And why is it necessoldiers? Because it is

who bear the christian name. sary to inflame the pride of well understood, that soldiers, without pride, are not fit for their business.

.. If war is a christian duty, why should not the example and precepts of Christ, instead of the example of the heroes of this world, be exhibited to those who fight, to stimulate them? Is not Christ as worthy of imitation, as the Cæsars and Alexanders of this world? He was a triumphant conqueror; he vanquished death and hell, and purchased eternal redemption for his people: but he conquered by resignation, and triumphed by his death. Here is an example worthy of the highest emulation. And why not animate soldiers by it? Only because it would unnerve their arms for war, and render them harmless to their foes.

It is so common to compliment the pride of soldiers, that, instead of considering it that abominable thing which the Lord hates, they consider it a virtue. We frequently hear gentlemen of the sword, as they are styled, in reply to the flattery bestowed upon them, frankly declare, that it is their highest ambition to obtain the praise of their fellow citizens; and of course they confess that they are seeking the praise of men, more than the praise of God. These gentlemen, however, are far less criminal than those who lavish flattery on them; for doubtless most of them are sincere, and think themselves in the way of their duty, while their profession often leads them, necessarily, from the means of knowing correctly what is duty.

While professing christians have been taught from their cradles, that the profession of arms is not merely an allowable, but a noble employment. It is easy 'for them to slide into the current, and go with the multitude to celebrate victories, and to eulogize heroes, without once reflecting whether or not, they are imitating their Lord and master. But is it not time for christians to examine and ascertain if war is tolerated in the gospel of peace, before they join in festivities to celebrate its bloody feats?

How would a pagan be astonished, if he had been taught the meek, lowly, and forgiving spirit and principles of the gospel, without knowing the practice of christians, to see a host of men, professing to be influenced by these blessed principles, martialled in all the pomp of military parade, threatening destruction to their fellow mortals? Would he not conclude, that either he, or they, had mistaken the genius of the gospel, or that they believed it to be but a fable?

It is a notorious fact, which requires no confirmation, that military men, decorated with finery, and clad in the glitter of arms, instead of being meek and lowly in their temper and deportment, are generally flushed with pride and haughtiness. And, indeed, what purpose do their decorations and pageantry answer, but that of swelling their vanity? Their employment is not soft and delicate. Other men who follow rough employments, wear rough clothing; but the soldier's occupation is not less rough than the butcher's, though, in the world's opinion, it is more honorable to kill men, than to kill cattle.

But if war has a natural tendency to inflame, and does inflame and increase the pride of men, it is criminal; it does that which the Lord hates, and it must be highly criminal to engage in it.

3. War necessarily infringes on the consciences of men, and therefore is criminal.

Liberty of conscience is a sacred right delegated to man by his creator, who has given no authority to man, to infringe, in the least, on the conscience of his fellow man. Though a man, by following the dictates of his conscience, may be injured by men, yet they have no authority to deprive him of the rights of conscience; to controul the conscience is alone the prerogative of God. That man has no right to violate the conscience of his fellow man, is a truth, which few, under the light of the gospel, since the days of ignorance and superstition, have ventured to call in question; but military governments, from their very nature, necessarily infringe on the consciences of men.

Though the law of God requires implicit obedience to rulers, in all things not contrary to the scriptures, they utterly forbid compliance to such commands as are inconsistent with the gospel; for we must obey God rather than man, and fear God, as well as honour the king.

But governments, whether monarchical or republican, make laws as they please, and compel obedience at the point of the sword. They declare wars, and call upon all their subjects to support them.

Offensive war, by all professing christians, is considered a violation of the laws of heaven; but offensive war is openly prosecuted by professing christians, under the specious name of self-defence. France invaded Spain, Germany and Russia; England invaded Holland and Denmark, and the United States invaded Canada, under the pretence of defensive war. The fact is, however, that no man can, on gospel principles, draw a line of distinction between offensive and defensive war, so as to make the former a crime, and the latter a duty, simply, because the gospel has made no such distinction. But while many christians profess to make the distinction, and to consider offensive war criminal, they ought to have the liberty to judge, when war is waged, whether it is offensive or defensive, and to give or withhold their aid accordingly; otherwise they are not permitted the free exercise of their consciences.

But suppose this principle adopted by governments: could they prosecute war, while they left every individual in the free exercise of his conscience, to judge whether such war was offensive, or defensive, and to regulate his conduct accordingly? Would it be possible for governments to carry on war, if they depended, for support, on the uncertain opinion of every individual? No; such a procedure would extinguish the vital strength of war, and lay the sword in the dust. This fact is well known, and monarchs declare war, and force their subjects to support it; the majority in republican governments declare war, and demand, and enforce obedience from the minority.

Though the constitutions of governments may, in the most solemn manner, guarantee to citizens, the free exercise of their consciences; yet governments find it necessary practically to make an exception in relation to war, and a man may plead conscientious motives in vain, to free himself from contributing to the support of war.

I think it proper here to notice, what has appeared to me, a gross absurdity among some christians in this land. They have openly declared, that in their opinion, the late war was offensive; that it was contrary to the laws of God, and that they were opposed to it; but though they wished not to support it, because it was criminal, yet they said, if they were called on in a constitutional way, they would support it thus did they publicly declare, that they would, under certain circumstances, obey man rather than God.

But soldiers actually resign up their consciences to their commanders, without reserving any right to obey only in such cases as they may judge not contrary to the laws of God. Were they at liberty to judge whether commands were morally right, or not, before they yielded obedience, it would be totally impracticable for nations to prosecute war. Ask a general if his soldiers have the privilege of determining whether his commands are right or not, and he will tell you, it is their duty only to obey.

Suppose that a general and his army are shut up in a city, in his own country, and that provisions are