THE Design of the Gospel Dispensation, was to redeem Man from the deplorable Corruption which was the Consequence of his Fall, and to restore him into the State of Purity and Peace, wherein he was created; by informing his Judgment, rectifying his Will, govern­ing his Passions, and making him a New-Creature: In Pursuance of, and to compleat this Design, it pleased God, after the Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Blessed Saviour, to pour forth the Holy Spirit upon the primitive Apostles and Believers. This Spirit was to continue with all true Believers, thro' successive Generations, agreeable to many Prophecies, particularly that of the Evangelical Prophet, speaking of the Coming of the Redeemer to Zion—As for me, this is my Covenant with them, saith the Lord, My Spirit that is upon thee, and my Words, which I have put in thy Mouth, shall not depart out of thy Mouth, nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed, nor out of the Mouth of thy Seed's Seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever, Isa. lix. 21. And our Saviour confirms this, Lo I am with you alway, even unto the End of the World, Mat. xxviii. 20.

So long as the primitive Believers were faithful to the Appearance of this divine Spirit, and obeyed the Teach­ings [Page 2]and Directions thereof, Christianity remained in Pu­rity; but when this was forsaken, the Apostacy began, which soon spread, and became general; then Form was set up instead of Power, and Men being vain in their Imaginations, their foolish Hearts became darken'd, so that they knew not the Nature nor De­sign of Christ's Kingdom, but under a Pretence of being his Ministers, and of having the Right of ex­plaining his Laws, they got Power into their Hands, and enforced Obedience: Thus the Simplicity of the Gospel being forsook for worldly Pomp and Power, instead of the peaceable, loving, and for­giving Temper, which it enjoined, it was miscon­strued to allow of Violence and Oppression. In this Apostacy from the Life and Spirit of Christ, many Evils which the primitive Christians were redeemed from, came to be reckoned necessary and expedi­ent.

But when it pleased Almighty God to visit our primitive Friends and Elders, with the Discovery of his divine Light and Truth in their Souls, he shew­ed them, that notwithstanding there had been among Protestants a great Reformation from the black and gross Corruptions of the Church of Rome, yet the Purity and Perfection of the Gospel Dispensation, required a much further and more eminent Change: And in Obedience to this Light, they proclaimed Deliverance from all Sin, as a State attainable, thro' Faith in Christ, and true Obedience to his Spirit, A Measure or Manifestation whereof, was given to every Man, 1 Cor. xii. 7. And that this Spirit was an infallible Teacher; that by it alone Men could come to a right Understanding of the Scriptures; that it led into all Truth, redeemed from all Un­righteousness, gave Victory over the fallen Passions, and renewed the Image of God in the Soul of Man. This was the primary and chief Article that they [Page 3]were first convinced of themselves, and found neces­sary to publish to others.

By this Spirit they were convinced of the Sinful­ness of many Things, which other Professors of Christianity were in the Practice of, and thought allowable, viz. War, Persecution for different Sen­timents in Religion, a Man-made and Hireling Mi­nistry, Swearing, &c. These they thought incon­sistent with the Purity and Perfection of the Christi­an Religion—And that War can be now proved to be so, by fair and candid Interpretations of the Scriptures, will I hope appear in the following Ex­amination of a late Sermon on that Subject.

But to obviate Objections, let me here observe, that our Friends have never (that I know of) con­demned such in the Use of Carnal Weapons, who are not yet convinced that the Dispensation of the Gospel forbids them: But they did, and now do call all Men to believe in the inward and spiritual Appearance of Christ in the Soul, who will teach all that so believe, and hearken to him, to deny them­selves, to forsake a Dependance upon human Means, and trust in God alone; and they esteem it their Duty to testify that such are not in Unity with them, who, making Profession of this inward Principle, manifest a Conduct contrary to it.

The Sermon which I am about to consider, is upon Exodus xv. 3. The Lord is a Man of War— This was Part of a Song of Praises for a miraculous Deliverance, wrought by the immediate Hand of God, without any human Contrivance or Force— The Command to Israel, when closely pursued by their Enemies, was, Fear ye not, stand still and see the Salvation of the Lord—The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your Peace.

The Author of the Sermon endeavours, from his Text, and some other Appellations given to the Al­mighty [Page 4]in the Old Testament, viz. The Lord of Hosts, The God of the Armies of Israel, &c. to prove that War was thence agreeable to him. ^*

Though some Wars under that Dispensation were commanded of God, and therefore those Appellati­ons were then suitable and proper, yet I cannot per­ceive that they discover any Approbation of War be­gun and pursued at the meer Pleasure and Will of Men—I rather take them to denote the Greatness of his Power and Superiority, and therefore the Justness and Propriety of an entire Dependance upon him—They convey an Idea of Sufficiency to dis­appoint the Enterprizes of the most numerous Hosts, or to bless with Success the Endeavours of a few at his Command. The Instances of his manifesting this Almighty Power, in both these Respects, are fre­quent—The Case of Gideon, Judges vii. when he prepared to go against the Midianites, is a very me­morable One: He had an Army of 32,000 Men, but the Lord said unto him, The People that are with thee, are too many for me, to give the Midia­nites into their Hand, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own Hand hath saved me. Wherefore he at the Command of God, reduced his Army to 300—And the Lord directed him in what Manner to proceed, and as he obeyed, the mighty Host of the Midianites was put to flight—Here (though the Use of outward Means was permitted) a strong and entire Dependance upon God was re­quired, even in that Day: Can such a Dependance be less necessary in a Day of Gospel Light?

Many Parts of the Old Testament have been con­sidered by religious Writers, as Types and Figures of future Times: Thus Solomon is in some Instances a Type of Christ; and the Building of the outward [Page 5]Temple, a lively Figure of the Gathering of the Church in the latter Days—David had been a Man of War, at the Direction of God: He had it in his Heart to build an House to the Name of the Lord, but he was not permitted to execute that Design— The Reader is desired to remark the Reason in Da­vid's Words, 1 Chron. xxii. 7, 8, 9. And David said to Solomon, My Son, as for me, it was in my Mind to build an House unto the Name of the Lord my God; but the Word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed Plood abundantly, and hast made great Wars: Thou shalt not build an House un­to my Name, because thou hast shed much Blood upon the Earth in my Sight; behold a Son shall be born to thee, who shall be a Man of Rest, and I will give him Rest from all his Enemies round about, for his Name shall be Solomon, and I will give Peace and Quietness unto Israel in his Days. If a Cessation from War was necessary for the Building that out­ward Temple, how much more so is it, for the Ga­thering of all Nations to be Members of the Church of Christ? The Glory of this latter House shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of Hosts: And in this Place will I give Peace, saith the Lord of Hosts, Hag. ii. 9. Though the Almigh­ty is stiled by Moses, A Man of War, he is called by the Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. xiii. 11. The God of Love and Peace. And the Apostle John saith, God is Love, and he that dwelleth in Love, dwell­eth in God, and God in him, 1 John, iv. 16.

The Sermon hath in Page 8, the following Para­graph, ‘Surely if Protection from Injuries, Peace among Neighbours, and the Administration of Justice, be desirable and valuable Benefits, which all Mankind must with one Voice acknowledge, then of consequence, that which at times is the only Mean left to procure them, must be lawful, necessary, and valuable also.’

[Page 6] The "Only Mean" here, is War, and whether the Expression suits with the Belief of an Over-ruling, Omnipresent Providence, without whose Permission no Evil can happen, and who alone hath the Con­troul of every Thing, I would have a little to be thought upon.—It will appear from the Jewish History, that there were Times when, to human Ap­pearance, there was no Way for those valuable Bene­fits to be preserved but by War, and yet they were delivered without the Use of this Mean.—The Case of the Children of Israel at the Red Sea when the Egyptians pursued them, Exodus xiv.—That of the coming up of Sennacherib, King of Assyria, against Jerusalem in the Time of Hezekiah, 2 Kings, xviii. 19.—That of several Nations joining together against Judah in the Time of Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. xx. are Proofs of this. And there are several Instances, that when the Mean of War hath been used, 'till there was no Appearance to the natural Eye of Preserva­tion, the Almighty hath provided a Deliverance without the Help of human Means. What an un­happy Circumstance did he deliver Samaria from, when besieged by the Syrians, 2 Kings vi. 7. when the Famine among the Besieged was so great, that Asses Heads, and Doves Dung, sold for a very great Price, and Women agreed to eat their own Children; in the midst of this sore Distress—Eli­sha said, Hear ye the Word of the Lord, Thus saith the Lord, To-morrow about this Time, shall a Measure of Fine Flour be sold for a Shekel, and two Measures of Barley for a Shekel, in the Gate of Samaria—This Prediction doubtless appeared, to natural Reason, very unlikely to come to pass so soon, and yet the Almighty caused it to be fulfilled—And the Lord (upon whose Hand the King leaned) who disbelieved the Prophecy, lost his Life in seeing it fulfilled, with­out being permitted to partake of the Plenty.

[Page 7] Could the Almighty deliver in that Day? Could he then preserve without the Assistance of human Strength and Abilities? And can he not equally do so now? Behold the Lord's Hand is not shorten'd, that it cannot save: Neither his Ear heavy, that it cannot hear, Isaiah lxix. 1.

We are told in the Sermon, Page 8. That the Light of Nature, the Law of God, and the Gos­pel of Christ, conspire to evince the Divine Appro­bation of Lawful War—Lawful War is before de­fined in the three following Instances.

In these three Instances we are told positively War is lawful; but before we examine his Proofs of this, let it be observed, that in the second Case, where David's pursuing the Amalekites is supposed to be a [Page 8]Parallel, though an extreamly afflicting one, when the Amalekites had, in the Absence of David and his Men, smitten Ziclag, and burnt it with Fire, and had taken Captives their Wives, and their Sons, and their Daughters, and to add to his Difficulty, the People were so enraged that they spake of Ston­ing him, yet David, before he pursued, Enquired at the Lord, saving, Shall I pursue after this Troop? Shall I overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue; for thou shalt surely overtake them, end without fail recover all: Upon which the learned Poole observes, ‘Da­vid was sensible of his former Error in neglecting to ask Counsel of God, by the Ephod, when he came to Achish, and when he went out with Achish to the Battle, and his Necessity now brings him to his Duty, and his Duty meets with Success.’ ^*

If then it had been an Error not to have enquired of God, in so pinching a Case as this, the Conse­quence fairly deducible is, That should we be in the like Circumstances, we must make the like Enquiry, and receive the Divine Permission and Command, otherwise David's Example will not be wholly fol­lowed.

