E 
 
 .5 
 L3.5 
 
 
Glass _£5j£l4^ 
 Book_ 
 
3 :?' 
 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 LAW OF RETALIATION, 
 
 DEHTERED IN 
 
 THE NEW BRICK CHURCH, 
 
 FEBRUARY 6, 1814. 
 
 BY JOHN LATHROP, D. D. 
 
 PASTOR OF SAID CHURCH. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE HEARERS. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 PCBT.ISHEB BY JAMES W. BURDITT. 
 
 1814. 
 
 A 
 
.LZS 
 
DISCOURSE. 
 
 MATTH. V. 38, 39. 
 
 YE HAVE HEARD THAT IT HATH BEEN SAID, AN EYE FOR 
 AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH. BUT I SAY UNTO 
 YOU, THAT YE RESIST NOT EVIL. 
 
 IN discoursing from these words, it is not so 
 much my intention to show what opinfcns moral 
 writers and writers on the law of nature and of na- 
 tions have expressed concerning the doctrine of re- 
 taliation, as to show what appears to have been 
 " the mind of Christ," and what comports with the 
 religion, which he founded, and which we profess. 
 
 In that most excellent lecture on christian moral- 
 ity, which our Lord delivered on the mount, he ex- 
 plained several precepts of the law of Moses, in a 
 manner very diiferent from that in which they had 
 before been explained; and by some new com- 
 mands, which he saw fit to give, he virtually re- 
 pealed certain precepts found in the code appoint- 
 ed for the Hebrews. 
 
 In that admirable discourse, Jesus, among' other 
 things, called the attention of his disciples, and of 
 
4 
 
 the multitude assembled, to a statute given by Mo- 
 ses, \vhich was supposed to tolerate a retaliation of 
 injuries. " Ye have heard that it hath been said, 
 " an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." That 
 law we find in the 21st chapter of Exodus. It may 
 be proper to inquire, how that law was under- 
 stood ? How it was executed under the Hebrew 
 government ? Is that law still in force ? What ap- 
 pears to have been the mind of Christ with respect 
 to it ? Will the doctrine of retaliation, as under- 
 stood by the Hebrew^s, comport with the spirit of 
 the christian religion ? Correct and proper answers 
 to these, or such like questions, will give the infor- 
 mation which we seek on the subject now before 
 us. 
 
 The law to which Jesus directed the attention of 
 his hearers, in the text we are now considering, is 
 repeated in the 24th chapter of Leviticus. ''If a 
 " man cause a blemish in his neighbour, as he hath 
 " done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for 
 " breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he hath 
 " caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to 
 " him again." This is the law to which Jesus called 
 the attention of his disciples, and the people, who 
 were at that time assembled to hear him. This 
 law seems to require, or, at least, permit the judge 
 to inflict the same evil, in kind and degree, upon 
 the guilty person, which the guilty person had in- 
 flicted on another. This is what is generally called 
 retaliation. It is not only rendering evil for evil, 
 but it is rendering the same kind of evil, and to the 
 same degree. 
 
 But before we proceed any farther we will in- 
 quire, how was this law understood ? How was it 
 
