspotted by human blood, shall be "the first in PEACE, and the first in the hearts of their countrymen."

But while we seek these blissful glories for ourselves, let us strive to extend them to other lands. Let the bugles sound the Truce of God to the whole world forever. Let the selfish boast of the Spartan women become the grand chorus of mankind, that they have never seen the smoke of an enemy's camp. Let the iron belt of martial music which now encompasses the earth, be exchanged for the golden cestus of Peace, clothing all with celestial beauty. History dwells with fondness on the reverent homage, that was bestowed, by massacring soldiers, on the spot occupied by the Sepulchre of the Lord. Vain man! to restrain his regard to a few feet of sacred mould! The whole earth is the Sepulchre of the Lord; nor can any righteous man profane any part thereof. Let us recognize this truth; and now, on this Sabbath of our country, lay a new stone in the grand Temple of Universal Peace, whose dome shall be as lofty as the firmament of Heaven, as broad and comprehensive as the earth itself.

APPENDIX.

NOTE A.

Referred to on page 4 and 33.

THE following letter has been published at the suggestion of several friends, as illustrating topics considered in the text.

MY DEAR

JULY 6TH, 1845.

It has occurred to me that you might have thought me wanting in frankness, when I avoided expressing a positive opinion with regard to the righteousness of the resistance our Fathers to taxation by the British Parliament. I am very desirous, on many accounts, of not disturbing that question; "Let the Dead Past bury its Dead." I wish to confine myself to the Present and the Future.

There is one conclusion, following, with irresistible force, from the assumption that our Fathers were justifiable in their course, which neither of us would wish to have promulgated. It relates to the present condition of our slaves. At the time of the Stamp Act and Tea Tax the population of the Colonies amounted to about two millions (according to Mr. Burke, though our writers have called it three ;) their grievance, their slavery, was the necessity of paying a few pence, more or less, on certain things, under the direction of a Parliament in which they were not represented. No just or humane person can fail to perceive that all this was as a feather compared with the rod of oppression, now held by our country over more than three millions of fellow men. If two millions were justified in resisting by force the assumptions of the British Parliament, as contrary to the law of nature, the principles of the common law, and the rights of Freedom; then a fortiori, the three millions of blacks, into whose souls we thrust the iron of the deadliest slavery the world has yet witnessed, would be justified in resisting by force the power that holds them in bondage. Can we proclaim such a truth?

To me, the more humane, the more Christian, the more expedient course, seems to be to leave that great question undisturbed in the coffins of our Fathers. There are minor rules of propriety, not to say of politeness and good breeding, that seem to indicate the same conclusion. The customary tone of reference to the war of the Revolution is in a spirit which would be considered indelicate with regard to any private or personal experience; and, it seems to me, well worthy of consideration, whether the time has not come for nations to put aside their habits of boasting, as indecorous, if not unchristian. The propriety of this course must commend itself, not only to those, who may regard the conduct of the Fathers of the Revolution as questionable, but even to those who think it entirely justifiable. Even if the great trial by battle be regarded as a rational mode of determining justice between nations; should not

the place of encounter be held rather as a field of execution, than of triumph? We do not erect monuments to commemorate the scenes of public executions. There is another topic to which I venture to draw your attention. You observed to me that, in your opinion, I had gone too far in my condemnation of Dr. Vinton. Perhaps, you did not distinctly understand the terms which I applied to him. They consisted of a strong expression of regret, that any person, who had voluntarily become a minister of Christian truth, should in a pulpit advocate war of any kind, as consistent with the teachings of Christ. Now, I have nothing to say with regard to any statesman, or public character, a layman, who, on grounds of human experience, reason, or policy, advocates what is called defensive war, though I do not think such a war possible in the present state of society; all wars being more or less offensive, or having their origin in some offensive movements, and being rude methods of determining justice between nations, utterly without regard to the naked question of selfdefence. My position was merely that no war is sanctioned by the Gospel; a truth of which the earliest history of Christianity affords many beautiful illustrations. Not being sanctioned by the Gospel, but, on the contrary, being expressly forbidden by the Gospel, is it not improper for a professed minister of the Gospel, to inculcate an opposite doctrine, however strong this doctrine may seem to be founded in the received opinions of men, in worldly ideas of duty, and in our apprehension of the great law of self-defence, which seems to be ordained by nature?

I think that human life may be defended at the cost of human life; in the weakness of my nature, I cannot ascend to the requirements of the Gospel; but my tongue should cleave to the roof of my mouth, if, after consecration as a minister of the Gospel, I was unable to preach its truths. I would not engraft upon the Divine Tree a branch which I had found in my perigrinations on the earth.

But the question, perhaps, may be asked, does Christianity absolutely forbid all wars. I presume that no one supposes that Christ or his Apostles, or St. Paul would have drawn a sword under any circumstances. Since I saw you, I have read a tract, which I had never read before, which seems to place this matter on impregnable ground. You mentioned that you had read Dr. Vinton's sermon. Mr. Gurney's little tract is much shorter, and less argumentative; and I take the liberty of forwarding it, with this note, which has extended so much beyond by intentions. You need not return it. As I propose to allude to Dr. Vinton directly in a note to my Oration, when printed, I should be truly happy to be able to modify in any way the expressions which I deemed it my duty to employ. I should, therefore, regard it as a favor, which I have no right to ask, if, after reading Mr. Gurney's tract, you would suggest any change, consistent with exact truth, of the reprehension of a professed Christian minister, who, with subtle logic, in a Christian pulpit, advocates any kind of war.

