About this book
My library
Books on Google Play
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
LETTER I.
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
LETTER II.
PAGE
1-20
The principle on which certain scriptural precepts are
interpreted as condemning all war, shown to be not
consistently used by those who so 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
LETTER V.
57--79
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 and sea service considered
LETTER VI.
79--94
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