PREFACE.

DR. PALEY has justly observed that "no two things can be more contrary than the heroic and the Christian characters :" and, speaking of the former, he observes," that it is, and ever has been, the favourite of the world. It is the character of great men. There is a dignity in it which commands respect. The latter is poor-spirited, tame, and abject: yet so it hath happened, that with the Founder of Christianity, this latter is the subject of his commendation, his precepts, his example; and the former is so in no part of its composition *."

With equal truth it may be observed, that no two things can be more contrary than the pliant and selfish policy by which nations and individuals are generally governed, and the firm, noble, and disinterested conduct which is founded on implicit obedience to the precepts taught by Christ. It may be added, that the former is, and ever has been preferred. It is the character generally adopted by the great; and it recommends to their notice persons in the inferior ranks of society. There is in it a suavity of manners, a ready acquiescence in the opinions of those with whom we associate, calculated to conciliate their regard and affection. It is the step-ladder to wealth, to honour, and every thing this world can give. The latter promises little for this world, but much for the next.

The evils arising out of this departure from the require

* See Paley's Evidences, Chap. II. On the Morality of the Gospel.

ments of a religion by which men profess to be guided, are written in characters of blood in the histories of Christian nations so called, during the last fifteen centuries. When these things are considered, and we take into the account that one great purpose of Christ's being sent into the world, was to establish in it universal righteousness and peace, it might naturally have been expected, that the desired end would long ago have been effected, or else, that men would have abandoned a religion, which (according to prophecy) promises so much, and hitherto, as far as peace and security are concerned, has accomplished so little. The true reason appears to be, that both nations and individuals have preferred the heroic character to the Christian; and the pliant and selfish policy of the world, to that conduct which Christianity prescribes. As a matter of necessity, princes and legislators trust God with the management of the thunder, the wind, and the rain; but, in directing the moral and physical energies of mankind, they appear to dispute, or deny, the revealed wisdom of the great Creator, and to prefer their own puny conceits.

Living as we do in an age when almost all subjects connected with religion and politics have been subjected, more than at any former period, to investigation; and taking into the account that the world has existed in a state of war and bloodshed during a long succession of ages, it might be expected in the present enlightened age, as it is generally called, that few men would be found professing the Christian faith, who had not diligently inquired at the fountain head, whether the religion of Christ, whose spiritual dominion they acknowledge, does or does not sanction war; or whether it permits its votaries to dedicate themselves to what is called the profession of arms, and make it a trade to live by.

However revolting and foreign to the mild spirit of Christianity it may be for men, professing this religion, to gain their daily bread by slaughtering each other, it is certain that there are very few, either parents who establish their sons in this profession, or sons who voluntarily engage in it, who have examined the sacred records of their religion for the specific purpose of informing themselves whether the profession of arms is reconcileable with the profession of Christianity. Nay, though no question can be more closely connected with the well-being of society, it may, perhaps, be asserted, that there are few, even princes and statesmen, who possess the power of employing men in human slaughter, that have asked themselves this question. So far from this, supported by public opinion,-by the opinions of men deemed wise, learned, and honest, and by the authority of antiquity, men of rank, of learning, and even men of acknowledged piety, with very few exceptions, have arrived at the conclusion, that when sanctioned by legal authority, Christians may innocently and honourably rob, plunder, and murder each other to the greatest possible extent. Nay, to such a degree of self-deception have even good men arrived, that they persuade themselves and others that they engage in this employment from patriotic and disinterested motives, though, from the highest to the lowest, they are receiving wages, as in the most servile modes of gaining a livelihood. So long as this wonderful delusion shall remain, men will continue to be corrupt and self-interested, covetous and ambitious; and every plan for ameliorating society, or reforming social institutions, will necessarily prove inefficient.

As to men inquiring whether the religion by which they profess to regulate their actions, imposes upon them any special duties, calculated to check the predominating and antichristian spirit inciting to war; it may perhaps be

safely affirmed, that not one Christian in a thousand has bestowed a thought upon it. Most men regard this as a work of supererogation, and a kind of thing that does not personally concern them. Even amongst those who have taken upon themselves the sacred charge of instructing others, there are probably very few who have examined the Scriptures for the purpose of ascertaining their personal duties regarding war. To incite to inquiry on this subject, on grounds exclusively scriptural, is the main purport of the following Letters.

Whether this might have been accomplished by a much shorter work than the present, or whether, with advantage to the cause of "peace on earth," the work might have been extended to a much greater length,—the reader is left to decide. In forming his decision he is requested to bear in mind, that the publication of the following Letters is not only intended as a persuasive to the examination of the Scriptures, on a subject of high importance to society, but also designed as the author's Apology, which he now humbly submits to the public, to his brother officers, and also to his Sovereign, for an act which, as far as he knows, has no precedent in history for many centuries.

Believing that he is regarded by many as a visionary or an enthusiast, writing upon a subject which he has not duly investigated, the author has deemed it necessary to extend these Letters to their present length. If to be "zealously affected in a good thing" is enthusiasm, the author pleads guilty to the charge, and glories in it; but he denies that he is a visionary. So far from this, he feels confident that he has merely acted upon those principles which common sense dictates to those, who in earnest look forward to a state of future retribution, "when every one shall receive according to the deeds done in the flesh." That, in what he

has written, the author has not done justice to a most interesting subject; and that his Letters are defective in composition and arrangement, he is himself aware. For these, he trusts, his limited education and habits of life will be accepted as an excuse, by the candid searcher after truth.

The last three Letters are chiefly on the unlawfulness of defensive war. To these, particular attention is requested. If they contain any inconclusive reasoning, the author will thank any one to point it out to him. He believes the conclusions he has drawn from the highest authorities, to be perfectly legitimate; and, from the evidence these authorities afford, he decides that ALL WAR is unjustifiable to a professor of Christianity; and, consequently, that no believer in that religion can innocently engage in it, however disastrous to himself or others such a conduct might prove.

Should, however, the arguments here offered against defensive warfare be deemed weak or invalid, the author trusts that he will be held excusable for quitting the profession of arms, on the ground that he considers it as unlawful to a Christian to make that profession a trade to live by. And the reader is requested to bear in mind, that when the author first contemplated withdrawing from his profession, he regarded defensive war as lawful to a Christian.

As the main purport of these Letters is to ascertain the sense of Scripture, and its requirements on the subject of war, it has not been deemed necessary to do more than merely notice what has been said by Mr. Sheppard * and others, concerning the inexpedience of the doctrine of nonresistance, and the political evils likely to result from its ge neral adoption. The arguments in favour of this doctrine,

*See An Inquiry on the Duty of Christians respecting War, by J. Sheppard. Sold by T. Hamilton, Paternoster-row, London.