AS the best Things are most apt to be abused, so the Abuse of them generally produces very ill Consequences. There is no Principle so good, nor Practice so beneficial, but what may be perverted to an ill Use, by the Wickedness or Folly of Men. And this I take to be the Case with relation to the Point now to be debated.

FOR tho' Self-preservation be a noble Principle, ingrafted in our Nature by the all-wise Author of our Being, for the Security of our Lives, and the Preser­vation of the Species; yet wicked Men do often abuse it to very ill Purposes. Whenever their Prejudices, Passions, or Interest, prompt them to fall foul on their innocent Neighbours, they always pretend that it is, somehow or other, in Consequence of the great Law of Self-preservation.

HENCE it comes to pass, that one of the noblest, and most useful Principles in Nature, and so neces­sary for the Good of the whole Animal Creation, that the World could not subsist without it, is per­verted [Page 2] [...] [Page 3] [...] [Page 4]be left in Mens Power still to do it. And in this Sense of the Word, I maintain Defensive War, un­der the Gospel, to be lawful. For which Purpose, it will be necessary to prove, in the first Place, that such a War as I now plead for, was consonant or agreeable to the Law of Nature, and not repugnant to any express Law of God under the old Testament. By the Law of Nature, I mean the Dictate of right Reason, shewing the moral Good or Evil of any Action, by the Repugnancy or Congruity it hath to rational Nature itself; and consequently that such an Action is agreeable or disagreeable to the Will of God, who is the very Author of Nature ^*.

THE State of the Case, therefore, is plainly this, A Defensive War, undertaken by lawful Authority, with no other View but to defend the innocent Lives and Liberties of the whole Community, when this cannot be done by any other Means, was ever con­sonant to the Law of Nature, and repugnant to no positive Law of God, under the Old Testament; and therefore it cannot be unlawful under the New, unless an express positive Law of Christ can be pro­duc'd, prohibiting all Sorts of War under the Gos­pel. And if it be prov'd, that such a War is not unlawful, it will be enough for my Purpose; for if it be not unlawful, it will be no Violation of any Law, and consequently can be no Sin.

I SHALL now proceed to prove in the first Place, That Defensive War was consonant, or agreeable, to the Law of Nature, and not repugnant to any ex­press Law of God under the Old Testament: And this I shall do, by Arguments drawn, both from Reason and Revelation. Whence it will evidently follow, as a Resolution of the Question, that it is lawful, in some Cases, for Christians to make War under the Gospel; because what was once lawful, by Virtue of the Law of Nature, must forever be so [Page 5](the Grounds and Reasons continuing the same) un­less made otherwise by a positive Law of God.

AND, First, That Defensive War was consonant to the Law of Nature, and not repugnant to any ex­press Law of God, under the Old Testament, will appear from the following Arguments:

1. THERE are some Things to which every Man (at least before the Case is altered by voluntary Com­pact) has such a natural and immediate Relation, that he only, of all Mankind, can justly call them his; such as his Life, his Limbs, his Liberty, &c. Hence it follows, that no other Man can have a Right to begin an Attempt upon this Man's Life, or in any Manner to disturb his Happiness, because he is suppos'd to be in a State intirely independent, and that other to have no Right of Dominion over him.

BUT, Secondly, Tho' no Man can have a Right to begin to hurt another, yet every Man has a Right to defend himself, and his, against Violence, when offered (always supposing the Case not to be altered by voluntary Compact) for I do not say that a Man who is become a Member of Society, has, in all Cases, a Right to defend himself against even lawless Violence, for Reasons that are obvious almost to every Body; and far less to defend himself a­gainst lawful Violence, when he has incurred it, by violating the Laws of the Community to which he belongs. I say then (excepting this Case) every Man, and consequently every independent Society of Men, have a Right to defend themselves, and what is theirs, against lawless Violence. Now who­ever denies a Man (thus circumstanc'd) this Privi­lege, asserts, contrary to Truth, either that he hath not the Faculties and Powers which he has, or that his Maker has given them to him in vain; for to what End has he them, if he may not use them? And how may he use them, if not for his own Preservation, [Page 6]when he is attack'd, and in Danger of being de­stroy'd? At this Rate, what becomes of the univer­sal invariable Principle of Self-preservation, implant­ed by the Author of Nature in the whole Animal Creation, which serves for no Purpose that we know of, but to preserve Individuals, by prompting them to provide for, and defend themselves?

Thirdly, To deny Men a Right to defend them­selves against Violence and Ruin, must be inconsistent with the Laws of human Nature, because inconsistent with the general Good of Mankind; for whatever is inconsistent with the general Peace and Welfare of Mankind, is inconsistent with the Laws of human Nature, and therefore wrong.

Fourthly, IF a Man has no Right to defend him­self, he can have no Right to any Thing; but 'tis allowed on all Hands, that every Man has such a natural Right to his Life, his Limbs, his Liberty, &c. that he only, of all Mankind, can justly call them his: If therefore a Man has a Right, he may justly maintain that Right. It implies a great Absurdity then, to deny a Man a Right to defend himself a­gainst lawless Violence; because it is saying, contra­ry to what is granted by all, that the Aggressor has a Right to assault the other, and usurp what is his. And more than that, to begin the Violence, being in Nature more than to repel it, he who begins, is the true Cause of all that follows, and whatever falls upon him by the Opposition made from the defending Party, is but the Effect of his own Act, or it is that Violence of which he is the Author, reflected back upon himself. If then he who begins to violate the Life and Happiness of another, evidently does what is wrong, he who endeavours to put a Stop to that Violence, does in that Respect what is right by the Terms.

Fifthly, IF every Man, before all voluntary Com­pact, has such a Right to his Life, his Limbs, his [Page 7]Liberty, &c. that he only of all Mankind can justly call them his; he certainly acts agreeable to Right in using them as his; but that Man who opposes him in this, and consequently lays a claim to that which is not his, acts contrary to Right.

IN fine: As every Man is oblig'd to consult his own Happiness, there can be no Doubt, but that he not only may, but even ought to defend it; because as I am oblig'd to pursue Happiness, I'm oblig'd, at the same time, to recede as far as I can from its Contrary.

I OWN in so doing, I ought not to act rashly, or do more than the End propos'd requires; I ought to use all prudent Methods to stop the Violence; but when all other Measures prove ineffectual, or impracticable, I must take such other as I can, and oppose Force to Force; otherwise I will fail in my Duty to myself, and deny Happiness to be what it is.

NOW to apply this Reasoning to Societies, let it be observ'd, that the Condition of an incorporated na­tional Society or Kingdom, seems to be much the same with a single Person, as consider'd existing where there is no Benefit of Law to be had; and what one Man may justly do to another in that Po­sition, may be done by one Nation or politick Body, with Respect to another. If one Man therefore may in such a Position have a Right to defend himself, which that he hath, is evident from the Nature and Reason of Things; then a Number of Men must have an equal Right at least, if not a greater; for there is more Reason that a Number of innocent Men should be saved, than only one of that Number, and therefore that a Number should defend themselves, than that one should. And if this may be done by every single Person in a State of Nature, before the Case is alter'd by voluntary Compact, it may be done by them in a social State, when confederated [Page 8]among themselves; because with respect to other Nations they are still in that State, so far as they have not limited themselves by Leagues and Alliances.

UPON the whole therefore, mutual Defence being one great End of civil Society, if not the greatest, it must in a particular and eminent Manner, involve in it Defence against foreign Enemies: And there­fore, as I said before, whoever from a Principle of Generosity and Love to his Country, and not in Pur­suance of private Views, signalizes himself in its Defence when there is Occasion for it, does what is agreeable to the eternal Law of Truth and Right, and justly deserves the grateful Acknowledgments of every good Subject, and Lover of his King and Country.

NOW these Truths, as they are built upon the in­disputable Principles of right Reason, and in a Man­ner self-evident, will, I think, readily be granted by all Men of sound Judgment, without any farther Il­lustration.

I SHALL proceed therefore in the

2d. PLACE, to prove from Revelation, that Defen­sive War was consonant to the Law of Nature under the Old Testament, whence it will appear at the same Time, that it was not repugnant to any positive Law of God under that Dispensation.

NOW that War commenc'd upon just Grounds, was consonant to the Law of Nature, and not repug­nant to the reveal'd Will of God under the Old Testa­ment, will appear from the following Instances.

WE find, Gen. xiv. that the Almighty, by his high Priest Melchisedeck, did approve of a War made by his Servant Abraham upon the four Kings; who in plundering Sodom, had taken Lot and his Family Captives, who was Abraham's Brother's Son, and as it were, a Part of his own Family. The Text says, Melchisedeck blessed Abraham, and said, Blessed be Abraham of the most high God Possessor of Heaven [Page 9]and Earth: v. 20. And blessed be the most high God, who bath deliver'd thine Enemies into thine Hand. Now here was a War made by this eminent Servant of God, without any special Commission from the Almighty for it; but he was excited thereto by the meer Law of Nature; presuming upon that Principle of Nature, that to resist, and recompence lawless In­juries, was not displeasing to the God of Nature. Whoso sheddeth Man's Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed, seems to have been deeply engraven in Mens Hearts from the Beginning; which made Cain, after the Murder of his Brother, cry out, Every one that findeth me shall slay me.

AS to the War made by the Israelites upon the Seven Nations, I shall wholly omit any Consideration of it here, as having no Relation to this Argument: In this Case they were not excited by the Law of Na­ture, but acted by Virtue of an express Command of God. This Action therefore comes intirely within the Verge of the judicial Law, which being long since expir'd, is therefore quite out of this Question. Those Actions therefore that were lawful for the Jews, may not be drawn into Example by us Christians, be­cause the Reason of them ceas'd when their Law ex­pir'd. I say there were many Things lawful for the Jews as a Body Politick, under a Theocratical Go­vernment, which cannot be lawfully practised under the Gospel, because the Reason of those Things do not descend to Christians. But all those Practices among the Jews, which are founded upon common Equity, of which Number was that of Defensive War, may lawfully be practis'd by Christians, not by Virtue of their having been practised by them, but by Virtue of common Principles of Equity founded in the Law of Nature, and discoverable by our rational Faculties.

BUT such a War as was carried on by good Men, without any express Command of God, and yet was manifestly approv'd of by the Almighty, must [Page 10]have been undertaken upon such Principles, as were not repugnant to his Nature, else he would never have approv'd of it; and what could those be but the Principles of the Law of Nature, which were written in their Hearts; since they had no System of moral Practice at that Time by Revelation?

2. IN the 17th of Exodus, we find, that a War was commenc'd by the Israelites under the Com­mand of Moses and Joshua against the Amalekites, who had opposed them in their Passage towards the promis'd Land; which, tho' it was not command­ed to be done, yet being done, had the divine Ap­probation, v. 14. which certainly would not have been, if it had been repugnant to the Law of Nature.

3. AND Deut. xx. we find God himself prescri­bing certain general Rules, or standing Ordinances, how his own People should make War; which is a sufficient Testimony that War might sometimes be just, tho' Men have no special Commission from God to make this or that War.

FOR there Moses makes a manifest Difference be­tween the Case of the Seven Nations, and the Case of other People, as appears from the 10th and 15th Verses. For other People they might receive to Mercy, but they were to cut off the seven Nations utterly.

NOW what I would observe from hence, is this, That seeing the Almighty did not prescribe for what particular Causes they might make a just War, how could the Israelites judge of those Causes, or disco­ver when the Grounds of such a War were just, but by the Law of Nature? Of this Nature, was that of Jephthah with the Ammonites; and that of King David, for the Abuse done to his Ambassadors; and, as some think, that of Sampson against the Philistines. And forasmuch as those Wars, which they carried on without any special Command, as to the Objects and Circumstances of them, were ap­proved by God, they certainly were agreeable to the [Page 11]Law of Nature; because he can approve of nothing done by his Creatures, that is not agreeable either to that, or to his express Command.

‘ADD to this the universal Consent of all Nations. And it is, at least, highly probable, that what all Nations in the World unanimously agree in, is a Dictate of the Law of Nature: For if the Effect be universal, the Cause must be so too. But of so universal a Persuasion as the Lawfulness of De­fensive War, no other probable Cause can be as­sign'd, than that it is a Dictate of that Law, that is as universal as Nature itself. Hence we commonly say, and I think with a great deal of Reason, that whatsoever all Nations do grant, must needs be the Voice of Nature. What appears the same to all Men, must undoubt­edly be true.’ And tho' there may be a few that disbelieve the Justice of Defensive War, yet that doth not invalidate the Force of this Argument; forasmuch as there is no general Rule without Ex­ceptions. When I say, That must be a Dictate of Nature, that is acknowledged by all; I mean, all who have sound Judgments: But if it appear other­wise to Men of distemper'd and perverse Minds, who have been corrupted thro' an evil Education, imparted to them by Men of visionary, enthusiastick Tempers, it doth not in the least weaken the Au­thority of the Law of Nature, no more than it will prove Honey not to be sweet, because a distemper'd Palate cannot perceive it. From all which, I hope, it evidently appears, to Men of sound and unpreju­dic'd Minds, that Defensive War was lawful under the Old Testament Dispensation. We see it was commenc'd and carried on by good Men, without any express Command of God authorizing them; and therefore they must have been prompted to it by the Law of Nature, as they had no System of moral Duties by Revelation; and the Practice must [Page 12]have been agreeable thereto, otherwise Almighty God, who cannot but hate every Thing that is con­trary to his Will, would never have shewn his Ap­probation of it.

HAVING therefore undeniably prov'd, that Defen­sive War was lawful under the Old Testament, it evidently follows as a Resolution of the Question to be discuss'd, that it is lawful for Christians in some Cases, to make War under the New, because what was once lawful by Virtue of the Law of Nature, must for ever be so (the Grounds and Reasons conti­nuing the same) unless made otherwise by a positive Law of God. It being the Nature of Laws to bound up Men's Rights, what is not expresly forbidden in the Gospel, which was agreeable to the Will of God under the Law, by Virtue of the Law of Nature, that must be lawful for Christians to practise still (the Grounds and Reasons of such a Practice continuing the same.) My Meaning is this; Defensive War being necessary under the Old Testament for the Preserva­tion of civil Society, was lawfully practis'd by good Men; but Defensive War being as necessary under the Gospel for the like Purpose, may be lawfully prac­tis'd now, as well as then; unless it can be made ap­pear that the Author of the Gospel has made an express positive Law against all War whatsoever.

AND here I might rest the Cause, without giving myself any further Trouble; because as my Oppo­nents, if they will support their Argument, must hold the Affirmative, viz. That there is such a Law in the New Testament (which I deny) 'tis indispen­sibly incumbent upon them to prove it. For by the strictest Laws of Reasoning, he that maintains the Negative of a Question, may persist to deny the Affirmative, 'till such Times as the Affirmant shall prove what he affirms.

WHOEVER therefore shall affirm, that Christ hath by an express Law forbidden all Defensive War under [Page 13]the New Testament, ought by all Means to prove it; it being a Matter of such rest Importance to human Society other Way. For if he hath not, how will they answer for it who act as if he had? And if he hath, how will they answer for it who act as if he had not? To assert such a Thing therefore without Proof, and in Consequence thereof, to act as if it were prov'd, certainly merits a severe Reprehension. For if there be such a Law in the New Testament, it must be an easy Matter for these Men to produce it, which if they do, and can prove that our Savi­our intended it as such, I think every true Christian is bound to thank them for the Discovery, and never to appear in Arms any more. But if they sail in this, as I'm confident they will, they are bound in Duty, not only to acknowledge their Fault, in condem­ning Men for a Practice so necessary for the Protec­tion of civil Societies, when they can shew no Law they transgress thereby, but to lay aside their groundless Prejudices themselves, that so they may be able to answer o [...] of the greatest Ends for which they entered into Society, viz. Mutual Defence a­gainst Injuries.

I no therefore in the Name and on the Behalf of the whole Christian World, who are in the Practice of Self-defence against lawless Violence, call upon them to produce any Passage or Passages in the New Testament, which will amount to a Law pro­hibiting Defensive War in all Cases without Excepti­on. I say, which will amount to a Law (for any Thing that comes short of this, will not serve the Turn) because, as I have already prov'd, some Wars having been lawful under the Old Testament by Virtue of the Law of Nature, and the divine Approbation, nothing can make all War unlawful under the Gos­pel, but an express Law enacted by the Author of the Gospel prohibiting it; for an express positive Command, as I observed above, is not necessary to [Page 14]make a Thing lawful under the Gospel, which was always agreeable to the Dictates of the Law of Na­ture; it is sufficient for that, if there be no Law made against it.

BUT that I may not be thought to evade the Force of what they have to offer from the New Testament, in Opposition to what I have advanc'd, I will condescend to examine two or three of the principal Texts, upon which they lay the greatest Stress for Proof of the Unlawfulness of bearing Arms. The First is written in the 33d Verse of the 5th Chapter of St. Matthew; the Words are these; But I say unto you, that ye resist not Evil. The Se­cond is in the 44th Verse of the same Chapter, in these Words; But I say unto you, Love your Ene­mies, &c.

NOW granting that these Words will amount to an evangelical Precept or Law, prohibiting some Things, which the Jews, thro' the corrupt Glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees, look'd upon as indif­ferent Actions, tho' really contrary to the Law of Nature; such as Revenge, Impatience under Af­flictions, returning Injuries, and the like; which, in certain Circumstances, have ever been, and ever will be Evil: Yet we can find no Colour of Reason to allow, that they amount to a Precept or Law prohibiting Christian States to defend themselves a­gainst the lawless Violence of a foreign Enemy; or that the great evangelical Lawgiver had any In­tention they should, for these Reasons:—

1. BECAUSE in delivering these Words, he doth not address his Discourse to the Magistrate, who a­lone hath a Right to declare War, but to the Per­son injured. A Man may without any Breach of the Law of Nature, for some valuable Ends, remit somewhat of his own private Right; but the Ma­gistrate who sustains a publick Character, and is in­trusted with the Care of a whole Community, can­not [Page 15]give up the Rights of his Subjects, without a manifest Violation of this Law.

2. WHERE the Law of Nature doth determine a­ny Thing by Way of Duty, as flowing from the Principles of it, which we take to be the Case with relation to Self-defence against a foreign Enemy, there no positive Law can be suppos'd to take off the Obligation of it. For the Things commanded by the Law of Nature being just and righteous in themselves, there can be no obligatory Law made a­gainst such Things. A Man may be as well bound not to be a Man, as not to act according to Princi­ples of Reason. For the Law of Nature is nothing but the Dictate of right Reason, discovering the Good or Evil of particular Actions, from their Conformity or Repugnancy to the Nature and Rea­son of Things. Whatever positive Law is then made directly infringing and violating natural Princi­ples, is thereby of no Force at all; and that which hath no Obligation in itself, cannot dissolve a former Obligation ^*.

'TIS a Dictate of the Law of Nature that Men should enter into Society by mutual Compacts, in order the better to preserve themselves in their natu­ral Rights and Privileges by such Means as are pro­per for that End.

NOW the greatest Rights of Men are such as flow from Nature itself; and therefore, as no Law binds against the Reason of it, so neither can it against the common End of Laws. Therefore, if a posi­tive Law should be made, that Men should not protect and defend themselves against lawless Vio­lence, it cannot bind, being against the main End of Laws, which is, that every civil Society be protected and preserved; which, in many Cases, cannot be done, without doing what Nature requires; and [Page 16]that is to defend themselves from unjust Vio­lence.