executed under the Hebrew dispensation? Was it 
 understood in a literal sense ? And was the judge 
 bound to take " eye for eye, and tooth for tooth ?" 
 Or might the judge, with the consent of the injur- 
 ed person, order that compensation be made in mo- 
 ney in lieu of "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth ?" 
 An answer must be sought in the expositions, 
 which have been given of this law, if any approved 
 expositions Iiave been preserved. It is well known, 
 that there were men among the Hebrews, at the 
 time when Jesus was on the earth, called lawyers, 
 and doctors of the law, whose business it was to 
 study and expound the laws, to the end that peo- 
 ple, in general, might understand and obey them. 
 Among those lawyers, there were many, to be sure, 
 who gave strange expositions ; and, by propaga- 
 ting wild and absurd opinions, corrupted the law. 
 Against such men our Saviour pronounced the 
 " woe unto you, ye lawyers !" But we cannot sup- 
 pose, that all of that profession, that all the ex- 
 pounders of the law of Moses, were ignorant or 
 wilful corrupters of the law. Although the age at 
 which Christ appeared on earth was an age of gen- 
 eral depravity, there were excellent people still re- 
 maining. What better people are now to be found, 
 than were Zacharias and Elizabeth ? We have the 
 testimony of the divine word, that, while members 
 of the Jewish church, " they were both righteous, 
 " walking in all the commandments and ordinances 
 " of the Lord blameless." What better man can 
 now be found, than was Simeon the just. And Si- 
 meon was a member of the Jewish church : he was 
 " waiting " for the consolation of Israel, and the 
 " Holy Ghost was upon him." What better wo- 
 
6 
 
 % 
 
 man now livetb, than was Anna the prophetess ? 
 " She departed not from the temple, but served 
 " God with fasting and prayer, day and night." Oth- 
 ers might be named, were it necessary, who shone 
 as hghts at that age of darkness and general corrup- 
 tion ; ar.d we can have no doubt, but there were, 
 in the Jewish church, at the time when Jesus was 
 born, and after he left the world, pious and learned 
 men among the Hebrews, who endeavoured to 
 make themselves acquainted with the laws of Mo- 
 ses, and from whose comments we may learn how 
 those laws were understood, and how thev were ex- 
 ecuted. 
 
 From the best expositions, which have come to 
 our knowledge, it certainly appears, that the men, 
 who were entrusted with the execution of the He- 
 brew laws, did not consider themselves bound, in all 
 cases, to execute the law now before us literally 
 as it stands in the sacred books. 
 
 The injured person might choose, whether the 
 man, who had maimed him, or had put out an 
 eye, or struck out a tooth, should be maimed in 
 like manner, and compelled to lose an eye or a 
 tooth, or should be obliged to make such com- 
 pensation in money as might be judged equivalent. 
 " The Jewish doctors," says Dr. Whitby, " gen- 
 " erally maintain, that the punishment of an eye 
 " for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, might be re- 
 deemed by money." Josephus, a learned Jew, 
 who must have been well acquainted with the an- 
 cient laws and customs of that nation, has the fol- 
 lowing paragraph in the first book of his Antiquities : 
 " He that strikes out another man's eye, shall for- 
 " feit his own, and make satisfaction in kind, an eye 
 
" for an eye, unless he shall think fit to com- 
 " pound for it with money ; for the law will so far 
 " allow a man to be a judge, in his own case, 
 ** where he shall think it lit to moderate the ris-our 
 " of a penalty for an injury done to himself." 
 The most approved commentaries on the law of 
 Moses are quoted, as supporting the moderate ex- 
 planation of the doctrine of retaliation, which is 
 here given by Jostphus. 
 
 But if there was a law, under the Jewish dispen- 
 sation, which gave a person, who had, by assault 
 and violence, lost an eye or a tooth, liberty to de- 
 mand an eye or a tooth, from the man, who had 
 thus injured him, is that law still in force ? What 
 do we find to have been the mind of Christ as to 
 this subject ? Would such retaliation of an injury 
 comport with the temper of the gospel, and the 
 spirit of the christian religion ? To such questions, 
 I believe, our text will furnish sufficient answers. 
 " Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for 
 " an eye, and a tooth for a tooth ; but I say unto 
 *' you, that ye resist not evil." 
 
 Here we have, what may be considered, a new 
 Ijiw, for surely the word and command of Christ is 
 a law, and ought to be considered, by all who call 
 Jesus their master, a law, which they are bound to 
 obey. Here we find a new law opposed to that 
 old law of retaliation, which was given by Moses. 
 That old law, therefore, however it might have 
 been understood and expounded by the Jewish 
 doctors, seems to have been repealed and done 
 away, by the command of the Son of God, expres- 
 sed in the last clause of our text. 
 
