who were once slayers of one another (that is to say, commonly engaged in warfare) do not fight against our enemies." Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, (A. D. 167) discusses the same prophecy, and proves its relation to our Saviour, by the fact, that the followers of Jesus had disused the weapons of war, and no longer knew how to fight.2 Tertullian (A. D. 200) in one part of his works, alludes to Christians who were engaged, together with their heathen countrymen, in military pursuits; but, on another occasion, he informs us that many soldiers, who had been converted to Christianity, quitted those pursuits, in consequence of their conversion; and he repeatedly expresses his own opinion, that any participation in war was unlawful for believers in Jesus-not only because of the idolatrous practices enjoined on the soldiers of the Roman armies, but because Christ has forbidden the use of the sword and the revenge of injuries.5 Origen, (A. D. 230) in his work against Celsus, says of himself and his brethren," We no longer take up the sword against any nation, nor do we learn any more to make war. We have become, for the

1 ob modepodprv rods ¿xpoùs. Apol. i. cap. 39, p. 67, Ed. Ben.

2 "Si autem libertatis lex, id est, verbum Dei ab apostolis, qui ab Hierusalem exierunt, annuntiatum in universam terram, in tantum transmutationem fecit, ut gladios et lanceas bellatorias in aratra fabricaverit ipse, et in falces quæ donavit, ad metendum frumentum demutaverit, et jam nesciunt pugnare, sed percussi et alteram præbent maxillam; non de aliquo alio Prophetæ dixerunt hæc, sed de eo qui fecit ea." Adv. Hær. lib. iv. cap. 34, Ed. Ben. p. 275.

3 Apol. cap. 42, Ed. Semler. v. 102. "Navigamus et nos vobiscum et militamus."

4 "Plane si quos militia præventos fides posterior invenit, alia conditio est, ut illorum quos Ioannes admittebat ad lavacrum; et centurionum fidelissimorum, quem Christus probat, et quem Petrus catechizat: dum tamem suscepta fide atque signata, aut deserendum statim sit, ut a multis actum; aut omnibus modis cavendum, ne quidquid adversus Deum committatur:" De Cor. Mil. cap. ii.

5 "Quomodo autem bellabit, imo quomodo etiam in pace militabit, sine gladio, quem Dominus abstulit? Nam etsi adierant milites ad Ioannem et formam observationis acceperant : si etiam centurio crediderat: omnem postea militem Dominus in Petro exarmando discinxit :". . . . . . ." Licebit in gladio conversari, Domino pronunciante gladio periturum, qui gladio fuerit usus? Et prælio operabitur filius pacis, cui nec litigare conveniet? Et vincula et carcerem et tormenta et supplicia administrabit, nec suarum ultor injuriarum?" De Idol. 19; Ed. Semler. iv. 176; De Coron. Mil. 12, iv. 355.

sake of Jesus, the children of peace." In another passage of the same work, he maintains that Christians are the most useful of subjects, because they pray for their monarch. "By such means," says he, "we fight for our king abundantly: but we take no part in his wars, even though he urge us." Here we have, not only this ancient father's declaration of his own sentiment, that war is inconsistent with the religion of Christ, but a plain testimony (corresponding with that of Justin and Irenæus) that the Christians of those early times were accustomed to abstain from it. Traces of the same doctrine and practice are very clearly marked in the subsequent history of the church. Under the reign of Dioclesian (A. D. 300,) more especially, a large number of Christians refused to serve in the army, and, in consequence of their refusal, many of them suffered martyrdom.3 Now, although the conduct of these Christians might partly arise, as Grotius suggests, from their religious objections to the idolatrous rites at that time mixed up with the military system, it is evident that the unlawfulness of war itself, for the followers of Christ, was also a principle on which they acted. Thus Lactantius, who wrote during the reign of this very emperor, expressly asserts, that “to engage in war cannot be lawful for the righteous man, whose warfare is that of righteousness itself." And again, in the twelfth canon of the council of Nice, held under the reign of Constantine, (A. D. 325,) a long period of excommunication is attached, as a penalty, to the conduct of those persons who, having once, in the ardour of their early faith, renounced the military calling, were persuaded by the force of bribes to return to it—" like dogs to their own vomit;"5 The circumstances particularly alluded to in this canon might, indeed, have taken place during the tyranny of the idolatrous Licinius, whom Constantine had so lately subdued; but the canon itself was, I presume, intended for the future regulation of the church; and such a law would scarcely have been promulgated under the reign of the converted Constantine, had not an

1 Lib. v. 33, Ed. Ben. i. 602.

2 οὐ συστρατευόμεθα μὲν αὐτῷ, κἂν ἐπείγρ. Lib. viii. 73, Ed. Ben. i. 797.

3 Vide Grot. de Jure Bell. lib. vi. cap. ii. § 8; Ruinart. Acta Martyrum ; de S. Maximiliano, Ed. Amst. p. 300.

4 "Ita neque militare justo licebit, cujus militia est ipsa justitia." De Vero Cultu, lib. vi. cap. 20.

5 Vide Mansii Coll. Concil. tom. ii. p. 674.

opinion been entertained in the council, that war itself, however prevalent and generally allowed, was inconsistent with the highest standard of Christian morality. We have already noticed the declaration of Martin, addressed to the emperor Julian (A. D. 363,) that it was unlawful for him to fight, because he was a Christian; and even so late as the middle of the fifth century, Leo the Pope declared it to be "contrary to the rules of the church that persons, after the action of penance (persons then considered to be pre-eminently bound to obey the law of Christ) should revert to the warfare of the world.”

