as Lord of all, his investiture with all authority in heaven and earth, legislative, judiciary and executive, is the annunciation, on the belief and public acknowledgment of which the first Christian church was founded in Jerusalem, where the throne of David was, in the month of June, 1814 years ago, Anno Domini 34. God the Father, in propria persona, now neither judges nor punishes any person or nation, but has committed all judgment to his Son, now constituted Head of the universe and Judge of the living and the dead. This simplifies the question and levels it to the judgment of all. It is this: has the Author and Founder of the Christian religion enacted war, or has he made it lawful and right for the subjects of his government to go to war against one another? Or has he made it right for them to go to war against any nation, or for any national object, at the bidding of the present existent political authorities of any nation in Christendom? The question is not, Whether, under the new administration of the universe, Christian communities have a right to wage war, in its common technical sense, against other communities—as the house of Judah against the house of Israel, both of the same religion, language, and blood. This is already, by almost universal consent, decided in the negative, probably only one society of professed Christians excepted. But the question is-May a Christian community, or the members of it, in their individual capacities, take up arms at all, whether aggressively or defensively, in any national conflict. We might, as before alleged, dispense with the words aggressive and defensive; for a mere grammatical, logical, or legal quibble, will make any war either aggressive or defensive, just as the whim, caprice, or interest of an individual pleases. Napoleon, on his death-bed, declared that he had never engaged, during his whole career, in an aggressive war-that all his wars were defensive. Yet all Europe regarded him as the most aggressive warrior of any age. But the great question is, Can an individual, not a public functionary, morally do that in obedience to his government which he cannot do in his own case? Suppose the master of apprenticed youth, or the master of a number of hired or even bond-servants, should fall out with one of his neighbours about one of the lines of his plantation, because, as he imagined, his neighbour had trespassed upon his freehold, in clearing or cultivating hist lands. His neighbour refuses to retire within the precincts insisted on by the complainant; in consequence of which the master calls together his servants, and proceeds to avenge himself; or, as he alleges, to defend his property. As the controversy waxes hot, he commands his servants not only to burn and destroy the improvements made on the disputed territory, but to fire upon his neighbour, his sons, and servants. They obey orders, and kill several of them. They are, however, finally taken into custody and brought to trial. An Attorney for the servants pleads that these servants were bound to obey their master, and quotes these words from the Good Book: "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." But, on the other side, it is shown that the "all things" enjoined are only "all things lawful." For this obedience is to be rendered "as to Christ;" and again, "as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart." No judge nor jury could otherwise than condemn as guilty of murder servants thus acting. Now, as we all are, in our political relations to the government of any country, not at least inferior to the rank of a bond-servant to his master, we cannot of right, as Christian men, obey the POWERS THAT BE in any thing not in itself lawful and right according to the written law of the Great King-our liege Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. Indeed, we may advance in all safety one step farther, if it were necessary, and affirm, that a Christian man can never, of right, be compelled to do that for the state, in defence of state rights, which he cannot of right do for himself in defence of his own personal rights. No Christian man is commanded to love or serve his neighbour, his king, or sovereign, more than he loves or serves himself. This conceded, and unless a Christian man can go to war for himself, he cannot for the state. We have already observed that the Jews were placed under a theocracy, and their kings were only vicegerents, and that they were a symbolic or typical nation adumbrative of a new relation and institution to be set up in "the fulness of time" under an administration of grace. In consequence of this arrangement God was first revealed as the GOD OF ABRAHAM; and afterwards, when he was about to make himself known in all the earth, in contrast with the idols of the nations, he chose, by Moses, to call himself THE GOD OF THE HEBREWS. Now, as the custom then was, all nations had their gods, and by their wars judged and decided the claims and pretensions of their respective divinities. Esteeming the reputation and pretensions of their gods according to their success in war, that nation's god was the greatest and most to be venerated whose people were most successful and triumphant in battle. God, therefore, chose this method to reveal himself as the God of the Hebrews. Hence he first poured out ten plagues upon the gods of Egypt. The Egyptians worshipped every thing from the Nile and its tenantry to the veriest insect in the land. He first, then, plagued their gods. Then, by causing the Jews to fight and destroy many nations, triumphant in a miraculous style, from the victory over Amalek to the fall of the cities and kings of ancient Palestine, he established his claims as supreme over all. Proceeding in this way, he fully manifested the folly of their idolatries, and the omnipotence, greatness, and majesty of The wars the God of the Jews. of Pagan nations were, indeed, much more rational than those of our miscalled Christian nations. No two of these nations acknowledged one and the same dynasties of gods; and, therefore, having different gods, they could, with much propriety, test their claims by invoking them in battle. But these Christian nations are both