Asking your pardon for this unwonted intrusion, believe me,
Very faithfully yours,

NOTE B.

Referred to on page 22.

CHARLES SUMNER.

In this note I propose to present a sketch of the history of Private Wars and of the Trial by Battle. Let it be borne in mind, that the same sentiments which lead us to condemn these as impious and monstrous, equally condemn wars between nations.

PRIVATE WARS. The system of private wars may be traced to the dark woods of Ancient Germany, where the right of avenging injuries was treated as a private and personal right, exercised by force of arms, without reference to an umpire, or appeal to a magistrate for decision. Emerging from thence, it prevailed in the early centuries of modern times, in all the countries of Europe, though few traces of it are to be found in England after the Conquest, except in times of civil trouble and commotion. Though the avenging of injuries was the

only motive that could legally authorize private wars, yet they often arose from disputes concerning civil property. They were carried on with all the destruc tive rage which is to be dreaded from violent resentment when armed with force, and authorized by law. The invasion of the most barbarous enemy was not more desolating to a country or more grievous to its inhabitants. Various ineffectual efforts were made for their suppression. A Bishop of Aquitaine, A. D. 1032, pretended that an angel had appeared to him, and brought him a writing from Heaven, enjoining men to cease from their hostilities, and be reconciled to each other. It was during a season of public calamity that he published this revelation; the minds of men were disposed to receive supernatural impressions, and consented to a general peace and cessation of hostilities, which continued for seven years. A resolution was formed that no man should in time to come, attack or molest his adversaries during the seasons set apart for celebrating the great festivities of the church, or from the evening of Thursday in each week to the morning of Monday in the week ensuing, the intervening days being considered as particularly holy, the Lord's Passion having happened on one of these days, and his Resurrection on another. A change in the disposition of men so sudden, and producing a resolution so unexpected, was considered as miraculous, and the respite of hostilities, which followed upon it, was called The Truce of God This, from being a regulation or concert in one kingdom, became a general law in Christendom, and was confirmed by the authority of the Pope, and the violators of it were subject to the penalty of excommunication. The custom of private war still continued ; but was discountenanced by St. Louis, until finally Charles VI in 1413, issued an ordinance expressly prohibiting it on any pretext whatsoever, with power to the magistrates to compel all persons to comply with this injunction, and to punish such as should prove refractory or disobedient. Later than this there is an instance of a pitched battle in the reign of Edward IV of England, at Nibley Green, in Gloucestershire, on the 10th of August, 1470, between two powerful nobles, William, Lord Berkley, and Thomas, Viscount Lisle. Both brought a large number of men into the field; an hundred and fifty men were killed in the action. After the battle, Lord Berkley repaired to the Castle of Lord Lisle, at Wotton, and it was ransomed as a place taken in regular war. cause of this feud was the right of succession to the lands of Berkley. The law-suit which gave occasion to this battle, lasted a hundred and ninety two years, and during its progress the Castle of Berkley was once taken by surprise, and its inhabitants thrown into prison; it was, besides, frequently attacked and defended, with much effusion of blood. (Foreign Quarterly Review, No. 69, for April 1845.)

The

Let us close this sketch in the words of Robertson; in allusion to the regula tions for the abolition of private war; "How slow is the progress of reason and civil order! Regulations which to us appear so equitable, obvious and simple, required the efforts of civil and ecclesiastical authority, during several centuries, to introduce and establish them."*

TRIAL BY BATTLE. The trial by battle, or the judicial combat, was a formal and legitimate mode of determining disputes. This, likewise, may be traced to the ancient Germans; for it appears by a passage in Velleius Paterculus, (L. II. c. 118) that all questions which were decided among the Romans by legal trial, were terminated among them by the sword; the Roman laws and method of trial, which Quintilius Varus attempted to introduce among them, were regarded as novitas incognitæ disciplinæ, ut solita armis decerni jure terminarentur. It afterwards extended to the other countries of Europe, though it does not seem to have established itself completely in France, till after the time of Charlemagne. It seems to have been popular in Lombardy, though Luitprand, King of the Lombards, in one of his laws in 713, expressly admits its impiety; Incerti sumus de judicio Dei et quosdam andivimus per pugnam sine justâ cansâ suam causam perdere. Sed propter consuetudinem

*The subject of private war is treated with an exactness, perspicuity and comprehensiveness by Dr. Robertson, (Hist. of Charles V. Vol. I. note 21) which have inspired the warm commendation of Mr. Hallam. (History of Middle Ages, Vol. II.-155. cap. 2. pt. 2.) It also occupies the attention of our countryman (Mr. Wheaton) in his History of the Northmen; and of the amiable and humane historian of France, Sismondi. (Histoire des Français, Tome VIII. 72-77.)