About this book
My library
Books on Google Play
PAGE
Principle of Peace Societies.- Two inquiries occa-
sioned by it.-First inquiry.--The necessity of pub
lic force argued.-The opinion, that Christians ought
not to direct or exercise it, examined .....
1-20
LETTER II.
The principle on which certain scriptural precepts are
interpreted as condemning all war, shown to be not
consistently used by those who 80 apply it ......... 20—33
LETTER III.
Remarks on some characteristics of our Saviour's teach-
ings, which warrant and confirm the more usual inter-'
pretation of the precepts in question,- No command
or distinct permission requisite to justify the use of
force
33-57
LETTER IV.
Recapitulation.-Second inquiry.-- The Christian's ge-
neral rule.-- Why it differs from the views of philoso-
phers.-Duty of Christian nations to render their
acts of external force more properly judicial.- The
Christian's practice.--He cannot be, consistently, at
the full disposal of the State.- His moral responsi-
bility contended for.-Scriptural precepts concern-
ing subjects and servants
57--79
LETTER V.
It is the Christian's duty to defend his country.- Prac-
tical meaning of country.--The natural country.-
The political.--The State.--Naval defence.--Com-
pulsory land und sea service considered
79--94
LETTER VI.
Supposed objections.-A general fallacy in them sug-
gested.-- First objection, relating to aggrandizement,
considered.- Admission that a Christian could not
have consistently joined in most colonial conquests.-
The effects of conquest no vindication of its princi-
ple.—Have such colonial conquests benefited the
parent States ?-Other kinds of commerce and colo-
nization might have been substituted
94--108
LETTER VII.
The second objection, (relating to the preservation of
our colonies,) and a branch of the third, (i. e. the
naval means of defence supposed to depend on this,)
considered.--Specific service may defend the colonies ;
and is not to be scrupled, if they are well governed.-
No essential dependence of trade on colonies.-Power
of augmenting fisheries
108--125
LETTER VIII.
The third objection (respecting nutional defence) farther
considered.-Conquest in order to security, a plea of
ambition.--The heptarchy.-Aids to other States not
habitually needful to our safety-should be specific.-
Foreign wars, for the purpose of discipline, not a sure
or necessary mean of defence.-Proved by facts.-
Regular armies invented for other ends.--Militia-
danger from it to the State, not an admissible ar-
gument
125–147
LETTER IX.
The duty urged on Christians, of relying on divine aid,
in the use of proper means.— Reason for some confi-
dence in the probable concurrence of other nations 147–158
LETTER X.
The fourth objection, respecting the assistance of the
injured in foreign countries, adverted to.-Specific
service would suffice for this.--General remarks on
such service.- Peculiar facilities of Great Britain
for pursuing a defensive system.—No decision on
cases of specific service, as yet needful.-Refusal of
that which is unlimited, the great principle.--Effects
to be anticipated from the settled adoption of this by
Christians
158-172
LETTER XI.
Recapitulation of the second inquiry.-- Rapid growth
of these opinions not to be expected.- Many reasons
strongly adverse, and some propitious, to it.-Dis-
cussion seasonable.- Proposed modification of the
Peace Society's principle.--Author liable to misre-
presentation.--Inquiry into the duty of statesmen,
declined.-Positive as well as negative influence of
Christians.—Conclusion.........
172-188