AND therefore we conclude, that Self-defence a­gainst lawless Violence, being a Dictate of the Law of Nature, no positive Law can be made to disannul our Obligation to it, and consequently that our Sa­viour did not intend by these Precepts to prohibit it in all Cases.

3. WHATSOEVER binds Christians as an univer­sal, standing Law, must be clearly revealed as such, and laid down in Scripture in such evident Terms, as all who have their Senses exercised therein, may discern it to have been the Will of Christ that it should perpetually oblige all Christians. And this is necessary more especially in establishing a new Law, in order to prohibit a Practice which had been lawful before. If therefore our Saviour had intend­ed these Words as a standing, universal Law, binding all Christians in no Case to take Arms in their own Defence against lawless Violence, he would un­doubtedly have declar'd himself in such distinct Terms, and in such a plain Dress of Words, as should have been liable to no Misapprehension; it being highly necessary in such a Case, where the Matter of the Law was so weighty, and so new.

THE Jews, as well as all other Nations, had been bred in the full Conviction of the Lawfulness of Self-defence against unjust Violence, it having been practised all along from the Beginning of the World to that Time. If our Saviour therefore had intended by an express positive Law to prohibit it under the Gospel, he would undoubtedly have express'd himself in so plain and intelligible a Manner, as every Man of sound Judgment might have readily understood: As, Let no Man from henceforth take up Arms to de­fend himself in any Case whatsoever; or in Words as easy to be understood. This I say was absolutely necessary in publishing a new Law of such mighty [Page 17]Consequence; especially when we consider that the Words were address'd to the Jews, who could not conceive nor imagine but that they were obliged by the judicial Law of Moses, so long as their Common-Wealth should stand.

BUT this I apprehend to be very far from the Case with the Words in Question: For in order, with any Colour of Reason, to make them amount to a Law prohibiting Self-defence in all Cases, they must necessarily be understood without any Restricti­on or Limitation; but if they must be understood without any Restriction or Limitation, they will prove more than my Opponents want them to prove, viz. That we must resist neither moral nor natural Evil. At this Rate, it will be unlawful to resist a Robber or Cut-Throat; it will be unlawful for the most virtuous Matron to resist a Ravisher; for a Father to resist the Violence of an unnatural Child; or for a Master to resist the violent Insults of undutiful Servants: Nay, it will be unlawful to resist even the Devil and the strongest Temptations to Sin, contrary to the whole Tenor of the Gospel. It will likewise be unlawful to resist natural Evil, such as a raging Conflagration, an overflowing In­undation, a mad Dog, or any wild Beast, that is rea­dy to devour us. By Virtue of this Precept, if ta­ken in an unlimited Sense, it will be unlawful for the Magistrate to punish Malefactors with Death, and to put a Stop to other Enormities committed by his evil Subjects against the publick Peace of the Community; and so by this Means he will bear the Sword in vain, and neither be a Terror to Evil-do­ers, nor a Praise to them that do well, contrary to the express Words of the great Apostle St. Paul.

WHEREFORE I conclude, that our Saviour never intended by these Words, Resist not Evil, to bind all Christians, in all Ages, never to take up Arms in their own Defence, in any Case whatsoever; more [Page 18]than he intended thereby to bind them never to resist either moral or natural Evil, or to bind the Christi­an Magistrate never to punish the Crimes of his e­vil Subjects.

THUS we see how improper these Words are to prove the Point in Question: For if they be taken in an unlimited Sense, they will prove a great deal too much; and if we take them in a limited Sense, they will not come up to the End design'd, viz. To prove the Unlawfulness of Defensive War in all Ca­ses.

AND as for those Words, v. 44th, Love your E­nemies, &c. neither will these prove any such Law as is here demanded; because the Term, Enemies, being applicable either to private or publick Ene­mies, we cannot be certain which our Saviour meant; whether he meant only those who may be at Enmity with us in the Society where we live, or foreign E­nemies, to whom we stand in no other Relation than as we are Men; or lastly, whether he meant all Sorts of Enemies, whether foreign or domestick. What Reason any Man hath to understand the Words in either the second or third Sense, I cannot conceive; but that they ought to be understood in the first, seems evident from hence, that the Hebrew Law, which the Scribes and Pharisees had perverted and obscured by their false Glosses, commanded the Jews to love their Neighbburs; by whom they un­derstood Jews and their Proselytes: But those Laws which forbad them to do Hurt, reach'd even to those uncircumcised Strangers that liv'd among them, as appears from Lev. xix. 18. Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thyself. And v. 34. The Stranger that sojourneth with you, shall be as one Home-born a­mong you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were Strangers in the Land of Egypt.

YE have heard, saith our Saviour, that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour, and hate thine [Page 19]Enemy. Hate thine Enemy was a false Gloss, added by the Scribes and Pharisees; for these Words are not to be found in the Law of Moses. This Law, I say, commanded the Jews to love their Neigh­bours, uncircumcised Strangers among them, as well as those of their own Nation.

NOW what I would observe from hence is this, That notwithstanding this Precept of loving their Neighbours, the eleven Tribes did justly make War against the Tribe of Benjamin, for a most bar­barous Piece of Villainy committed by them, of which we read, Judges xix.

SO, notwithstanding this Precept, did holy David, who is said in Scripture to fight the Lord's Battles, recover by Force of Arms the Kingdom that was promis'd to him; and yet we do not find that he was ever blam'd for it.

WHY then might not our blessed Saviour enjoin Christians to love Enemies, and yet not thereby o­blige them to suffer all Sorts of unlawful Violence from them, as well as the God of the Hebrews en­join'd them to love their Neighbours, and yet did not make it unlawful for them to make War upon those very Neighbours, when there was just Ground for it? If it was not unlawful for the Jews, notwith­standing God's Precept to them, Ye shall love your Neighbours as yourselves, to make War upon their Brethren and Neighbours, when there was just Ground for it; it can with no Colour of Reason be supposed to be unlawful for Christians to make War upon a foreign Enemy, when there is just Grounds for it, from Christ's Words, Love your Enemies. Because as the Jews did love their Neighbours, and yet sometimes did lawfully make War upon them; so may Christians love Enemies, and yet sometimes lawfully make War against them, to defend them­selves from unjust Violence.

[Page 20] BUT I expect it will be said, that the Gospel re­quires an higher Degree of Love than what was re­quired by the Jewish Law: All which I readily grant; but even then it will not follow, that we must love all with an equal Degree of Love; our Parents and Children, I hope, are to be pre­ferred before Strangers; and our Neighbours before our Enemies. If this be granted, it will follow, a fortiori, that I ought to prefer my own Life before the Life of my Enemy; then of Consequence I ought to destroy the Life of my Enemy, if I can by no other Means possibly save my own.

AS 'tis out of Love to the Righteous, that the Christian Magistrate puts the Wicked to Death; so it is out of Regard for the publick Good, that he makes War in Defence of his innocent Subjects. In order to preserve the publick Peace, he makes War against those that disturb it.

IF it be reasonable that the greater Obligation should bind us to the stricter Duty (and that it is so, no reasonable Man will deny) then it will follow, that we cannot in Reason be bound to preserve the Guilty, when in so doing we destroy the Innocent. Let it be suppos'd, that by Virtue of this Precept, Love your Enemies, we are bound to love them as ourselves, which yet I presume is more than can with any Shew of Reason be inferred from the Words; yet we are not to love them above our­selves. Now supposing us both to be involv'd in the same Danger, I would seriously ask those who are against all Defence by Force of Arms, whose Safety we are to prefer? For my own Part, I am clearly of Opinion, that we ought to prefer our own to that of our Enemy; for this Reason, because we are no where, that I know of, forbid to do so.

4. THAT our blessed Saviour never intended that these Texts should be understood without any Limi­tation, without which they will not serve our Ad­versary's [Page 21]Purpose, will appear from a Consideration of some other Texts in the New-Testament, ex­press'd in Terms more unlimited than these, which yet are allow'd on all Hands to require a limited In­terpretation. St. Matthew v. 42. our Saviour ex­presly says, Give to him that asketh. And in St. Luke the Words are, Give to every Man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy Goods, ask them not again.

NOW if this general Precept to Christians, ought to be understood with a Limitation, why not those which are brought to prove the Unlawfulness of Re­sistance in all Cases? Nay, there is more Reason to restrain these latter than the former, not only from the Nature of the Thing, but from our Saviour's own following Words. For when he says, Resist not Evil, the Precept following seems to restrain the Words preceding, as if they were too general. But if any Man strike thee on one Cheek, says he, turn to him the other. Which Words plainly intimate, that our Saviour meant only such Injuries as were slight, and therefore easy to be borne. For otherwise it had been necessary, in order to make the Precept binding, to have said, Resist not him that injures thee, even tho' he should attempt to take away thy Life. But when he says, Give to every one that ask­eth thee, he adds no Words to restrain his Meaning, but leaves it to the Judgment of common Equity and Discretion. And yet I think no Man of a sound Mind will say, that these Words ought to be under­stood in an unlimited Sense. Whoever does, con­tradicts St. Paul, whom yet all allow to be the best Interpreter of his Master's Will. This great Apo­stle declares, that he who takes no Care for his Fa­mily (which how well he could do, that should give to every one that would ask from him, I leave the World to judge) is worse than an Infidel: And who, exhorting the Corinthians to extend their Libe­rality [Page 22]to the Poor at Jerusalem, saith, Net that [...] should be cas'd, and [...], 2 Cor. [...]. 13. But that by an Equality year [...] [...]pply their Wants.

Our Saviour saith, St. J [...] vi. 2 [...]. L [...]i [...]r [...] for the Meat which [...]. Now can any one think our Saviour intended that these Words should be un­derstood without any Limitation? If they do, how will they account for those other Scripture Precepts which enjoin Christians to work with their Hands that which is good, Eph. iv. 28. and to do their own Business, and the like? We are likewise enjoin'd to take no Thought for the Marrow; to take no Thought for Food and Raiment; not to fear them that can kill the Body; not to seek earthly Things; Children are commanded to obey their Parents, and Servants their Masters, in all Things; Christians are commanded to be subject to the higher Powers, without any Limitation; to pray without ceasing, and the like; and all in Terms as general and unli­mited as those in the Text under Debate: And yet I presume no Man in his Senses will say, that these Precepts are to be understood without any Limita­tion: So as that by Virtue thereof, it is unlawful for Christians to use a provident Care for the Good of Society; or to endeavour to prevent Murder and Bloodshed: or that Subjects, Children, and Ser­vants, are thereby oblig'd to obey Magistrates, Pa­rents, or Masters, if their Commands be sinful; i.e. if they command them to do what is repugnant to the Laws of God; because in such Cases they are bound by the Law of Nature, to obey God rather than Man. And if these are not to be understood in an unlimited Sense, because of the absurd Conse­quences that would result from such an Interpretati­on, why those? Since the latter would be attended with more absurd Consequences than the former, as I have already shewn.

[Page 23] IN this Case it would be unlawful for the Magi­strate to in [...]ct Punishments on criminal Offenders, or to use the Sword in Defence of his Subjects, a­gainst Robbers and Cut-throats; because this would be to resist Evil, and inconsistent with the Love of En [...]mies; and then ho [...] soon would the Christian World be over-run with Rapine and Violence? And what a Deluge of Wickedness, of all Sorts, would break in up [...] every Christian State? ‘This every one may be [...] of, that will but con­sider what [...]d Effects this Remissness brought upon the Workt before the Flood; and observe how handly these Sins of Rapine and Cruelty are restrain'd now, notwithstanding the Magistrate's Diligence?’ There is no general Precept, how posi­tive soever, but what imsaks Exceptions in extraor­dinary Cases; and such are all Cases of in [...]ispensible Necessity. 'T [...] the universal Voice of Nature, that Necessity creates an Exception to every general Rule. So that granting these Words to be even general Precepts, pro [...]ing Injury and Revenge among Christians, it will not follow, that a necessary Self-defence against unjust Violence is thereby prohi­bited, because it may be reasonably suppos'd to be an Exception from the general Rule, as being, in some Cases, the only Means in our Power, under God, to protect and proserve civil Societies.

IN interpreting Scripture, it ought always to be a Rule with us, to endeavour to explain it so, as to free it from all Absurdities; but surely those who interpret it so, as to make Christianity an Enemy to the Happiness of human Society, which it must be, if resisting an Enemy be unlawful in all Cases, un­less they can prove that God has promis'd to inter­pose in ordinary Cases by a miraculous Providence, do not well consider this. For it not only implies a gross Absurdity, but reflects a palpable Calumny on the best Religion in the World, by representing it as [Page 24]necessarily laying Men open and unguarded to all the Outrages the vilest Part of the World think fit to offer them. Our Saviour therefore cannot be suppos'd in these Words to put the Case of a foreign Invasion, or that we should love Ruffians, and Cut-throats, which is impossible.

BUT 'tis said, ‘If the glorious Doctrines of the Messiah were universally embrac'd, there would be no Need of Self-defence:’—Which I readily grant; but this can be no Argument against the Lawfulness thereof in some Cases, while there is Need of it. The Gospel hath never yet been uni­versally embrac'd, nor is it the Case at present; and therefore the Objection implies, that Self-defence is still necessary; and if necessary, it must be as law­ful now as formerly, since no Law can be produc'd prohibiting it.

WHEN the Doctrines of Christianity shall be uni­versally embrac'd among the Nations, which we be­lieve will be the Case before the End of the World; when the Jews shall be converted, and all Nations sincerely embrace Christianity; then there will be an universal Peace: Nation shall not lift up Sword a­gainst Nation, nor Kingdom against Kingdom, neither shall they learn War any more: Then they may beat their Swords into Plowshares, and their Spears into Pruning-hooks, because there will be no Use for them: But it does not follow from hence, that 'tis unlawful to use them before that Time come. Then indeed it would be unlawful to use them, be­cause there will be no unjust Violence to resist: But that does not prove, that it is unlawful to use them now, when Circumstances are such, that they are the only human Means, under God, to protect Christian Societies from unjust Violence. These Prophecies only foretel what shall be the Effects of their Accomplishment, and therefore can be no Ar­gument that Christians may not lawfully defend [Page 25]themselves and their Country, till such times as they shall be fulfill'd, when all Wars shall cease, and then there will be no Occasion for Self-defence; there will be no Violence, and consequently no need of Resistance.

BUT it is ask'd, ‘Is Defensive War then our only Barrier against Injustice and Violence?’ To which I Answer, By no means; God forbid we should think so. For as the Apostle says, Of ourselves we can do nothing, even in this Case, but all our Suffici­ency is of God. And the Psalmist says, Except the Lord keep the City, the Watchman waketh but in vain, Psal. cxxvii. 1. All we contend for is, that it is the only Means under God, as far as we have any reasonable Grounds to believe, for this Purpose. 'Tis further said, ‘That there are many who depend upon, and confide solely in another Barrier, viz. the eternal and benefi­cent Providence of God.’ That it is the Duty of e­very Christian to depend upon, and confide in the Providence of Almighty God, I readily grant; but that it is our Duty to confide solely (if by this Term be intended a Disuse of Means, in the Divine Pro­vidence, I deny; and whoever asserts it, 'tis incum­bent upon him to prove it; without which, the As­sertion is rash, and the Practice built upon it groundless and dangerous. 'Tis true God can pro­tect us from the greatest Violence, without any of our Endeavours; but it is one Thing what God can do, and another what he will or does do, in the general Course of his Providence. He can protect us from the Devil, and all his Temptations, and yet we are expresly commanded to resist him, and to strive against his Temptations. He could have pro­tected and defended his chosen People the Jews from all their Enemies, and brought them into the promised Land, without the Effusion of so much Blood; and yet we find he gave them special Directi­ons in what Method they should protect and defend [Page 26]themselves, and drive out their Enemies from be­fore them, as the Scripture expresses it. He could, by his Almighty Providence, have saved St. Paul and the Ship without the Help of Mariners; and yet when they were about to leave it, St. Paul cried out, Except these abide in the Slip, ye cannot be sa­ved, Acts xxvii. 31. notwithstanding he had said, v. 22. that there should be no Loss of any Man's Life, but of the Ship; which is a plain Demonstra­tion, that it is presumptuous for Men, in the ordinary Course of God's Providence, to expect Protection and Deliverance from Injuries, without using their own Endeavours, at the same time that they confident­ly rely on the Divine Providence for Success.

HE could have recovered Hezckiah, when he was sick unto Death; and yet, we find, he was ordered by a Prophet, to take a Lump of Figs, and to lay it upon the Boil, upon which he recovered, 2 Kings xx. 7.

GOD Almighty, if he pleased, could not only keep us from, but cure us of, all Diseases, by his all-powerful Providence; and yet he not only per­mits, but requires us in Holy Scripture, to use all pru­dent Methods of resisting and stopping their Fury; and is far from expecting that we should lie down and do nothing to save our selves from perishing in such Calamities.

AND as God, in the general Course of his Provi­dence, protected and defended his own peculiar People from the Violence of their Enemies, not without, but always by the Use of second Means (except when he was pleased to work a Miracle in their Favour, which yet was very seldom notwith­standing they were under a Theocratical Govern­ment, whereby God himself was their King; this I say being the Case with God's peculiar People under an extraordinary Providence, we who lie under a common Providence, as to our civil Policy, can [Page 27]have no Ground to expect any miraculous Interpo­sition for our Protection and Defence from Vio­lence; nor can any good Reasons be assign'd why we should. Nothing can be a sufficient Ground for such an Expectation, but an express Promise in the New-Testament; without this, a Belief that God's Providence will protect us, without using our own Endeavours, would be Presumption, and not Faith ^*: For that cannot be a right Faith that has no sure Grounds to rest upon; and nothing can be a sure Ground of Faith, but God's Promise respect­ing that which is the Object of this Faith. If God has given Christians any such Promise, let it be pro­duc'd; but till this is done, let no Man blame them for using those Means for the Preservation and Protection of the publick Safety, with a pious De­pendance on the Divine Providence for Success, which good Men in all Ages have made use of with his Approbation.

AND thus I have endeavoured to make it appear, that those Texts, which are the strongest Bulwark for supporting the Doctrine of the Unlawfulness of War in all Cases under the Gospel, cannot amount to a Law prohibiting Christians to defend themselves against the lawless Violence of a foreign Enemy.

THERE are some other Texts alledged by our Adversaries, in favour of this Doctrine; but none of them I think can even be pretended to amount to a Law; but are only to be adduced as collateral Proofs; the two I have already confider­ed, being the chief Basis upon which the whole of their Doctrine is built.

I SHALL examine one other Text, which, next to these, seems most to favour their Doctrine; and that is written, Rom. xii. 17. Recompence to no Max Evil for Evil: Dearly beloved, avenge not your selves, [Page 28]but rather give place unto Wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord; therefore if thine Enemy bunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him Drink, &c.

1. As to these Words, Recompence to no Man E­vil for Evil, they being our Saviour's Words, re­peated by St. Paul, with some little Variation in the Phrase, tho' not in the Sense; what hath been advanc'd in Answer to those, will be a sufficient Answer to these. They are not address'd to the Ma­gistrate, who hath the sole Right of making War. but to the injured Party; and therefore it cannot reasonably be inferr'd from them, that St. Paul in­tended hereby to forbid all War under the Gos­pel.