The first Proof proposed (in the Sermon) That War in the foregoing Instances is lawful, is from the Light of Nature; and I should not have attacked the Arguments drawn from thence, had not this Writer asked, ‘Who is the Author thereof but God himself?’ The following Distinction seems therefore necessary to be made.

God created Man good, upright and holy; and had he continued in this State, there never would have been any War, and consequently no need of Self­defence; but Man falling, thro' Disobedience, his [Page 9]Nature became corrupted, his Faculties depraved, and the whole intellectual System disordered: Thus be­gan shedding of Blood, and the Earth was early filled with Violence. This was the unhappy Consequence of Sin—I hope this Writer will not venture to say, that God was the Author of Nature thus corrupted: The Nature, and the Light of Nature, that he was the Au­thor of, was holy, innocent, and perfect; but the Cor­ruption in Nature from whence proceeded Violence and Bloodshed, was occasioned by adhering to the Voice of Satan. Let any Man therefore retain this Distinc­tion, and he will not at all wonder, that ‘the universal Practice of all Nations, as well of the most civi­lised, as of the most rude and barbarous, do all with one Consent oppose Force to Force’—for it is not from the degenerate fallen Light of Nature that Arguments are to be drawn for the Formation and Establishment of Christian Principles, neither are any from it, of any Weight in Opposition thereto. It would be easy however to prove from the Writings of the Gentile Philosophers, that they were convinced Man had fallen from the Condition he was once in, that he had been misled and corrupted by some evil Principle, and that they could not conceive it pos­sible that a holy, just God, should make him subject to evil Passions, apt to commit Injuries, and fond of Revenge—Lest any should imagine they all thought Force the best Way to repel Force, hear what Plato says [...] the Name of Socrates.

^† ‘Injury is to be done upon no Account; nor if you have suffered Injury, are you at Liberty to take Revenge, as the Vulgar believe. He who suf­fers Evil, if in like Manner he returns Evil to him, who did it, is not Just, as the Vulgar says, but Unjust; for to bring Evil upon Men, differs nothing from doing them an Injury—It is not de­cent [Page 10]and right to do Evil to any Man by Way of Revenge, whatsoever you may have suffered (or whatsoever Provocation you may have received) from others.’

Of the Proofs, under this Head of the Light of Nature, I shall take notice of two or three other Paragraphs.

‘If it be not lawful (saith the Sermon, Page 11) to oppose by Force unjust Invaders, then the Goods of Providence are vouchsafed to us in vain; and Men of the strictest Integrity, as well as Females of the most unblemished Virtue, will ever be exposed as an easy Prey to the vilest In­sults of the most scandalous Scoundrels.’

‘To banish Self-defence, tho' pursu'd by Force, would be so far from promoting Peace, that it would rather contribute to the utter Ruin of the human Race.’

If these extraordinary Consequences are true, what a strong Faith in and Dependance upon God, do those manifest, who have embraced, and do re­ligiously maintain the peaceable Doctrine? Methinks this should have inclined the Writer to remember, that whatsoever the Almighty commands or re­quires of his Creatures, he gives them Strength to do, and will support them in—That if any Nation or People were fully persuaded in their Minds that the Almighty required them to forbear the Use of Arms, he could, if he pleased, prevent any such Misery happen­ing to them; for to Him the Winds and Waves, and every Thing else is subject, and nothing can do us any Harm, but by his Permission; by him the very Hairs of our Heads are numbered, and whatsoever doth happen, will, as such keep faithful to him, work for their Good.

That he can disappoint the Designs of wicked and ambitious Men, without the Use of the Sword, every Body may remark in the late great Destruction of [Page 11]the Dunkirk and Jebucta Fleets—The former threat­en'd much Distress to our Mother Country; and what a terrible Scourge was the latter likely to be to these Colonies, if the Protection and Care of Hea­ven had not been sufficient, without the Use of car­nal Weapons.

‘He (saith the Sermon, Page 12) that suffers his Life to be taken from him, by one that hath no Authority for that Purpose, when he might preserve it by Defence, incurs the Guilt of Self­murder, since God hath enjoined him to seek the Continuance of his Life, &c.’—‘and that it is every Man's Duty to love his own Life, to desire its Continuance, and use proper Means for its Pre­servation.’

This Author should have consulted the Meaning of "Self-murder" before he used that Term so freely in several Parts of his Sermon—Murder is defined to denote a wilful and felonious killing another, up­pon prepensed Malice, &c. Felo de se, or a Self­murderer, is he that commits Felony, by willingly and deliberately killing himself; so that the Case in the Sermon does not reach this Description, unless we can suppose, he who does not endeavour to defend himself, is unactive from a wilful and deliberate De­sire of being killed.

It is without doubt every Man's Duty to use pro­per Means for the Preservation of Life; but if any Man is convinced that Christ hath forbidden him the Use of military Preparations, and yet will use them, they are to him very improper Means— Remem­ber our Saviour's Words, Matthew xvi. 25, 26. For whosoever will save his. Life, shall lose it, and who­soever will lose his Life for my sake, shall find it? For what is a Man profited if he shall gain the whole World, and lose his own Soul? Or what shall a Man give in Exchange for his Soul?

[Page 12] Poole annotates thus upon this Passage; ‘Besides Bodies, which may be killed by Persecutors, you carry about with you immortal Souls, of infinite more Value; and besides a temporal Life, of which you are in Possession, there is an eternal State which awaiteth you: You are Creatures or­dained to an eternal Existence, either in Misery or in Happiness. Admit you could by pleasing yourselves, denying me, shifting the Cross, de­clining a Life according to my Precepts and Ex­ample, prolong your temporal Life; yet what will you get by it, considering that by it you must suffer Loss, as to your eternal happy Existence; for I shall then deny you before my Father, and his holy Angels. Can any Thing you can get or save in this World, be a proportionable Exchange for eternal Happiness?’

If any sincere Christian understands it to be his Duty not to make any Defence at all, his forbear­ing to use any will never incur Guilt.

The Sermon, after describing the Wickedness of Self-murder, in Page 13, saith, ‘Well, if Self-murder be a heinous Sin, it will follow by the Law of Contraries, that Self-defence is an important Duty: Surely he who is unjustly attacked, and does not endeavour by suitable Means to preserve his Life, especially if there be any Probability of Success in so doing, betrays it; and so is guilty of Suicide, &c.’

Upon this Passage I would remark, that fre­quently the most suitable Means to preserve Life, when thus attacked, is to deliver up that for which the Attack is made, which is commonly for Rich­es, without fighting with the Robbers—Fighting is very often the most "Suitable Means" to destroy Life when attacked—Especially if used by one who believes the Gospel prohibits it.—If however I were [Page 13]thus attacked by Villains who were so wicked as to determine to take away my Life, were I in the meek and peaceable Disposition which the Gospel incul­cates, I believe that would have such an Effect even on the worst of Men, that it would disarm their Malice; but if it did not, my submitting calmly, and resigning my Life, rather than running the Risk of taking away another's, would be so far from Suicide, that it would be acting agreeable to the Na­ture and Temper of the Gospel, and consequently highly rewardable.

The Sermon saith, Page 12, ‘If we may not defend ourselves by Force, why did the blessed God allow the Jews to kill a Night-robber with Impunity? And why did the blessed Jesus en­join his Disciples, that each of them who wanted a Sword, should sell his Coat and buy one?’

The former of these Cases, the Text thus expres­seth—If a Thief be found breaking up, and be smit­ten that he die, there shall no Blood be shed for him— ^* That is to be understood in the Night, for the next Verse says, If the Sun be risen upon him, there shall be Blood shed for him—Though I do not look upon this Instance to be at all applicable to the Question whether War is now lawful or not—Yet if it proves any Thing on the Side of the Sermon-writer, it is, that if their Enemies attack them in the Night, they may defend themselves at the Expence of their Lives; but if the Attack be made in the Day-time, they must not—The Person who kill'd the Night­robber, is not said to be clear of Guilt, though his Life was excused—And yet the Defence of Proper­ty, with the Loss of the Robber's Life in the Day­time, we see, was even under the legal Dispensati­on to be punished with Death—I suppose the Rea­son of excusing the Life of him who slew the Night­robber [Page 14]to be, that as they had a standing Law from the Time of Noah, that Whosoever shed Man's Blood, by Man should his Blood be shed, it was necessary the Jews should know what was an Exception to that general Rule; that it was a reasonable Exception, appears from apprehending that it might be done ac­cidentally, whilst the Owner of the House was mak­ing a necessary Defence, the Darkness of the Time in which the Attack was made, and the Surprize occasioned thereby, might cause him, without De­sign, to take away the Life of the Robber.

As to that Passage of Christ's enjoining his Disci­ples, that each of them ‘who wanted a Sword, should sell his Coat and buy one,’ upon which the Note at the Bottom of the Page, hath this Que­ry, ‘If Christ was against all Fighting and War, to what Purpose did he counsel his Disciples to buy Swords; must they be bought and never used, or bought for nothing.’ I answer, That we have no Account of his Disciples ever using Swords after his Ascension, and we have several ve­ry strong Intimations in their Writings that they did not—Which sufficiently demonstrates, That they did not understand the Text in its present literal Accep­tation. Upon Luke xxii. 35, 36. Poole hath the following Remark:—‘Those who interpret v. 35, 36, as a Precept of our Saviour's imposing a Duty upon his Disciples, or a Counsel concerning the providing Arms, which they might use for the Protection and Defence of themselves, will not only find a Difficulty to reconcile their Notion of it to several other Precepts, and the Will of God declared by the Apostle's Practice, who never went about by Force and Arms to de­fend themselves in the first Plantation and Pro­pagation of the Gospel; but also to reconcile it to the last Words of our Saviour, who said, [Page 15]when his Disciples told him they had two Swords, It is enough.’

Ambrose, one of the Fathers, so called, speaks thus, respecting that Passage, ‘O Lord! Why commandest thou me to buy a Sword, who for­biddest me to smite with it? Why commandest thou me to have it, whom thou prohibitest to draw it? Unless perhaps a Defence be prepared, not necessary Revenge: And that I may seem to have been able to revenge, but that I would not; for the Law forbids me to smite again: And therefore, perhaps, he said to Peter, offering two Swords (It is enough) as if it had been lawful until the Gospel Times, that in the Law there might be learning of Equity, but in the Gospel a Perfection of Goodness.’ Barc. Apol.