8 
 
 The expounders of the law, which ^ve have been 
 considering-, agree, that the injured person might, 
 if he were so incUned, demand retaHation in kind ; 
 that is, he might demand, that the person, who had 
 maimed him, or deprived him of an eye or a tooth, 
 should be maimed in the same way, and be obliged 
 to suffer the same kind of loss and pain. It seems 
 to have been left to the injured person to choose, 
 whether he should be compensated with money, 
 or have the law executed literallv. It is said, how- 
 ever, that few people among the Jews were so cruel, 
 as to demand "eye for eye, or tooth for tooth ;" 
 and as learned expounders of the law gave their 
 judgment that retaliation in kind and degree, might 
 be dispensed with, in most cases a pecuniary com- 
 pensation was preferred. It was in the power of 
 the injured person, however, to demand "eye for 
 *' eye, and tooth for tooth ;" and this kind of punish- 
 ment, this retaliation of evil for evil, seems to have 
 been the very thing forbidden by our great master. 
 To demand retaliation in kind would have been, 
 " to resist evil :" it would have been contrary to 
 the command of Christ ; and contrary to the spirit 
 of the christian religion. 
 
 It is to be observed, that the law under con- 
 sideration, never gave liberty to any individual sub- 
 ject, to retaliate his own wrongs. If a man, by an 
 act of violence, were maimed, or deprived of an eye, 
 or a tooth, the law did not give him liberty to in- 
 flict a like injury in a sudden manner, and in his 
 own way. He must make his complaint to the 
 judge, and the assault being proved, he was then at 
 libert}', either to receive the awarded compensation, 
 or require the law to be executed in all its severity. 
 
But this kind of seventy, in retaliating an injufy, 
 was not allowed by the Son of God ; a punishment 
 so severe and cruel, those who professed subjection 
 to him, must not require. The learned com- 
 mentator before mentioned (Dr. Whitby) observes, 
 " Christ forbids the christian something which 
 was permitted to the Jew." The thing permitted 
 to the Jew, when injured in any of the ways men- 
 tioned in the passage where the law is recited, was, 
 that, if he saw fit, he might demand retaliation in 
 kind ; but this, which would be to " resist evil," 
 is absolutely forbidden the christian, in the words 
 which make the closing part of our text. 
 
 We have now, perhaps, said as much as may be 
 necessary in answer to the questions proposed at 
 the beginning of this discourse ; and I believe we 
 are now able to understand, what was the mind of 
 Christ, with respect to the law of retaliation. You 
 will please to attend to such remarks and observa- 
 tions, as may naturally rise from the subject, and 
 from the thoughts which have already been sug- 
 gested. And, 
 
 1. The subject and the thoughts, which have 
 been suggested, lead us to admire and to love the. 
 christian religion. This religion is mild and gen- 
 tle, as was its author. It may be supposed, that 
 the men of the world, men of fashion and gaiety, 
 will not be pleased with this religion, because it 
 brings restraints with it, and will not allow them to 
 resent injuries in their own way, and render evil for 
 evil. Men of high spirits, when injured in person, 
 in property or character, are in haste to avenge 
 themselves. They cannot be pleased with a relig- 
 ion, which require^ them to suppress their resent- 
 2 
 
10 
 
 nients, and commit their cause to a well regulated 
 tribunal. And if they cannot be easily persuaded 
 to wait until the judge shall declare what compen- 
 sation they shall receive for the injuries, which they 
 have suffered, it can hardly be supposed they will 
 be willing to forgive their enemies, and pray for 
 those, who have spoken evil of them, and persecu- 
 ted them. 
 
 But the effects of this religion, although despised 
 by the high-minded children of men, would be in- 
 expressibly beneficial to mankind, were it univer- 
 sally received. This religion breathes nothing but 
 peace and good will. The spirit of this religion is 
 opposed to violence and strife, and every species of 
 warfare, except that which is necessary to defence. 
 
