sists in the trial of the experiment of non-resistance, not in its success. Neither were it to any purpose to say, that the savages of America or the despera. does of Ireland, spared the Quakers because they were previously known to be an unoffending people, or because the Quakers had previously gained the love of these by forbearance or good offices:-we concede all this; it is the very argument which we maintain. We say, that an uniform, undeviating regard to the peaceable obligations of Christianity, becomes the safeguard of those who practise it. We venture to maintain, that no reason whatever can be assigned, why the fate of the Quakers would not be the fate of all who should adopt their conduct. No reason can be assigned why, if their number had been multiplied tenfold or a hundred-fold, they would not have been preserved. If there be such a reason, let us hear it. The American and Irish Quakers were, to the rest of the community, what one nation is to a continent. And we must require the advocate of war to produce (that which has never yet been produced) a reason for believing, that although individuals exposed to destruction were preserved, a nation exposed to destruction would be destroyed. We do not however say, that if a people, in the customary state of men's passions, should be assailed by an invader, and should, on a sudden, choose to declare that they would try whether Providence would protect them-of such a people, we do not say that they would experience protection, and that none of them would be killed: but we say, that the evidence of experience is, that a people who habitually regard the obligations of Christianity in their conduct towards other men, and who steadfastly refuse, through whatever consequences, to engage in acts of hostility, will experience protection in their peacefulness: And it matters nothing to the argument, whether we refer that protection to the immediate agency of Providence, or to the influence of such conduct upon the minds of men.* Such has been the experience of the unoffending and unresisting, in individual life. A National example of a refusal to bear arms, has only once been exhibited to the world: but that one example has proved, so far as its political circumstances enabled it to prove, all that humanity could desire and all that scepticism could demand, in favour of our argu ment. It has been the ordinary practice of those who have colonized distant countries, to force a footing, or to maintain it, with the sword. One of the first objects has been to build a fort and to provide a military. The adventurers became soldiers, and the colony was a garrison. Pennsylvania was however colonized by men who believed that war was absolutely incompatible with Christianity, and who therefore resolved not to practise it. Having determined not to fight, they maintained no soldiers and possessed no arms. They planted themselves in a country that was surrounded by savages, and by sa * Ramond, in his "Travels in the Pyrenees," fell in from time to time with those desperate marauders who infest the boundaries of Spain and Italy-men who are familiar with danger and robbery and blood. What did experience teach him was the most efficient means of preserving himself from injury? To go "unarmed." He found that he had "little to apprehend, from men whom we inspire with no distrust or envy, and every thing to expect in those from whom we claim only what is due from man to man. The laws of nature still exist for those who have long shaken off the law of civil govern. ment.""The assassin has been my guide in the defiles of the boundaries of Italy; the smuggler of the Pyrenees has received me with a welcome in his secret paths. Armed, I should have been the enemy of both: unarmed, they have alike respected me. In such expectation I have long since laid aside all menacing apparatus whatever. Arms irritate the wicked and in timidate the simple: the man of peace amongst mankind has a much more sacred defence-his character." vages who knew they were unarmed. If easiness of conquest, or incapability of defence, could subject them to outrage, the Pennsylvanians might have been the very sport of violence. Plunderers might have robbed them without retaliation, and armies might have slaughtered them without resistance. If they did not give a temptation to outrage, no temptation could be given. But these were the people who possessed their country in security, whilst those around them were trembling for their existence. This was a land of peace, whilst every other was a land of war. The conclusion is inevitable, although it is extraordinary :-they were in no need of arms, because they would not use them. These Indians were sufficiently ready to commit outrages upon other States, and often visited them with desolation and slaughter; with that sort of desolation, and that sort of slaughter, which might be expected from men whom civilization had not reclaimed from cruelty, and whom religion had not awed into forbearance. "But whatever the quarrels of the Pennsylvanian Indians were with others, they uniformly respected and held as it were sacred, the territories of William Penn.