But let us now look at the opposite policy, which is that of the Gospel.  Now this policy would consist in the practice of meekness, moderation, love, patience, and forbearance, with a strict regard to justice, so that no advantages might be taken on either side.  But if these principles, all of which are preventive of irritation, were to be displayed in our negotiations abroad, in the case of any matter in dispute, would they not annihilate the necessity of wars?  For what is the natural tendency of such principles?  What is their tendency, for instance, in private life?  And who are the negotiators on these occasions but men?  Which kind of conduct is most likely to disarm an opponent, that of him who holds up his arm to strike, if his opponent should not comply with his terms, or of him who argues justly, who manifests a temper of love and forbearance, and who professes that he will rather suffer than resist, and that he will do every thing sooner than that the affair shall not be amicably settled?  The Apostle Paul, who knew well the human heart, says, “If thine enemy hunger, feed him, for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.”  That is, thou shall cause him, by thy amiable conduct, to experience burning feelings within himself, which, while they torment him with the wickedness of his own conduct, shall make him esteem thee, and bring him over to thy side.  Thus thou shalt overcome his evil by thy good.  Or, in other words, as fire melts the hardest metals, so thy kindness shall melt his anger.  Thus Parnell—­

   “So artists melt the sullen ore of lead,
   By heaping coals of fire upon its head. 
   Touch’d by the warmth, the metal teams to glow,
   And pure from dress, the silver tang below.”

This policy again would consist of the practical duty of attempting to tranquillize the minds of the people, while the discussion was going on, of exhorting them to await the event with composure, of declaring against the folly and wickedness of wars, as if peace only could be the result, of abstaining from all hostile preparations, and indeed from all appearance of violence.  Now what influence would such conduct have again, but particularly when known to the opposite party?  If the opposite party were to see those alluded to keeping down the passions of their people, would they inflame the passions of their own?  If they were to be convinced, that these were making no preparations for war, would they put themselves to the expence of arming?  Can we see any other termination of such a contest than the continuance of peace?