‘War (we are told in Page 14 of the Sermon) was lawful under the Old Testament Dispensation, and therefore it is lawful under the New.’

Let us see how this extraordinary Inference will hold in other Cases; Burnt-offerings, Sacrifices and Circumcision, were lawful under the Old Testa­ment Dispensation, Are they therefore so now?

But we are further told, ‘It is certain that God approved of, and appointed his People to make War, under the Law of Moses, and by the mo­ral Law: The sixth Commandment does un­doubtedly imply a lawful War; for if we must not kill others, much less ourselves, and if we must have no Hand in our own Death, we must defend our Lives, against unjust Violence, which sometimes cannot be done without War. Now the blessed Jesus never came to destroy the moral Law of Nature, which is in substance the same, but to fulfil it, &c.’

There are such strange Absurdities in this Manner of declaiming, and drawing Conclusions, a Man must be very blind that cannot see them.

[Page 16] A positive Precept, is made to imply its direct reverse. A Commandment not to kill is implied to authorise killing: And in Consequence thereof, the blessed Jesus is supposed to approve of War; whether this be agreeable to his Life and Doctrines, the Reader is desired to consult.

I would now ask, Is the moral Command, Thou shalt not kill, best fulfilled or kept, by understanding the Gospel to forbid War, or to allow of it? Where there is one of those that take it in its first Sense slain, are there not many Thousands of the latter killed in the Practice of Fighting?

‘Moral Precepts are (saith the Sermon) grounded upon invariable Equity, upon the Nature and Rea­son of Things, and therefore cannot be altered.’

Can any Man possibly think that War is a Part of the moral Law, couched under this Precept, Thou shalt not kill; and does it follow that therefore War must for ever be lawful—This Method of making Texts mean what they never meant, our Author had ta­ken in Page 9. with this Passage in the Prov. xxii. 3. The prudent Man, foreseeing evil, hides himself; " i. e. (saith the Sermon) prepares for his Defence." so that hiding ones self, and preparing for Defence, are so exactly alike, that they are taken one for the other.

‘Now (saith the Sermon, P. 14) if the Almighty has approved of War formerly, and there is still the same Necessity of it under the Gospel Dispen­sation as before, it will follow, that it is equally lawful now: It is absurd to suppose that the bles­sed God, who is infinite in Wisdom, and unaltera­ble in his Nature, would determine contrarily at different Periods of Time, concerning a Case that is substantially the same.’

If this Manner of Arguing proves any Thing, it proves offensive War, as lawful as defensive. [Page 17]God approved of the Israelites taking away the Pos­sessions of many Nations: He commanded them to destroy some utterly; is it therefore equally lawful to do so now, whether we have his Command or not? The War that he approved of formerly, was under­taken by his Counsel and Direction.

The latter Part of the Paragraph does not belong to the Argument, unless it is first proved, either that People now-a-days have the express Command of God to go to War, or that he hath determined Man to be a sufficient Judge when it is suitable, and when not.

‘The Nature of Man (saith the Sermon, P. 15) in his fallen State, does not alter by a Succession of A­ges. Multitudes do now grasp after Wealth and Do­minion, as much as formerly, and do concert and pursue as unjust Measures to obtain them; and if we are now deprived of that, which is the only Barrier against Injustice and Violence, viz. Self­defence, and must tamely suffer our Lives, our Liberties, both Civil and Religious, and all that is dear to us as Men and Christians, to be made an easy Prey of by insulting Enemies, our Case is really miserable, &c.’

The Fore-part of this Paragraph is lamentably true; but how would the Face of Things be altered, if the glorious Doctrines of the blessed Messiah did but obtain, and were faithfully practised among the Nations? Which in Time will certainly be the Case, whatever Difficulties may at present appear to ob­struct it—For he is faithful and true, who hath pro­mised it.

But is Self-defence then our only Barrier against Injustice and Violence? God forbid it should be e­steemed so; miserable shall we be indeed, when that is our State; and easily made a Prey of by insulting Enemies, whether we use our feeble Force or not: [Page 18]But there are many who depend and confide solely in another Barrier, viz. The Eternal and Benefi­cent Providence, Whose Eye is over the Righteous for Good, and his Ear is open to their Cry, Psal. xxxiv. 15. To such he hath promised, In Righteous­ness shalt thou be established: Thou shalt be far from Oppression, for thou shalt not fear; and from Terror, for it shall not come near thee, Isa. liv. 14. And my People shall dwell in a peaceable Habitation, and in sure Dwellings, and in quiet resting Places, Isa. xxxii. 17.

‘It is strange to think (saith the Sermon, P. 15) and hard to reconcile it with any just Notion of divine Goodness, that Almighty God should under this last and brightest Dispensation of his Grace to­wards the Children of Men, instead of enlarging, diminish our Privileges, and that in so tender and important a Point. Indeed, methinks, such a Notion tends to cast a dishonourable and inglorious Reflection upon the divine Benlgnity and Good­ness, &c.’

What Privileges are here meant, those of Fight­ing for our Possessions, gaining Riches, enjoying E­states, &c.—Though Riches acquired by honest Means, may not be inconsistent with the Doctrines of Christ; and though we may possess in the World many near and dear Enjoyments, yet Christ and his Testimony, ought to be preferred above all Things, if we would render ourselves acceptable in his Sight—If any Man (faith he, Luke xiv. 26) come to me, and hate not (i. e. comparatively) his Father and Mother, and Wife, and Children, and Brethren, and Sisters, yea, and his own Life also, he cannot be my Disciple. Neither is this at all in­consistent with the most just Notions of divine Goodness—It would not be difficult to shew, that our Saviour's enjoining the young Man (Mat. xix.) to [Page 19]sell what he had, and give to the Poor, would, had there been Obedience on his Part, have proved his truest Interest. Man is a dependant Creature; his Happiness consisteth not in Abundance of Wealth, Honour or Worldly Pleasure; these are often his great Enemies: But it consists in being what God his Maker would have him be. Every true Christian knows this, and will be apt to think that this All­wise Being, as he is the Governor of the Universe, and knows best what is suitable and necessary for him, will certainly dispense it: Such an One there­fore can be resign'd in any Station or Circumstance, because he is sure he is under the Care of a gracious Being, who permits nothing to happen to him, but what is for his Good: And should he be in the ut­most Affliction, through an Adherence to what he knows to be his Duty, he will be supported under it, and amply rewarded for it. These dare not mur­mur at any Privation of their Privileges, nor think it ‘A dishonourable and inglorious Reflection upon the divine Goodness,’ that they thus are afflicted, or are liable to be so; since the present Afflictions will certainly work A far more exceeding and eternal Weight of Glory, 2 Cor. v. 17.

I have said thus much in Answer to the last quo­ted Paragraph, upon a Supposition that a faithful Adherence to the Doctrines of Christ, may, in this Age, as it has frequently in former Ages, be attend­ed with the Loss of outward Possessions, and suffer­ing in the Flesh—Let it however be remember'd, that these Things are not the Effects of Christ's Doctrines, but are occasioned by a Disobedience to them in those to whom they are equally offered— Whose Condemnation will therefore be great, and the Reward of the Obedient will be infinite.

‘Why, my Brethren (saith the Sermon, Page 15) should it be now a Sin to perform (in respect [Page 20]of Things of a moral Nature) that which was un­der the Jewish Dispensation a Sin to neglect? Was not Meroz exposed to a bitter Curse, because she came not to help the Lord against the Migh­ty, i. e. as appears by the Context, because they came not to assist their Brethren engaged in Bat­tle in a good Cause.’

The first of these Questions, I really think, not applicable to the Point in Dispute, because there is not any Part of the moral Law which enjoins War; and the Reason why Meroz was so severely cursed, Poole says, was, ‘To shew the Sinfulness and Un­reasonableness of their cowardly Desertion of this Cause, because it was the Cause of God; and they had the Call of God to it, whom they knew to be able easily to crush that Enemy whom they dreaded, and who had promised to do it.’ So that upon this View of the Case, there is this only proved by the Parallel, that it is a Sin to neglect go­ing to War in the Cause of God, when he calls to it. This, therefore, cannot at all operate against those who refuse Fighting, because they apprehend God hath forbidden it ^*.

If it be a Difficulty with any to reconcile God's commanding War under the Old Testament Dis­pensation, with his prohibiting it now, I beseech them to remember, that he suffered and required many Things of the Jews, because of the Hardness of their Hearts, which were not to continue in his [Page 21]Church, after the bright Discovery of the Gospel was manifested. The World was then in very great Darkness and Ignorance, and it pleased God to chuse a peculiar People, whom he determined to make great and famous: This was not to be the Case in the Exhibition of the Gospel: The Partition Wall between Jew and Gentile was then broken down, and all Nations were invited to become the People of God. The Kingdoms of this World were to become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and his Christ (Rev. xi. 15) Is it therefore reasonable to suppose, that this universal, glorious Design, ad­mits of War and Fighting? Especially between such Nations as profess to be under the Government of the same Lord and Law-giver.

‘Can we think, my Brethren (saith the Sermon, Page 16) that God would enjoin and approve of any Practice formerly, that was contrary to the moral Law and Gospel which the Jews enjoyed? Surely no; that is contrary to his unalterable Pu­rity, of which the moral Law is a legible Copy and Exemplar. Well, if a just War was not contra­ry to the moral Law, under the Jewish Dispensa­tion, and before it, why should it be so now, in the like Circumstances of Necessity? And if it be not contrary to the moral Law, the standing and unalterable Rule of our Conduct, Why should any scruple it, or oppose it now?’

I have already observed, that the Almighty's En­joining and Approving of some Wars formerly, does not authorize any Wars begun and carried on at the meer Will and Pleasure of Men. ‘The like Circum­stances of Necessity,’ must be, when we have the Divine Command and Direction, and not otherwise.

If it be a Doubt why the dark and distant Pros­pects of the Gospel, which the Jews had, did not discover to them in general, that the Time should [Page 22]come when outward War should be laid aside, the same Difficulty recurs with respect to Sacrifices, Burnt-offerings, Circumcision, &c. and yet some of the inspired Prophets foresaw that Time. If it be objected, That Sacrifices, &c. were Types and Fi­gures; so, in my Opinion, were the outward Wars and Fightings of the Jews, and are considered in that Light by religious Writers of many Denominations.