2. AND as to those, v. 19, neither can any good Ar­gument be drawn from them against all Sorts of War; forasmuch as some Sorts of War may be commenc'd without any Desire of Revenge, but meerly from the Principle of Self-preservation.

3. BUT that no conclusive Argument can be in­ferr'd from these Words against all War under the Gospel, will farther appear from hence; that at the very Time when God appropriated to himself the Sword of Vengeance, saying, Deut. xxxii. 35 Vengeance is mine, I will recompence, Laws were ac­tually in being for regulating and making War. And the Jews at the same Time that they were bound by the Law of God not to revenge them­selves upon their Enemies, if Countrymen or Stran­gers, admitted to live among them because Ven­geance belonged to God, and he had promis'd to recompence it might yet lawfully make War in some Cases, without a positive Command of God, as to this or that particular War; as is evident from the many Directions he had given them concerning this Matter, in the 20th Chapter of this same Book.

[Page 29] St. PAUL therefore might enjoin Christians not to revenge themselves upon their Enerries (because Vengeance belonged to God, and he would recom­pence it) as well as God had enjoin'd the Jews not to do so, for the same Reason, and yet not thereby intend to prohibit all Sorts of War under the Gospel. For as God in speaking these Words to the Jews, did not design they should prohibit all Sorts of War among them, as appears by what has been said al­ready, and which St. Paul, and those Christians to whom he wrote, could not but know; so if St. Paul had intended that this Precept should oblige them to any Thing farther than what he had oblig'd the Jews to, he should certainly have mentioned it. As the Words when spoken to the Jews, imply'd no­thing but a Prohibition of private Revenge, how could the Apostle imagine that the Romans could understand them as pror hiting all Sorts of War un­der the Gospel, unless he had told them so in express Words? For what had been com [...]tly practised by God's own People from the Beginning to that Time, and universally received as just and [...], could not be reputed otherwise by any Thing the Apostle could say, less than an express Prohibition of all Sorts of War in plain Terms.

IF therefore he had intended that this Precept should oblige all Christians, or even those Christians to whom he wrote this Epistle, not to defend them­selves against the unjust Attempts of a foreign Ene­my, he would undoubtedly have said so in express Words; since otherwise it was not to be expected they could understand the Words, Revenge not your­selves, to import any such Thing: But as he did not, we may reasonably conclude, that he did not intend thereby to prohibit all Sorts of War under the Gospel.

4. But that no conclusive Argument can be in­ferr'd from these Words, against all Sorts of War [Page 30]under the Gospel, will still further appear from this Consideration: The Apostle, Chap. 13th of this Epistle, says, Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers; i. e. the Magistrate: And [...]. 4. he tells them, That be beareth not the Sword in vain; that as he is the Minister of God for Good, so is he the Minister of God for Vengeance; a Revenger to ex­ecute Wrath on him that doth Evil.

NOW in telling them that those higher Powers are the Executioners of God's Wrath in punishing Evil-doers, he clearly distinguishes between Re­venge in the Magistrate, and Revenge in private Persons. The Magistrate he owns is to be a Re­venger, that is, he is to execute Wrath, or inflict Punishment on them that do Evil, and that by Vir­tue of his Office, as he is Gold's Minister, whose a­lone Prerogative it is to recompence Vengeance on the Guilty; when at the same time he had expres­ly prohibited it before, in the general Precept, A­venge not yourselves. Whence it plainly appears, that he did not intend by this Precept to prohibit Christian Magistrates the Use of the Sword to de­fend their Subjects from lawless Violence.

TO suppose the contrary, would make the A­postle guilty of an Absurdity. ‘For if we include in that negative Precept, that Revenge which is in­flicted by the Magistrate for the publick Peace, what can be more absurd, than after he had charg'd all Christians never to take Arms in their own De­fence, as our Adversaries contend he did, to have immediately subjoin'd in the same Epistle, that to this very End God had ordained Magistrates, that they, as his Ministers, should defend Christians by Force of Arms, for so the Power of the Sword must needs signify, if any Thing.’ To say, as some do, that St. Paul by the Sword here means an inward and spiritual Sword, is something so idle and impertinent, that it doth not deserve an Answer. [Page 31]Nobody will say so in earnest, that has not renoun­ced common Sense, and given up his Reason for a Spirit of Delusion; and when once this is the Case with any Man, it is in vain to reason with him: For as we have no other Way to convince a Man of the Truth of any Proposition but by Reasoning, 'is not to be imagined that ever he will be convin­c [...], who is so far from being determined by right Reason, that he denies the very Existence thereof; and yet whoever does so, must argue against Rea­son, other with Reason, or without it; in the lat­ter May be does nothing, and in the former he be­trays has own Cause, and establishes that which he [...]urs to [...]throne. ‘To prove there is no such Thing as right Reason, by any good Argument, is [...]; because that would be to [...] there is such a Thing, by the Manner of proving there is not.’ Such will Absurdities are [...], who have given up their Un­d [...]an [...]ings to Whim and [...]nthusiasm.

BUT [...] it will be said by our Adversaries on [...] don't deny a Right of mak­ing War to Christian Magistrates; so far from it, that they rather applaud them for so doing, ‘By declaring they think [...]t probable, that God will bless th [...] Arms with Success;’ Which must certainly imply a B [...]b [...]t that such a Practice is lawful, unless we can suppose that they can wish Success to an un­ [...] Action, provided they themselves have no Hand in it. But I will put no such uncharitable [...] on their Words; but supposing them to be sin [...] in this Declaration, shall beg Leave to assure them, that if they will make it appear, that 'tis their real Opinion that the Christian Magistrates may lawfully defend their innocent Subjects from the lawl [...]ss Violence of a foreign [...], They and I shall be Adversaries on this Point no longer: For I [Page 32]perfectly agree with them, not only that all War is to be avoided under the Gospel, when this can be done without incurring a greater Evil; but that 'tis the sole Right of the Magistrate to commence even a lawful War: Nay, I will agree with them farther, that 'tis unlawful even for the Christian Magistrate himself to commence and prosecute any sort of War but what is justly grounded; which I think no War can be, even the Defensive, that is undertaken purely from a Principle of Revenge, when the Good of the Publick does not necessarily require it.

BUT, after all, I must own myself at a Loss how to reconcile this specious Pretence with the general Doctrine these Men have delivered on this Point: For they have expresly asserted in all their Writings on that Subject, that all bearing of Arms a­gainst an Enemy, is inconsistent with the true Pro­fession of Christianity ^*; nay, that all Use of the Sword by Christians, tho' to save themselves from Thieves, Robbers or Cut-throats, is not only incon­sistent with the Profession of Christianity, but as bad as Atheism, as being a distrusting of Providence in restraining evil Men. Now, this being the Case, I cannot see, and indeed he must have good Eyes that can, how that can be lawful in the Christi­an Magistrate, which, by virtue of Christianity, is not only unlawful in itself, but as bad as A­theism?

IF all War be unlawful under the Gospel, by vir­tue of Christ's Command, as they say it is, it must, in my humble Opinion, be a Sin in any Christian, whether Magistrate or Subject, to engage even in a Defensive War against a lawless Invader, unless it can be made appear that the Magistrate is an Ex­ception [Page 33]from the general Rule. And besides, if it be not unlawful for the Christian Magistrate to de­fend his Subjects from lawless Violence, how can it be unlawful for those Subjects to help to defend themselves at their Magistrate's Command? If the End be lawful, the ordinary Means for obtaining it must be so likewise. Now, the ordinary Means whereby the Christian Magistrate can defend the Publick from Ruin against a foreign Enemy, is the mutual Assi­stance of his Subjects; it cannot therefore be unlaw­ful for Christian Subjects to assist the Magistrate in Defence of the Publick against a foreign Enemy ^*: Nay, so far is it from being unlawful, that it is their indispensible Duty, forasmuch as they are obliged, by the Laws of Christianity, to be subject to the higher Powers, and obey the Magistrate, in all Things lawful; and what is lawful for him to com­mand, cannot be unlawful for the Subject to obey; so that car Adversaries, on this Point, must either shew where Christianity has made War lawful for Christi­an Magistrates, while at the same time it has made War unlawful for Christians; or else it will follow, from the whole Tenor of their Doctrine on this Point, that it is as unlawful for Magistrates as for Subjects: But how this can be reconciled with their thinking it probable that God will bless their Arms with Success, I own is more than I can ac­count for, with any Advantage to their Character.

AWAY then with that idle Distinction (to call it no worse) That tho' Christians may not make use of carnal Weapons in their own necessary Defence as Christians, yet they may as Magistrates. By this very Argument the Romish Antichrist defends the Lawfulness of using the temporal Sword to cut off Hereticks; which, whatever Weight it may have [Page 34]with some People, it is so far from having any with us, that we heartily abominate it.

AGAIN, If it be not unlawful for the Christian Magistrate to defend the Publick from the Violence of foreign Enemies, why do Quaker Magistrates among us so peremptorily refuse to lend the least As­sistance towards it, when we apprehend ourselves in so great Danger? They cannot be ignorant, that it is the Magistrate's Duty to use his utmost Endea­vours for the Protection of the Subject from all lawless Violence and Oppression, which in many Ca­ses cannot be done, without opposing Force to Force by the carnal Sword. Now what can make them so backward to assist those who are willing to exert themselves to the utmost of their Power in de­fending of their Country, but that they think the Practice is unlawful? How then can any one of that Persuasion think it probable, that God will bless the Arms of their Sovereign, if it be inconsistent with the Principles of the Christian Religion to use them at all? And if it be not, how can they answer it to God and their own Consciences, who absolutely re­fuse to do that which is their Duty to do, and with­out which, this Part of his Majesty's Dominions, for any Thing they know to the contrary, may be quite ruined?

BUT here we shall be told, that the Friends, tho' principled against bearing Arms themselves, yet have never condemned such in the Use of them, who are not convinc'd that the Dispensation of the Gospel forbid them. These smooth Words, in my Opinion, mean nothing at all. For if being charged with a Practice that is inconsistent with the true Profession of Christianity, nay with Atheism, and a total Disbelief of Divine Providence, be not a very severe Condemnation, I submit to the unpre­judic'd Reader to judge. And that they have [Page 35]done so oftner than once, appears from the most authentick of their own Writings ^*.

OUR Principle is, that it is a Duty indispensibly incumbent, both on us and them, to defend our­selves and Country from the lawless Attempts of a foreign Enemy by outward Means, at the same Time that we rely on Divine Providence for Pro­tection: And till they can prove the contrary from the New Testament, which I am confident they cannot, we cannot help thinking, that in condem­ning this Practice as inconsistent with the Christian Religion, they condemn all who are in the Use of it, notwithstanding this specious Declaration to the contrary. We are not convinc'd that the Dispensati­on of the Gospel forbids any Christian Community to defend themselves from the Violence of a foreign Enemy; because, as I have already shewn, it is evi­dent almost to a Demonstration, that there is no Ground for such a Conviction in the New Testa­ment; and therefore if our Adversaries, on this Point, be so convinced, it must be by other Argu­ments than any that can be drawn from thence; which we looking upon as the only Rule of our Faith and Practice, think ourselves bound in Con­science to abide by it, and to be determined thereby, as to every Point of Duty. What it hath enjoin'd, we willingly observe; and such Practices as were lawful before, and not made unlawful by it (there being an equal Necessity for them now as before) we think we may lawfully, and with a good Consci­ence, embrace. This is our Rule, and our Practice in this Particular, we hope, is not contrary thereto. We are therefore determined to regard no private Spirit, under whatever specious Colours of Sanctity and Perfection it may appear; because many lying Spirits are gone out into the World, and such we [Page 36]believe every Spirit to be, that attempts to make void the Law of Nature, introduce Principles as Doctrines of Christianity, which, in the present Cir­cumstances of the World, would soon destroy Christianity, and bring all the Christian States on Earth, into the most absolute Slavery and Oppres­sion.

AND thus I hope I have made it appear, to the Satisfaction of every unprejudic'd, intelligent Read­er, that it is not unlawful in all Cases for Christians to make War under the Gospel.

I SHOULD now conclude, were it not that a certain Author, in a late Pamphlet, en­tituled, The Doctrine of Christianity, as held by the People colled Quakers, vindicated; in An­swer to Gilbert Tennent 's Sermon on the Lawfulness of Defensive War; hath undertaken to prove, by fair and candid Interpretations of Scripture, as himself expresses it, that War in any Shape (for so he must be understood to mean, if he means any thing) is inconsistent with the Christian Religion. And because some of his Remarks may seem to affect the general Doctrine I have endeavoured to establish in the First Part of this Treatise, I think it my Duty, for the better Support thereof, to examine all such Passages as have the least Tendency that Way.

THE first of his Remarks that seems to affect my Doctrine, is Page 3. in these Words, ‘God created Man good, upright, and holy; and had he con­tinued in this State, there never would have been [Page 38]any War, and consequen [...] [...] [...]eed of Self-de­fence; but Man falling through Disobe [...]ience, his Nature became corrupted, his Facu [...]s 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. Nobody, says he, I hope, will 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 of Na­ture, from whence proceeded Violence and Blood­shed, was occasioned by adhering to the Voice of Satan.’ Answer,

THAT if Man had not fallen from his State of Innocence, there would have been no War, and consequently no Need of Defence, every One will readily grant: But that immediately upon the Fall, Man's Nature was as highly corrupted, as this Vin­dicator represents it, in my humble Opinion, wants Proof. For tho' it pleased God, for wise Ends, best known to himself, to permit Man to fall, yet he was so far from abandoning him hereupon, that he takes Care to provide for his Happiness, by entering into another Covenant with him, in these Words; The Seed of the Woman shall bruise the Head of the Serpent. 'Tis true Men being left to the Free­dom of their own Wills, some of them, no Doubt, made a bad Use of their Liberty, and abandon'd themselves to great Enormities; but it does not ap­pear that this was the Case with all of them, or that it was a necessary Consequence of the Fall, because there were good Men notwithstanding this, who did many Things agreeable to the Dictates of the Law of Nature; as Adam, Seth, Enos, Methusalem, Noah; and it doth no where appear that those Patriarchs had any other Rule whereby to guide their Practice, but this eternal Law of Righteousness; which is nothing [Page 39]else but the unchangeable Will of God, constantly acting according to the eternal Rules of infinite Goodness, Justice, and Truth: Which Will of God, is engraven upon the Natures of Things, and to be discovered by the due Use of Mens rational Faculties. This Law hath God for its Author, was to have been the Rule of Duty in Paradise, and was so to the Patriarchs till Moses's Time, when God was pleased to make a particular Revelation of it to his chosen People in the Decalogue; which is only a Transcript of this Law.

BUT to clear this Subject from the Rubbish of Words, under which this V. hath buried it, I will prove,

1. THE Existence of the Law of Nature; and that it was the Rule of Duty, in ordinary Cases, to Mankind before the giving of the Law to Moses. And secondly, That Man's Nature by the Fall was not so corrupted, but that he could discern it to be so, tho' he had not Power sufficient to perform it in all Cases.

1. THAT there are natural, essential Differences, in the Natures of Things, as between Truth and Falshood, Good-faith and Perfidiousness, Gratitude and Ingratitude, Love and Hatred, Just and Un­just, Right and Wrong, &c. And hence a Fitness and Unfitness in Actions to certain Ends, has ever been evident to the common Reason of Mankind ^*.

THESE, and the like eternal Truths, considered as a System of moral Principles, which have their Foundation in the Nature and Reason of Things, are what we call the Law of Nature, Right Reason, the eternal Rule of Righteousness, or the unchangea­ble Will of God, written in the Books of Nature. This is the immutable Sta [...]d of moral Duty; whatever is agreeable to [...] morally Good, and vice versa. Virtue and [...] are not meer arbitrary [Page 40]Things; what is morally fit and proper is virtuous; what is morally unfit and improper is vicious. And the same wise and good Being, who constituted Na­ture in such a Manner, that this Fitness or Unfit­ness should immediately result from it, must intend that every intelligent Being, so far as he is capable of discerning these Things, should act agreeably thereto. This Law, we say, God is the Author of, because those moral Principles, which are founded in the Nature and Reason of Things, were originally con­stituted such by him, who is the Supream Author of Nature. This was Adam's Law in Paradise, and continued to be a Law to Mankind, as far as we know, till the Time of Moses, when a Transcript of it was delivered to him in the Mount. For tho' God made some special Revelations to the Patri­archs, he never gave them any System of Laws to be a Rule of Practice before this. And thus it ap­pears, that there exists in Nature such a Law as we plead for

BUT by the Account the V. gives us of human Nature after the Fall, this Law was of no Use to Mankind, because they were uncapable of discover­ing what Duties were incumbent by virtue of it.

HE gives such a strange Description of the Cor­ruption of Man's Nature, and the Depravation of his Faculties, as if he thought the Patriarchs neither had any Law to guide their Practice, nor were ca­pable of obeying it if they had. But how he came to discover such a total Depravation immediately up­on the Fall I know not. Certainly he never learnt it from the History of Moses. For so far as I can find there, what Adam lost by the Fall was Paradise, and the Tree of Life; i. e. in other Words, he lost Bliss and Immortality. The Penalty annex'd to the Breach of the Law, with the Sentence pronounced by God upon it, shews this. The Penalty stands thus, Gen. ii. 17. In the Day that thou eatest there­of, [Page 41]of, thou shalt surely die. How was this executed? He did eat, but in the Day he did eat, he did not actually die, but was turned out of Paradise from the Tree of Life, and shut out forever from it, least he should take thereof, and live forever. This shews that Paradise was a State of Immortality, which he lost that very Day that he eat: His Life began from thence to shorten, and waste, and to have an End.

NOW is it at all likely, that as soon as Adam was turn'd out of Paradise, his Faculties became so de­praved, that he lost all Knowledge of that immuta­ble Rule of Duty, with which he must have been perfectly well acquainted [...]n Paradise? 'Tis true his Posterity, thro' Length of Time, became very de­bauch'd, both in Principle and Practice; but still as there were many good Men, both before the Flood, and from thence to Moses's Time, they must have had some Law to be a Rule of Practice, and this Law they must have been capable of know­ing, otherwise it could be no Rule to them, and con­sequently they could have been guilty of no Sin, be­cause where there is no Law, there can be no Trans­gression; and Sin is only a Transgression of a divine Law. And tho' a Law exists, yet if it be impossi­ble for Men to come at the Knowledge of such a Law, 'tis all one, in regard to them, as if there were none; it being impossible for them to obey a Law, the Knowledge of which 'tis impossible for them to come at.

BUT that Mankind, notwithstanding the Corrup­tion of Nature this V. talks of, were not ignorant of the Law of Nature, nor altogether incapable of o­beying its Dictates, will farther appear from what follows.