 2. As the spirit of the christian religion is mild 
 and gentle, those, who sincerely embrace this reli- 
 gion, will resemble their Lord and Master in their 
 temper and conduct. " If it be possible, as 
 " much as lieth in them, they will live peaceably 
 " with all men." The true subjects of the Prince 
 of Peace will be the last men on earth to blow the 
 trumpet of war. They will never take the sword 
 but in defence of rights highly important, and such 
 as are essential to their safety and happiness. Men, 
 therefore, who are in haste to make war, and are 
 amona: the first to excite their brethren to deeds of 
 violence and blood, are not true subjects of the 
 Prince of Peace ; but are in subjection to him, 
 who first excited rebellion and war among the crea- 
 tures of God. 
 
 3. It will follow, as a just inference from what 
 has been said, that the practice of retaliat'mg inju- 
 riesy which has been too long tolerated, even in 
 
11 
 
 christian countries, is contrary to the spirit of the 
 gospel, and the express prohibition of Jesus, who 
 came to teach the perfect will of the Father, both 
 by word and by example. We need no farther ev- 
 idence, than is found in the text, which we have 
 been considering, to prove, that the Son of God 
 will not allow the subjects of his government to 
 retaliate injuries. " Ye have heard that it hath 
 " been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a 
 " tooth ; but I say unto you, that ye resist not 
 "evil." 
 
 Under the Jewish dispensation, a man who had 
 been injured, and by an act of violence had lost an 
 eye or a tooth, might not take satisfaction in his 
 own way by inflicting a like injury. He must sub- 
 mit his cause to the judge, and, when the fact was 
 proved, he might choose whether to receive com- 
 pensation in money, or require, according to the 
 phrase in common use, " eye for eye, and tooth for 
 " tooth." But this part of the law appears to have 
 been done away by the prohibition in the text. 
 The Son of God would not allow the subjects of 
 his government to indulge a spirit of revenge : he 
 would not permit his disciples to do what had been 
 tolerated under the Jewish law. 
 
 4. If private christians may not retaliate injuries 
 by rendering evil for evil, christian rulers are no 
 doubt under the same restraint. Rulers of chris- 
 tian countries, of nations and kingdoms, where the 
 christian religion is generally professed, ought to 
 examine the subject, which we have been consider- 
 ing, with care, and be extremely cautious lest they 
 offend the Son of God, by setting up a rule in the 
 
12 
 
 infliction of punishment, contrary to his positive 
 order. 
 
 When one nation, for no just cause, makes in- 
 roads on the rights of another, the injured nation 
 may, no doubt, take up arms in its own defence. 
 There is nothing, in the rehgion of the Prince of 
 Peace, which forbids such kind of warfare. Our 
 Lord let his disciples know the time might come, 
 when they would need, and of consequence might 
 make use of swords, and therefore gave the following 
 direction, (Luke xxii) " He that hath no sword, 
 " let him sell his garment and buy one." But 
 that kind of warfare, which is tolerated by the gos- 
 pel, is altogether defensive, and is as different, as 
 can be, from the warfare which is carried on by the 
 sons of pride and ambition for purposes of con- 
 quest and fame. But if christian nations may take 
 the sword, only in defence of their persons, their 
 rights, and their country, when invaded, they are 
 not permitted to retaliate, according to the common 
 meaning of the term. If one nation invades anoth- 
 er, and lays waste by fire and sword ; and the in- 
 jured nation, to retaliate its wrongs, invades in turn, 
 and burns and destroys, the countries in which 
 such savage warfare is prosecuted, must, in the 
 end, be depopulated. This is the worst kind of 
 warfare ; it is the warfare of barbarians ; and those, 
 who begin it, in any country, deserve the execration 
 of mankind, and will sooner or later meet the 
 vengeance of heaven. 
 