That the moral Law is the standing and unalter­able Rule of our Conduct, I grant, as far as it reach­es: But it is not from thence that a Scruple against Fighting arises. The blessed Jesus hath taught some Christians (both by the immediate Dictates of his Spirit, and the Expression of his Will, when person­ally upon Earth) that the best Way to keep the Com­mandments, Thou shalt not Kill; and, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour; is not to harbour any Ill-will, or Revenge against any, but to Love Enemies, &c. And that Thou shalt not commit Adultery—is best kept by forbearing to look upon a Woman with a lustful Eye, or to entertain such a Thought: And that Thou shalt not forswear thy self, &c. is best kept by Speaking the Truth, without Swearing at all.

The next Paragraph in the Sermon, and to Page 20, is to prove, ‘That the Office of the Magistrate necessarily requires War; and that it is his Duty to use it, &c.’ Upon which I remark, That whenever the Magistrate is convinced that the Doc­trines of Christ forbid War, it will be as much his Duty, as any other Man's, to render Obedience to those Doctrines. However, the People called Qua­kers do not undertake to condemn our Superiors engaging in War, in the present unhappy State of human Affairs: We rather think it probable, that as they have shewn a noble and Christian Disposition, in granting Liberty and Protection to such as are of tender Consciences, it may please God to bless their Arms with Success, and reward them for their Kind­ness [Page 23]to his People, who desire to live in Obedience to the inward Appearance of his Spirit, which leads to Purity and Perfection: And agreeable to the Ad­vice of the Apostle Paul, we find it our Duty to put up our Prayers for Kings and them that are in Authority, That we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life, in all Godliness and Honesty, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.

We are now come to the Sermon's New Testament Proofs, which are thus usher'd in, ‘I may add, that the Lawfulness of War, especially Defensive, is signified in the New Testament in divers In­stances’—If he makes this out to be true, I will ac­knowledge myself to have been mistaken—The Words, "Especially Defensive," [...]ould seem to convey an Idea, as if the Lawfulness of offensive War was also signified in the New Testament—Let us observe the Proofs.

The first is in Page 20, from the Behaviour of John the Baptist to the Soldiers, who ask'd him, What they should do? John told them, Do Violence to no Man, neither accuse any falsely, and be con­tent with your Wages, Luke iii. 14. From whence this Writer argues thus:

‘While he counsels to be content with the Wages of War, does he not, of Necessity, approve the Work? Or would he have Wages paid for No­thing? Can we reasonably conjecture, that this in­spired Person would give Directions how to conduct a Manner of Life that was simply unlawful and hateful to God? Would he not rather have con­demned it absolutely, and exhorted the Soldiers speedily to forsake and abandon it?’

‘These (Poole says) were the Roman Soldiers, kept by them to maintain their Conquest of Judea.’ John was a Jew. Some of these Roman Soldiers hearing him preach Repentance, apply to him for some Advice. He very wisely tells them wherein to re­from [Page 24]their moral Conduct (which he did likewise to the Publicans, who asked the same Question) as a preparatory Step to their receiving greater and more sublime Doctrines. Now if abstaining from War be the very Perfection of the Christian Religion, that is, a Point the most difficult to be learned, and hardest for Nature to submit to, is it likely or reasonable to expect, that John, upon the Pagan Soldiers first Ap­plication, should declare that to them? I think not. Nor can I conceive, that while he counsels them to be content with their Wages, that he of Necessity approves the Works they received it for—He might advise them to be content with their Wages, that they might not plunder and rob those among whom they were stationed: And if I were in such a Situation, that is, saw my own Nation subject to Soldiers of a foreign Power, though my religious Principles might not permit me to fight, yet I could freely advise such Soldiers to be easy, and content to live upon the Pay their Master allowed them, without ravaging and plundering my Rela­tives and Countrymen. There is not therefore the least Proof from this Argument, that War is law­ful, but the reverse; for John forbad doing Vio­lence to any Man; Can War subsist without Vio­lence?

‘Nor did (saith the Sermon, Page 21) our Lord Jesus rebuke the Centurion or Roman Cap­tain on Account of his military Employment, when he apply'd to him for the Cure of his sick Servant; but commended his Faith, tho' he used his Calling as an Argument to support it.’ This, and the Remainder of the Paragraph, which puts the Proof upon our Saviour's not taking that Op­portunity to declare against War, is likewise no Sa­tisfaction to me on this Point—Our Saviour did not initiate the Romans, or any others, upon their first [Page 25]Belief in him, into the whole Nature and Design of the Gospel: His own Disciples, long after they had followed him, were so ignorant, that they thought he intended to assume an outward Kingdom: Our Lord knew that the best Method to deal with frail fallen Mortals, was to lead them by Degrees, and not at once to Perfection.—If the Sermon-writer could have proved that after this Miracle, which our Lord wrought upon the Centurion's testifying such an extraordinary Degree of Faith, that he espoused the Doctrines, and joined himself with the Disciples of Christ, that he became a faithful Asserter of the Principles of the Christian Religion, and yet retained his military Employ, there would have been some Foun­dation for his Argument; but as he hath not, I can­not see that the Passage is any Thing to his Purpose.

‘But methinks (saith the Sermon, Page 22) our Lord signifies his Approbation of War more expressly elsewhere, in these Words, My King­dom is not of this World; if my Kingdom were of this World, then would my Servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews ^* The Mean­ing of which is apparently this, That tho' War and Fighting is no proper Mean to promote the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ, yet that if the Na­ture and Design of his Humiliation had permitted him to assume a Temporal Crown, then his Ser­vants ought to fight, in Defence of his Person and Dignity.’

I think this apparent Meaning not deducible from the Text—Pilate had asked Christ, if he was the King of the Jews? In Answer he lets him know that his Kingdom was not of this World, which himself might easily perceive, by his not permitting his Servants to fight for him. Poole thus interprets that Passage;—‘I cannot deny but that I am the [Page 26]King of the Jews, but not in the Sense they take it; not such a King as they look for in their Messiah; my Kingdom is Spiritual, over the Hearts and Minds of Men, not earthly and worldly; and of this thou thyself may'st be con­vinced: for was there ever an earthly Prince ap­prehended and bound, for whom none of his Sub­jects would take up Arms? Here's none of my Disciples takes up Arms, or offereth to fight for me; which is a plain Evidence that I pretend to no kingly Power in Disturbance of the Roman Government.’

If this be the fair and genuine Meaning of the Pas­sage, it does not imply that "his Servants ought to fight"—nor in the least Degree shew an express Approbation of War, as the Sermon-writer hath vainly imagined—And here I shall desire him to consider, whether Christ's directing us to pray that his Will may be done in Earth as it is in Heaven, doth not much more clearly express an Injunction to live in Love and Peace.

‘Does not (saith the Sermon, Page 23) Luke the Evangelist highly commend Cornelius, the Centurion of the Italian Band, without any Mix­ture of Invective upon his martial Office? And is he not also adorn'd with the Angel's Testimony? And why is all this but to signify the Lawfulness of War in Gospel Times? ^†’

But is Cornelius commended by the Evangelist, or the Angel, for his military Post? Does either of them say a Word of the Consistency of it with the Doctrines he was about to receive? No; he is com­mended for being A devout Man, and one that fear­ed God, with all his House, which gave much Alms to the People, and prayed to God alway: This Character he had, before he was instructed in the [Page 27]Principles of the Christian Religion; Now he saw in a Vision an Angel, who directed him to send for Peter —He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do—Which plainly shews he had something material yet to learn. Whether he continued in his military Station, after Peter had taught him, and he received the Holy Ghost, the History is silent; but to make the Comparison of any Weight in support of War, it must first be proved that he did.

‘The Apostle Paul plainly (saith the Sermon, Page 23) insinuates the Lawfulness of War, in that Expression of his, where he enjoins us to live peaceably as much as possible with all Men; which supposes that it is sometimes impracticable, impossible.’

Here again I differ in Sentiment from this Wri­ter; the Apostle's Words are, Rom. xii. 18. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all Men—Which I think is as much as to say, Whatever Assronts or Provocations you may re­ceive, let it not anger you, or beget any Desire in you to return Injury for Injury, tho' some may make War upon you, or try to disturb you, yet let nothing appear on your Side but a meek and quiet Spirit, which is willing to suffer ill Treatment, rather than let a quarrelsome or warring Disposition appear. The Apostle had in the preceding Verse exhorted, Recompence to no Man Evil for Evil— And in the last Verse of same Chapter, he again presses the same meek and forgiving Behaviour, Be not overcome with Evil, but overcome Evil with Good—‘This Verse (faith Poole) is a divine Apho­rism; therein the Apostle anticipates an Objection: Some might be ready to say, if we should follow this Advice, we should be counted Cowards and Dastards, &c. To this he Answers, That 'tis the ready Way to be Triumphers and Conque­rors. [Page 28]By Evil here, he means the Wrongs and Injuries of Men; and to be overcome of Evil, is to be moved and provoked thereby to Impati­ence or Malice; when 'tis thus with a Man, he is overcome or conquered: In Revenge of Inju­ries, he is a Loser that gets the better. There­fore he exhorts us rather to overcome Evil with Good, that is a noble Victory indeed: This is the Way not to be even with him that wrongs us, but to be above him; thus David overcame Saul, and Elisha the Bands of Syria. This is the Way to overcome ourselves, and our Adversaries too; ourselves, in denying our Lusts that egg us on to Revenge; our Adversaries, in winning them to relent and acknowledge their Miscarriages.’

Now Reader, consider this Interpretation, com­pare it with the Precept, Recompence to no Man Evil for Evil, and then try if thou can'st conceive that the Apostle intended (when he advised to live peace­ably as much as possible with all Men) to insinuate the Lawfulness of War.