THO' Moses was the first Man that had a written Law for a Rule of Practice, whence it is called, Lex Moralis, or the Law of Morals, yet they who [Page 42]liv'd before Meses were not without a Law, because they had this moral Law written in their Hearts; i. e. by the due Use of their rational Powers, they discovered the Will of God concerning their moral Duty to be founded in the Natures and Reason of Things. The Centiles, both before and after [...]es (as saith St. Paul) doing by Nature, or finding it reasonable to do the Things contained in the moral Law; these having not the moral Law written on Tables of Stone, were nevertheless a Law unto them­selves: What to do? Not what they p [...]sed, not what their irregular Appetites prompted them to; but they were a Law unto themselves, to do the Work of the Law of Nature, or the mo [...]al Law written in their Hearts, instead of Tables of Stone. The Apostle, by a common F [...]rur [...], puts the Ef­fect of the Law for the Law itself, which indeed is equivalent thereto, as he shews [...]us; Their Con­sciences bore Witness, and their Thoughts reflecting on their Actions, accused, or excused them in what they did. Thus it appears that there is such a Law as that of Nature, which existed long before any po­sitive Law was given: That it is the universal Law of all reasonable Creatures, and that it was the on­ly Rule of moral Practice before that Transcript of it was given to Moses, which we call the Decalogue. Thus doth St. Chrysostom expound this Passage of St. Paul, ‘The Gentiles by Nature, saith St. Paul, that is, saith Chrysostom, by the very Dictates of right Reason; in this, says he, are they to be admired, that they stood in no Need of Moses's Law to guide them; they were gui [...]d only by the Use of Reason, and the Light of th [...] own Con­sciences.’ Thus also saith Tertullian, ‘ [...]ong before Moses wrote the Law in Tables of Stor [...] there was (as I will justify) a Law naturally underwood and observed by the Patriarchs.' 'Evil [...]n com­mend many Things truly, saith St. Augustine, and [Page 43]reprove many Things as justly; but by what Rules do they so? Whence do they learn that Men ought to live so, seeing they live not so themselves? Why, says he, these Rules are right and good, and they cannot but see them to be so, tho' their Minds be not so; the Rules are unchangeable, tho' their Minds be mutable.’ But further, that Mankind had not only the Knowledge of the Law of Nature, but that in the great Branches of Morality, they regulated their Practice thereby, will appear from a particular Consideration of the Decalogue itself, which is the great Pandect of this Law; which, when Men by the Abuse of their Faculties had in a great Measure crazed out of their Hearts, Almighty God was gra­ciously pleased to commit it to [...] that by having an Opportunity of viewing it in [...] legible Charac­ters, they might again revive the Knowledge of it in their Minds.

1. To begin with the first Precept, we find Gen. xxxv. 2. That Jacob commanded his Houshold to put away their strange Gods. Pythagoras says, ‘If any one shall say that he is a God, but he that made all Things, let him prove it, by making a new World.’ Sophocles, Varro, Orphous, Plato, &c. all maintain'd the Unity of the Dairy.

2. FOR the Second, we find that Jacob buried the Idols under an Oak, Chap. xxxv. 4. And the Gentiles agreed, that every God should be worship­ped according to the Manner that himself should think best; and Varro did much approve of the Jews Re­ligion, as St. Augustine informs us, because it exclu­ded Images, holding it the best Way to keep Re­ligion undefiled by excluding them; and that if all People else had taken that Course, it had been a Means to take away much trifling.

3. For the Third, we find Abraham caused his Steward to put his Hand under his Thigh, and swear by the Lord of Heaven and Earth; and we [Page 44]find also a solemn Oath pass'd betwixt Jacob and Laban, Chap. xxiv. 3. and Chap. xxxi. 53.

AND it was a Law among the Egyptians, as Dio­dorus reports, L [...] the perjur'd be punish'd with Death. And there was a Law in the twelve Tables at Rome, Swear not rashly. And Sophocles saith, ‘When an Oath is taken, the Soul will be more cautious to Sin against God, and to injure Man.’

4. FOR the Fourth, we find the Observation of it before the giving of the Law, Exod. xvi. 23. And tho' as to the particular Day to be spent in the Worship of God, the Gentiles know but little, as being rather positive than moral; yet they all a­greed that God was to be worshipped, this being an indisputable Dictate of the Law of Nature. And even as to the particular Day mentioned in this Commandment, I must confess, that the general Consent of Nations, as to the seventh Part, if it were fully clear'd, would speak fair to be the Voice of Nature, or at least a Tradition received from the Sons of Noah.

5. FOR the Fifth, we find how Esau stood in awe of his Father, tho' he was otherwise prophane, for he would not kill his Brother Jacob, while his Fa­ther was alive, Gen. xxvii. 41.

AND Homer saith of one that had a Misfortune, that it came because he honoured not his Parents. He would not render the Duty of a Child to his Father, therefore his Days were not prolonged. And Menander saith, That he who honoureth his Parents, shall live long and happily. And Charon­das, in his Laws, saith, The Neglect of our aged Parents, is Extremity of Wrong.

6. FOR the Sixth, We see a plain Precept, Gen. ix. 6. Whosoever sheddeth Man's Blood, by Man shall his Blood be shed. And every Nation held it a Ca­non of their Law, Let a Murderer expect Loss of [Page 45]Life, as be depriv'd another of it. And therefore they all punished Murder with Death.

7. FOR the Seventh, Judah would have burnt Thamar for playing the Harlot, Gen. xxxviii. 24. And Sechem was slain for ravishing Dinah, and the whole City spoil'd by her Brothers: For their An­swer to their Father was, Should be deal with our Sister as with an Harlot? And it was the Saying of Lycurgus, ‘Avoid Adultery, so shalt thou avoid untimely Death.’ And Menander censureth Adul­tery as a disgraceful Sin, because the Price of it is Death.

8. For the Eighth, The putting Joseph's Cup into the Mouth of the Sack, was enough, tho' a­mong the Egyptians, to clap his Brethren in Prison; And God forbid, say they, that we should do this, Chap. xliv. 7. And Demosthenes against Timocrates, urges the Lacedemonian Law, in the very Words of this Precept, Thou shalt not steal. And Hesiod's Precept enjoins Men not to possess stolen Goods.

9. FOR the Ninth, Because Judah had promised to send a Kid, he would not break his Promise, tho' (as he thought) he had given it to a Harlot, Chap. xxxviii. 17. 20. And it was one of the Laws of the twelve Tables at Rome, ‘He that shall bear false Witness, let him be cast down from the Tar­peian Rock.’ And Phocylides adviseth, not to utter Lies, but to speak the Truth in all Things.

10. AND for the Tenth, There was no Act that we can learn in Abimelech against Sarah, and yet the Sin of Concupiscence was punished in him by God, Chap. xx. 3. So Pharaoh was plagued for her in the same Cafe, Chap. xii. 17. And Menander hath this Saying, ‘Do not concupiscere, or desire ano­ther Man's Pin or Button.’ And indeed tho' the Laws of Gentile Nations do not express this, yet the Scope of them all did tend to this End, Non concu­piscere, not to covet other Men's Properties. Whence we may conclude with St. Paul, That the [Page 46] Gentiles having the Law written in their Hearts, were inexcusable.

FROM all which it appears, that notwithstanding the Corruption of Nature (this V. talks of) by the Fall, Mankind were not only sensible of the Obliga­tion of the Law of Nature, but, in all the principal Duties of Morality, were able to comply with it. And as all good Men were directed to their moral Duties by the Dictates of this Law, so were they to that of a necessary Self-defence: For considering that the Preservation of themselves, and those under their Care is a Dictate of the Law of Nature, they could not but conclude that Self-defence, when this can­not possibly be done otherwise, must be a Duty re­sulting from this Law; it being an indisputable Truth, that whenever it is our Duty to prosecute an End, it must likewise be our Duty to make Use of those Means, without which that End cannot be obtained. Hence all those Wars which good Men undertook without any special Command from God, were agreeable to this Law, as appears from their having been approved of by him after they were commenc'd. But having fully discours'd this Point in the first Part of this Treatise, I shall now pro­ceed to an Examination of the V's Reasoning here, where perhaps we may discover something not much to the Credit of his Cause.

HAVING first represented human Nature as fit for nothing but to be Fuel for the Fire of Hell, he adds, ‘I hope Nobody will say, that God is the Author of Nature thus corrupted.’ In which Words he endeavours to delude his ignorant Read­er, by including a General in a Particular. He first describes Man's Nature as a meer Mass of Corrup­tion, and then, hoping his Reader would look no farther, he exults as if he had gain'd his Point; for he hopes no Body will say that God is the Au­thor of Nature thus corrupted. And tho' they do [Page 47]hot, his Argument will be never a Whit the more conclusive. Here then we have a Specimen of his Candour: For can it be supposed that he is so ig­norant as not to discern the Fallacy of his own Rea­soning? I think not. Was all Nature comprehend­ed in the human Nature? The Nature of Man is, I hope, but a Part, a small inconsiderable Part of Nature; but can a Part contain the whole? Grant­ing human Nature was corrupted, doth it therefore follow, that all Nature must be corrupted? Must the Corruption of Man's Nature alter the Nature of Things, confound Right and Wrong, and take a­way all Distinction between moral Good and Evil? If not, then a Man may justly say, that God is the Author of that Part of Nature which never was corrupted, and this is all we contend for. But we cannot help thinking, that God is the Author of that Part of Nature too which is thus corrupted, tho' not of the Corruption itself; which to deny, would incur such a Censure as this V. I presume, would not like. ‘The Nature, says he, and the Light of Nature he was the Author of, was holy, innocent and perfect.’ Is not this an evident In­sinuation, that the Law or Light of Nature was corrupted by the Fall, as well as Man's Nature? That the eternal Law of Righteousness, which would have been the Rule of Man's Practice; had he kept his Innocency, was by the Fall destroyed? His Words can be construed no otherwise than to import, that that Nature, and the Light of Nature, which was holy, innocent, and perfect, and of which God was the Author, was now no where existing; whence he concludes, that Nature being universally corrupted by the Fall, 'twas absurd in his Adversary to speak of a Law or Light of Na­ture. If this be a wrong Construction of his Mean­ing, he must blame himself, for his Words will ad­mit of no other.

[Page 48] BUT that Nature was universally corrupted by the Fall, is an impious Falshood. For the natural and eternal Relations of Things, as Goodness, Justice, Righteousness, Love, Gratitude, good Faith, and the whole System of moral Principles, which con­stitute that eternal Law of Righteousness, whereby every rational Being is bound by the very Constitu­tion of his Nature to regulate his moral Actions (as I have shewn already) is as holy, innocent, and perfect, since the Fall, as before. The Fallacy lies in the Word Nature, which he should have limited to the particular Nature he had been describing; but this would not have serv'd his Turn, viz. To prove there was no such Thing as the Law of Na­ture: And therefore like a true Sophist, he lays hold of the equivocal Term Nature, and after hav­ing describ'd one particular Species of Nature, and made it as black as Hell, he attributes to universal Nature, what he had described as peculiar to that particular Species; and so thinks he has overset his Adversary's Doctrine taken from the Law or Light of Nature.

THIS is just such wretched Reasoning, as if one should say, in Opposition to another, maintaining, that Christ is the Author of the Catholick Church; ‘The Catholick Church is so monstruously corrup­ted, that she is become a meer Chaos of Anti-Christian Darkness (meaning the Church of Rome) will any one venture to say, that Christ is the Au­thor of the Catholick Church thus corrupted? The Catholick Church that Christ was the Author of, was holy, innocent, and pure.’ Now will any Man say, that this would be a good Argument against the Existence of the Church of Christ? Because a Part of the Catholick Church is degenerat­ed, doth it therefore follow, that the whole Com­pany of the Faithful are so far degenerated, as that Christ hath now no Church upon Earth? And yet [Page 49]the Opponent by the equivocal Terms, Catholick Church, which, as apply'd by the Papists, are spe­cial, but as apply'd by other Christians, are general, imposes upon his Reader's Assent; that Christ can­not be the Author of the Catholick Church, and so imposes a Falshood upon them: Will any Man say, says the Opponent, that Christ is the Author of the Catholick Church thus corrupted? No; I believe no Man will say that Christ is the Author of the Corruption: But doth it therefore follow, that he is not the Author of the Catholick Church, which consists of the whole Company of the Faithful?

JUST so is it, as to the Point in Debate; because Man by the Fall corrupted his own Nature, doth it therefore follow, that the Law of Nature was cor­rupted? And because God cannot be said to be the Author of the Corruption of Man's Nature, doth it therefore follow, that he cannot be said to be the Author of human Nature, and the Law of Nature? ‘The Nature, and the Light of Nature, 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,’ says the V. If by the Light of Nature he means the Law of Nature, as his Words necessarily import, I have made it appear to every unprejudiced Reader, that this Law is as holy, innocent, and perfect, as ever it was; as being nothing but the immutable Will of God himself, written in the great Books of Nature. And if by the Light of Nature he means those ratio­nal Powers, whereby we discover this Will of God, and our Duty therein contained, I have shewn likewise on this Head, that human Nature was not so much depraved by the Fall, as thereby to render Men wholly uncapable to discover this Will of God concerning their Duty. And what follows doth not in the least affect our Argument, because we are not [Page 50]pleading for Violence and Bloodshed, but for a ne­cessary Self-defence; and tho' it be true, that Vio­lence and Bloodshed proceeded from that Corruption of Nature which was occasioned by adhering to the Voice of Satan, yet it will not follow, that necessary Self-defence is sinful, more than it will follow, that because the Necessity of earning our Livelihood with the Sweat of our Brows, was occasioned by adher­ing to the Voice of Satan, therefore 'tis sinful to la­bour with our Hands the Things that are good, for the necessary Support of ourselves and Families. If Violence and Bloodshed happen to ensue upon a ne­cessary Self-defence, this indeed proceeds from the Corruption of Nature occasionally, but not as a Cause: That the Corruption of Nature which was occasioned by adhering to the Voice of Satan, was the Occasion of what Bloodshed and Violence might ensue from a necessary Self-defence, I grant; be­cause if there had been no Corruption, there would have been no lawless Violence; and had there been no lawless Violence, there would have been no Need of Resistance; and consequently no Bloodshed and Violence ensuing from thence: But there is a wide Difference between a necessary Effect, and an acci­dental Consequence; between a Cause and an Occa­sion. Sin is the Cause of our greatest Sorrow, but it is only the Occasion of that godly Sorrow that worketh Repentance. The Fall of Adam was the Occasion of Christ's Sufferings; but it would be very absurd to say that this was the Cause of his Suf­ferings, whether efficient, instrumental, or final. As absurd is it in this V. to insinuate, that that Bloodshed and Violence which may accidentally en­sue from a necessary Self-defence against lawless Vi­olence, hath that Corruption for its productive Cause, which was occasioned by adhering to the Voice of Satan. He may as well say, that tilling the Ground, and labouring for the Support of ourselves [Page 51]and Families, proceeds from that Corruption which was occasion'd by adhering to the Voice of Satan as its productive Cause; for as the latter is only a Consequence of that Corruption, so is the former.

BUT, further, if all Bloodshed and Violence pro­ceed from that Corruption which was occasioned by adhering to the Voice of Satan, as a productive Cause, and is therefore unlawful; what will this V. say to all the Bloodshed and Violence committed by the Christian Magistrate in the legal Punishment of Malefactors? Will he say that all this is unlawful, because it proceeds from that Corruption of Nature which was occasioned by adhering to the Voice of Satan? And if he reply that this cannot be said, be­cause the Objects of such Violence have forfeited their Lives, by becoming Pests to the Community where they live, and therefore may justly be put to Death; so say I with regard to that Violence that may ensue upon a Community's defending them­selves against a foreign Invader: The Assailants ha­ving violated the Laws of God and Nature, and put themselves into a State of War with the Defen­dants, by attempting to destroy them without any just Provocation, have thereby forfeited their Lives to all Intents and Purposes, as much as a Robber or Murdere [...]; and therefore, by the Law of Nature, may be as justly put to Death as the other, when the Defendants can by no other Means escape their Fu­ry. If the Violence practis'd by the Magistrate then, upon notorious Offenders, be not unlawful, tho' it proceed from that Corruption of Nature which was occasioned by adhering to the Voice of Satan; neither is that which may ensue upon a Nati­on's defending themselves against those who have turn'd Rebels to God and Nature, unlawful, tho' it occasionally proceed from that Corruption of Nature which was occasioned by adhering to the Voice of Satan, when they cannot escape their Violence by [Page 52]any other Methods. Whoever asserts the latter, must by a Parity of Reason maintain the former.

WHEN the V. says, ‘It is not from the degene­rate fallen Light of Nature that Arguments are to be drawn for the Formation and Establishment of Christian Principles;’ he says just nothing at all to the Purpose. For we draw our Arguments for establishing our Doctrine, not from the degenerate, fallen Light of Nature, but from that eternal Law of Righteousness, which is as immutable as God him­self, and consequently he is neither fallen nor degene­rate, as I have shewn above. Nor moreover do we allow the Point in Question to be a Christian Principle; so far from it, that we have prov'd it to be a Prin­ciple of the Law of Nature; and that not from the degenerate fallen Light of Nature, as the V. loves to speak, but from self-evident Propositions, and Facts recorded in Holy Writ ^*.

BUT, which makes worse for him still, this is not the V's Meaning. By Christian Principles, for the Formation and Establishment of which, he says Ar­guments are not to be drawn from the degenerate, fallen Light of Nature, we are to understand the Principle he is pleading for, viz. the Unlawfulness of Defensive War; that this is his Meaning appears from the Words immediately following; ‘Neither are any from it of any Weight in Opposition thereto.’ Now this is a shameless begging the Question; for we are so far from allowing him his Principle, or granting it to have any Foundation in the Christian Religion, that we deny it to have any Foundation in Nature; and till he produces better Arguments in support of it, than any we have seen yet, we think we should wrong the Truth were we to do otherwise.

THE next Passage of this V. that seems to affect my general Doctrine, is Page 15. of his Answer; [Page 53]where, after having repeated these Words of his Adversary, ‘War was lawful under the Old Testa­ment Dispensation, and therefore it is lawful under the New,’ he says, ‘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?’

Answer. But the V. should consider these Cases are nowise parallel. Burnt-offerings, Sacrifices and Circumcision, were typical of the Gospel Dispensa­tion, and were to cease of course when that was e­stablished. They were Parts of the Ceremonial Law, which was to continue only till the coming of Christ, who was to establish a new Law in its Room. This whole Dispensation was made up of Types and Shadows, whereof Christ was the Substance; but when Christ came, these all necessarily vanished: ‘The Nature being finished, there was no farther Need of the rough Draught.’ But with relation to a necessary Self-defence, the Case is very diffe­rent; if this was lawful under the Old Testament, by virtue of the Law of Nature (as I have proved it was) it must likewise be lawful under the New; not only because there is no Precept there prohibiting it, but because the Grounds and Reasons thereof are the very same now they were then. Sacrifices and Circumcision are not to be used now, because there is no Occasion for them; but there is as great Occa­sion for Defensive War as ever there was; so that ‘tis evident the Cases are not parallel. The V. adds, ut we are farther 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 doth 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 [Page 54]Life against unjust Violence, which sometimes can­not be done without War. Now the blessed Jesus never came to destroy the moral Law of Nature, but to fulfil it.’ To which he replies, ‘A posi­tive Precept is made to imply its direct Reverse; A Command not to kill, is implied to authorize killing.’ Here we have another Specimen of his Learning and Candour. In the first Place he speaks Nonsense in Grammar; and in the second he grosly misrepresents his Adversary, and abuses his Reader, by putting such a Construction on his Words, as they will by no Means admit of. He has no where said, that a Command not to kill, is implied to au­thorize Killing; nor can any Thing like it be fairly inferred from his Words. This is a forced and false Construction, of the V's own framing; and if it is an Absurdity, he must answer for it.

