to resist injuries;-that they were to love their enemies ;—that they were to bless those, who cursed them, and to do good to those, who hated them? This they judge also from his practice. For how could he have lifted up his arm against another, who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, and who in his very agony upon the cross prayed for his persecutors, saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?" But if Jesus Christ could not have been induced or compelled to engage in a profession, which would have subjected him to take away the life of another, so neither can any Christian; -for, if a man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Three arguments are usually brought against the Society on this subject.

The first is, that John the baptist*, when the soldiers demanded of him what they should do, did not desire them to leave the service, in which they were engaged, but, on the other hand, to be content with their wages. To this the Quakers reply, that John told them also " to do violence to no man." But even if he had not said this,

*Luke iii. 14.

they

they apprehend that nothing could be deduced from his expressions, which could become binding upon Christians. For John was the last prophet of the Old Dispensation, but was never admitted into the New. He belonged to the system, which required an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but not to that, which required no resistance to evil, and which insisted upon the love of enemies as well as friends. Hence Jesus Christ said of him, that "he who was least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than he."

The second argument, brought against the Society on this occasion, is of a similar nature with the former. It is said, that if war had been unlawful, our Saviour, when the centurion came to him at Capernaum*, would have found fault with his profession: but he did not do this ;- on the contrary, he highly commended him for his religion. In answer to this the Quakers observe, first, that no solid argument can be drawn from silence on any occasion. Secondly, that Jesus Christ seems, for wise purposes, to have abstained from meddling

*Matt. viii. 5.

with any of the civil institutions of his time, though in themselves wicked; thinking, probably, that it was sufficient to leave behind him such general precepts, as, when applied properly, would be subversive of them all. And, thirdly, that he never commended the centurion on account of his military situation, but on account of the profession of his faith.

They say, further, that they can bring an argument of a much more positive nature than that just mentioned, from an incident which took place, and in which Jesus was again concerned: When Peter cut off the ear of one of the servants of the high-priest, who was concerned in the apprehension of his Lord, he was not applauded, but reprimanded, for the part which he thus took in his defence, in the following words: "Put up again thy sword in its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword *" Now the Quakers conceive that much more is to be inferred against the use of the sword from this instance, than from the former in favour of it.

duced against the members of this Society on this subject is, that they have mistaken the meaning of the words of the famous Sermon upon the Mount. These words, it is said, teach us the noble lesson, that it is more consistent with the character of a Christian to forgive than to resent an injury. They are, it is said, wholly of private import, and relate solely to private occurrences in life. But the members of this Society have extended the meaning of them, beyond private, to public injuries or

wars.

The Quakers in answer to this observe, that they dare not give to the words in question a less extensive meaning. They relate

to every one, who reads them.

They relate to the poor. They relate to the rich. They relate to every potentate, who may be the ruler of a land. They relate to every individual of his council. There is no exception or dispensation to any one in favour of any case.

That they relate to public as well as pri vate wars, or that they extend themselves naturally to those which are public, the Quakers conceive it reasonable to suppose from

from the following consideration: No man, they apprehend, can possess practically the divine principle of loving an individual enemy at home, or of doing good to the man who hates him, but he must of neces

sity love his enemy in any and every other

place. He must have gone so far forward on the road to Christian perfection, as to be unable to bear arms against any other person whatsover; and particularly when, according to the doctrines of the New Testament, no geographical boundaries fix the limits of love and enmity between man and man, but the whole human race are considered as the children of the same parent, and therefore as brothers to one another. But who can truly love an enemy, and kill him ? And where is the difference, under the Gospel-dipensation, between Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, Bond and Free?

That these words were meant to extend to public as well as private wars, they believe, again, from the views which they entertain relative to the completion of Prophecy. They believe that a time will come, in one or other of the succeeding ages, "when men shall beat their swords into plough

D 2