society. The absurd consequence of such a system would be manifestly this; that national crimes of every description might be committed without entailing any national guilt, and without any real infraction of the revealed will of God.

"I have farther to remark, that the doctrine of the Society of Friends respecting the absolute inconsistency of warfare with the moral code of the Christian Dispensation, was one which prevailed to a very considerable extent during the early ages of the Christian Church. Justin Martyr, (A. D. 140.) in his first Apology, quotes the prophecy of Isaiah respecting the going forth of the law and of the Word of God from Jerusalem, and the consequent prevalence of a state of peace. • That these things have come to pass,' he proceeds, you may be readily convinced; for twelve men, destitute both of instruction and eloquence, went forth from Jerusalem into the world, and by the power of God gave evidence to every description of persons, that they were sent by Christ to teach all men the divine word; and we who were once slayers of one another, (that is to say, commonly engaged in warfare) do not fight against our enemies.' Apol. I. cap. xxxix. p. 67. ed. Ben. 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. Adv. Hær. lib. iv. cap. 34. ed. Ben. p. 275. Tertullian, (A. D. 200.) in one part of his works, alludes to Christians who were engaged together with their heathen countrymen in military pursuits; Apol. cap. xlii. ed. Semler. v. 102.; 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 had forbidden the use of the sword, and the revenge of injuries; De Idol. 19. ed. Semler 4. 176. De Coron. Mil. 12. iv. 355. 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 more to make war. We have become, for the sake of Jesus, the children of peace.' Lib. v. 33. ed. Ben. i. 602. 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.' Lib. viii. 73, ed. Ben. i. 797. Here we have not only the declarations of this ancient and eminent Father 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; vide Grot. de Jure Bell. lib. i. cap. 2, 3. 8. Ruinart Acta Martyrum; de S. Maximiliano, ed. Amst. p. 300. Now although the conduct of these Christians might partly arise, as Grotius suggests, from their

religious objection to the idolatrous rites at that time mixed up with the military system, it is probable 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." De vero cultu, lib. vi. cap. 20. 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.' Vide Manseii. Col. Concil, tom. ii. p. 674. 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 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 Justin, (A. D. 360.) 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.' Epist. ii.

"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, consistent with that inferior degree of moral and religi→ ous 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 characteristic of the Christian Revelation. Such was the opinion of some of the early fathers of the church, as well as of mere philanthropists. Tertullian classes a participation in capital condemnations with the aiding and abetting of idolatry itself; for in 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 a 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 Sessions of 1821, and since published.

The Dunkers never allow any lawsuit. One may cheat, rob, and abuse them without ever being ex

posed to any retaliation, or even to any complaint from them. Religion seems to have the same effect upon them that philosophy had upon the Stoics, making them insensible to every kind of insult; and hence they are sometimes called the harmless Dunkers.

See the Letters of Caspipini, p. 70.

No. 1.

MATTHEW v. 48.

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father," &c.

(PELAGIUS.)

The Pelagians, who advocate the possibility of arriving at perfection, say, that it is clearly and frequently prescribed in the Sacred Writings.

If we cannot fulfil this obligation of being perfect, they contend, He who prescribed it, either was not acquainted with human weakness, or is unjust in punishing us for noncompliance. Pelag. Ep. ad Demetriad. apud Hyeron, tom. iv. p. 19.

To reduce the question to more precise terms, said the Pelagians, it is necessary to ask those who pretend that man cannot live without sin,

1. What is sin? Can it be avoided or not? If we cannot avoid it, there is no harm in committing it; and neither reason nor justice permit us to call that sin, which cannot by any means be avoided. But if man can avoid sin, he can then remain all his life without it:

2. It is necessary to ask them, if man ought to be without sin: they will answer, without doubt, that he ought; but if he ought, he can; and if he cannot, he ought not.

If man ought not to be without sin, he ought to