ve it not in a limited proportion, but in the largest
measure. But when they consider the nature of wars, that they militate
against the law of preservation, that they include the commission of a
multitude of crimes, that they produce a complication of misery and
suffering to man, they conceive they would not be doing their duty as
Christians, or giving to Christianity its due honour, if they were not
to admit the larger meaning of the words in question as well as the
less. Reason too, pleads for the one as well as for the other.
Consistency of moral doctrine again demands both. But if we admit the
restricted interpretation, and exclude the larger, we offend reason. All
consistency is at an end. Individual responsibility for moral turpitude
will be taken from man. Crimes, clearly marked and defined in the page
of Christianity, will cease to be crimes at the will of princes. One
contradiction will rush in after another; and men will have two
different standards of morality, as they adhere to the commands of the
Gospel, or to the customs of governments or of the world.

SECT. II.

_Meaning of the scriptural passages advanced by the Quakers, supported
by the opinions and practice of the early Christians--Early Christian
writers held it unlawful for Christians to fight, as appears from
Justin--Tatian--Clemens--and others--Christians would not enter into the
armies for more than two centuries, as appears from Ireneus--Tertullian
--Celsus--Origen and others--and generally left the military service,
if they happened to be converted in it.

It may be presumed to be difficult for Christians, who have been in the
habit of seeing wars entered into and carried on by their own and other
Christian governments, and without any other censure than that they
might be politically wrong, to see the scriptural passages of
"non-resistance to evil and love of enemies," but through a vitiated
medium. The prejudices of some, the interests of others, and custom with
all, will induce a belief among them, that these have no relation to
public wars. At least they will be glad to screen themselves under such
a notion. But the question is, what a Heathen would have said to these
passages, who, on his conversion to Christianity, believed that the New
Testament was of divine origin, that it was the book of life, and that
the precepts, which it contained, were not to be dispensed with, to suit
particular cases, without the imputation of evil. Now