HIS Adversary, I dare say, never imagined that the sixth Commandment forbids all Killing, but on­ly all Killing that is Murder. And if he thinks so, what Opinion must he have of Magistrates, especi­ally those of his own Friends, who make no more Scruple to kill in their Way than others do? In or­der therefore to do Justice to his Adversary, he ought to have put his Words in their true Light, and then they would have run thus; As the Sixth Commandment forbids Murder, it necessarily im­plies an Authority or Right to kill in a lawful War. And this is so far from being an Absurdity, that I hope it will appear to be an evident Truth. That the Sixth Commandment implies a Defensive War (and the Author of the Sermon meant no other) I prove thus;

IF by Virtue of this Command it be a Sin to de­stroy myself, it must by the Terms be a Duty to preserve myself; and if it be my Duty to preserve myself, it must likewise be my Duty to defend my­self against lawless Violence, when I cannot secure [Page 55]my own Preservation otherwise; and if it be my Duty to defend myself against lawless Violence, when I cannot secure my own Preservation other­wise, it must be my Duty to do it by such Means, and in such a Manner, as without which I cannot possibly effect it; and if I cannot possibly effect it without Defensive War, it cannot be unlawful to engage in it. But to bring the Argument closer still; If by Virtue of this Command, it be a Sin for the Magistrate to destroy his Subjects, it must by the Terms, as well as by Virtue of his Office, be his Duty to protect them; and if it be his Duty to pro­tect them, it must be his Duty to defend them a­gainst all Injustice and Wrong; and if it be his Du­ty to defend them against all Injustice and Wrong, it must be his Duty to do it by such Means, and in such a Manner, as without which it cannot possibly be done; and if it cannot possibly be done without opposing Force to Force, in the Use of carnal Wea­pons, it cannot be unlawful in him to use these Means. Nay so far is it from being unlawful, that by Virtue of this Command, it must be his indispen­sible Duty to use such Means, when the Preservati­on of his innocent Subjects cannot be secured with­out them. Every Magistrate then being bound by virtue of this Command, not only to abstain from murdering his Subjects, but to use all possible Means for preserving their Lives, Liberties, and Proper­ties; he is likewise bound by virtue of this Com­mand to engage in a Defensive War, when this is the only Mean left in his Power for effecting these valuable Purposes; unless it can be made appear that such a War is expresly prohibited by a Gospel Precept; which, as I have shewn above, cannot be done. From all which we conclude that the Sixth Commandment doth undoubtedly imply Defensive War.

[Page 56] THE V. further adds, ‘I would now ask, is the moral Command, Thou shalt not kill, best fulfill'd or kept by understanding the Gospel to forbid War, or to allow of it?’ To which I answer, by asking another Question, Is the moral Command, Thou shalt not kill, best fulfill'd or kept by under­standing the Gospel to forbid all capital Punishments, or to allow of them? to forbid Magistracy, or to al­low of it? Is the moral Command, Thou shalt not covet, best fulfill'd or kept by those who under­stand the Gospel to forbid Christians to labour for the Meat that perisheth, to take no Thought for Food and Raiment, not to lay up Treasures upon Earth, &c. or to allow of these Things? But the V. before we can give a direct Answer to his Ques­tion, must explain his Terms, and tell us what he means by War; if he means by this Term, a law­less Attack upon innocent Men, we answer, The moral Precept, Thou shalt not kill, is best fulfilled by understanding the Gospel to forbid it; but if by this Term he means a necessary Self-defence against lawless Violence, we answer, It is best fulfilled by understanding the Gospel to allow it. Nay, to un­derstand the Gospel to forbid War in the latter Sense, and act accordingly, when there is a Necessity for such a War, is so far from being the best Way to fulfil this Command, that in the Magistrate it must be a gross Violation of it. The best Way to fulfil the moral Command, Thou shalt not kill, would be for all Men to understand the Gospel to forbid all Kinds of Injustice and Wrong, and to act according­ly; and yet it doth not follow that the Magistrate acts contrary to the Gospel in punishing Evil-doers, who do not conform to Gospel Rules; so far from it, that he is bound by virtue of the Gospel so to do, this being one main End of his Office: So that were he to refuse or neglect it, he would act contra­ry [Page 57]to this moral Law, which Christ came not to de­stroy, but to fulfil.

AS to the V's following Words, ‘Where there is one of those who take it in its first Sense slain, are there not many Thousands of the latter kill'd in the Practice of Fighting?’ I reply by asking another Question, Where one of those that look'd upon Christianity as a cunningly devis'd Fable have suffer'd, have not many Thousands been slain in maintaining it to be the Power of God unto Salvati­on? Where there is one of those who take it in its first Sense, suffers, are there not many Thousands of the latter martyr'd in the Profession of the Gos­pel? Is it therefore wrong to take Christianity in the latter Sense? And besides, that so few of those who take it in the first Sense, are slain, may easily be ac­counted for; they are like Solomon's prudent Man, who foreseeing the Evil, hides himself. Let the Publick sink or swim, they take Care to keep them­selves out of Harm's Way; they have learnt so much of the Wisdom of the Serpent, as not to ex­pose themselves to Violence and Slaughter, so long as there are other heave Men enough to screen them from the Danger; who, like some among the pri­mitive Christians, seem to invite Danger as boldly as others sneakingly shun it; being as zealous for their Country, as they were for their Religion: So that a Man muit have a good Command of his Tem­per, that can keep his Countenance in reading these Words, instead of being convinc'd by them, that the Sixth Commandment is best fulfill'd by those who understand the Gospel to forbid Defen­sive War.

‘MORAL Precepts (saith the Author of the Ser­mon) are grounded upon invariable Equity, upon the Nature and Reason of Things, and therefore cannot be altered.’ To which the V. replies, ‘Can any Man possibly think that War is Part of [Page 58]the moral Law?’ Upon which I remark: I know Nobody that ever said so, viz. that War is a Part of the moral Law. I have prov'd in the first Part of this Treatise, that a necessary Self-de­fence against lawless Violence is a Dictate of the Law of Nature, of which the moral Law is a Transcript; but neither I not the A. of the S. have so much as insinuated that it was a Part of that Law, but only a Duty resulting from it, and imply'd in the Precept, Thou shalt not kill. I have prov'd like­wise, that as a necessary Self-defence against a fo­reign Enemy, was undoubtedly lawful under the Old Testament, it must be equally so under the New, because the Grounds and Reasons are the same, unless it can be made appear, that Christ hath by an express Law prohibited it. And I affirm, in answer to the Question, that tho' it be no Part of the moral Law, yet it is a Dictate of it, and a ne­cessary Duty resulting from it, and therefore will e­ver be lawful while there is a Necessity for it, un­less we can suppose that God will reverse the Law of Nature, which is as immutable as his own Being.

The V. farther adds, ‘Now (saith the Sermon) 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.’

TO which he replies, ‘If this Manner of Argu­ing proves any Thing, it proves Offensive War as lawful as Defensive. God approv'd 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 [Page 59]War that he approv'd of formerly, was underta­ken by his Counsel and Direction.’ Upon which I remark, That the V. misrepresents his Adversary here again, when he says, ‘He commanded them to destroy some utterly;’ whereas his Adversary doth not so much as insinuate, thro' the whole Pa­ragraph, that God commanded War, but only that he approv'd of it: So that the War the V. instan­ceth in, is not a similar Case. God's approving of some War formerly, which he did not command, is the Author's Argument, and is all that was necessa­ry to infer his Conclusion, viz. that Defensive War is lawful under the Gospel. But to gain the Assent of his ignorant Readers, the V. puts such Words in his Adversary's Mouth, as will best suit his own Turn, and then exults as if he had the better of the Argument. ‘God commanded the Israelites, says he, to destroy some utterly, is it therefore equally lawful to do so now?’ Which Question is quite impertinent, as being grounded on a false Supposi­tion, as if his Adversary had said, 'If the Almighty has commanded War formerly, &c.' whereas he says no such Thing: His Words are, ‘If the Al­mighty has approv'd of War formerly, &c.’ He likewise represents him as arguing in Defence of War without Distinction, which is another Specimen of his Candour: Whereas he is arguing only for the Lawfulness of Defensive War, as is evident from the Title and whole Tenor of the Sermon, and which this V. could not be ignorant of. How then he could say, ‘That his Manner of arguing, if it prov'd any Thing, would prove Offensive War as lawful as Defensive,’ can never be accounted for to his Credit: For 'tis evident to every Body that can discover a true Syllogism from a bare-fac'd Sophism, that it is otherwise.

THE Author's Words reduc'd into Form (the best Way to detect false Reasoning) will stand thus, [Page 60]If the Almighty has approved of Defensive War formerly, because it was a necessary Means under Divine Providence to protect innocent Men from the lawless Attacks of foreign Enemies; Defensive War was undoubtedly lawful, because he can ap­prove of nothing that is not so: But Defensive War is as necessary, in the Hand of Divine Providence, to protect innocent Men from the lawless Attacks of foreign Enemies, under the Gospel Dispensation, as it was formerly, ergo Defensive War is lawful un­der the Gospel. But if what the V. says be true, viz. 'That the A's Manner of arguing proves Offen­sive War as lawful as Defensive,' his Argument re­duc'd into Form, will stand thus; If the Almighty has approv'd of Defensive War formerly, because it was necessary, &c. Defensive War was then law­ful; but Defensive War is as necessary under the Gospel as formerly, therefore Offensive War is law­ful under the Gospel. Here is a Conclusion inferr'd that is not to be found in the Premises. The Sub­ject of the Premises is, War Defensive, the Subject of the Conclusion is, War Offensive.

Suppose the Vindicator were to argue in Defence of Divine Revelation, thus; If God Almighty ap­prov'd of Revelation formerly, and there is still the same Necessity of it now, it will follow, that it is equally lawful now. And suppose some one should reply, this Manner of arguing proves Judaism as lawful as Christianity: God commanded the Jews to keep Fasts, and observe Holy-days, to offer Sa­crifices, and worship in the Temple; is it therefore equally lawful to do so now, whether we have God's Command or not? How would the V. like this Manner of arguing? Would he allow that the Argument (proving Divine Revelation to be lawful now, from the Divine Approbation of it formerly) proves Judaism as lawful as Christianity? Or the Temple Service, as the spiritual Worship of the Qua­ker [Page 61]Meetings? Would he not think it his Duty to wipe off so foul an Aspersion, by detecting and ex­posing the Sophistry and Falshood of his Adversary's Reasoning, and proving his own to be right, if not misrepresented? which he might do, thus; If the Almighty has approv'd of Revelation formerly be­cause it was necessary to teach Men their Duty more clearly, &c. it follows, that it was lawful; but there is the same Necessity now for Revelation there was formerly; ergo Revelation is now lawful. This would be a fair Conclusion from the Premises, and the only one which in Truth could be inferr'd from them. How would he then like to be told; No, this is not the true Inference from your Argument; the true Inference from your Argument is, Erga Judaism, and the whole Jewish Ritual is now law­ful. Now this would be just such Measure as he metes to his Adversary on this Point. The native Inference from his Adversary's Premises, as I have shewn, is this; Ergo Defensive War is lawful un­der the Gospel. But the V. tells him no, the Infe­rence from his Argument is this; Ergo not only Offensive War, but such as was that against the Se­ven Nations, is now lawful. For your Manner of arguing, says he, not only proves Offensive War, but such a War as that which the Israelites made upon the Seven Nations at God's Command, as lawful as Defensive.

THE Author's Argument being thus clear'd from the V's false Representation, the insulting Question, Is it therefore equally lawful to do so now, whether we have his Command or not? which he proposes with such an Air of Victory, shamefully recoils upon himself, as being no ways inferrable from the Argu­ment of his Adversary, but is the meer Creature of his own Invention.

‘THE War, says the V. that he approved of formerly, was undertaken by his Counsel and [Page 62]Direction.’ Here we have another Specimen of his Sophistry. What doth he mean by the War? This Proposition, tho' literally true, yet is nothing to his Purpose; which is to prove that God never approv'd of any War but what was undertaken by his Counsel and Direction. The War, if it can mean any Thing, must mean the War with the Se­ven Nations; and this no doubt God approv'd of, because he commanded it; but what is this to the Purpose of confuting his Adversary, or proving that his Manner of arguing proves Offensive War as lawful as Defensive? Doth it follow, that because God approv'd of this particular War which was un­dertaken by his Command, that he never approv'd of any that was undertaken without his Command? By no Means. If the V. had intended to prove by these Words, that his Adversary's Manner of argu­ing prov'd such a War as that against the Seven Na­tions as lawful as a Defensive which he would fain do if possible) he should have form'd them thus; Whatever War God approv'd of formerly, was un­dertaken by his Command, or in his own equivoca­ting Words, by his Counsel and Direction. Then he would have said something to his Purpose, could he have prov'd it, and might have told the World with a much better Grace, that his Adversary's Manner of arguing proves Offensive War as lawful as Defen­sive. But if he cannot do this, the least Attonement he can make, for abusing his Author, and imposing upon the World evident Falshoods instead of Truths, is to beg God's Pardon, and confess his Ignorance; or else frankly own the true Reason of such wretched Quibbling and Prevarication.

BUT to clear this Matter further still, I will now prove, for this V's Conviction, or Confutation, from two Instances, that the Almighty approv'd of some Wars formerly, which were not undertaken by his [Page 63]Command, or, as the V. himself expresses it, by his Counsel and Direction.

1. THE Patriarch Abraham, as we read, Gen. xiv. 15. made War upon the four Kings for recovering his beloved Friend and Kinsman Lot; which tho' not directly in his own Defence, yet it was Tantamount, as being grounded on the same Principles of Reason and Equity; which I prove thus; ‘If a Man has a Right to defend himself, and what is his, against the Violence of a lawless Invader, he may certain­ly endeavour to recover what has been by any kind of Violence or Villainy taken from him; for as the Power to take any thing from another, gives no Right to it, it follows, that the Right to that which has been taken from its Owner, a­gainst his Will, remains still where it was; he may [...] truly call it his, and if it be his, he may use it as his, which if he who took it away, or any other, shall hinder him from doing, that Man is even here the Aggressor, and the Owner does but defend himself, and what is his.’ Which Reason­ing being apply'd to the Case of Abraham, who made War upon those Kings with no other View but to recover a Part of his own Family, it will shew that this was in Effect a Defensive War. And St. Angustim saith, ‘That Nation may justly by Arms be assaulted, which shall neglect either to puni [...]h their own Subjects for Injuries by them done, or to restore that which by Force was ta­ken away.’ And this was just Abraham's Case. Now Abraham had no special Commission from God to undertake this War: Here was no Divine Coun­sel nor Direction out of the ordinary Course of Providence; and yet it was approv'd of by God, as appears from Verse 19. Melchisedeck, who was Priest of the most High God, blossed God for the Victory; which, had the Undertaking been unlaw­ful, he certainly would not have done.

[Page 64] 2. ANOTHER Instance of the like Nature we have in Exodus xvii. 9. There we find how Moses commanded the Israelites to fight the Amalekites in their own Defence, who with armed Violence op­pos'd their Passage into the Land of Canaan; and it doth not appear that in this he consulted God at all. Now here is another Instance of a War that was not undertaken by God's Counsel and Direction, and yet was approved of by him, as we learn from Verse 14. And the Lord said unto Moses, write this for a Memorial in a Book, and rehearse it in the Ears of Joshua. That these Wars were agreeable to the Law of Nature, is evident from [...]nce, that God approved of them, tho' undertaken with­out his special Command; for he can no more ap­prove of any thing contrary to this, than he can change his own Being, or take away all Distinction between moral Good and Evil. Things which are morally Evil (and such are all Things contrary to the Law of Nature) can never be an Object of Di­vine Approbation, but must necessarily be condem­ned by him; the eternal and necessary Rectitude of his Nature requires it. These Wars were Defensive, or Tantamount, as I observed above; the latter was undertaken by the Israelites to defend themselves from the Violence of an Enemy, that by Force of Arms oppos'd their Passage into their own Land; the former was undertaken by Abraham, to recover his distress'd Friend and Kinsman, and his miserable Family, from a lawless Enemy, that had taken them Captives. Now if such a War was lawful then (as appears it was) there being the same Necessity still for Self-defence, it will follow, that Self-defence is equally lawful now, unless a Law of the Gospel can be produc'd which expresly forbids it.

THERE IS a manifest Difference between God's ap­proving those Wars that were undertaken by good Men, having no other Warrant for so doing than [Page 65]the bare Law of Nature; and those that were un­dertaken by his special Command. The first were undertaken because they were agreeable to the Law of Nature, antecedent to all positive Precepts whatsoever, and therefore were approved of by God; but the [...]tter were only lawful because God commanded them. He being the absolute Sove­reign of the Universe, and the rightful Proprietor of all his Creatures, may justly dispose of them to whom, and in what Manner, he pleases. 'Tis true God cannot dissolve the Obligation of the preceptive Law of Nature, or change the Natures of Good and Evil. For altho' he be omnipotent, yet we must always suppose his infinite Power to be conjoin'd with infinite Goodness, else it is no Divine Power; and therefore, Posse malum, non est posse; i. e. It is no Power but Weakness to do Evil ^*. Nevertheless, God may alter the Properties of those Things from whence the Respects of Good and Evil do result, as in the Israelites destroying some Nations utterly, and taking away their Possessions, which God may justly do, by virtue of his absolute Dominion; but the Change here is not in the Obligation of the Law, but in the Things themselves. Murder would be an intrinsical Evil still, but that which was done by an immediate and explicit Command from God, was no Murder. Robbery had been a Sin still, but taking Things alienated from their Properties by God himself, was not Robbery. And moreover, the Nations upon whom he commanded the Isra­elites to make War, and destroy some of them utter­ly, and spoil them of their Possessions, had by their Wickedness forfeited all to the Sovereign Proprietor of the whole World; who might therefore justly take them away by whatever Instruments he pleased; and as he thought proper to make Use of the Isra­elites for that Purpose, they did no Wrong in taking away their Possessions, and destroying many of them [Page 66]utterly, because they did only what God commanded them, which, to have refa [...], would have been Rebeil [...]n; whereas had they undertaken such a War without God's Comman [...], it would never have been approved of by him, because [...] would have been a manifest Violation of the Law of Nature. In this Case they would have been [...]lty of Robbery and Murder, and therefore God could never have approv'd of it. The Reasons of the [...] mentioned Instances, were founded in the Law of Nature, which is the eternal Rule of Righteousness, which Reasons will continue the same, so long as it is rea­sonable that the Innocent should not suffer Injury by the violent Hands of the Guilty; or, in other Words, so long as there subsists any Difference be­tween moral Good and Evil: But the last-mentioned Instances were in Consequence of an express Com­mand of God, founded upon Reasons peculiar to the Circumstances of those Times in which it was given. The Israelites were under a Theocracy; God himself was their King and Sovereign in a more peculiar Manner than to any other People. He not only undertook their Tutelage thro' a De­sart Country, in which he [...] and supported them in a miraculous Manner many Years, but pro­mis'd to settle them in a [...] Land, and bestow upon them great Possessions.