The next Observation in the Sermon, is from the Improbability of the Apostle Paul's recording the military Prowess and Exploits of divers antient He­roes, as Gideon, Barack, Sampson, &c. with­out the least Hint of any Alteration in Gospel Times in that Respect, and vet he himself of a contrary Sentiment. But where is this Difficulty? Does not the Apostle in the same Chapter commend the Faith of Abraham in leaving his own Country, and offer­ing up his only Son Isaac at the Command of God? Now will or can this be construed to infer, that because Abraham did these Things at the divine Command, and the Apostle does not give the least Hint of any Alteration in Gospel Times in that Re­spect, that therefore a Christian may follow that Ex­ample without such Command? And yet this Con­sequence [Page 29]is as fair, as to infer that because Gideon, &c. did go to War at the Command of God (which this Writer grants those Worthies did) and the Apostle commends them for it, &c. that there­fore Christians may follow their Example without such Command—If, however, this Passage is in­tended only to vindicate the Conduct of such who go to War in Obedience to the Command of God— I shall not pretend to say that such War is unlawful. The Object of the Faith, through which those Wor­thies wrought such Wonders, was, Deus loquens, &c. God speaking, and conveying to them a clear Knowledge of Duty, and Assurance of Success.

But we are told that Paul ‘virtually and conse­quentially signified his Approbation of War by his Practice, in not rejecting the Protection of an arm'd Force;’ and Acts xxiii. is referr'd to for a Proof—I request the Reader to peruse the Chapter, and he will not find that Paul did so much as make any Application for the Protection of an arm'd Force, though he knew there was a Conspiracy form'd for the taking away his Life; he only took the necessary Steps to inform the Chief Captain (in whose Custody he was) of that Design, not doubt­ing but he would have so much Justice, as to pre­vent such a private Murder. The Chief Captain being thus informed of the Design, sends a Number of Soldiers, who, as it was commanded them, saith the Text, took Paul, and brought him by Night to Antipatris.

Now, would it be reasonable or prudent, supposing the Apostle to have been ever so clear in his Judg­ment, that War was unlawful to Christians, for him, then a Prisoner, to refuse being conducted by the Soldiers, whither their Superior had ordered them to take him.

[Page 30] We are told in the Sermon, Page 25, That the Apostle James, in Chap. iv. 1. does not say, ‘That War is ever unjust and sinful upon both Sides, or unnecessary in Man's fallen State, but that the original Cause of War is Evil,’ or proceeding from Lust.—

Can a true Christian then, who hath known the Ax laid to the Root of the Tree; i. e. The Spirit of God giving him Victory over Lust, join with, countenance or encourage, that which hath Lust for its Original? And should he not rather, by his Doctrine and Practice, be concern'd to open the Eyes of Men? and to turn them from the Darkness to Light, and from the Power of Satan to God? Acts xxvi. 18.

‘But (saith the Sermon) it is again objected, that the Apostle observes to the Corinthians, that The Weapons of their Warfare were not carnal.’ ^† The Application of this, to mean no more than that they did not use carnal Weapons against Sin and Sa­tan spiritualy, is not doing Justice to the Text; it is rather charging it with an Absurdity—The Apo­stle had in the preceding Verse told them, "For though we walk in the Flesh, we do not war after the Flesh: This, therefore, is an express Declaration, that they did not use carnal Weapons; and a positive Proof, that they did not War at all after the Flesh: And his speaking in the plural Number, may be sup­posed to mean, that the Christians in general were in the same Practice; for, in the foregoing Verses, when he spoke of himself, he used the singular Lan­guage: So that this Objection against the Lawfulness of War to Christians, remains in its full Force.

‘There is (saith the Sermon) a great Difference between the War we must sustain between Sin and Satan, and a War with wicked Men. To pretend to vanquish the former by carnal Weapons, is as [Page 31]absurd, as to expect a Conquest over the latter (always) without them.’

Behold, Reader! what an absurd Company of People, according to this Writer, the primitive Chri­stians were! Tho', agreeable to the Apostle's Te­stimony just now quoted, they did not War after the Flesh; their Weapons were not carnal; and yet they passed thro' a wicked World, and were Overcomers of Evil with Good.

‘It is presumptuous (saith the Sermon) to expect an End without the Use of Means adapted to it: To expect a Crop by the Dint of our Supplications, without Plowing, Sowing and Fencing, our Ground, would be exceeding fond and vain: And so to ex­pect Protection from unreasonable and violent Men, without using proper Means for Defence, on Account of our Piety and Prayers, is equally unreasonable, &c.’

The Means which the Gospel allows for Main­taining and Keeping of Peace, are in the first, and chiefest Place, the Practice of Christian Virtues, Humility, Meekness, Beneficence, Charity, &c. With and by these Means, the first Settlers of this Province cultivated a good Understanding and Har­mony with numerous warlike savage Nations, which still subsists: And I really think, were but these Vir­tues generally practised, and Almighty God truly honoured and feared by us, and the Trust reposed in the Civil Power for the Punishment of Evil-doers, &c. faithfully discharged, we should be so blessed and favoured with the peculiar Care of Heaven, that no violent Men would be permitted to make a Prey of us: When a Man's Ways please the Lord, he maketh even his Enemies to be at Peace with him, Prov. xvi. 7. I cannot think that to expect a Crop by the Dint of our Supplications, and to expect Protection on Account of our Piety and Prayers—are similar Cases. [Page 32]The Means to procure a Crop are necessary, inno­cent, and useful to the Creation; but War is ruinous and destructive to it—However true it may be, that it is unreasonable for such as are not convinced that War is forbidden by the Dispensation of the Gospel, to expect Protection without the Use of military Preparations, yet it is not so to those who have learned of their Lord not to fight. Such can, with well-grounded Assurance, depend upon Protection from Heaven, because they are in the Use of the Means necessary to obtain that End, and so are not charge­able with Presumption or tempting God. Such think, that the Perfection of human Reason, consists in an humble Resignation and Acquiescence with the Mind of the eternal Reason—He hath taught them to confide and trust wholly in him, both for Food, Raiment, and Preservation of Life. Some Means, viz. Plowing, Sowing, &c. hath been made necessa­ry, on our Part, for the obtaining those Ends: Were these Means used only to provide the Necessa­ries of Life, without making Provision for the Flesh, to fulfil the Lusts thereof; were God regarded in and through them, as the alone efficient Cause of their being successful, and humbly thanked for the In­crease; we should then act like reasonable Men, and Christians. But we do not, when we expect a Crop without those Means which are necessary, and NOT FORBIDDEN—And we esteem it unreasonable for us to engage in War, or Preparations for it, because when God requires any Thing of Men, it is in the highest Degree reasonable for them to obey him: And any People that imagines they act reasonably, when they are in the Practice of any Thing which the Di­vine Light hath convinced them to be disagreeable to the Mind of God, will, in the End, find them­selves fatally mistaken.—Now, as some Christians are assured God hath forbidden them to engage in [Page 33]outward War: Which, then, to these is most rea­sonable, to use Means which he hath forbidden, or to depend solely upon him in the Use of such Means as are acceptable to him; that is, Piety and Prayers, which have ever been bless'd and favour'd of the most High, sometimes by his delivering out of, some­times by supporting under Difficulties, Straits and Afflictions, and always by rewarding with infinite Bliss in the World to come, whatever may have been the Circumstance in this Life?—Give me leave here to ask—Is it not more consistent with the Duty of a Minister of the meek, self-denying Jesus, to recommend Piety and Prayers as the only acceptable Means necessary to obtain Protection from Heaven, than to represent those Means unreasonable and in­sufficient without human Means?

We are now come to that excellent and glorious Prophecy of Isaiah, ii. 4. And he (i. e. Christ) shall judge among the Nations, and shall rebuke many People, and they shall beat their Swords into Plough­shares, and their Spears into Pruning-books, Nation shall not lift up Sword against Nation, neither shall they learn War any more. Upon which the Sermon saith, ‘It is probable that this Scripture at least prin­cipally respects the spiritual and internal Peace of Christ's Kingdom,’ and that ‘there is a vast Difference between the internal and spiritual Peace of Christ's Kingdom, and that which is political and external.’

This seems designed to evade the Force of the Text, which plainly says that Christ's judging a­mong the Nations, and rebuking the People, shall occasion outward War to be laid aside, and the very Art and Study of it to be disused; that the Weapons used therein for Destruction, shall then be turned into Impliments of Husbandry—The Cause and the Effect are both foretold in this Prophecy— [Page 34]The Cause is the Judging of Christ internally in In­dividuals, and the Effect that wherever this Judg­ing is experienced, there is in such a Cessation from all War. A good Tree bringeth not forth cor­rupt Fruit, Luke vi. 43. But War is corrupt Fruit, because it hath Lust for its Original, and an impure Fountain can never send forth clear Streams—There­fore those who are acquainted with this inward Judg­ing and Governing of Christ in the Soul, bring not forth such Fruit. They know the Efficacy of Divine Love shed abroad in their Hearts to be such, that they can truly and sincerely love their Enemies; and are so far from a Will to Injure or Distress them in any Shape, they could suffer deeply to do them Good. A Disposition truly sublime! It hath the ve­ry Stamp of Heaven upon it. And there are many who bless and praise the God and Father of all our Mercies, for his great Condescension and Goodness, in raising up a People, in these latter Days, as a Kind of First-fruits (since the dark and gloomy Night of Apostacy) in the Accomplishment of this Predicti­on—May these walk humble, and be faithful to the high and holy Calling! May they be as shining Lights to the distracted World! O House of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the Light of the Lord, Isa. ii. 5. And may all Nations become Partakers of the Excellency and Perfection of this Dispensation! Then shall Peace be extended like a River, and the Glory of the Gentiles be like a flowing Stream, Isa. lxvi. 12.

‘He shall root out (saith Poole, on Isaiah ii. 4.) those great Animosities and Hostilities which were between the Jews and Gentiles, Ephes. ii. 13. and between several Nations; subduing Mens Pride, and Passions, and Lusts, which are the Causes of all Wars and Contentions; and working Humili­ty, and Meekness, and Self-denial, and true and fervent Love to all Men, from whence Peace ne­cessarily [Page 35]follows. This was the Design of the Gospel in all, and the Effect of it in those that rightly received it.’

