in the succeeding peace-what hope is there of the extermination of war on earth?

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

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 shalt 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 learns to glow,
And pure from dross the silver runs 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 a 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 expense of arming? Can we see any other termination of such a contest than the continuance of peace?

That the policy of the Gospel, if acted upon by statesmen, would render wars unnecessary, we may infer from supposed cases. And, first, I would ask this simple question; -whether, if all the world were Quakers, there would be any more wars? I am sure the reply would be, No. But why not? Because nations, consisting of such individuals, it would be replied, would discuss matters in dispute between them with moderation, with temper, and with forbearance. They would never make any threats. They would never arm; and consequently they would never fight. It would be owing, then, to these principles, or, in other words, to the adoption of the policy of the Gospel in pre

ference

ference of the policy of the world, that if the globe were to be peopled by this Society there would be no wars. Now I would ask, what are Quakers but men; and might not all, if they would suffer themselves to be cast in the same mould as the Quakers, come out of it of the same form and character?

But I will go still further. I will suppose that any one of the four quarters of the world, having been previously divided into three parts, was governed only by three Quakers, and that these had the same authority over their subjects as their respective sovereigns have at present: and I will maintain that there would never be upon this quarter of the world, during their respective administrations, another war. For, first, many of the causes of war would be cut off. Thus, for instance, there would be no disputes about insults offered to flags. There would be none, again, about the balance of power. In short, it would be laid down as a position, that no one was to do evil that good might come. But as, notwithstanding, there might still be disputes from other causes, these would be amicably settled.

8

settled. For, first, the same Christian disposition would be manifested in the discussion, as in the former case. And, secondly, if the matter should be of an intricate nature, so that one Quaker-government could not settle it with another, these would refer it, according to their constitution, to a third.' This would be the "ne plus ultra" of the business. Both the discussion and the dis

pute would end here. What a folly, then, to talk of the necessity of wars, when, if but three members of this Society were to rule a continent, they would cease there! There can be no plea for such language, but the impossibility of taming the human passions. But the subjugation of these is the immediate object of our religion. To confess, therefore, that wars must be, is either to utter a libel against Christianity, or to confess that we have not yet arrived at the stature of real Christians.

VOL. III.

H

SECTION