AND as the Inhabitants of the Seven Nations had by their Rebellion against God forfeited all, he was plea [...]d to give [...]pecial Commission to his own pe­culiar People to drive them our, and take Possessi­on. But that extraor [...]inary Dispensation being long since expired, an [...] being now under an ordinary Providence, as to their civil Policy, there are not the same Grou [...]'s and Reasons for such a Practice, and therefore [...] of Course. D [...] the same Grounds and Reasons sus [...]st [...]ow, as did then, we may suppose God would act in the same Manner; [Page 67]but they ceasing, the Practic [...] ceased with them. The [...] were [...] to destroy some Nations [...], and to take Possession of their ln­h [...]c, [...] no doubt God [...] of, be­cause he [...] Circumstances in which this Command was given, it was [...] to the Law of [...] no­thing repugnant [...] deferred above; yet, in other Circumstances, wh [...] the Grounds and Rea­sons of such a Command c [...]ase, we may be sure God will not [...] [...]actice.

LET this [...] therefore be remembered, that these Wars which were undertaken by good Men, without [...]ary s [...]cial Command from God, a [...]st [...]rwar [...]s [...] of by him, were agreeable to the Law of nature, and Consequently lawful; as [...] which the [...] and Reasons of them conti­ [...], [...] Wars that were un­dertaken by the [...], at the sp [...] Command of [...], being sounded upon Reasons that could sul [...] [...] than the [...], tho' they [...], work the [...] of them conti­nu [...], [...] to be so, when the Reasons [...], I say, be remembered, and it will [...] to awswer [...]'s Custom; ' [...] lawful to [...]o so now, [...] have any Command or not? No, it is [...] Lawful row to take [...]y Mens [...]stions and Laws, tho' it was [...]; because Circumstances bring [...]ec, and the Reasons of such a Practice being c [...]a­se [...], God M [...] girty does not give Men s [...] a Com­mand, and that because he can do nothing without Reason. But then it doth not follow from hence, that it is not equally lawful now to make such a War as good Men under the Old [...]stament [...], for the undertaking whereof they had no other Direction but the Law of Nature, which Law is still common to us with them, and that for this Reason; Because [Page 68]the same Grounds and Reasons subsist now as did then. Having the same Law to direct us, and be­ing under the same Obligations to defend ourselves from unjust Violence, to which we are equally lia­ble, it must consequently be as lawful for us to defend ourselves, by opposing Force to Force, as it was for them; unless, as I said before, Christ by an express Precept in the Gospel has prohibitted it.

He further adds, ‘The latter Part of the Para­graph does not belong to the Argument, unless it is first prov'd, 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.’

TO which I reply: The first Part of this Re­mark is false, as sufficiently appears from what I have said above; and the latter Part is already answered. For I have prov'd, to the Conviction of every un­prejudic'd Reader, that Defensive War is agreeable to the Law of Nature, and not contrary to the Gospel, notwithstanding the want of an express Command of God. From whence it will follow, that while Man, by the Exercise of his rational Fa­culties, can distinguish between Right and Wrong, Happiness and Misery, he will be a sufficient Judge when such a War is suitable, and when not.

THE Author of the Sermon says farther; ‘Can we think that God would approve of any Practice formerly, that was contrary to the moral Law? 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?’ To which the V. replies, ‘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 [Page 69]Command and Direction, and no otherwise.’ Which Observation having been already proved to be groundless and impartment, it will not follow, that the like Circumstances of Necessity must be when we have the [...]vine Command and Direction: The like Circumstances of Necessity must be, the human impossibility of protecting and preserving an innocent People from the Violence of a lawless In­vader. This was the Ground of those Wars which were formerly carried on by good Men, without a­ny express Command from God, and yet approv'd of by him, which is an indisputable Testimony that they were lawful; and the same Grounds and Rea­sons subsisting still, the same Practice must be lawful still, unless an express Law of God can be produc'd pro [...]biting it. That the Gospel prohibits all unlaw­ful Wars, as it does all other unlawful Actions, we readily grant; but it no more follows from hence, that all Manner of War is unlawful under the Gos­pel, than that all Manner of Actions are so; for as some Actions are lawful, notwithstanding there are a great many unlawful; so some Wars may be just, not withstanding the many unjust Wars that are car­ried on in the World; and tho' these be prohibited by the Gospel, as all other unjust Actions are, yet it does not appear that those are prohibited any farther, than as they exceed the Bounds of Justice and Hu­manity; and then 'tis only the Abuse that is prohi­bited, but not the Use. ‘The blessed Jesus (saith the V.) hath taught some Christians, both by the immediate Dictates of his Spirit, and Expression of his Will, when personally upon Earth, that the best Way to keep the Commandments, Thou shalt not kill, and, Thou shall love thy Neighbour, is not to harbour any Ill-will or Revenge against any, but to love Enemies.’ I will add, by way of Remark, That the blessed Jesus hath taught, not some, but all Christians, I shall not say, by the im­mediate [Page 70]Dictates of his Spirit (because they who say so, assert more than they can prove, unless by the immediate Dictates of his Spirit they mean the holy Scriptures) but by the Expression of his Will in the Gospel, that the best Way to keep these Command­ments, is not to harbour any Ill-will or Revenge a­gainst any, but to love Enemies. And, without Doubt, all who deserve the Name of Christians, will acknowledge this, as well as this V. and, I doubt not, are as ready to practise it in its true and proper Sense. But how does this Argument prove the Unlawfulness of Self-defence against the lawless Violence of a foreign Enemy? Because it is every Christian's Duty to harbour no Ill-will or Revenge against any, doth it therefore follow, that it is the Duty of the Magistrate to suffer a foreign Invader to destroy himself and his Subjects, without any Resistance? Or, in other Words, That 'tis unlaw­ful for the Magistrate to defend himself, and his Subjects, against the lawless Violence of a foreign Enemy? By the same Argument, he ought to bear with the most villainous Outrages of Cut-throats and Rebels among his own Subjects, because this will be the best Way to keep the Commandments, Thou shalt not kill, and, Thou shalt love thy Neigh­bour, by not harbouring any Ill-will or Revenge a­gainst any, but loving of Enemies. But may not the Christian Magistrate defend himself and his Sub­jects against a foreign Enemy, without harbouring Ill-will and Revenge against any, as well as put to Death a notorious Criminal, who cannot be pre­serv'd without manifest Danger to the Community? And if so, why such a mighty Out cry against a Defensive War, as if it could not be undertaken without the manifest Violation of the Sixth Com­mandment, and the Precept of Christ, to harbour no Ill-will or Revenge against any, but to love E­nemies, when 'tis evident the Case is quite other­wise? [Page 71]For if the Magistrate may put to Death a notorious Malefactor, who cannot be preserv'd without manifest Danger to the Publick, and yet not be chargeable with any Violation of these Com­mandments, he may likewise, without being guilty of any Violation of these Commandments, strenu­ously defend himself and his innocent Subjects a­gainst the lawless Violence of a foreign Invader, when the Ruin of the Publick cannot be prevented without it. This V. should distinguish between War Offensive and Defensive (but this would have disserv'd his Purpose) and even between the Use and the Abuse of the latter. I acknowledge that even a Defensive War may be abus'd, when Men, in the Management of it, exceed the Bounds of Justice and Humanity; but this is no Argument against the Lawfulness of it, but only of the Perverseness of Mankind, who are too apt to abuse the best Things of Providence. Christianity has been abus'd by bad Men to very ill Purposes, and yet I hope Nobody will say, that therefore the Profession of Christianity is unlawful. Christianity forbids Injury and Re­venge, and enjoins the Love of Enemies (says the V.) and therefore 'tis unlawful for Christians to de­fend themselves against a foreign Enemy. Now the same Argument will prove it unlawful for the Chri­stian Magistrate to resist a domestick Traitor, or the most outrageous Villain whatsoever; for if Resi­stance to them can be managed wholly without these Crimes, and consistent with Christ's Precept of lov­ing Enemies, so may likewise Resistance to a foreign Enemy. If it cannot, and yet Resistance to them be acknowledged lawful, so likewise may Resistance to foreign Invaders, notwithstanding the same Un­happiness. Let them look to it who are guilty of these Crimes. This can no more hinder honest Men from defending themselves, or from making their Advantages of the Crimes of others in their [Page 72]own Self-defence in one Case, than it is allowed to do in another.

BUT it is a very unaccountable Thing, in my Opini­on, to suppose that a People cannot join together, with the Consent, and by the Authority of the su­pream Magistrate, in defending themselves against a foreign Enemy, without any such Crimes. For there is nothing necessary to this, that I know of, that requires either Revenge, Hatred, or Injury, in the true Sense of these Terms, or any Thing but an inoffensive and justifiable Way of proceeding. If any other Methods have been used in carrying on such Wars, this will only reflect upon the Persons who have made Use of them, not upon the Justice of the Wars themselves. Hence will appear the Impertinency of this V's elaborate Harangue, Page 39. where he says, ‘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, &c. surely then this Reason is much stronger for forbidding national and publick Revenge.’ All which is gratis dictum still, because the Practice, for the Lawfulness of which we are contending, implies no such Idea. We grant that the Gospel forbids Revenge, both private and publick; Doth it there­fore follow, that it forbids Self-defence? Or, in other Words, doth it therefore follow, that a necessary Self-defence is unlawful, when this can be done without Revenge? Let this V. prove, that an affectionate Father cannot defend him­self against an unnatural Child attempting to cut his Throat, without Revenge; or that a pious Prince cannot defend his innocent Subjects from a foreign Invader, without a malicious Inten­tion of Revenge and Injury in the proper Sense of these Terms; and then his Argument will signify something, otherwise 'tis quite impertinent, and wholly [Page 73]foreign to the Point in debate. But then he tells us further: ‘A Prohibition of Injuries, and a Com­mand to endure them, must be consider'd as re­lative to the Consequence if allow'd: 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 greater Degree of that Meekness and Lowliness of Heart, which Christ taught his Disciples to learn of him.’ Up­on which I must remark, in the first Place, That this sophistical Argument reflects a most egregious Calumny on the Christian Religion, representing it as necessarily laying Christians open to all the villain­ous Outrages the vilest Part of Mankind think fit to offer them. For by the same Argument it may be prov'd unlawful to resist a Robber or a Cut­throat, because the enduring of their injurious Treatment, rather than returning Evil for Evil, shews a Christian Disposition, and a very great De­gree of that Meekness and Lowliness of Heart, which Christ taught his Disciples to learn of him. By the same Argument it may be prov'd unlawful for a Christian Prince to quell a dangerous Conspi­racy, or to resist a Cabal of rebellious Subjects, who have sworn Destruction to him and the Common­wealth, because the enduring such Injury and Inju­stice, rather than returning Evil for Evil, shews a Christian Disposition in him, and a great Degree of that Meekness and Lowliness of Heart, which Christ taught his Disciples to learn of him. And if it be said that the Christian Religion allows the Ma­gistrate to regard the publick Good, then it must consequently be allowed lawful for him to defend the Publick from lawless Violence; unless a Regard for the publick Good can be consistent with the De­struction [Page 74]of the Publick. But the true State of this Case, in short, can amount to no more than this, that Christianity obliges Men to suffer pat [...]ly, when they cannot by any lawful M [...]ans prevent it. The Point therefore this V. must prove, is this; That Self-defence against a foreign Invader, when other Methods fail, is an unlawful Method for People to take in or­der to prevent their own Ruin. Or, that tho' the Christian Religion hath allowed the Christian Ma­gistrate to defend himself and his innocent Subjects from Robbers and Cut-throats in private Cases, it hath absolutely condemned it in all Cases against a foreign Invader, tho' this be much more necessary for the same good End. To prove this, would do Service to a Cause which I hope the V. hath not much at Heart, but would by no Means be for the Honour of the Christian Rengion. But to tell us that Christianity obliges us to bear Injuries, can be no Argument at all against our Doctrine; we are as ready to acknowledge this as this V. The Question is, how far it obliges us to do so? And that every Man, who hath not renounced his Reason, or mask'd it with a Vizor of Hypocrisy, will own, is no farther than they cannot prevent it by lawful and honourable Means. And if it can be shewn, that Self-defence in all Cases is condemn'd in the Gospel, this must be the Argument against it taken from Christianity, and not that it obliges us to bear Inju­ries; for this it may do, and yet allow of Self-de­fence, in Cases of publick Concern, as well as in some Cases of private Concern.

AS to the Passages of Scripture from whence the V. infers his Argument, I have sufficiently examin­ed them in the first Part of this Treatise, and shewn, that they necessarily require a Limitation, and that it can be no more shewn from those Expressions, that no Cases are to be excepted in the interpreting these Texts, than it can be from the like general [Page 75]Expressions us'd in other Places, that other Texts can admit of no Restrictions, which yet are allowed on all Hands to require a limited Interpretation.

We are forbid in unlimited Terms to resist Evil, but no where forbid to defend ourselves; we are en­joined in unlimited Terms to love our Enemies, but this cannot imply a total Neglect of ourselves; we are required likewise in unlimited Terms to pray for our Enemies, but this doth not im­ply that we are to pray in an unlimited Manner for them, any more than our Obligation to return them Blessing for Cursing implies in it a Necessity of pray­ing for their worldly Prosperity to our own Destruc­tion. We are required in general Terms to pray for all Men, but we are left to common Sense to in­form us that Charity begins at Home, and that we are not obliged to pray for their Success or Life, if it be inconsistent with our own, or to prefer the temporal Good of any Person, before the Happiness of others in whom we are more nearly concerned.

THE V. further observes; ‘That according to the Reason given by Christ himself, immediately after these 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, &c.’ Which Observation is equally impertinent with his former; because the Practice we plead for, implies neither Injury nor Revenge, strictly so called. And further; If it be unlawful for a Christian Commu­nity to defend themselves against a foreign Enemy, because we are to imitate our heavenly Father, who dispenses his temporal Blessings upon the most pub­lickly prophane ^*; by the same Argument, it will [Page 76]be unlawful to defend ourselves against any villain­ous Assault whatsoever; it will be unlawful for the Magistrate to inflict Punishment upon Criminals; it will be unlawful for the most virtuous Woman to resist a Ravisher, &c. because God dispenses his [...]emporal Blessings upon the vilest of the human Race: This Passage of Scripture is an excellent Argument against Revenge and Injury, arising from M [...]ns Passions and corrupt Inclinations, which are entirely inconsistent with the publick Good; and likewise for the most patient suffering of those Evils which they cannot lawfully and honourably avoid. But it is a sad Thing to find Men endeavouring to represent the Christian Religion, as throwing off all Care for the Happiness of human Society, and to look upon themselves, because Christians, as uncon­cern'd for their Families, Neighbours, and Posteri­ty, at a Time when there is the greatest Call for such a Concern: This must make Strangers to it, apt to believe it an Enemy, and not a Friend, to human Society.

BUT further, the Argument against Self-defence taken from these Words, That ye may be the Children of your Father which is in Heaven, is not only inconclu­sive, but ill grounded; and is so far from being in savour of the V. that it makes directly against him. We are commanded to love our Enemies by the Ex­ample of God himself, who maketh his Sun to rise on the Evil, and on the Good, and sendeth Rain on the Just, and on the Unjust, and yet the same God puts a manifest Difference between them; some he [Page 77]punishes with heavy Judgments in this Life, and h [...]t [...] in Store much heavier Judgments in the next. Tho' God be full of Patience and Long-suffering, yet the Scripture every where declares his Indigna­tion and Wrath against obstinate Sinners, of which the Magistrate is declared by St. Paul to be the Minister, Rom. xiii. 4. And Christ himself being provok'd by the Obstinacy of the Jews, is said by a Parable, to send out his Army, and to burn up their City, which was accordingly fulfilled in Fact. So that tho' it be the Duty of Christians not to re­taliate Injury and Revenge, that they may be the Children of their heavenly Father, who is good to the Unthankful and the Wicked, it will not follow that 'tis unlawful for the Magistrate (who is God's Minister to execute Vengeance, or inflict Punish­ment on them that do Evil) to defend with the Sword of Justice his Innocent Subjects against the lawless Violence of wicked Men; because at the same Time that he doth this, he may imitate his heavenly Father, who tho' he be kind to the Un­thankful and Wicked, yet declares his Indignation and Wrath against obstinate Sinners, both in this Life and the next. Now from what hath been said on these Remarks, let any reasonable Man judge, whether our Saviour can be suppos'd in these Passa­ges, wherein he prohibits all Injury and Revenge, to put the Case of a foreign Invasion, or that we should love Russians and Cut-throats in such a Man­ner, as not to defend the Publick from their Vio­lence, left in this Attempt they should chance to lose their Lives. And I must likewise submit it to the Judgment of every intelligent Reader, whether what the V. says in the latter Part of his Paragraph, Page 40. be not partly impertinent, and partly false. The Words are these: ‘Will my putting up with small and tolerable Injuries, not indulging private Revenge, but resisting with Violence great Inju­ries, [Page 78]and returning with the 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 [...] him?’ All this, I say, is [...] the Practice we plead for, [...] re­quire the returning with our [...] Evil in our Power in [...] van­ces ^*. The V. is much mistaken [...] so. We are plea [...]ing for nothing but a necessary [...] ­defence, which if we can do by [...] or Per­suasives, thereby bringing the En [...] to r [...]a [...]o [...]able Terms without shedding of Blood, we shall neither be guilty of Violence nor Injury, if we require no­thing of him repugnant to justice, which, if he complies with, there will be an [...]nd of all [...]ostili­ties on our Part; but if, instead of con [...]ying with any reasonable Terms, he attacks us in an hostile Manner, we, in opposing Force to Force, purely in our own Defence, cannot, with any Colour of Reason, be said to commit Violence; i. e. forceably infringe upon any Man's Right, which is the pro­per Idea of Violence, and return all the Evil in our Power in revenge for national Grievances; because this may be done, not from any Principle of Re­venge, but from the sole Principle of Self-preserva­tion.' And as for the Evils that may accidentally happen to the Aggressor, we cannot properly be said to be the Authors of them; because [...] who begins the Violence, is the true Cause of all that fol­lows; and whatever falls upon him, by the Oppo­sition [Page 79]made by the defending Party, is but the Ef­fect of his own Act; or, as I said above, it is that Violence, of which he is the Author, reflected back upon himself.

THE Practice therefore we plead for, being the Act of the supreme Magistrate, comes up to the Almighty's universal Beneficence as a Comparison; who, notwithstanding this, doth by no Means clear the Guilty: And thus it appears that the V's Con­clusion is as false, as his Premises are impertinent.

Again: The Author of the Sermon endeavours to prove, that the Office of the Magistrate necessa­rily evinces the Lawfulness of Defensive War; up­on which the V. makes this Remark; ‘Whenever the Magistrate is convinced that the Doctrines of Christianity forbid War, it will be as much his Duty, as any other Man's, to render Obedience to those Doctrines;’ i. e. in other Words, to act ac­cording to his Convictions. To which I reply: I seems very unaccountable how any Man can be con­vinced that 'tis lawful to be a Magistrate, who is the same time convinced of the Unlawfulness of De­fensive War. For if it be the indispensible Duty of the Magistrate to protect the Lives and Liberties of the Subjects, and if this cannot, at some times, be done, without opposing Force to Force, I would ask this V. How that Man can be said to do his Duty, or act a consistent Part, who, undertaking the Office of a Magistrate, is bound in Conscience to deny that to the Publick, which at Times is the most valuable and necessary End of his Office? He must either allow, that it is not the Magistrate's Duty to protect the Lives and Liberties of Sub­jects from unjust Violence, which I believe he will hardly venture to do; or else, that every Man, prin­cipled against Self-defence, undertaking the Office of a Magistrate, acts such a Part as no honest Man can justify. The V. should have said, which would [Page 80]have been much more for his Credit, Whenever a Man is convinced that the Doctrines of Christ for­bid Defensive War, it will be his indispensible Duty to refuse the Office of a Magistrate (at least to act in the legislative Part of Government, whose Province it is to concert proper Measures for the Defence of the Publick; leaving this Office to those, who can comply with all the Ends of it with a safe Con­science.