 5. If it be contrary to the spirit of the gospel 
 for christian rulers to carry on a war of retaliation 
 against a nation which has made war upon them, 
 
13 
 
 it will be plain, that christian rulers may not retali- 
 ate on innocent subjects of an enemy nation inju- 
 ries, which the rulers of that enemy nation may 
 have exercised on captives or other subjects, which 
 such enemy nation may have in his power. 
 
 This is the most cruel sort of retaliation ever 
 threatened by civilized man ; and happy is it for the 
 world, that so many good men have remonstrated 
 against it, that few, who have had it in their power, 
 were sufficiently hard-hearted to execute what they 
 have sometimes threatened. For nation to retaliate 
 on nation^ in open war, burning for burning, and 
 devastation for devastation, is too bad for christian 
 rulers to encourage, and is a kind of warfare, which 
 one would suppose must make a barbarian shudder. 
 But if such kind of warfare is too bad for any 
 christian rulers to encourage, what must we think 
 of the kind of retaliation which was last mentioned ? 
 What must we think of the rulers of any nation, 
 who, in cool blood, can take the innocent subjects 
 of another nation, and put them to death, to retali- 
 ate the supposed wrongs, which that other nation 
 may have committed ? What must all good men 
 think of such retaliation ? I will not express my 
 own thoughts, for I am not master of language 
 strong enough, were I to make the attempt.* 
 
 You will recollect, that at the beginning of this 
 discourse I observed, — " It is not so much my in- 
 tention to show what opinions moral writers, and 
 writers on the law of nature and of nations have 
 expressed concerning the doctrine of retaliation, as 
 to show what appears to have been the mind of 
 
 * See Note A. 
 
14 
 
 Christ, and what comports with the religion which 
 he founded, and which we profess." 
 
 If, on inquiry, we should find, that the best 
 of those writers Avere in favour of the doctrine in 
 question, and find, also, that Christ expressed him- 
 self strongly against it, we should think ourselves 
 bound to submit to the authority of Christ, rather 
 than to the authority of men, however learned and 
 wise, and however much their opinions may have 
 been respected ; and I am very much mistaken, if 
 it has not been made to appear, that retaliation, as 
 commonly understood, is directly contrary to the 
 doctrine of Christ, and the spirit of his gospel. 
 
 We may, therefore, conclude, that were the Son 
 of God now in the world, and to give his opinion 
 on the subject, which we have been considering, it 
 would be similar to that which he gave about 
 eighteen hundred years ago. We may conceive 
 that he would speak to a multitude convened to 
 hear him, as he spake to his disciples and the mul- 
 titude, seated at the foot of the mount. " Ye have 
 heard that it hath been said, by the expounders 
 of your laws, — yt may retaliate the injuries, 
 which ye sufter from one another in times of 
 war, — ^ye may render evil for evil, burning for 
 burning, devastation for devastation ; and, in some 
 cases, ye may take away the lives of innocent sub- 
 jects of an enemy nation, when such are in your 
 power, to retaliate for wrongs done to your nation, 
 or to the subjects of it ; but I say unto you, that 
 ye resist not evil in any of those ways. If your 
 enemies have acted like savages, take heed that ye 
 do not as they have done. If your enemies have 
 
15 
 
 been cruel in the treatment which they have show- 
 ed to you or to your brethren, take heed that ye be 
 not cruel also. If your enemy have shed the blood 
 of prisoners and captives unjustly, take heed that 
 ye be not guilty of the same abominable wicked- 
 ness." In some such language, but in a manner 
 infinitely more pointed and impressive, we may 
 suppose, were the Son of God now on earth, he 
 would give his opinion on the subject of retaliation. 
 The mind of Christ is the same now that it was 
 eighteen hundred years ago. He then abhorred in- 
 justice and cruelty, he now abhors them. He then 
 forbad his disciples and those, who attended on 
 his preaching, the retaliating of evils, and were he 
 now in the world he would forbid the same thine. 
 
 o 
 
 I have now said what I proposed to say ; and if 
 it be made plain, that the mind of Christ, and the 
 spirit of his religion be against the retaliation of in- 
 juries, as understood and practised by the men of 
 the world, serious christians are bound, by the re- 
 gard which they have for their Lord and Master, to 
 bear their testimony against a practice so inhuman 
 and cruel. 
 
