if one nation were to decline keeping any armies at all, where would be the violence to reason to suppose, that the other would follow the example? Who would not be glad to get rid of the expense of keeping them, if they could do it with safety? Nor is it likely that any powerful nation professing to relinquish war would experience the calamities of it. Its care to avoid provocation would be so great, and its language would be so temperate, and reasonable, and just, and conciliatory, in the case of any dispute which might arise, that it could hardly fail of obtaining an accommodation. And the probability is, that such a nation would grow so high in esteem with other nations, that they would have recourse to it in their disputes with one another, and would abide by its decision. "Add the general influence," says the great Bishop Butler in his Analogy," which such a kingdom would have over the face of the earth, by way of example particularly, and the reverence which would be paid to it. It would, plainly, be superior to all others, and the world must gradually come under its empire; not by means of lawless violence, but partly by

what

1

what must be allowed to be just conquest, and partly by other kingdoms submitting themselves voluntarily to it throughout a course of ages, and claiming its protection one after another, in successive exigencies. The head of it would be an universal Monarch in another sense than any other mortal has yet been, and the Eastern style would be literally applicable to him, " that all people, nations, and languages should serve him." Now Bishop Butler supposes this would be the effect, where the individuals of a nation were perfectly virtuous. But I ask much less for my own hypothesis. I only ask that the ruling members of the Cabinet of any great nation (and perhaps these would only amount to three or four) should consist of real Christians, or of such men as would implicitly follow the policy of the Gospel; and I believe the result would be as I have described it.

Nor indeed are we without instances of the kind. The goodness of the emperor Antoninus Pius was so great, that he was said to have outdone all example. He had no war in the course of a long reign of twenty-four years, so that he was compared

to

to Numa. And nothing is more true, than that princes referred their controversies to his decision.

Nor must I forget to bring again to the notice of the reader the instance, though on a smaller scale, of the colonists and descendants of William Penn. The Quakers have uniformly conducted themselves towards the Indians in such a manner, as to give them from their earliest intercourse an exalted idea of their character. And the consequence is, as I stated in a prior section, that the former in affairs of importance are consulted by the latter at the present day. But why, if the Cabinet of any one powerful nation were to act upon the noble principle of relinquishing war, should we think the other Cabinets so lost to good feelings as not to respect its virtue? Let us instantly abandon this thought; for the supposition of a contrary sentiment would make them worse than the savages I have mentioned.

Let us then cherish the fond hope that human animosities are not to be eternal, and that man is not always to be made a tiger to man. Let us hope that the Government of some one nation (and when we consider

VOL. III.

I

consider the vast power of the British empire, the nature of its constitution and religion, and the general humanity of its inhabitants, none would be better qualified than our own) will set the example of the total dereliction of wars. And let us, in all our respective situations, precede the anticipated blessing, by holding out the necessity of the subjugation of the passions, and by inculcating the doctrine of universal benevolence to man;-so that, when we look upon the beautiful islands, which lie scattered as so many ornaments of the ocean, we may wish their several inhabitants no greater injury than the violence of their own waves; or that, when we view continents at a distance from us, we may consider them as inhabited by our brothers; or that, when we contemplate the ocean itself, which may separate them from our sight, we may consider it not as separating our love, but as intended by Providence to be the means of a quicker intercourse for the exchange of reciprocal blessings.

CHAP

CHAPTER IV.

SECTION I.

Fourth tenet is on the subject of a Pecuniary Maintenance of a Gospel-Ministry-Example and precepts of Jesus Christ-also of Paul and Peter-s conclusions from these premises-these conclusions supported by the primitive practice-great tenet resulting from these conclusions and this primitive practice is, that the Quakers hold it unlawful to pay their own ministers, and also others of any other denomination, for their Gospellabours.

THE fourth and last tenet of the Society is on the subject of the Unlawfulness of a Pecuniary Maintenance of a Gospel-Ministry.

In explaining this tenet I am aware that I am treading upon delicate ground. The great majority of Christians have determined, that the spiritual labourer is worthy of his hire; that if men relinquish the usual occupations,

I 2