* The Pennsylvanians never lost man, woman, or child by them; which neither the colony of Maryland, nor that of Virginia could say, no more than the great colony of New England." † The security and quiet of Pennsylvania was not a transient freedom from war, such as might accidentally happen to any nation. She continued to enjoy it" for more than seventy years," and "subsisted in the midst of six Indian nations, without so much as a militia for her defence. §" "The Pennsylvanians became armed, though without arms they became strong, though without strength; they became safe, without the ordinary means of safety. The constable's staff was the only instrument of authority amongst them for the greater part of a century, and never, during the administration of Penn, or that of his proper successors, was there a quarrel or a war." || I cannot wonder that these people were not molested-extraordinary and unexampled as their security was. There is something so noble in this perfect confidence in the Supreme Protector, in this utter exclusion of "slavish fear," in this voluntary relinquishment of the means of injury or of defence, that I do not wonder that even ferocity could be disarmed by such virtue. A people, generously living without arms, amidst nations of warriors! would attack a people such as this? There are few men so abandoned as not to respect such confidence. It were a peculiar and an unusual intensity of wickedness that would not even revere it. Who amidst surrounding broils and slaughter, was selected as a land of security and peace. The only national opportunity which the virtue of the Christian world has afforded us, of ascertaining the safety of relying upon God for defence, has determined that it is safe. If the evidence which we possess do not satisfy us of the expediency of confiding in God, what evidence do we ask, or what can we receive? We have his promise that he will protect those who abandon their seeming interests in the performance of his will; and we have the testimony of those who have confided in him, that he has protected them. Can the advocate of war produce one single instance in the history of man, of a person who had given an unconditional obedience to the will of Heaven, and who did not find that his conduct was wise as well as virtuous, that it accorded with his interests as well as with his duty. We ask the same question in relation to the peculiar obligations to irresistance. Where is the man who regrets, that, in observance of the forbearing duties of Christianity, he consigned his preservation to the superintendence of God?-And the solitary national example that is before us, confirms the testimony of private life; for there is sufficient reason for believing, that no nation, in modern ages, has possessed so large a portion of virtue or of happiness, as Pennsylvania before it had seen human blood. I would therefore repeat the question-What evidence do we ask or can we receive? This is the point from which we wander :-WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD. When this statement is formally made to us, we think, perhaps that it is not true; but our practice is an evidence of its truth; for if we did believe, we should also confide in it, and should be willing to stake upon it the consequences of our obedience. We can talk with sufficient fluency of "trusting in Providence;" but in the application of it to our conduct in life, we know wonderfully little. Who is it that confides in Providence, and for what does he trust him? Does his confidence induce him to set aside his own views of interest and safety, and simply to obey precepts which appear inexpedient and unsafe? This is the confidence that is of value, and of which we know so little. There are many who believe that war is disallowed by Christianity, and who would rejoice that it were for ever abolished; but there are few who are willing to maintain an undaunted and unyielding stand against it. They can talk of the loveliness of peace, ay, and argue against the lawfulness of war; but when difficulty or suffering would be the consequence, they will not refuse to do what they know to be unlawful, they will not practise the peacefulness which they say they admire. Those who are ready to sustain the consequences of undeviating obedience, are the supporters of whom Christianity stands in need. She wants men who are willing to suffer for her principles. The positions, then, which we have endeavoured to establish are these I. That those considerations which operate as general Causes of War, are commonly such as Christianity condemns: II. That the Effects of War are, to a very great extent, prejudicial to the moral character of a people, and to their social and political welfare: III. That the General Character of Christianity is wholly incongruous with war, and that its General Duties are incompatible with it: "The dread of being destroyed by our enemies if we do not go to war with them, is a plain and unequivocal proof of our disbelief in the superintendence of Divine Providence."