But further: ^* I look upon it to be a preposterous Way of arguing, that because a Man is not con­vinced of the Lawfulness of any Practice evidently requisite for the Good of human Society, that there­fore it is his Duty to omit it; this is making a Man's Faith or Perswa [...]ion the Rule of moral Duties. 'Tis true the Apostle saith, Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin; but he doth not mean those moral Duties which are discoverable by the meanest Mortal, that has the Exercise of Reason; but such as arise from doubtful Speculations, the Practice or Omission whereof, hath no other Evil in them, than as they give Scandal or [...]ssence to weak Brethren. But to maintain, that every Man's Perswasion or Opinion is to be the Rule of his moral Duty, as this V. doth, both here, and where he says, ‘If any sincere Christian under­stands it to be his Duty not to make any Defence at all, his refusing to use any, will never incur Guilt,’ is, in my Opinion, of dangerous Conse­quence. One of the great Ends of Society is mu­tual Defence against Injuries; every Member there­fore is obliged by the Law of Nature, whereby he is bound to observe Compacts, and fulfil Promises, to contribute his Share in Defence of the Publick; this is as indispensible a Duty on every Member of civil Society, as Obedience to Parents, or Subjection to Magistrates. 'Tis a Duty, the Obligation to which no Law can dispense with, nor can any Pre­tence [Page 81]whatsoever excuse the Neglect of it. Let a Man pretend to what Spirit he will, his understand­ing it to be his Duty to omit what both Reason and Revelation demonstrate to [...] Sin for him to omit, viz. Protection, if he be a Magistrate, and Obedi­ence, if a Subject (besides the Obligation he is un­der, by the Law of Nature, to keep lawful Com­pacts, and fulfil lawful Promises) will undoubtedly incur Guilt, whatever this V. may fondly imagine to the contrary. By this Manner of arguing, Men may plead for the greatest Villainies. Ravillac understood it to be his Duty, and a very meritorious Act, to kill Henry the Fourth, because he favoured Here­ticks; Did he therefore by this villainous Assassina­tion incur no Guilt? The Enthusiasts and Fanaticks of Munster understood it to be their Duty to destroy their Magistrates, in order to make way for Christ's Kingdom, he Establishment whereof, they ima­gin'd, would be obstructed by these earthly Powers; Did therefore their actual rising in Arms against their lawful Magistrates incur no Guilt? And even as to Cases of Omission, if a Subject understands it to be his Duty not to obey the lawful Commands of the supream or sovereign Power of the Commonwealth, will he therefore incur no Guilt, when the Apostle says, That he shall thereby receive to himself Damna­tion? If a Christian understands it to be his Duty, from some mistaken Passages of Scripture, not to la­bour for the Meat that perisheth, and thereby starve himself and his Family, will he therefore incur no Guilt? If a Man should understand it to be his Duty to betake himself to a monastick Life, and thereup­on abandon his Family, and retire to a Convent, will he therefore incur no Guilt?

IF the Magistrate, the very End of whose Office it is to preserve and protect Mens Lives and Proper­ties, understands it to be his Duty not to inflict Pu­nishment on Evil-doers, notwithstanding this be in­dispensibly [Page 82]necessary for the publick Security, will he therefore incur no Guilt? And finally, If all the Subjects of a Commonwealth, who are bound, by the Laws of God and Nature, to do every Thing that is lawful, and in their Power, for preserving and pro­moting the Good of the Community, understand it to be their Duty to omit a Practice, which at a cer­tain Time is the only Means under God to preserve the Community from Ruin, will they therefore incur no Guilt? Whence I think it plainly appears, that this Way of arguing is not only groundless and ab­surd, as destroying the true Foundation of all moral Duties, but a most dangerous Error, and would in­fer most dreadful, yet necessary, Consequences ^*.

THE next Passage in this Vindicator's Answer to the Sermon, which seores to affect the general Doc­trine I have established, is, Page 33. where he re­marks on that Prophesy of Isaiah ii. 4. which says, And be shall judge among the Nations, and shall re­buke many People, and they shall beat their Swords into Plowshares, and their Spears into Pruning-books, &c. Which Prophesy can no more prove the Un­lawfulness of Defensive War, so long as there shall be Occasion for it, than it will prove the Non-obli­gation of keeping a sucking Child from playing with a Viper, or the Non-necessity of keeping a Lamb from a Lion, because the same Prophesy tells us, that at the very Time when Men shall beat their Swords into Plowshares, and their Spears into Pruning-hooks, The Lamb and the Lion shall lie down together, and the sucking Child shall play with the Basilisk. It can prove nothing but this, That whenever that Prophesy shall be fulfilled, which we believe will be at the Conversion of the Jews, then all War will cease, an universal Peace being spread over the Nations. This the Prophet intimates by a symbolical Expression, of turning their Wea­pons [Page 83]of War into Implements of Husbandry. Then there will be no Violence, and consequently no [...] of Defence. But it can by no Rules of Rea­ [...]ing [...] inferr'd from this Prophesy, that 'tis un­la [...] to make Use of such Weapons in our own Defence, so long as there is Necessity for it. This is not a Prophesy of the Gospel-Dispensation in ge­neral, but only of something that shall come to pass in a certain Period of that Dispensation. It only tells us what the State of Christians will be, as to this Point, when it shall be fulfilled; but not what their Duty is, with regard to it before; Only what shall be done in a certain Period of the Gospel Oecono­my, but not what must be done before that Period comes. What the V. says with relation to the Cause and the Effect; ‘That the Cause is the judg­ing of Christ internally in Individuals, and the Ef­fect, that wherever this judging is experienced, there is a Cessation from all War;’ is either a bare-fac'd Sophism, or a meer Dream of his own; and is as opposite to the plain Import of the whole of this Prophesy, as Light is to Da [...]kness. And if Men will take such Liberties as this in interpreting Scripture, they may bring Scripture Proofs for all [...] devout Dreams of Jacob Behmen. Whenever [...] speaks of Christ's Kingdom, that he [...] an external glorious State, and not any [...] Kingdom in the Hearts of a Few, is evident [...] every Text that makes mention thereof. But that this glorious State, or at least that Period of it allude [...] to in the Text under Consideration, hath never been yet, but is still future, is as evident to all rational Men, who are well acquainted with Church-History. The Time hath never yet been when the Lion and the Lamb could lie safely toge­ther (taking these Words even in a figurative Sense) and the sucking Child play with the Basilisk without Danger of being hurt; and when there was none to [Page 84]hurt in all God's holy Mountain; when Nation hath ceas'd to lift up Sword against Nation, and wholly left off to learn the Discipline of War. And if the V. can prove the present Age to be the Time prophesied of in these Words, I will give up the Point I con­tend for; but if he cannot, I must beg Leave to in­sist upon it, that his Argument drawn from hence to the contrary, proves nothing. When Nation shall cease to lift up Sword against Nation, and not learn War any more; then I own Christians may convert their Weapons of War into Implements of Husban­dry; but till then it doth not appear, from any thing in this Prophesy, that they may not lawfully keep them, and use them too, provided it be pure­ly in their own Defence. Nothing from thence can be concluded against the Lawfulness of a necessary Self-defence, so long as they that heartily endea­vour to live in Peace, are not suffered to enjoy in What the V. quotes from the learned Pocie, is so fat from making it appear that this Prophesy makes in favour of his Argument, that it is a strong Confir­mation of what I have advanced, viz. That the Completion of this Prophesy is yet to come. The Animosities and Hostilities between the Jews and Gentiles have never yet been rooted out; this will never be till the Jews are converted; nor have Mens Pride, and Passions, and Lusts, which are the Causes of all Wars, been subdued, as this learned Commentator says they shall be, when this Prophesy shall be fulfilled. And when he says, that the working Humility, Meekness, Self-denial, and true and fer­vent Love to all Men, from whence Peace necessarily follows, was the Design of the Gospel in all, and the Effect of it in those that rightly received it; this no more proves that he thought this Prophesy makes Defensive War unlawful under the Gospel, than that he thought it makes capital Punishments by the Magistrate so. For if it be unlawful for the [Page 85]Magistrate to use the temporal Sword in Defence of his innocent Subjects, because it was the Design of the Gospel to work Humility, Meekness, Self-de­nial, and true and fervent Love to all Men, and the Effect of it in those who rightly received it; it must by the same Argument be unlawful for the Magi­strate to defend himself and his peaceable Subjects from the villainous Attempts of Murderers and Cut­throats in his own Dominions; which Doctrine this learned Man was very far from believing. It is evi­dent, that all have not yet complied with the Design of the Gospel, and it cannot be inferred from any thing in Poole's Words, that he thought it unlawful for those, who have comply'd so far with the De­sign of it, as to follow after the Things that make for Peace, to defend themselves against those who will not suffer them to enjoy it, when they cannot, in any human Probability, escape their unjust Vio­lence otherwise.

‘The Jews, says the V. understood this Prophe­sy to relate solely to the times of the Messiah, and alledge it as a strong Argument that the Messiah is not come.’ Upon which I observe, that this V. is every where the same subtle Arguer. The Jews understood, by this Prophesy, that the Messiah would come in the Form of a great temporal Mo­narch, to restore them to their own Land, that Je­rusalem should be the Seat of Government, and that all Nations should bow under his Scepter: In this Sense, I say, they understood this Prophesy to re­late solely to the times of the Messiah, and alledge it as a strong Argument that the Messiah is not come; I leave the intelligent Reader to make the Applicati­on. The Jews, I grant, use this Prophesy by Way of Argumentum ad hominem against such Christians as this V. in order to prove that Christ cannot be the Messiah prophesied of by Isaiah, who, supposing that they understood this Prophesy in the same Sense [Page 86]with themselves (as indeed such as the V. does in one Sense) urge them with this Question; Why is not War and Fighting ceased among the Nations, if your Christ be the Messiah there prophesied of? So that the V's Argument might pass well enough, if advanc'd by a Jew; but as it comes from the Mouth of the V. of a Christian Doctrine, it is most intolerable; and argues either the greatest Igno­rance, or the most shameful Prevarication imagina­ble. And if the antient Fathers did affirm this Pro­phesy to be fulfilled in the Christians in their Times, as the V. asserts, I must beg Leave to desire him to consider, that these antient Fathers he speaks of, being some of that Man-made hireling Ministry he complains of, Page 3. of his Vindication, are to be understood, Cum grano salis. This, I dare say, he will readily grant me, as to many other Points these Fa­thers have most strenuously maintained; and why their Authority should be of so great Weight with the Vin­dicator in this one Point, and no other, is not easy to be accounted for to his Credit. I should be glad to know of the V. whether he believes that those Fa­thers, upon whose Authority he depends so much for proving his Point, were among the Number of those ‘Primitive Believers who were faithful to the Appearance of the divine Spirit, and obey'd the Teachings and Directions thereof,’ or in the Apo­stacy he speaks of, Page 2? If he owns the first, he must renounce Quakerism, or else stand self-condem­ned; if the second, what Reason have either we or he to believe that those apostate antient Fathers un­derstood the true Meaning of this Prophesy?

BUT further, if these antient Fathers did any where affirm this Prophesy to be fulfilled in the Cri­stians in their Times, they could mean no more, than that it was fulfilled so far as that Christians liv'd more peaceably than the Heathens; no more, than that it it was fulfilled in some Sense, as we say; [Page 87]this was evident to every one from Matter of Fact. For tho' they who in times past killed one another, upon every little Provocation (as was common a­mong the Heathens) did not then war and fight with their Enemies, as Justin Martyr speaks; yet Nation did then fight against Nation, and King­don [...] against Kingdom, as much as ever, and Men learned War then as much as before. So that 'tis impossible any Man in his Senses could think, that this Prophesy was at that Time fully accomplished. Could Justin Martyr possibly imagine, that a Pro­phesy concerning the Peace and Tranquility of all Nations, was fulfilled in the passive Obedience of a very insignificant Number, in Comparison with all Nations? If he did, we may venture to say, with­out Breach of Charity, that he was as much mista­ken in this Point, as the V. cannot but think he was in some others, which we look upon to be of far greater Importance. But granting the V. that the Fathers universally allow the Reign of Christ to be describ'd by the Prophet Isaiah, Chap. xi. where he says, They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy Mountain, for the Earth it shell be full of the Know­ledge of the Lord, as the Waters cover the Sea. Will it therefore follow, that Defensive War is unlawful in every Period of this Reign? By no means. No­thing can be inferr'd from it against the Unlawful­ness thereof, but only in that Period of it, when there shall be none to hurt nor destroy in all God's holy Mountain; and when the Earth shall be full of the Knowledge of the Lord, as the Waters cover the Sea. And if Justin Martyr took the holy Mountain in this Prophesy to be spoken of the Church of Christ, as the V. asserts, and if he tho't that this would be the State of the Church in every Period of it, we must beg Leave to think he was mistaken; for 'tis evident from Fact, that the Case is otherwise. The Time has never yet been when [Page 88]it could be truly said, there was none to hurt nor destroy in the visible Church of Christ, tho' we have good Ground to believe there will be such a Time; and then we acknowledge that no Kind of War will be lawful, no, not a Defensive War; and the Rea­son is, because there will be no Violence to defend ourselves against. But so long as lawless Violence is offered, so long will Defensive War be lawful, and no longer, provided always it be managed with Justice and Humanity.

AND here I cannot but observe, that that Cause must be built on a very poor Foundation, which stands in Need of such wretched Props to support it, as some broken and imperfect Sentences of the an­tient Fathers, made Use of for this Purpose, by those very Men who despise their Authority in other Ca­ses, which the whole Christian World, but them­selves, allow to be of much greater Importance; and raking into some obscure Prophecies of the Old Testament, which, as is evident in Fact, have ne­ver yet been literally fulfilled; and which the Jews make Use of to prove that Christ cannot be the true Messiah, and Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and a great many more of the V's Authorities, to prove the millenary Reign of Christ, when all the Just should rise from the Dead with the same Bodies that they liv'd in formerly, that they should fare delici­ously, and enjoy corporeal Delights, and beget Children as before; and all this with an equal De­gree of Claim to Truth with this Vindicator; they are equally qualified to support each of the latter Doctrines as the former, and each of the Vindica­tors seems to be intituled to an equal Degree of Me­rit, for such [...] to the [...] of Mankind. What Truth therefore is in the [...]a [...]ter Clause of the following Paragraph, which was the Point this Vindicator undertook to prove, I submit to the intelligent Reader to judge, viz. ‘These [Page 89]Predictions, says he, [...] Tendency, together [...] [...] ­stimonies of the Apostl [...] [...] primitive Chri [...], that Obedience to the Gospel [...] only to give them [...], but to take a­way the Use of carnal Weapons, are very strong and cogent [...]roofs, that War cannot be consistent with the Purity and Perfection of the Christian Re­ligion.’ Where we may see more of his Sophistry still, as if the Author of the Sermon had been plead­ing for War without any Distinction; and as if there were a Difference between the Christian Religion as contain'd in the New Testament, and the Purity and Perfection of that Religion, which he imagines is to be found no where but among them who have that Light which hath delivered them from all Sin; and that infallible Spirit, by which alone Men can come to a right Understanding of the Scriptures.

THAT neither these Predictions, nor the Example and Testimony of Christ and his Apostles, do in the least take away the Use of carnal Weapons, so as to make it unlawful for the Christian Magistrate to de­fend his Subjects against a foreign Enemy, I have fully prov'd already. And as for the primitive Christians, I will shew presently, that neither does their Example, or Testimony, do so. And there­fore what the V. thinks strong and cogent Proofs, that a Defensive War (for we contend for no other) cannot be consistent with the Purity and Perfection of the Christian Religion, as delivered by our Savi­our, and written by the Apostles in the New Testa­ment, will be no Proofs at all, but the meer Crea­ture of his own Imagination, which, instead of pro­ving the Truth of his Doctrine, will expose it to the just Indignation of every unprejudic'd reasonable Man.

NOW as to the Example and Testimony of the primitive Christians, nothing can reasonably be in­ferr'd [Page 90]from hence against the Lawfulness of Defensive War, for several Reasons. First, it must be considered that they being Subjects under their Magistrates, which their Religion taught them to regard as an Ordinance of God, had no Right to resist any Vio­lence offered by them, as they were but private Sub­jects; because in so doing, they would have been Rebels, and so would have incurr'd the Penalty of Damnation. A particular Party of Men may be barbarously us'd by their Superiors, and yet it may neither be expedient nor lawful for them to defend themselves by Force of Arms, because the Laws of the Community are against them; and as they can­not in Conscience comply with these Laws, whatever Reason they may have to lament their Misfortune, they can have none to complain of being obliged to suffer the Penalty, in Case of Transgression. For every Person that submits to a Government, and becomes a Subject to any Prince, either explicitly or implicitly, stipulates and consents, that he will pay due Obedience to all the Laws of the Common-Wealth to which he belongs; which Obedience is justly due from him to the Government, for the Protection it affords him, and the Privileges he en­joys under it. Now if any Subject, under such O­bligations, should find himself oblig'd in Conscience to alter his Conduct, whereby he transgresses some standing Law of the Community; if in this Case, I say, he is made to suffer the Penalty in Case of such Transgression, it is no more than he had Reason to expect, because he is supposed to have promis'd O­bedience to whatever Laws should be made by the Legislature of that Government to which he hath submitted; and to attempt to defend himself by Force of Arms against the Execution of the Laws of this Government, would be no less than Rebellion. Wherefore the only lawful Reme­dy left him in this Case, is Patience, and Meekness, [Page 91]under his Sufferings. Now this was the Case of the primitive Christians. They were a Party of Men barbarously used, and they had, no doubt, a Right to better Treatment; but no one can shew, either that they could justly complain of the Executi­on of the Laws, unless it can be made appear, that their Superiors were convinc'd that they had a divine Commission for what they did contrary to those Laws; or (which is a Consideration of great Weight in this Debate) that it would have been for the Interest and good of the Publick, or whole Community, that they should have risen up in Arms, and [...] for their own particular Self-de­fence against their Superiors and Fellow Subjects, have put who [...] Nations in Combustion, and so have been the Occasion of great and universal Calamities. Every Body can see at once the infinite Difference between the Case of the primitive Christians, who were punished by their own Magistrates, because they could not in Conscience obey the Laws of their Country, and that of one Nation's invading ano­ther. Besides, it was very much for the Honour and Propagation of their Religion, whilst they were but a Party of Subjects, not concerned in the Ma­nagement of State-Affairs, that they should engage the Favour of their Princes, and attract the Hearts of all Men to their Profession, by their signal Pa­tience, and Submission to the greatest Torments i­maginable. But it must be extremely to the Dis­grace and Hindrance of their Religion, if it obli­ged them, when they became the whole of a Com­munity, govern'd by their own Laws, to submit themselves to be ruined and made miserable by eve­ry lawless, foreign Invader. By the former they de­monstrated to all the World the Power of their Faith, in Cases in which it was lawful and honoura­ble for them to suffer, and to prefer their Duty to God and their Country, before their own private [Page 92]Interest. But, upon the latter Supposition, nothing could be included, but that Christianity was an Ene­my to the publick Good of human Society, and that it tended to conclude whole Nations under Slavery and Oppression; unless, at the same time, it could be shewn, that Christians have good and ra­tional Grounds to hope for a miraculous, or to trust in an ordinary Providence, without the Use of Means for their Protection.

