The apostle Paul, who knew well the human heart, says, "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head;" that is, thou shalt cause him by thy amiable conduct to experience burning feelings within himself, which, while they torment him with the wickedness of his own conduct, shall make him esteem thee, and bring him over to thy side. Thus thou shalt overcome his evil by thy good; or, in other words, as fire melts the hardest metals, so thy kindness shall melt anger. Thus Parnell:

his

"So artists melt the sullen ore of lead,

By heaping coals of fire upon its head.

Touch'd by the warmth, the metal learns to glow,
And pure from dross the silver runs below."

This policy, again, would consist of the practical duty of attempting to tranquilize the minds of the people while the discussion was going on; of exhorting them to await the event with-composure; of declaring against the folly and wickedness of wars, as if peace only could be the result; of abstaining from all hostile preparations, and indeed from all appearance of violence. Now what influence would such a conduct have, again, but particularly when known to the opposite party? If the opposite party were to see those alluded to keeping down the passions of their people, would they inflame the passions of their own? If they were to be convinced that these were making no preparations for war, would they put themselves to the expense

of arming? Can we see any other termination of such a contest than the continuance of peace?

That the policy of the Gospel, if acted upon by statesmen, would render wars unnecessary, we may infer from supposed cases. And, first, I would ask this simple question ;-whether, if all the world were Quakers, there would be any more wars? I am sure the reply would be, No. But why not? Because nations, consisting of such individuals, it would be replied, would discuss matters in dispute between them with moderation, with temper, and with forbearance. They would never make any threats. They would never arm; and consequently they would never fight. It would be owing then to these principles, or, in other words, to the adoption of the policy of the Gospel in preference of the policy of the world, that if the globe were to be peopled by this Society there would be no wars. Now I would ask, what are Quakers but men; and might not all, if they would suffer themselves to be cast in the same mould as the Quakers, come out of it of the same form and character?

But I will go still further. I will suppose that any one of the four quarters of the world, having been previously divided into three parts, was governed only by three Quakers, and that these had the same authority over their subjects as their respective sovereigns have at present: and I will maintain that there would never be upon this quarter of the world, during their respective administrations, another war. For, first, many of the causes

of war would be cut off. Thus, for instance, there would be no disputes about insults offered to flags. There would be none, again, about the balance of power. In short, it would be laid down as a position, that no one was to do evil that good might come. But as, notwithstanding, there might still be disputes from other causes, these would be amicably settled. For, first, the same Christian disposition would be manifested in the discussion, as in the former case. And, secondly, if the matter should be of an intricate nature, so that one Quakergovernment could not settle it with another, these would refer it, according to their constitution, to a third. This would be the "ne plus ultra" of the business. Both the discussion and the dispute would end here. What a folly, then, to talk of the necessity of wars, when, if but three members of this Society were to rule a continent, they would cease there! There can be no plea for such language, but the impossibility of taming the human passions. But the subjugation of these is the immediate object of our religion. To confess, therefore, that wars must be, is either to utter a libel against Christianity, or to confess that we have not yet arrived at the stature of real Christians.

SECTION VII.

Subject further examined-Case allowed that, if a Cabinet of good men had to negociate with a Cabinet of good men, there might be no wars-but what would be the issue, if good had to deal with bad-Case of American settlers, who adopted the policy of the world, and were always at warand of other American settlers, who adopted the policy of the Gospel, and were always at peaceno case stronger than where civilized men had to deal with savage American tribes.

I BELIEVE it will be allowed, that the Quakerinstances mentioned in the last section are in point. I am aware, however, it will be said, that though different Cabinets all having the same Christian disposition would settle their disputes in a friendly manner, how would a Cabinet consisting of spiritually-minded men settle with a Cabinet of other men, who had not brought their passions under due regulation, and who, besides, had no notion of the unlawfulness of war?

I apprehend it will not be denied, that men as ferocious as any recorded in history were those, who were found in America when that continent was discovered. We hear nothing of Africans, or of Asiatics, which would induce us to suppose that they were more wild and barbarous than these ; and nothing is more true of these, than that they were

frequently concerned in wars. I shall therefore take these for an example; and I shall show by the opposite conduct of two different communities towards them, that it rests with men to live peaceably or not, as they cultivate the disposition to do it, or as they follow the policy of the Gospel in preference of the policy of the world.

When the English, Dutch, and others, began to people America, they purchased land of the natives. But when they went to that continent, notwithstanding there were amiable persons among them, and friends to civil and religious liberty, they went with the notions of worldly policy, and they did not take with them the Christian wisdom of the unlawfulness of war. They acted on the system of preparation, because there might be danger. They never settled without palisados and a fort. They kept their nightly watches, though unmolested. They were, in short, in the midst of war, though no injury had been offered them by the natives, and though professedly in a state of peace.

In the peopling of Connecticut, for I must begin with some one State, it was ordered at an English Court "holden at Dorchester on the seventh day of June 1636, that every town should keep a watch, and be well supplied with ammunition. The constables were directed to warn the watches in their turns, and to make it their care that they should be kept according to the direction of the court. They were required also to take care that the inhabitants were well furnished with arms and ammunition, and