praying to one and the same God to decide their respective quarrels, and yet they will not abide the decision; for success in war is not by any one of them regarded as an end of all strife as to the right or justice of the demands of the victorious party. Did our present belligerent nations regard victory and triumph as a proof of the justice of their respective claims, they would in the manner of carrying on their wars, prove themselves to be very great simpletons indeed for why sacrifice their hundred millions of dollars and their fifty thousand lives in one or two years, when they could have saved these millions of men and money by selecting, each, one of their genuine Simon Pure patriots and heroes, and having them voluntarily to meet in single combat, before a competent number of witnesses, and encounter each other till one of them triumphed ; and thus award, from Heaven's own court of infallible rectitude, to the nation of the survivor, the glory of a great national triumph, both in heroism and justice? But this they dare not do; for these Christian nations are quite sceptical so far as faith in the justice of their own cause, or in the right decision of their claims in the providence and moral government of God, is concerned. To what purpose, we therefore ask, do they both appeal to the same God, when neither of them feels any obligation to abide his decision! But as we are neither under a Jewish nor a Pagan government, but professedly, at least, under a Christian dispensation, we ought to hear what the present King of the universe has enacted on this subject. The maxims ment. On the contrary, they were to of the Great Teacher and Supreme Philanthrophist are, one would think, to be final and decisive on this great question. The great Lawgiver addresses his followers in two very distinct respects-first, in reference to their own profession, and then in reference to their civil rights, duties, and obligations. So far as any indignity was offered to them or any punishment inflicted upon them as his followers, or for his name's sake, they were in no way to resent it. But in their civil rights he allows them the advantages of the protection of civil law; and for this cause, enjoins upon them the payment of all their political dues, and to be subject to every ordinance of man of live peaceably with all men to the full extent of their power. Their sovereign Lord, the King of nations, is called "THE PRINCE OF PEACE." HOW, then, could a Christian soldier, whose "shield" was faith, whose "helmet" the hope of salvation, whose “breastplate was righteousness, whose "girdle" was truth, whose "feet were shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace," and whose "sword" was that fabricated by the Holy Spirit, even "the word of God"—I say, how could such a one enlist to fight the battles of a Cæsar, a Hannibal, a Tamerlane, a Napoleon, or even a Victoria ? Jesus said, "All that take the sword shall perish by the sword." An aw a purely civil nature, not inter-ful warning! All that take it to sup fering with their obligations to him. "If a heathen man, or persecutor, smite you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If he compel you to go with him one mile, go two. If he sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy mantle also," &c. &c. These and whatever else of evil treatment they might receive, as disciples of Chrst, they must, for his sake endure without resistance or resentment. But if in their citizen character or civil relations they are defrauded, maligned, or prosecuted, they might, and they did, appeal to Cæsar. They paid tribute to civil magistrates that they might protect them; and, therefore, they might rightfully claim their protection. In this view of the matter, civil magistrates were God's ministers to the Christian "FOR GOOD." And also as God's ministers, they were revengers to execute wrath on those who did evil. Therefore, Christians are in duty bound to render to Cæsar what is Cæsar's, and to God what is God's to reverence, honor, and support the civil magistrate; and, when necessary, to claim his protection. port religion, it is confessed, have fallen by it; but it is to be feared it is not simply confined to that; for may I not ask the pages of universal history, have not all the nations builded by the sword finally fallen by it? Should any one say, "Some few of them yet stand," we must respond, All that have fallen stood for a time; and are not those that now stand just at this moment tottering to their overthrow? True, we have no doubt it will prove, in the long run, that nations and states founded by the sword shall fall by the sword. When the Saviour, in his sententious and figurative style, indicating the trials just coming upon his friends, said, "You had better sell your outside garments and buy a sword," one present, understanding him literally, as some of the friends of war still do, immediately responded, "Lord, here are two swords." What did he say? "It is enough." Two swords for twelve Apostles! Truly, they are dull scholars who thence infer he meant that they should literally buy two swords to fight with! When asked But as respects the works peculiar by Pilate whether he was king, he to a soldier, or the prosecution of a responded that he was born to be a political war, they had no command-king; but not a king of worldly type or character. Had he been such a king, his servants would, indeed, have used the sword. But his kingdom neither came, nor stands, by the sword. When first announced as a king by the Jewish Prophets, more than seven centuries before he was born, the Spirit said of his reign"He shall judge among the nations, and decide among many people. And they shall beat their swords to ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more," Isa. ii. 2-4. Two Prophets almost describe it in the same words. Micah, as well as Isaiah, saith- "Out of Zion shall go forth the law, And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, For the mouth of Jehovah of hosts hath spoken it." Such was, according to prophecy, and such is, according to fact, the native influence and tendency of the Christian Institution. Decidedly, then, the spirit of Christianity is