 Let us now turn our eyes from the awful scenes, 
 which a country presents, where war has raged, and 
 where contending armies have retaliated injuries on 
 each other. Let us turn from burning towns, from 
 countries laid waste, women and children driven 
 from the comforts, which the labours of the sum- 
 mer season had provided for them, and perishing 
 in want.* Let us turn from an unrighteous, an 
 unnecessary and ruinous war,t and pray, that he, 
 
 * See Note B. t T^'ote C. 
 
16 
 
 who ruleth in the heavens, would have mercy upon 
 us ; that he, who loveth righteousness would pro- 
 tect and save us ; and grant, that being delivered 
 from our enemies, and from all, who in any ways 
 obstruct our prosperity and happiness, we may 
 serve the Lord without fear, in peace and " in ho- 
 " liness all the days of our life." 
 
 itfi? 
 
 .sq lo 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 NOTE A. PAGE 13. 
 
 THE Avar beUeen Great Britain and the Unit- 
 ed States of America seems to be taking a character, which 
 threatens uncommon distress, not only to such as may be in ac- 
 tual service, but to the innocent subjects of both nations. When 
 nations at war adopt a ruinous system of retaliation, and return 
 not only slaughter for slaughter, but burning for burning, the 
 war is no longer honourable, Avhatever the object at first may 
 have been ; it assumes a savage charactei", and becomes a Avar of 
 barbarians. 
 
 It is not for me to say, which of the present contending poAvers 
 gave the first offence, and provoked the other to retaliate. The 
 faithful historian will inform posterity, how the present war be- 
 gan, and hoAV it has been conducted ; who first sat fire to towns 
 and villages ; to the houses of unoffending husbandmen ; the 
 huts ' "ar-ats, and of the natives of the wilderness. 
 
 But another, and it is believed quite a new kind of retalia- 
 tion, has of late called up the publick attention, and threatens 
 the last extreme of misery to such unhappy persons as may be 
 held to suffer under it. I hope Ave shall give no offence, if Ave in- 
 quire, Avhether there be any laAV noAv in existence, by which the 
 innocent subjects of any country may be seized, confined in pris- 
 on, and put to death, because the government of their country 
 has unjustly punished the subjects of the government thus re- 
 taliating ? If there be any such laAV, where shall Ave find it ? 
 Perhaps among the laws of Draco, which we are informed 
 "Avere Avritten in letters of blood !" Those laAvs, however, Avere 
 done aAvay by Solon, a less speculative, but a much wiser and 
 more practical legislator. We find something in the Roman 
 laws of the tAvelve tables, concerning the retaliation of injuries, 
 but Avhat is there written does not apply to the doctrine iioav at- 
 tempted to be established ; it is almost verbatim from the laAV of 
 Moses. 
 
 Writers on the law of nature and of nations hold, that inju- 
 ries may, under certain circumstances, be retaliated ; but the 
 