—— The Lawfulness of Dejensive War impartially considered. By a Member of the Church of England. IV. That some of the express Precepts and Declarations of the Christian Scriptures virtually forbid it: V. That the Primitive Christians believed that Christ had forbidden War: and that some of them suffered death in affirmance of this belief: VI. That God has declared, in Prophecy, that it VII. That those who have refused to engage in Now, we think that the establishment of any considerable number of these positions is sufficient for our argument. The establishment of the whole forms a body of Evidence, to which I am not able to believe that an enquirer, to whom the subject was new, would be able to withhold his assent. But since such an enquirer cannot be found, I would invite the reader to lay prepossession aside, to suppose himself to have now first heard of battles and slaughter, and dispassionately to examine whether the evidence in favour of Peace be not very great, and whether the objections to it bear any proportion to the evidence itself. But whatever may be the determination upon this question, surely it is reasonable to try the experiment, whether security cannot be maintained without slaughter. Whatever be the reasons for war, it is certain that it produces enormous mischief. Even waiving the obligations of Christianity, we have to choose between evils that are certain and evils that are doubtful; between the actual endurance of a great calamity, and the possibility of a less. It certainly cannot be proved, that Peace would not be the best policy; and since we know that the present system is bad, it were reasonable and wise to try whether the other is not better. In reality I can scarcely conceive the possibility of a greater evil than that which mankind now endure; an evil, moral and physical, of far wider extent, and far greater intensity, than our familiarity with it allows us to suppose. If a system of Peace be not productive of less evil than the system of war, its consequences must indeed be enormously bad; and that it would produce such consequences, we have no warrant for believing, either from reason or from practice either from the principles of the moral government of God, or from the experience of manWhenever a people shall pursue, steadily and uniformly, the pacific morality of the gospel, and shall do this from the pure motive of obedience, there is no reason to fear for the consequences: there is no reason to fear that they would experience any evils such as we now endure, or that they would not find that Christianity understands their interest better than themselves; and that the surest, and the only rule of wisdom, of safety, and of expediency, is to maintain her spirit in every circumstance of life. kind. "There is reason to expect," says Dr Johnson, "that as the world is more enlightened, policy and morality will at last be reconciled." * When this enlightened period shall arrive, we shall be approaching, and we shall not till then approach, that era of purity and of peace, when "violence shall no more be heard in our land-wasting nor destruction within our borders; "-that era in which God has promised that "they shall not hurt nor destroy in all Falkland's Islands. his holy mountain." That a period like this will come, I am not able to doubt: I believe it, because it is not credible that he will always endure the butchery of man by man; because he has declared that he will not endure it; and because I think there is a perceptible approach of that period in which he will say " It is enough." In this belief the Christian may rejoice; he may rejoice that the number is increasing of those who are asking"Shall the sword devour for ever?" and of those who, whatever be the opinions or the practice of others, are openly saying, "I am for Peace."† It will perhaps be asked, what then are the duties of a subject who believes that all war is incompatible with his religion, but whose governors engage in a war and demand his service? We answer explicitly, It is his duty, mildly and temperately, yet firmly, to refuse to serve. Let such as these remember, that an honourable and an awful duty is laid upon them. It is upon their fidelity, so far as human agency is concerned, that the Cause of Peace is suspended. Let them then be willing to avow their opinions and to defend them. Neither let them be contented with words, if more than words, if suffering also, is required. It is only by the unyielding fidelity of virtue that corruption can be extirpated. If you believe that Jesus Christ has prohibited slaughter, let not the opinions or the commands of a world induce you to join in it. By this "steady and determinate pursuit of virtue," the benediction which attaches to those who hear the sayings of God and do them, will rest upon you; and the time will come when even the world will honour you, as contributors to the work of Human Reformation. CONCLUSION. THAT hope which was intimated at the commencement of this volume. that a period of greater moral purity would eventually arrive has sometimes operated as an encouragement to the writer, in enforcing the obligations of morality to an extent which few who have written such books have ventured to advocate. In exhibiting a standard of rectitude such as that which it has been attempted to exhibit here-a standard to which not many in the present day are willing to conform, and of which many would willingly dispute the authority, some encouragement was needed; and no human encouragement could be so efficient as that which consisted in the belief, that the principles would progressively obtain more and more of the concurrence and adoption of mankind. That there are indications of an advancement of the human species towards greater purity in principle and in practice, cannot, I think, be disputed. There is a manifest advancement in intellectual concerns:- -Science of almost every kind is extending her empire;-Political Institutions are becoming rapidly ameliorated; ‡—and Morality and Religion, f their progress be less perceptible, are yet advancing with an onward pace. || * 2 Sam. xxiv. 16. + Ps. cxx. 7. "The degree of scientific knowledge which would once have conferred celebrity and immortality, is now, in this country, attained by thousands of obscure individuals."