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 re spectiye 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, not withstanding, 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 dispute 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

SECTION VII.

Subject further examined-Case allowed that, if a Cabinet of good men had to negotiate with a Cabinet of good men, there might be no wars-but what would be the issue, if good had to deal with bad-Case of American settlers, who adopted the policy of the world, and were always at war-and of other American settlers, who adopted the policy of the Gospel, and were always at peace-no case stronger than where civilized men had to deal with savage American tribes.

I BELIEVE it will be allowed, that the Quaker-instances mentioned in the last section are in point. I am aware, however, it will be said, that though different Cabinets all having the same Christian disposition would settle their disputes in a friendly manner, how would a Cabinet consisting of spiritually-minded men settle with a Cabinet of other men, who had not brought their passions under due regulation, and who, besides, had no notion of the unlawfulness of war?

I apprehend it will not be denied, that men as ferocious as any recorded in his

tory

tory were those, who were found in America when that continent was discovered. We hear nothing of Africans, or of Asiatics, which would induce us to suppose that they were more wild and barbarous than these; and nothing is more true of these, than that they were frequently concerned in wars. I shall therefore take these for an example; and I shall show by the opposite conduct of two different communities towards them, that it rests with men to live peaceably or not, as they cultivate the disposition to do it, or as they follow the policy of the Gospel in preference of the policy of the world.

When the English, Dutch, and others, began to people America, they purchased land of the natives. But when they went to that continent, notwithstanding there were amiable persons among them, and friends to civil and religious liberty, they went with the notions of worldly policy, and they did not take with them the Christian wisdom of the unlawfulness of war. They acted on the system of preparation, because there might be danger. They never settled without palisados and a fort. They kept their nightly watches, though unmolested.

They were, in short, in the midst of war, though no injury had been offered them by the natives, and though professedly in a state of peace.

In the peopling of Connecticut, for I must begin with some one State, it was ordered. at an English Court "holden at Dorchester on the seventh day of June 1636, that every town should keep a watch, and be well supplied with ammunition. The constables were directed to warn the watches in their turns, and to make it their care that they should be kept according to the direction of the court. They were required also to take care that the inhabitants were well furnished with arms and ammunition, and kept in a constant state of defence*." As these infant settlements, the author observes, "were filled and surrounded with numerous savages, the people conceived themselves in danger when they lay down, and when they rose up, when they went out, and when they came in. Their circumstances were such, that it was judged necessary for every man to be a soldier."

I find from this author, looking further

* Trumbull's History of Connecticut, p. 56.