18 
 
 exercise of such a law is so restricted, that it is believed no 
 aiitliority can be derived from the most approved of those wri- 
 ters, to support the principie, that the innocent subjects of any 
 civilized nation may be seized and executed, because the govern- 
 ment of :hat nation has been guilty of -a very unjust and cruel 
 action. The following 'passages Irom Vattel are much to our 
 purpose : " When the war is m ith a savage nation, which ob- 
 " serves no niles, and never gives quarter, it may be chastised 
 " in the pereons of any seized or taken, they are among the guil- 
 " ty, that by this rigour they may be brought to conform to the 
 " laws of humanity. But whenever severity is not absolutely 
 " necessary, clemency is to be used He, A^ho has the most just 
 " cause to punish a sovereign as his enemy, wiii always incur the 
 " reproach of cruelty, should he cause the punishment to fall on 
 " the innocent people ! Scipio's generosity is to be imitated. 
 " That great man having reduced some S\)amsh prijices, who had 
 " revolted against the Romans, declared to them, that, on a 
 " breach of their faith, he would not call the innocent hostages 
 " to an account, but themselves. Alexander the Great having 
 " cause of complaint against Darius for some mal-practices sent 
 "him word, that if he continued to make war in such a manner, 
 " he would pursue him to the utmost, and give no quarter." 
 " It is tJms an enemy, violating the laws of war, is to be checked, 
 " and not by causing the penalty due to the crime to fall on m- 
 " nocent victims.'''' 
 
 Pufiendorf is equally mild and christian-like in what he says 
 about retaliation ; " In one of the laws of the Tw elve Tables," 
 says he, " it is instituted, that the man Avho breaks another's 
 " limbs, unless he can make his peace, and compound with him, 
 " shall suffer the like !" but adds, " it is plain from the institute 
 " de injuriis, that retaliation Avas grown out of use at Rome." 
 
 It may be well to inquire, and, if possible, to satisfy our- 
 selves, Avhether or not there be any law of tlie United States, or 
 of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, by which the innocent 
 subjects of any country v, hatever, may be seized, imprisoned, 
 and put to death, because the government of their countiy has, 
 in the opinion of oiu- government, unjustly confined and put to 
 death, per' ons whom our government claims as subjects, and who 
 are claimed also by the government, Avhich so condemns and 
 punishes them. And if there be no laAv in our free country, 
 thus to condemn and put to death innocent persons, where is 
 the judge who Avill pronounce the sentence of death ? Where 
 is the marslial who would venture to execute them ? 
 
 As the doctrine of retaliation has of late excited gi-eat inter- 
 est, I liave endeavoured to ascertain the numbers of innocent 
 British and American subjects, which have been seized, and 
 held in confinement. See bottom of Note (B.) 
 
19 
 
 NOTE B. PAGE 15. 
 
 OUR compassion has lately been called into painful 
 exercise, by the sufferings of many innocent people, whose 
 houses have been burnt, by what I fear will be found, a wanton 
 exercise of military power on one side, and by retaliating ven« 
 geance on the other. 
 
 By quoting from a proclamation of the commander of the Bri- 
 tish forces in North America, I shall not be understood as acced- 
 ing in the smallest degree to his reasoning ; for I condemn the 
 practice of retaliating injuries altogether, as immoral, and con- 
 trary to the command of Christ. I therefore quote the Avords 
 of Lieut. General Provost, merely as reasons which he offers 
 for a painful act of retaliation. 
 
 " The complete success which has attended his majesty's 
 " arms on the Niagara frontier having placed in our possession 
 " the Avhole of the enemy's posts on that line, it became a mat- 
 " ter of imperious duty to retaliate on America the miseries, 
 " which the unfortunate inhabitants of Newark had been made 
 " to suffer upon the evacuation of Fort George. 
 
 " The villages of Lewistown, Black Rock, and Buffalo have 
 " accordingly been burned. 
 
 " At the same time that his excellency the commander of the 
 " forces sincerely deprecates this mode of warfare, he trusts that 
 " it will be sufficient to call the attention of every candid and 
 " impartial person, both amongst ourselves and the enemy, to 
 " the circumstances from Avhich it has arisen, to satisfy them, that 
 " this departure from the established usages of war has origina- 
 " ted with America herself, and to her alone are justly chargea- 
 " ble all the awful and unhappy consequences, which have 
 " hitherto flowed, and are likely to result from it." 
 