-Fox's Lectures. "To one who considers coolly of the subject, it will appear that human nature in general, really enjoys more liberty at present, in the most arbitrary governments of Europe, than it ever did during the most flourishing period of ancient times."— Hume. Not that the present state, or the prospects of the world, afford any countenance to the speculations-favourite specu * Lamentations over the happiness or excellence of other times, have generally very little foundation in justice or reason. In truth they cannot be just, because they are perpetual. There has probably never been an age in which mankind have not bewailed the good times that were departed, and made mournful comparisons of them with their own. If these regrets had not been ill-founded, the world must have perpetually sunk deeper and deeper in wickedness, and retired further and further towards intellectual night. But the intellectual sun has been visibly advancing towards its noon; and I believe there never was a period in which, speaking collectively of the species, the power of religion was greater than it is now at least there never was a period in which greater efforts were made to diffuse the influence of religion amongst mankind. Men are to be judged of by their fruits; and why should men thus more vigorously exert themselves to make others religious, if the power of religion did not possess increased influence upon their own minds? The increase of crime--even if it increased in a progression more rapid than that of populatior, and the state of society which gives rise to crime-is a very imperfect standard of judgment. Those offences of which civil laws take cognizance, form not an hundredth part of the wickedness of the world. What multitudes are there of bad men who never yet were amenable to the laws! How extensive may be the additional purity without any diminution of legal crimes! And assuredly there is a perceptible advance in the sentiments of good men towards a higher standard of morality. The lawfulness is frequently questioned now of actions of which, a few ages ago, few or none doubted the rectitude. Nor is it to be disputed, that these questions are resulting more and more in the conviction, that this higher standard is proposed and enforced by the Moral Law of God. Who that considers these things will hastily affirm, that doctrines in morality which refer to a standard that to him is new, are unfounded in this Moral Law? Who will think it sufficient, to say that strange things are brought to his ears? Who will satisfy himself with the exclamation, These are hard sayings, who can hear them? Strange things must be brought to the ears of those who have not been accustomed to hear the truth. Hard sayings must be heard by those who have not hitherto practised the purity of morality. Such considerations, I say, have afforded encouragement in the attempt to uphold a standard which the majority of mankind have been little accustomed to contemplate ;—and now, and in time to come, they will still suffice to encourage, although that standard should be, as by many it undoubtedly will be, rejected and contemned. I am conscious of inadequacy-what if I speak the truth and say, I am conscious of unworthinessthus to attempt to advocate the Law of God. Let no man identify the advocate with the Cause, lations with some men-respecting "human perfectability." In the sense in which this phrase is usually employed, I fear there is little hope of the perfection of man; at least there is little hope, if Christianity be true. Christianity declares that man is not perfectible except by the immediate assistance of God; and this immediate assistance the advocates of "human perfectability" are not wont to expect. The question, in the sense in which it is ordinarily exhibited, is in reality a question of the truth of Christianity. "This humour of complaining proceeds from the frailty of our natures; it being natural for man to complain of the present, and to commend the times past."-Sir Josiah Child, 1665. This was one hundred and fifty years ago. The same frailty appears to have subsisted two or three thousands of years before: "Say not thou what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this."-Eccles. vii. 10. nor imagine, when he detects the errors and the weaknesses of the one, that the other is therefore erroneous or weak I apologize for myself: especially I apologize for those instances in which the character of the Christian may have been merged in that of the exposer of the evils of the world. There is a Christian love which is paramount to all;-a love which he only is likely sufficiently to maintain, who remembers that he who exposes an evil and he who partakes in it, will soon stand together as suppliants for the mercy of God. And finally, having written a book which is devoted almost exclusively to disquisitions on Morality, I am solicitous lest the reader should imagine that I regard the practice of morality as all that God requires of Man. I believe far other; and am desirous of here expressing the conviction, that although it becomes not us to limit the mercy of God, or curiously to define the conditions on which he will extend that mercy-yet that the true and safe foundation of our Hope is in "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." |