The Jews understood this Prophecy ^* to relate solely to the Times of the Messiah; and alledge it as a strong Argument that the Messiah is not come: For, say they, War and Fighting is not ceased, and the Sword is used as well by those called Christians, as other People. How will our mighty Pleader for War answer this Objection? By telling them, ‘It is not necessary that Prophecies respecting the Mes­siah's Kingdom, should be accomplished at the Beginning of it; it is enough that they be fulfil­led before the End of it.—’ I believe this would not remove the Weight of the Objection. The antient Fathers of the first two Centuries after Christ had much better Arguments; they did affirm these Pro­phecies to be fulfilled in the Christians of their Times, who were most averse from War.—Justin Martyr (who lived in the second Century) in his Apology for the Christians, cites these Words of this Prophecy; Na­tion shall not lift up Sword against Nation; neither shall they learn War any more—And says, ‘That this is thus fulfilled, you have Grounds to believe; for we who in Times past killed one another, do not War or Fight with our Enemies.’

‘It is certain (saith the Sermon) that the Gospel inclines all that receive it in Truth, to live as much as is possible in Peace with all Men: It subdues, in a Measure, Mens Corruptions, which are the fatal Sources of Contention and War, and makes them humble and meek.’

I think this Concession, would overset the whole of the Scheme, if the Words, In a Measure, were o­mitted; for Humility and Meekness are quite oppo­site [Page 36]to War and Fighting, which proceed from Pride and Covetousness—But does not the Intimati­on that the Gospel received in the Love of it, only in a Measure subdues Mens Corruptions, imply a Deficiency in the Power? And can it be consistent with our Lord's Doctrine—Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a Man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God, John iii. 3. A new Birth implies an entire Change. ‘'Tis usual (saith Poole on this Passage) by the civil Laws of Countries, that none enters into the Possession of an earthly King­dom, but by the Right of Birth; and for the obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven, there must be a new Birth, a heavenly Renovation of the whole Man, Soul, Body and Spirit, to give him a Title by the wise and unchangeable Constituti­on of God in the Gospel, and to qualify him for the Enjoyment of it.’—This is what the Apostle Peter terms, Being born again, not of corruptible Seed, but by incoruptible, by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever, 1 Peter i. 23. And the Apostle Paul saith, If any Man be in Christ, he is a New-Creature: Old Things are past away, behold all Things are become new, 2 Cor. v. 17. These, and many other Passages in the New Testament, positively declare (if we become the Children of God) the Necessity of having our Corruptions whol­ly subdued; the Deeds of the Flesh thoroughly mortified, with the Lusts and Affections thereof; and the Grace of God is entirely sufficient, as it is believed in and obeyed, to complete this great Work—The Gospel of Christ, is the Power of God unto Salvation, to every One that believeth, Rom. i. 16. Such faithful Followers of the divine Appear­ance, are redeemed from the fatal Sources of Con­tention and War—And whereas in their former Con­versation, they had Strife, Envyings, &c. they now [Page 37]witness pure Love to God and all Men, to be the governing Principle in their Minds—This Victory and Disposition, is a State truly desirable, and wor­thy of our utmost Diligence and Pains to attain— It is real Happiness in this Life (Such are redeemed from the Fear of Evil, Rev. ii. 10) it gives the pro­per Relish and Taste of temporal Blessings—Sweet­ens every bitter Cup, makes the greatest Pains and Afflictions tolerable, chears the Mind in the most gloomy and distressing Circumstances, and carries with it a sure and undoubted Evidence of Joy un­speakable, and full of Glory in the Life to come— Wherefore forgetting those Things which are behind, let us reach forth unto those Things which are before, Phil. iii. 13.

The Sermon saith (least the Prophecy before quo­ted, should be supposed to intend an outward Peace) ‘Christ himself assures us that an external Peace would not be the immediate Issue of his Coming, I came not (saith he) to send Peace on Earth, but a Sword—Tho' the Doctrines and Power of his Religion tend to Peace, yet our Lord prophecies that those who reject them, would kindle the Flame of an unjust War and Persecution against his Followers, upon a religious Account.’

The Sword which our Lord came to send, was that of the Spirit, Which is the Word of God, Eph. vi. 17. And yet I do not contend that the aforesaid Prophecy was to be universally fulfilled upon the first Publication of Christ's Doctrines; all that I in­sist on from it is, that it was and is fulfilled upon as many as did, or now do receive the Gospel in the Love of it, and faithfully obey it; and the Means and Power of so receiving it, is offered to all.

When "the Flame of an unjust War" broke out against the Followers of Christ, did they resist? Did they defend themselves? If not, how will the [Page 38]Sermon's Conclusion in Page 24, stand good? ‘If the Offensive be unjust, the Defensive must of Consequence be just.’ Alas! those holy Fol­lowers of a meek and crucified Saviour, did not conceive the Justness of such a Defence; they, like their Pattern, were led as Sheep to the Slaughter, they suffer'd patiently and quietly, whatever Tor­ments, Pains, or Sufferings, wicked and unreason­able Men were permitted to inflict upon them, with­out flying to human Help, to make Use of carnal Weapons, or to war after the Flesh, which is now declared by some that would be esteem'd Christian Ministers, to be absolutely necessary, and consistent with the Christian Religion.

‘But (saith the Sermon, Page 28) does not our Lord enjoin us not to resist Evil, and that if one smite us on the right Cheek, we must turn to him the other, and that if a Man take away our Coat, we should let him have our Cloak also? And likewise that we should love our Enemies, bless those that curse us, and shew Kindness to those that despitefully use us.’ ^*

It is probable our Author thought he should make this Objection too strong, if he had given the Reasons which the Text uses, for enforcing Obe­dience to these Doctrines, That ye may be the Chil­dren of your Father in Heaven, for he maketh his Sun to rise on the Evil, and on the Good, and send­eth Rain on the Just, and on the Unjust—Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.

Those Passages are construed by him to mean on­ly ‘That we should rather endure smaller and tole­rable Injuries with Patience, than contend or go to Law for Satisfaction—That we should not in­dulge private Revenge, &c. That we should [Page 39]wish well to our Enemies, and treat them with Humanity and Kindness, when in Want and Dis­tress; and be ready to forgive the Injuries they have committed against us, when they repent o­ver them—And that we should not exercise Seve­rity towards them, till the Case comes to Extre­mity, &c.’

This Construction appears to me to be abundant­ly too much confined—A Prohibition of Injuries, and a Command to endure them, must be consider­ed as relative to the Consequence if allowed—A small Injury is attended with a Degree of Injustice, and the enduring it, rather than returning it, shews in some Degree a Christian Disposition—Now consider that Consequence with respect to greater; the endu­ring of them rather than returning Evil for Evil, doth certainly shew a much greater Degree of that Meekness and Lowliness of Heart which Christ taught his Disciples to learn of him—And indeed were but his Example considered, as explanatory of his Laws, it would amount to a full Proof that he intended to prohibit all Return of Injuries among his Followers.

Again, if every particular Member of the Church be forbidden Revenge, it is because allowing of it would manifest a want of Patience and Fortitude to endure, and encourage Envy, Strife, Malice, &c. which produces Destruction to Particulars—Surely then this Reason is much stronger for forbidding national and publick Revenge—Because allowing it produces those wicked Fruits in an abundant greater and more universal Manner—Besides, Can those who are separately forbid a Thing, be at Liberty collec­tively to do it—Suppose ten Men are each com­manded by their Prince to abstain from a particular Diet, because it is pernicious; it cannot surely be a­greeable to that Prince that these ten Men together [Page 40]should do, what separately he had forbid them— Upon this View of the Case, does it look reasona­ble to suppose that Christ intended to prohibit pri­vate particular Revenge, and allow of national and publick? Can it be consistent with his Laws, to pu­nish lesser Degrees of Evil, and justify greater? Did he not reprove the Scribes and Pharisees for omitting weightier Matters, whilst they tythed Mint, Annise and Cummin—Ye blind Guides which strain at a Gnat, and swallow a Camel, Mat. xxiii. 23, 24.

And according to the Reason given by Christ himself immediately after those Precepts, they must certainly intend a Prohibition of all Injury and Re­venge, or else the Comparison is not very proper— That ye may be the Children of your Father in Heaven— For he dispences his temporal Blessings upon all, even upon the most publickly Prophane; upon Blas­phemers, Idolaters, and the vilest of human Race. Will my putting up with small and tolerable Injuries, not indulging private Revenge, but resisting with Violence great Injuries, and returning with my ut­most Force all the Evil in my Power, in Revenge for national Grievances, be coming up to this Com­parison of the Almighty's universal Beneficence and Kindness to those that do their utmost to affront and displease him? I conclude it does not; and therefore think the Precepts extend to all Kind of Injuries whatsoever.

‘It may be further observed (saith this Writer) that if the aforesaid Scripture be taken in a strict and literal Sense, going to Law is as much con­tradicted thereby as defensive War. But the former is absurd, and therefore the latter.’ Where is this Absurdity? There are many pious Christians who look upon the Precept to extend thus far, and there­fore do not sue at Law at all: And if there are others [Page 41]who think it may be done, without contradicting the Text, provided it be in Uprightness, and without any Hatred, Malice or Revenge. Yet the Practice of these does not in the least make void or lessen the Authority of the Precepts, Resist not Evil, Love your Enemies, &c.

Robert Barclay, in his Apology, Page 559, hath upon this Text the following Observations:

‘And truly the Words are so clear in themselves, that (in my Judgment) they need no Illustration to explain their Sense: For it is as easy to recon­cile the greatest Contradictions, as these Laws of our Lord Jesus Christ with the wicked Practices of Wars; for they are plainly inconsistent. Whoe­ver can reconcile this, Resist not Evil, with Resist Violence by Force: Again; Give also thy other Cheek, with Strike again: Also, Love thine Ene­mies, with Spoil them, make a Prey of them, pur­sue them with Fire and Sword: Or, Prey for those that persecute you, and those that calumniate you, with Persecute you by Fines, Imprisonments, and Death itself; and not only such as do not per­secute you, but who heartily seek and desire your eternal and temporal Welfare. Whoever, I say, can find a Means to reconcile these Things, may be supposed also to have found a Way to reconcile God with the Devil, Christ with Antichrist, Light with Darkness, and Good with Evil. But if this be impossible, as indeed it is, so will also the other be impossible; and Men do but deceive themselves and others, while they boldly adventure to esta­blish such absurd and impossible Things.’

The primitive Christians thought themselves bound to comply literally with these Precepts to that De­gree, that it is recorded in antient History, that when their most bitter and severe Persecutors have been sick and afflicted, they have tended upon, and [Page 42]wept around them with the Cordiality and Affection of Brethren, and have rejoiced in Opportunities of Serving and Assisting them.