 From sources of the best information, the author of the pre- 
 cedhig discourse is able to lay before the publick the foUow- 
 lowiug account of the proceedings of the American and the Bri- 
 tish governments on the system of retaliation which has lately 
 been adopted. It appears, that 
 
 23 American prisoners were arrested, as British subjects, by 
 the English government in Canada. That 
 
 28 British prisoners, in retaliation, were confined by the 
 American government. That 
 
 46 Americans, in retaliation, were confined by the English 
 government. That 
 
 46 British subjects, in retaliation, were confined by the Amer- 
 ican government. That, after this, orders were issued 
 for the confinement of 
 
 92 American prisoners. " Seventy were actually confined at 
 Halifax, on board the prison ship Success i that as soon as 
 
% 
 
 20 
 
 a sufficient number of either government, privateer, or 
 letter of uiarque prisoners should be taken, the number 
 Avould be completed : that the ofiicers and owners of the 
 •whale ships, Avhich sailed before the declaration of war, 
 would be exceptions, and on that account a part of the sev- 
 enty had been released ; but that the order Avas actually is- 
 sued, and would be put into execution 1" 
 
 NOTE C. PAGE 15. 
 
 If we may judge from what we experience, from Avhat 
 oui' eyes behold, and from tlie memorials ,of a suireriug peo- 
 ple, especially in the northern and eastern parts of the United 
 States, we shall be bold to say, the present war, in which our 
 country is engaged, is unnecessary and ruinous. We need no 
 other evidence, than the objects continually before us, to prove, 
 that the war, with its extraordinary accompaniments, has ruined 
 our commerce ; and if the prosperity of the eastern states de- 
 pend on commerce, the ruin of commerce must be the ruin of 
 this section of the union. The commerce of the American States, 
 it is confessed, was greatly injured by the orders and decrees of 
 the great European belligerents : it was still more injured by 
 certain restrictive measures, such as a non-intercourse and em- 
 bargo before the war. The living principle of commerce, how- 
 ever, remained after the war was declared, and, by a little at- 
 tention, might have been preserved, and kept in action ; but the 
 late embargo act was like a fatal stroke of the palsy ; it has de- 
 stroyed all motion, and put a stop to the pulse of life. 
 
 Look at your harbour, and you will scarcely see a sail spread 
 to the wind of your own canvass. Look at your ships, which 
 ought to be employed in bringing Avealth from every quarter of 
 the world, perishing Avith the Aveather, and rotting in the docks. 
 Look at your M'harves, where you have been accustomed to be- 
 hold enterprise and activity, noAv wholly forsaken, unless here 
 and there a wanderer, to gaze at fallen greatness, and sigh for 
 better times! Look every Avheie, aad your eyes Avill witness, 
 that the war has hitherto been ruinous ; and if ruinous, certain- 
 ly unnecessary ; for surely no people are bound to ruin them- 
 selves. And, in addition to the ruin of commerce, and the oth- 
 er calamities attending the Avar, a debt is accumulating upon us, 
 beyond all example. Under the intolerable burden, our chil- 
 dren and children's children Avill groan, and call each one to his 
 
 felloAV, " TELL us WHAT MIGHTY BOON AVAS PURCHASED FOR US, 
 AT SUCU VAST EXPENSE ?" 
 
■:M'.K>iii 
 
 'i'4 
 
 vt^' . Ml »■■'': *t'fl 
 
 
 m 
 
 K\ 
 
 '■■• ■■'■ ■''■S 
 
 yv 
 
 .■ > ' •■ , ' ■•'ll 
 
 ji 
 
 -, vVv,V 
 
 ;\'! 
 
 :■ •"■■' ^' "r^ 
 
 [•■ : 
 
 ■" 1 "'.'. ■■'.'./ 
 
 V ■ ■ : ■, 
 
 ■■::■'■/•::•;;« 
 
 ^' '^'-'i^JUHttiS 
 
 0011 8371100