essentially pacific. There is frequently a multiplication of testimony for display rather than for effect. And, indeed, the accumulation of evidence does not always correspondingly increase its moral momentum. Nor is it very expedient on other considerations to labor a point which is very generally, if not universally, admitted. That the genius and spirit of Christianity, as well as the letter of it, are admitted, on all hands, to be decidedly "peace on earth, and good will among men," needs no proof to any one that has ever read the volume that contains it. But if any one desires to place in contrast the gospel of Christ and the genius of war, let him suppose the chaplain of an army addressing the soldiers on the eve of a great battle, 66 on performing faithfully their duty, from such passages as the following: -"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be the children of your Father in heaven, who makes his sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sends his rain upon the just and unjust." Again, in our civil relations, "Recompense to no man evil for evil." "As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves; but rather give place to wrath." "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink." "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." Would any one suppose that he had selected a text suitable to the occasion? How would the commander-in-chief have listened to him? With what spirit would his audience have immediately entered upon an engagement? These are questions which every man must answer for himself, and which every one can feel much better than express. But a Christian man cannot conscientiously enter upon any business, nor lend his energies to any cause which he does not approve; and, in order to approve, he must understand the nature and object of the undertaking. Now how does this dictate of discretion, religion and morality bear upon the case before us? Nothing, it is alleged, more tends to weaken the courage of a conscientious soldier, than to reflect upon the originating causes of wars, and the objects for which they are prosecuted. These, indeed, are not always easily comprehended. Many wars have been long prosecuted, and some have been terminated after many and long protracted efforts, before the great majority of the soldiers themselves, on either side, distinctly understood what they were fighting for. Even in our country, a case of this sort has, it is alleged, very recently occurred. If, it is presumed, the true and proper causes of most wars were clearly understood, and the real design for which they are prosecuted could be really and distinctly apprehended, they would, in most instances, miscarry for the want of efficient means of a successful prosecution. : A conviction of this sort, some years ago, occasioned an elaborate investigation of the real causes for which the wars of Christendom had been undertaken, from the time of Constantine the Great down to the present century. From the results furnished the Peace Society of Massachussetts, it appeared that, after subtracting a number of petty wars, long since carried on, and those waged by Christian nations with tribes of savages, the wars of real magnitude amounted in all to 286. The origin of these wars, on a severe analysis, appeared to have been as follows:22 for plunder and tribute-44 for the extension of territory-24 for revenge or retaliation-6 for disputed boundaries-8 respecting points of honour or prerogative-6 for the protection or extension of commerce55 civil wars-41 about contested titles to crowns-30 under pretence of assisting allies-23 for mere jealousy of rival greatness-28 religious wars, including the crusades-not one for defence alone; and certainly not one that an enlightened Christian man could have given one cent for, in a voluntary way, much less have volunteered his services or enlisted into its ranks. If the end alone justifies the means, what shall we think of the wisdom or the justice of war, or of the authors and prominent actors of these scenes? A conscientious mind will ask, Did these 286 wars redress the wrongs, real or feigned, complained of? Did they in all cases, in a majority of the cases, or in a single case, necessarily determine the right side of the controversy? Did they punish the guilty, or the more guilty, in the ratio of No one their respective demerits! can—indeed, no one will, contend that the decision or termination of these wars naturally, necessarily, or even probably, decided the controversy so justly, so rationally, so satisfactorily as it could have been settled in any one case of the 286, by a third or neutral party. War is not now, nor was it ever, a process of justice. It never was a test of truth-a criterion of right. It is either a mere game of chance, or a violent outrage of the strong upon the weak. Need we any other proof that a Christian people can, in no way whatever, countenance a war as a proper means of redressing wrongs, of deciding justice, or of settling controversies among nations? On the common conception of the most superficial thinkers on this subject, not one of the 286 wars which have been carried on among the "Christian nations" during 1500 years was such as that an enlightened Christian man could have taken any part in it—because, as admitted, not one of them was for defence alone; in other words, they were all aggressive wars. But to the common mind, as it seems to me, the most convincing argument against a Christian becoming a soldier may be drawn from the fact that he fights against an innocent person-I say an innocent person, so far as the cause of the war is contemplated. The men that fight are not the men that make the war. Politicians, merchants, knaves, and princes cause or make the war, declare the war, and hire men to kill for them those that may be hired on the other side to thwart their schemes of personal and family aggrandizement. The soldiers on either side have no enmity against the soldiers on the other side, because with them they have no quarrel. Had they met in any other field, in their citizen dress, other than in battle array, they would, most probably, have not only inquired after the welfare of each |