Athenagoras (who lived in the second Century after Christ, when those Precepts were literally observed) in an Apology in Behalf of the Christians, to the Roman Emperors M. Aurelius Antoninus, and M. Aurelius Commodus, hath, in Answer to their being charged with Atheism, among other Expressions, these. ^*

‘And what are our Rules and Dogmas? Even these; I say unto you, love your Enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be the Children of your Father which is in Heaven; for he maketh his Sun to rise on the Evil and on the Good, and sendeth Rain on the Just, and on the Unjust, Matth. v. 44, 45. Seeing then I make my Apology before Emperors who are Philosophers, let me challenge any of the Tribe of Sophisters, who yet pretend to give their Readers such Information and Happiness from th [...]se Studies, to shew such a mild Disposition of Soul, a Heart so clear'd from Rancour and Malice, [...] to return, even their Enemies, Love for Hatred; to bless those who unjustly revile them; nay, to pray for those who attempt their very Lives: Do not they always act the contrary Part? Do they not persecute any that injure them, after the most revengeful Manner? Do they not always study a severe Retaliation? Nay, do they not professedly teach an Art of Words, and not a Rule of Acti­ons? But among us you find unletter'd Men, or­dinary Mechanicks, and even Women, tho' they cannot by Words defend or advantage our Religi­on, yet adorn it, and set it off by bright Exam­ples [Page 43]in their Actions; they study not the Fineness of Composition, but practice the Solidity of Vir­tue; when struck, they strike not again; they prosecute not those who rob them; they are cha­ritable to such as stand in Need of their Assistance; and in a Word, love their Neighbours (that is, all Men) as themselves. And can we be imagined to exercise such an Innocence and Purity of Life, if we did not believe there was a God who presid­ed over Mankind? No certainly: But being tho­roughly convinced, that we shall one Day give an Account of our Lives and Actions to the great Creator of us, and all the World, we chuse such a gentle, meek, and GENERALLY DESPISED Me­thod of Life, assuring ourselves that we can suffer no Evil from our Persecutors, no, tho' it were the Loss of our very Lives, which can be of any Value or Consideration, when compared to that exceeding great Reward which God will give us hereafter.’

Here, Reader, were Disciples, that instead of con­struing away the greatest Part of the Force of their Master's Precepts, took up their Cross, denied themselves, and faithfully practised them.

‘But here (saith the Sermon, Page 30.) it may be further Queried, How Killing of our Enemies is consistent with Love to them? I answer, it is more consistent, than Self Murder is with Love to ourselves!’

But are either of these Cases in the least Degree consistent—Are they not rather as opposite as East to West? A Man can never designedly injure what he really loves; and 'tis his Duty really and truly to love Enemies.—And Self-murder is not proved to be in any Shape a Consequent of that Doctrine.

The Paragraph in Page 31, wherein the Sermon-Writer undertakes to prove, that no more is meant [Page 44]by Christ's Command to love Enemies, than was enjoin'd under the Jewish Dispensation, is (in my Opinion) a Piece of Sophistry, and cannot be re­conciled with the Manner in which our Saviour in­troduceth this Doctrine—Ye have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love thy Neighbour, and hate thine Enemy: But I say unto you, love your Enemies, &c. ^* And what is thus said in a Note, Page 30, ‘It cannot be reasonably supposed, that Christ op­poseth by this Doctrine, the Laws which the Jews enjoyed,’ &c. does not at all operate against those who think War prohibited by the Gospel; because they do not think that Christ opposed the moral Law, but improved it, or shewed the best Way to fulfil it: Thus the moral Law obliged the Jews to love their Neighbours, which was construed to mean only those of their own Nation, and that nothing in it prohi­bited them from hating their Enemies: Our Lord therefore not only repeats that Command, but adds to it, Love your Enemies.—Now a Man who keeps the latter, must be supposed capable of Keeping the former. Upon this Subject Tertullian against Marc. speaks thus: ‘Christ truly teacheth a new Patience; even forbidding the Revenging of an Injury, which was permitted by the Creator—’ And Lib. de pa­tien. ‘The Law finds more than is lost, by Christ's saying, Love your Enemies.’ Barc. Apol.

Neither is the Case where those put to Death by the Magistrate, and those slain in a lawful War (which this Writer supposes to be substantially the same) of any Force, unless the Lawfulness of War be first proved—The Arguments hitherto produced for it, I think I have shewn to be insufficient.

As to the Command of Christ to Peter, Put up again thy Sword into his Place, for all they that take the Sword, shall perish with the Sword, notwith­standing [Page 45]the Sermon-writer's Opinion of it, Tertul­lian, that learned and able Apologist for the Christi­ans, thought it prohibited War—Hear what he says, ^§ ‘Quomodo autem bellabit, immo quomoda etiam in pace militabit sine Gladio quem Dominus abstulit? Nam etsi adierant Milites ad Jobannem & formam Observationis acceperant, si etiam Cen­turio crediderat, omnem postea militem Dominus in Petro exarmando discinxit.’ How shall he fight ‘whose Sword is taken from him by Christ? For though the Soldiers came to John, and received a Form of Observation, if also the Centurion believ­ed, yet Christ, by disarming Peter, disarmed eve­ry Soldier afterward.’

Rigaltius notes upon these Words, [...] Tertulli­an takes away all Kind of War, and an use of the Sword from all Christians; ‘Christianis omnibus omne Militiae genus, omnem Gladii usum adimit.’

And in another Place Tertullian says, ^† ‘Licebit in Gladio conversari, Domino pronunciante Gladi [...] periturum, qui Gladio fuerit usus? Et Proelio operabitur [...]lius pacis, cui nec Litigare conveniet? Et Vincula & Carcerem, & Tormenta & Supplicia administrabit, nec suarum ultor Injuriarum? Can a Soldier's Employment be lawful, when Christ has pronounced, That he that uses the Sword, shall perish by the Sword? Can one who professes the peaceable Doctrine of the Gospel be a War­rior, he who must not so much as strive or con­tend? And shall he who is not to revenge his own Wrongs, be instrumental to bring others in­to Chains, Imprisonment, Torments and Death?’

This Tertullian lived in the early Times of the Gospel, about an hundred Years after the Apostles.

[Page 46] I have now gone through the Arguments used in the Sermon to prove the Lawfulness of War, I think I have not omitted any that are material, nor I hope done any Injustice to them. I have express'd my Thoughts why they are not sufficient for the Purpose for which they were intended, and shall take Leave of this Writer, with remarking the great Difference between his Musing, mention'd in Page 36, and the Disposition of a true Christian: The latter is resign'd in all Things; considers this Life as a State of Probation and Tryal; acknowledges an over-ruling Providence, who superintends human Affairs; and can say, Come Life or come Death, thy Will, O God, be done—Whereas the former dis­covers the utmost Surprize and Consternation even at imaginary Dangers, and in his Fright seems to forget his Maker—The next Time he hears Great Guns go off, I would recommend to him the Peru­sal of the following Observations from John Wesley's Journal, Page 67.

‘Finding the unaccountable Apprehensions of I know not what Danger (the Wind being small, and the Sea smooth) which had been upon me se­veral Days, increase; I cried earnestly for Help; and it pleased God as in a Moment to restore Peace to my Soul. Let me observe hereon, 1. That not one of these Hours ought to pass out of my Remembrance, till I attain another Manner of Spirit, a Spirit equally willing to glorify God by Life or by Death. 2. That whoever is uneasy on any Account (bodily Pain alone excepted) carries in himself his own Conviction, that he is so far an Unbeliever. Is he uneasy at the Apprehension of Death? Then he believeth not, That to die is Gain. At any of the Events of Life? Then he hath not a firm Belief, That all Things work together for his Good. And if he bring the Matter more close, [Page 47]he will always find, beside the general want of Faith, every particular Uneasiness is evidently ow­ing to the want of some particular Christian Tem­per.’

I would now offer something further to the Con­sideration of the Reader.

I think it is universally allowed that the Reign of Christ is described by the Prophet Isaiah, in Chap. xi. where, among other Expressions which denotes that wherever it came to be truly received, it would produce Meekness, Humility and Peace, even in the roughest Tempers and Dispositions of Men, he hath this, They shall not burt nor destroy in all my holy Mountain; for the Earth shall be full of the Knowledge of the Lord, as the Waters cover the Sea. Some of the antient Writers amongst the primitive Christians, as Justin Martyr, Theodoret, &c. took the holy Mountain in this Prophecy to be spoken of the Church of Christ; and they appeal'd to the Gen­tiles, whether they did not see and observe, by the Behaviour and Manners of the Christians, a Fulfil­ling of those glorious Prophecies: Such was then the Peaceableness and Innocency of their Lives.

Poole likewise says, the Mountain here means the Church, and adds, ‘Wherever the Gospel comes and prevails, it will have this Effect.’

The same Prophet, in Chap. xxxv. speaking of the Way of the Lord, says, No Lion shall be there, nor any ravenous Beast shall go up thereon; it shall not be found there, but the Redeemed shall walk there —And again confirms this, Chap. lxv. repeating, They shall not burt nor destroy in all my holy Moun­tain, saith the Lord.

The Prophet Hosea, speaking of Gospel-times, in Chap. ii. saith, Verse 18. And in that Day will I make a Covenant for them, with the Beasts of the Field, and with the Fowls of Heaven, and with the [Page 48]creeping Things of the Ground; and I will break the Bow, and the Sword, and the Battle out of the Earth, and will make them to lie down safely.

Poole upon this Verse remarks, ‘It is a full and gracious Promise of Abundance of Peace, Safety, and Love among all through the Creation. But if brute Beasts do not hurt, yet unless more brutish Creatures, bloody Men, be [...]med, there will be little Safety to the Church; therefore God will put an End to Wars, and make Men peaceable in their Dispositions, far more peaceable than heretofore they have been.’

The Prophet Micah, in speaking of the latter Days, uses much the same Expressions with Isaiah — And he shall judge among many People, and re­buke strong Nations afar off, and they shall beat their Swords into Plowshares, and their Spears into pru­ning Hooks: Nation shall not lift up a Sword against Nation, neither shall they learn War any more, Chap. iv. 3.

These Predictions, and some others of the like Tendency, together with the Examples and Testi­monies of the Apostles and primitive Christians, that Obedience to the Gospel had that Effect, not only to give them inward Peace, but to take away the Use of carnal Weapons, are very strong and cogent Proofs, that War cannot be consistent with the Pu­rity and Perfection of the Christian Religion.