It appears then that all participation in this warfare of the world was deemed, by the early Christians, as it now is by ourselves, to be forbidden by the law of Christ, and especially by that provision of it which enjoins the love of our enemies. In order, however, to do full justice to the present important subject, I must advert to another principle, which appears to me equally to evince the total inconsistency of the practice of war with the true character of the Christian religion-the principle, that human life is sacred, and that death is followed by infinite consequences. Under the Mosaic dispensation, the Israelites were, on various occasions, enjoined to inflict death; both in the capital punishment of their own delinquents, and in those wars, which had for their object the extermination of idolatrous nations. When the destruction of the life of men was thus expressly commanded by the Creator, it is clear that the life of men was rightly destroyed: but the searcher of the Scriptures will not fail to remark that the sanction thus given to killing was accompanied by a comparatively small degree of light respecting the true nature of life and death-respecting immortality and future retribution. Bishop Warburton, in his work on the divine legation of Moses, has endeavoured to prove the truth of the miraculous history of the Pentateuch, on the ground that the Israelites, who were destitute of all knowledge on the subject in question, could be governed, as they were governed, only through the medium of miracles. Now, although the Bishop may have overstrained his argument, and although there are certain passages in the Old

1 Epist. ii. "Contrarium esse ecclesiasticis regulis, post pœnitentiæ actionem redire ad militiam secularem: Quoted by Grotius, De Jure Bell. lib. i. cap. ii. § 9.

Testament which allude to a life after death, and to a future judgement, it is sufficiently evident that the full revelation of these important truths was reserved for the dispensation of the Gospel of Christ. Those who are accustomed to read the declaration of Jesus and his apostles, can no longer conceal from themselves, that man is born for eternity; that when his body dies, his soul ascends into Paradise,' or is cast into hell;2 and that, after the day of resurrection, and of final and universal judgement, we shall all reap the full and eternal reward of our faith or our unbelief, of our virtue or our vice. Christians, thus instructed and enlightened, are constrained to acknowledge that the future welfare of an individual man, is of greater importance than the merely temporal prosperity of a whole nation. If they be consistent with themselves, they cannot refuse to confess, that, unless in such an action they are sanctioned by the express authority of their divine master, they take upon themselves a most unwarrantable responsibility, when they cut short the days of their neighbour, and transmit him, prepared or unprepared, to the awful realities of an everlasting state. Since, then, no such express authority can be found in the New Testament; since, on the contrary, it is clearly declared, in that sacred volume, that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and that his followers war not after the flesh-I cannot but conclude that for one man to kill another (under whatever circumstances of expediency or provocation the deed may be committed,) is utterly unlawful under the Christian dispensation.

The visible effects of the far-famed battle of Waterloo were sufficiently appalling-multitudes of the wounded, the dying, and the dead, spread in wild confusion over the bloody plain! But did Christians fully know the invisible consequences of such a contestcould they trace the flight of thousands of immortal souls (many of them disembodied, perhaps, while under the immediate influence of diabolical passions) into the world of eternal retribution-they would indeed shrink with horror from such a scene of destruction, and adopt, without further hesitation, the firm and unalterable conclusion, that war and Christianity are utterly at variance.3

3 It is evident that the principle now stated applies to the punishment of death as well as to war. The use of such a punishment was, indeed, con

Such, then, are the grounds on which friends consider it to be their duty entirely to abstain from the practice of war. On a review of the whole argument, the reader will recollect, that the wars of the Israelites bore, in various respects, so peculiar a character as to afford no real sanction to those of other nations-also that the precept of John the Baptist to soldiers appears, in reference to the present question, to be negative-but that the opinion of Friends on the question rests principally on the moral law, as revealed under the Christian dispensation—that abstinence from warfare among the followers of the Messiah was predicted, by the prophets, as one of the leading features of that dispensation-that, in the code of Christian morality, are unfolded the principles which are alone sufficiently strong to produce this effect; namely, those of suffering wrong, returning good for evil, and loving our enemies-that, since these principles were so clearly promulgated by Jesus and his apostles, the individual who engages in warfare, and destroys his enemy, whether it be in aggression or defence, plainly infringes the divine law that nations, when they carry on war, do also infringe that law-and that the Christian, who fights by the command of his prince, and in behalf of his country, not only commits sin in his own person, but aids and abets the national transgression—that, on a view of the Jewish precepts, with which is compared the precept of

sistent with that inferior degree of moral and religious light which was enjoyed by the people of God before the coming of the Messiah; but, on the ground now mentioned, it appears to be at total variance with the principles of the Christian revelation. Such was the opinion of some of the early fathers of the church, as well as of more modern philanthropists. Tertullian classes a participation in capital condemnations with the aiding and abetting of idolatry itself: for, in one of the passages already cited from his works, we find him reasoning on the possible innocence of a war, cui non sit necessitas immolationum (of sacrifices to idols) vel capitalium judiciorum : De Idol. 19. So also Lactantius: "It is unlawful for a righteous man to prosecute any person capitally; for it matters not whether we kill by the sword or by the word—since all killing is prohibited. This divine law allows of no exception. It must ever be a forbidden wickedness to put man to death: for God has created him a sacred animal:" De Vero Cultu, lib. vi. cap. 20.

On the subject of the inexpediency of capital punishments, and of their practical inconsistency with the present condition of the British population, the reader is referred to the speech of Thomas Fowell Buxton, delivered in the House of Commons, during the session of 1821, and since published,