BUT besides the Practice, we are urged with the Testimony of the primitive Christians especially of the Fathers) against the Unlawfulness of War un­der the Gospel. To which I reply; That tho' the universal Testimony of the primitive Fathers of the Christian Church, as to Matters of Fact, must of Necessity be received; yet their Judgment, in any difficult Point, or any Part of their Practice depend­ing upon their Judgment, ought not to be any far­the [...] regarded, than as it is founded either on the Reason of the Thing itself, or on the Declarations of Christ and his Apostles. As to the Point before us then, nothing can be concluded from the Sayings of the Fathers, but that it was the Opinion of some private Men. The first Testimony the V. quotes is that of St. Ambrose, a Man-made Minister, and an eminent Bishop, whose Testimony, if it be authen­tick in every Point he treats of, will be very little to the V's Credit. And besides, what he says in that Passage he hath quoted from him, relates intirely to his own Order, as will evidently appear to any One that can read his Offices, a Book wrote by him on purpose to teach Ecclesiasticks their Duty; which rather implies, that others were not concluded by the same Rule, than the contrary. Against Arms and Soldiers, says he, in another Place ^*, we have no other Weapons but Tears; for these are the only Forts and Muniments of a Priest.

[Page 93] SO may the Passage quoted by him from Origen a­gainst Celsus, as appears from the following Words; To those who, being Unbelievers, says he, would oblige us to fight for the Commonwealth, and to destroy Men, we shall give this Answer, That even their own Idol Priests, and those that attend upon the Service of their reputed Gods, do keep themselves unstained with human Blood, that so they may offer up their Sacrifices for the whole Nation with clean and unpolluted Hands. Nei­ther, in case there should arise a War, are these Men to be listed in their Armies; and if this be not done without Reason, how much more may they be said after their Manner to fight, who, being Priests to the most high God, endeavour to preserve them­selves free from Blood and Rapine? That so whilst others are polluted with Spoil and Slaughter, they may wrestle with God himself by constant and inces­sant Prayers, for the Welfare of them who make War justly (mark this) and for the Safety of them that govern righteously ^*. It was an Opinion early introduced into the Church, that such as put them­selves into holy Orders, ought not to be entangled with any other Care, nor diverted by any other dai­ly Labour. The Clergy, among all Nations, were ever exempted from bearing Arms; which Practice obtain'd likewise among the Christian Clergy very early, as appears by that Collection of Rules called The Apostolical Canons; and thus we have stumbled upon the true Origin of the Quakers Non-resisting Principle, which, in the Opinion of some, looks much more like a Branch of Priestcraft, than a Doc­trine of Christianity.

THAT St. Ambrose and Origen did not look upon all Sorts of War to be unlawful under the Gospel, is evident from hence: The same Origen brings in Bees, as a Proof that it was lawful for Christians to make a just and well order'd War, as often as Ne­cessity required. And St. Ambrose expresly affirms ^†, [Page 94] ‘That simply to go to War was no Sin, but only to fight for Spoil and Plunder.’ And likewise in his Offices he says, ‘That Force, whereby either our Country is defended from our Enemies by War, or the Weak and Innocent defended at Home, or our Associates from Pirates and Robbers, is per­fect Justice.’ And in another Place he speaks thus ^†: ‘The Emperor Julian, tho' an Apostate, yet had many Christians that fought under his Ban­ner; to whom when Command was given to march against the Enemy in Defence of their Country, they readily obey'd; but being commanded to march against the Christians, then they acknow­ledged no Emperor but the King of Heaven.’ Now, whether the Testimony of these two antient. Fathers can be any Proof against the Lawfulness of Defensive War, I leave the impartial Reader to judge. The V. says, after he had quoted Origen's Words: This is a full and plain Declaration of the Opinion and Practice of the Christians in Origen's Time; which I beg Leave to deny: For tho' in some Cases Christians did refuse to bear Arms, not because it was in itself unlawful, but in respect of some Circumstances they were in, which would not admit of the Exercises of War, without doing some Acts that the Christian Religion would not allow of, such as taking the military Oath by the Heathen Gods, or the Genius of the Emperor; fighting a­gainst their Christian Brethren; that is, being obli­ged to harrass them in Times of Persecution, and the like: I say, tho' in such Cases as these, Christians did sometimes refuse to bear Arms, yet that Numbers of them did bear Arms, both before and after Origen's Time, and were not condemned by the Church for it, is evident from History. We have seen already, that the Emperor Julian had many Christians that fought under his Banner, who are commended by [Page 95]St. Ambrose for readily obeying the Command to fight in Defence of their Country, and for acknow­ledging no Emperor but the King of Heaven, when commanded to march against the Christians.

Clemens Alexandrinus expresly says ^*, ‘That a Christian may be a Magistrate;’ which implies that he did not think all War unlawful. And when describing the Habit of a Christian, he says, ‘It would become him to be unshod, unless he be a Soldier.’ Clemens Romanus says ^†, ‘Let the Soldier that desires Baptism be instructed to ab­stain from wrong doing, and from Oppression, and to content himself with his Pay: If he be willing to obey, let him be admitted.’ And I defy any Man to shew, from the whole History of the Church, where ever any were rejected from Bap­tism, or read out of the Meeting, because he was a Soldier; which undoubtedly would have been done, had all War been inconsistent with the Purity and Perfection of the Christian Religion.

AND Tertullian, another of the V's Authorities, expresly says, ‘We, tho' Strangers, do notwith­standing supply all your Places and Offices, we fill your Cities, Islands, Castles, Towns, Councils, yea, and your very Camps.’ And in another Place he says, ‘We both fail and fight with you in the same Fleet ^‖.’

AND he tells the same Marcus Aurelius, who, as the V. says, threatened the Christians in his Time for not bearing Arms, but could not prevail with them so to do (which, tho' true, can be no Proof that Christians thought all War contrary to Christi­anity) ‘That the Prayers of his Christian Soldiers had procured from God Rain in the Time of Drought.’

AND in another Place ^‡ he commends the Brave­ry [Page 96]of that Soldier before all his Brethren, that had thrown away the Garland when he had won it; in­timating unto the said Emperor, that he had many other such Christian Soldiers.

AND we have Instances out of the same Author, of Soldiers that endured Torments even to Deatly, for the Christian Faith, and were therefore worthi­ly admitted by the Church to the same Honour with other Martyrs.

AND St. Cyprian ^†, the famous Bishop of Carthage, and another of the V's Authorities against the Law­fulness of Defensive War, expresly says of two Men, both African Soldiers, ‘That they were once Soldiers fighting under secular Princes, but they were at the same Time true Soldiers of God, when by the Confession of their Faith in Christ, they vanquished the Devil; and by their invinci­ble Patience under the Cross, were ennobled with the Crown of Martyrdom.’ And here I cannot but remark, how groundless the V's Suggestion is, Page 53. and how uncharitably he guesses, where, speaking of the Soldiers in Dioclesian's Army, he says, ‘But what Sort of Christians those were in the Em­peror's Army, whom Dion said could fight, we can only guess at. They might indeed bear the Name of Christians, as Multitudes do Now-a-days.’ Answer; It appears from what I have just now said, that there were many Soldiers among the pri­mitive Christians, who did more than bear the Name of Christians; for they suffered Martyrdom, not because they would not bear Arms, but because they would not renounce Christianity. And even those Soldiers in Dioclesian's Army, might be more than meer nominal Christians, tho' they were not so scru­pulous as Maximilian was; who by mistaking the true Meaning of some Passages in the Gospel (as some now-a-days do) might think they imply'd a Pro­hibition [Page 97]of all Use of the Sword. But this V. I find, will allow none to be more than nominal Christians, who have not got an Understanding exactly of a Size with his own; in which Case, I can assure him, eve­ry Authority he hath here quoted, will be but a no­minal Christian; for they and he differ very widely on every Point of the Christian Religion, however well he may think they agree in this. But further; that there were Soldiers in the primitive Times, that were more than meer nominal Christians, will ap­pear from the noted Passage of the Thebean Legion. But before I proceed to give any Account of it, it will be proper to observe, that sometimes when the Persecution was heightened, all the Christian Soldiers and Officers, as well as others, were commanded to renounce Christianity, and embrace Paganism, by pouring Incense on the Altar to the Heathen Gods, or delivering up their Bibles, and the like, which, tho' some thro' Fear comply'd with, yet great Numbers absolutely refused it; and this drew upon them the Torments they suffered. Now this Legion having been converted unto Christianity some Time before by the Bi­shop of Jerusalem, when they lay in Palestine, as Eucheri­us saith, contentedly serv'd in the Army all that Time, but being suspected by the Emperor Maximian of having embrac'd Christianity, they were command­ed to sacrifice to Idols; which they absolutely refu­sing, and confessing themselves to be Christians, were all put to Death at the Emperor's Command. Now this Legion, though very powerful (it consist­ing of 6666 brave Soldiers) did not attempt any Resistance; both because it would have been im­possible for them to defend themselves against the Emperor's whole Army, and because they look'd upon it as inconsistent with the Duty of Subjects to oppose their Magistrates in the Execution of the Laws. But tho' they would not defend themselves against their own Magistrates (which indeed would [Page 98]not have been agreeable to the Law of Nature) yet it appears from the noble Speech they made before their Execution, that they were not principled against bearing Arms in Defence of their Country. ‘A­gainst any foreign Power, say they, we freely of­fer our Hands, which yet we dare not imbrue in the Blood of Innocents. Our Arms which have been long practis'd in suppressing Vice, and in van­quishing Foes, never yet knew how to oppress the Righteous, or to cut the Throats of our Neigh­bours and Fellow Citizens. When first we enga­ged in War, we remember it was to protect, and not to destroy: We have hitherto fought for Ju­stice, for Piety, for the Defence of Innocence; for these Prizes we have slighted all Dangers; we have fought for the Defence of our Faith, which should we have broke with God, how canst thou, O Emperor! expect that we should keep with thee?’

IN short, in most of the antient Persecutions, we find Examples of Christian Soldiers, who were as content and ready to die Martyrs, as any other Christians. In Tertullian's Time, it appears, they were as couragious in passive, as active Valour. And in the Persecution of Decius, we read of a File, or, as some render it, a Troop of Soldiers, who attending in the Court of Judicature, where Christians were try'd for their Religion, ran to the Bar, and cry'd out, We are Christians; and made the Judges themselves tremble. Eusebius saith, ‘Christian Soldiers went out in a Kind of Pomp and State to die, and rejoic'd at the Testimony they were to give for the Faith.’ I could bring many more Examples of this Nature among the Christian Soldiers, but this is enough to shew, that there were Numbers of Soldiers among the primi­tive Christians that were more than meer nominal Christians, as this V. uncharitably suggests. From [Page 99]all which it appears, that nothing can be concluded from the Testimony or Practice of the primitive Christians against the Lawfulness of Defensive War against a foreign Invader.

BUT even supposing that some of the Christian Fa­thers were really of Opinion, that all War was un­lawful under the Gospel; what then? Will this a­mount to a Proof that it really is so? Every Father the V. hath quoted, taught Doctrines, and held Opi­nions more zealously than he can prove they did the Unlawfulness of Defensive War; and yet I presume their Authority has no Weight with him in these Points. St. Ambrose maintain'd the Necessity of E­piscopacy to the Being of a true Church, that Wa­ter Baptism, and the Belief of the Resurrection of the same Body, were necessary to Salvation (as did all the Fathers he hath mentioned.) Athenagoras main­tain'd the Worship of Angels, and that they were created to take Care of Things here below. He recommends Virginity, condemns second Marriages, and calls them an honourable Adultery.

TERTULLIAN, who writes more like a Poet than an Historian, can hardly ever be literally interpreted, without making him to appear a Wri­ter of no good Character. He asserts ^*, That a Christian cannot in Conscience perform the Function of a Judge, nor serve as an Executioner of Justice. He absolutely condemns second Marriages, as being Aduitery ^†. He prohibits Christians to avoid Martyr­dom; and enjoin'd the most strict and frequent Fasts.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS held the absolute Necessity of Water Baptism, pleads that 'tis unlawful to fly from Persecution, contrary to our Saviour's Words; that a true Christian is free from Passions, even the most innocent Ones, except such as regard the Preservation of the Body; and that the Christian is the only rich Man ^‖.

[Page 100] ORIGEN maintains, that all intelligent Beings ever did, and ever shall, exist; that they have been always free to do Good and Evil, and that they have been precipitated into low­er Places, and confin'd to Bodies for a Punishment of their Sins ^‡.

AS to Maximilian, who, as the V. says suffered Death for refusing to bear Arms, nothing can be inferr'd from this obscure single Instance against the Lawfulness of the Practice; since, as I have shewn, many Christians who suffered Death for the sake of their Religion did so. Either there might be some Circum­stance attending his particular Case, which made it his Duty to refuse it; or he may have been one of those Christians we read of, who were so intemperate in their Zeal, that they ran unnecessarily to Torments, and desir'd rather to be condemn'd than absolved; and did several other Things in which we are under no Obligation to follow their Steps, nor to think that they were obliged by any Precept of the Gospel to act as they did. Now what I would observe, from what I have said upon these Opinions of the Fathers, is this; That if this V. will not allow the Authority of these Fathers in one Case, as I am pret­ty confident he will not, why should he urge it so strenuously in another? If the universal Example of the primitive Christi­ans is not to be followed in one Case, it cannot, if we consider it by itself, be justly accounted of greater Force in any other.

IT may justly be expected, that they who argue so strongly from their Example, according to the Account given of it by these Antients, should imitate it in all other Instances recorded by the same Writers, or, at least, argue for the Necessity of so doing. But whilst they acknowledge no such Necessity in many other Cases, we cannot think their bare Example to be, in this Case only, of great Importance, even could it be prov­ed. But in Truth none of the Fathers say any thing from whence it can be concluded, that Defensive War, against a fo­reign Enemy, was reckoned unlawful by the primitive Christi­ans. Tertullian, 'tis true, seems, in some Cases, to speak doubtfully of it, not because it was in itself unlawful, as I ob­served above, but because Christian Soldiers were apt to be ex­posed to some Actions which were not consistent with their Christian Profession. Hence we find he objects in one Place, ‘That Christian Soldiers were sometimes commanded to swear by the Heathen Gods:’ Whereupon in another Place he ar­gues thus; ‘Shall, says he, a Christian watch to guard the Temples of those Gods whom he hath renounced? Shall he sup there where he is forbidden to eat? Shall he defend those Spirits by Night, which he exorciseth by Day?’ And then he adds; ‘How many other great Offences may be seen in military Duties, which cannot be otherwise interpret­ed, but as Breaches of our Christian Laws?’ But tho' in [Page 101]some Places he thus speaks doubtfully, yet in other Places he speaks more favourably, so as to make it appear, that he did not understand it to be inconsistent with the Purity and Perfecti­on of the Christian Religion. He speaks of it as dangerous, but not as unlawful; and that it is so, I know no body that will deny. Besides, the Places I have quoted already, wherein this Father speaks favourably of a just War, in his Idololatria, he says; ‘It is much questioned whether Christians may take Arms, or whether Soldiers may be admitted to Christianity.’ And in his Corona Militis, after he had disputed a while against the Lawfulness of War, he at length distinguishes between him that entered into Arms before he was baptized, and him that listed himself after Baptism. ‘For, says he, their Condition is plainly otherwise, who being first Soldiers, were afterwards converted to the Faith, as theirs whom St. John admitted to his Baptism; or that faithful Centurion's whom Christ ap­proved of, and whom St. Peter instructed; provided that having once embraced the Christian Faith, and being sealed up thereunto by Baptism; they either renounce the War presently, as some have done, or take special Care that they do nothing therein that may offend God.’ Whence it is evi­dent, that Tertullian look'd upon the military Office only as dangerous, but not as unlawful; because Christians might con­tinue in Arms after Baptism, which certainly would not have been permitted by him, if he had thought that all War was con­trary to the Gospel, no more than Magicians and Soothsayers were permitted after Baptism to retain their unlawful Professi­ons. ‘They who profess such Arts as the Christian Discipline do not allow, says he ^†, are not to be admitted into the Church of Christ.’ And of the same Opinion were St. Au­gustine and St. Cyprian. I have shewn above, that both St. Ambrose and St. Cyprian approv'd of a just War, and so did St. Augustine and St. Basil. ‘Good Men, saith the First ^*, make War their Refuge; but wicked Men make it their Delight.’ And the Last gives this Testimony of the primitive Christians; 'That their Ancestors never accounted that Execution which was done in a just War as Murder; but always held them excus'd, that fought for the Defence of Chastity, and of Piety.

NEITHER was there any one Bishop, that we read of, among so many that were great Sufferers for Religion, that ever re­prov'd Constantine (who was turn'd Christian) for making War, or that ever endeavoured to make his Soldiers decline it; tho' many of them were very severe Disciplinarians, sparing neither Prince nor People, that were defective in their Duties. Now let the impartial Reader but consider what this V. hath alledg­ed from the Example and Testimony of the primitive Christians to prove the Unlawfulness of Defensive War, and what I have [Page 102]advanced in Answer thereto, and then let him judge with what Assurance he could say, ‘That the Examples and Testimonies of the primitive Christians, that Obedience to the Gospel had that Effect, not only to give Christians 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 even tho' it may appear doubtful, whether these Antients look'd upon all War to be unlawful, which, to me, it does not, yet we ought not from thence to make any Doubt, whether it be lawful for us to enter into a necessary War for defending our Country against a foreign Enemy. Many of the primitive Fathers disallow'd of second Marriages, and several other lawful Practices, as I have shewn above; yet no wife Man will conclude, that they are in themselves unlawful. For tho' the Omission of such Practices might be expedient then, and, in some Circumstances, Orna­ments of the Christian Profession, and acceptable to God; such as Celibacy in times of Persecution, &c. yet they are not im­pos'd upon as by the Necessity of any Law.

NAY further; Admit there are some Texts of Scripture, which seemingly forbid all Sorts of War; yet since it hath been reckoned by all good Men a Means sufficient for avoiding personal Inconveniencies (as cutting off a Right hand, or pluck­ing out a Right-eye) to admit of any Sense rather than the literal; much rather should those Places of Scriptute that are urg'd against the Use of carnal Weapons in Defence of Mens Lives and Liberties admit of any Sense, than that Christianity should be made to destroy that which is one of the main Pillars of Human Society. For if it be granted that the World cannot subsist without Government, nor any Government without Pro­tection and Defence, which every Body but a wild Visionary, or bare fac'd Hypocrite, will readily grant; then it is as cer­tain, that that Religion cannot be Good, which teaches such Doctrines, which, if followed, thro' their native Consequen­ces, will destroy all Government, and turn human Society into a Field of Blood. And therefore I conclude, that every such Doctrine, let its Pretences to Sanctity be ever so specious, and the Abettors of it ever so precise, ought not only to be held in the utmost Abhorrence and Detestation, by every true Friend to his Country, but to be supprest with all possible Care and Pru­dence, as a Nuisance and Pest to the Government where it is main­tain'd, and an egregious Reproach to the Christian Religion.