And here I would further observe, that when the Angel had appeared to the Shepherds, and declared the Birth of Christ—There was with the Angel a Multitude of the heavenly Host, praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth Peace, Good-will towards Men ^* — This first Declara­tion from Heaven after the Birth of Christ, of the universal Benefit design'd by his Coming, may, I [Page 49]think, be fairly construed to intend, that he would not only give, to as many as received him, inward and Divine Peace, but the Consequent of that should be a Disposition of Good-will to all Men, even to Love Enemies, &c. as Christ afterwards taught. I have already mentioned some of the Testimonies of the Antients on War, and it may not be improper to add a few more. ^*.

In the Time of Clemens Alexandrinus (which was the Beginning of the third Century after Christ) Christians were so far from Wars, that he testify'd, that they had no Marks or Signs of Violence among them, saying, ‘Neither are the Faces of Idols to be painted, which so much as to regard is forbidden, neither Sword, nor Bow, to them that follow Peace: As Sylvius Disc. de Rev. Belg.’

The Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus, about the Middle of the second Century, writes thus: ‘I pray'd to my Country Gods, but when I was neglected by them, and observed myself pressed by the Ene­my; considering the Fewness of my Forces, I cal­led to one, and intreated those who with us are cal­led Christians, and I found a great Number of them, and I forced them with Threats, which ought not to have been; because afterwards I knew their Strength and Force. Therefore they betook them­selves neither to the Use of Darts, nor Trumpets, for they use not so to do, for the Cause and Name of their God, which they bear in their Consciences.’

The Answer which Martin made to Julian the Apostate, as related by Sulpitius Severus, which was [Page 50]300 Years after Christ, is very full and positive, 'I am a Soldier of Christ, therefore I cannot fight."

Origen (who wrote in the Beginning of the third Century) in his Answer to Celsus, a most virulent Adversary, who had charged the Christians with re­fusing to bear Arms, and to enter into military Em­ployments, writes thus ^*:

‘Lastly, Celsus exhorts us, That we should assist the Emperor with all our Might, and aid him in all his just Undertakings and Engagements, and when requisite, bear Arms, and fight for him. To this we answer, that we do assist the Emperors, if I may so say, with a Divine Aid, having on us the whole Ar­mour of God; and this we do, in Obedience to the Words of the Apostle, who says, I exhort, therefore, first of all, Supplications, Prayers, Intercessions, and giving of Thanks to be made for all Men; for Kings, and for all that are in Authority. And by how much the more pious any Man is, by so much the more he lends Assistance to Emperors, yea more than they who stand in Battle Array, and cut down as many of the Enemy as they can. We may also reply to you, who are not of our Belief, and urge us to bear Arms and Fight; your own Priests, and those who belong to your Temples, keep their Hands from being defil'd with Blood, by Reason of the Sacrifices they must offer with unbloody and unpolluted Hands, to those you e­steem your Gods. And when you go to War, you never take any of the priestly Order for Sol­diers. If then you think that reasonable, Why should you not think it more so in those, who, when others go out to fight, they, as Priests and Ministers of God, lift up holy Hands, and wrestle in Prayer with God, for them who fight in a just [Page 51]Cause, and for the Emperor who reigns well, that God would be pleased to remove every Thing that, is against them? Therefore all evil Spirits, which stir up Sedition, break Treaties, and disturb the publick Peace, being quash'd by our Prayers, we do greater Service to Emperors than those who are for Fighting: And we labour for the common Good, by putting up Prayers in Holiness; and by our religious Exercises and Practice, we teach how to despise and shun the pleasing Baits of Sin. Thus we fight better than others for the Emperor: But should he go about to compel us to Fight, or bear Arms under him, we cannot do it. Sic nos prae aliis pugnamus pro Imperatore: cum ipso, licet nos impellat, non militamus.’

This is a full and plain Declaration of the Opini­on and Practice of the Christians—'Tis not Origen's single Opinion, but an Apology in Behalf of the Christians in Origen's Time; and they were then very numerous.

And farther, to prove beyond all Contradiction, that it was held unlawful for a Christian to bear Arms, and to fight, not only in the Days of Tertullian and Origen, but later down, even to the Emperor Dio­clesian's Time: I shall produce the Testimony of one Maximilian, who suffer'd Death under that Em­peror's Reign, for refusing to bear Arms. ' ^* ‘Max­imilian [Page 52]being brought before the Tribunal, Dion the Preconsul said, What is thy Name? Maximi­lian answered, Why wouldst thou know my Name? I must not Fight, for I am a Christian. Dion the Proconsul said, Let him be enroll'd. And when he was enroll'd, it was recited out of the Regi­ster that he was five Feet ten Inches high. Dion bid the Officer mark him; and when Maximilian refus'd, saying, I cannot Fight; Dion said, Bear Arms, or thou shalt die. Maximilian answer'd, I cannot Fight if I die: I fight not for this World, but for my God. Dion the Proconsul said, Who has persuaded thee? Maximilian answered, My own Mind, and he who call'd me. Dion spake to his Father, and bid him persuade his Son. His Fa­ther reply'd, he knows his own Mind, and what is best for him to do. Dion then said to Maximi­lion, take thy Arms and receive the Mark ^†. He answered, I can receive no such Mark, I have al­ready the Mark of Christ. Dion the Proconsul said, I shall send thee quickly to thy Christ. He answer'd, I would have thee, for that would be my Praise. Dion bid the Officer mark him; but he still refusing, said, I cannot receive the Mark of this World; and if thou should'st mark me, I shall break it, for it will avail nothing, I am a Christian, and 'tis not lawful for me to wear such a Mark about my Neck, when I have receiv'd the saving Mark of my Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, whom thou art ignorant of; who died to give us Life, and whom God gave for our Sins: Him all we Christians obey; Him we fol­low as the Restorer of our Life, and the Author of our Salvation. Dion said, Take thy Arms, [Page 53]and receive the Mark, or thou wilt perish misera­bly. Maximilian answer'd, I shall not perish, my Name is already enroll'd with my Lord, I cannot fight. Dion said, consider thy Youth, and bear Arms, for 'tis what becomes a young Man. Max­imilian reply'd, my Arms are with my Lord, I cannot fight for this World, I am now a Christi­an. Dion the Proconsul said, among the Life-Guards of our Masters Dioclesian, and Maximia­nus, and Constantius, and Maximus, there are Christian Soldiers, and they fight ^§ Maximilian replied, they know what is expedient for them, but I am a Christian, and cannot do Evil. Dion said, take thy Arms, despise not the Business of a Soldier, lest thou perish miserably. Maximilian replied, I shall not perish, and if I leave this World, my Soul will live with Christ my Lord. Dion then said, strike his Name out; and when it was done, Dion said, because with a rebellious Mind thou hast refus'd to bear Arms, thou shalt be punish'd according to thy Deserts, for an Ex­ample [Page 54]to others: And then he read his Sentence— Maximilian, because thou hast with a rebellious Mind refus'd to bear Arms, thou art to die by the Sword. Maximilian replied. Thanks be to God. He was twenty Years, three Months, and seven­teen Days old. And when he was led to the Place of Execution, he spake thus; My dear Bre­thren, endeavour with all your Might, that it may be your Lot to see the Lord, and that he may give you such a Crown—And then with a pleasant Countenance he said to his Father, give the Execu­tioner the Soldier's Coat thou hadst got for me, and when I shall receive thee in the Company of the bles­sed Martyrs, we may also rejoice together with the Lord, and thus he suffer'd. His Mother Pom­peiana obtain'd his Body of the Judge, and carried it to Carthage, and buried it near the Place where the Body of Cyprian the Martyr lay; and thirteen Days after, the Mother died, and was buried in the same Place. And Victor his Father return's to his Habitation rejoycing and praising God, that he had sent before such a Gift unto the Lord, himself expected to follow after.’

The Reader has here a Testimony against bear­ing Arms and Fighting, remarkable both for its An­tiqeity, and the Tokens it bears of the Courage and Fortitude so conspicuous in the primitive Christians. —I shall conclude with a Quotation from a late Treatise, intituled, A modest Plea in Behalf of the People called Quakers, &c.

‘The more Men depend on their Creator for their own Preservation, rather than do the least Evil, the more will Divine Providence be exerted in their Favour, and a powerful Testimony be raised in the Hearts of others in Favour of the Innocent; it will be in vain to talk and preach about loving and for­giving our Enemies, unless we shew the World by [Page 55]uniform Practice in what high Examation we hold the Laws of Christ and his holy Example: And he who to a righteous Life, and a meek Spirit, annexes (rather than do the least Evil) a firm Reliance on Providence, will never be mistaken in the End, but find a full and gracious Repay; Men may indeed devise very innocent Means fo­their own Safety, but this is nothing to what Pro­vidence is able to do for his People. Jacob after a long Absence from his Brother, and great Fear of falling by the Hand of Revenge, very wisely pre­pares a Present to appease his angry Brother; but it looks to me, as if the Lord his God, whose Providence had all along awaited his Servant Ja­cob, had been beforehand with Esau, and soften'd his hard and rugged Spirit, that sought Revenge, into a quite contrary Temper of Compassion and Brotherly Love—And there is one Thing re­markable in respect to our Testimony against Fighting, that as we all of this Society profess to be led and guided by the divine Spirit, it may per­haps be hard to find a single Person who can truly aver a Licence to fight, was ever in his own Mind reconcilable with a strict and devout Adherence to this inward Monitor: And I intreat our younger Brethren to consider, that several of our former Friends were, without consulting each other, brought in this Respect into a perfect Uniformity of Sentiment. The Case of Thomas Lurting ^§ is one ever memorable Instance of it; it is also wor­thy our serious Remembrance, by what an innocent Stratagem he retook a Ship from the Turks, and repossessed the Master with the Command, and with what Humanity he set all his Prisoners ashore in their own Country—I likewise earnestly beseech my young Friends to consider, that unless some­thing [Page 56]extraordinary had appeared to their wise and pious Fore-fathers in this, and in several other Branches of our Testimony, they would never have been so strict, or have sacrificed so much as they have done on these Accounts: Let this then be at least a Reason for making a decent Pause be­fore we quit any of those Things, wherein we stand so eminently distinguished from the rest of the World.’—