It may not be necessary, perhaps, to cite any other instances, as opposed to that of Marinus, to the point in question.  But, as another occurs, which may be related in few words, I will just mention it in this place.  Martin, of whom Sulpicius Severus says so much, had been bred to the profession of arms, but, on his conversion to Christianity, declined it.  In the answer, which he gave to Julian the Apostate for his conduct on this occasion, we find him making use only of these words, “I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight.”

Now this answer of Martin is detached from all notions of idolatry.  The unlawfulness of fighting is given as the only motive for his resignation.  And there is no doubt, that the unlawfulness of fighting was as much a principle of religion in the early times of Christianity, as the refusal of sacrifice to the Heathen gods; and that they operated equally to prevent men from entering into the army, and to drive them out of it on their conversion.  Indeed these principles generally went together, where the profession of arms presented itself as an occupation for a Christian.  He, who refused the profession on account of the idolatry connected with it, would have refused it on account of the unlawfulness of fighting.  And he, who refused it on account of the guilt of fighting, would have refused it oh account of the idolatrous services it required.  Both and each of them were impediments, in the early times of Christianity, to a military life.

SECT.  IV.

Early Christians then declined the army on account, of one, among other persuasions, that it was unlawful for Christians to fight—­Their practice examined farther, or into the fourth century—­shewn from hence, that while Christianity continued pure, Christians still declined the military profession—­but as it became less pure, their scruples against it became less—­and when it became corrupt, their scruples against it ceased—­Manner in which the Quakers make the practice of these early times support the meaning of the scriptural passages, which they adduce in favour of their tenet on war.

As it will now probably be admitted, that the early Christians refused to enter into the army, and that they left it after their conversion, on account of one, among other persuasions, that it was unlawful for them to fight, I must examine their practice, as it related to this subject, still farther, or I must trace it down to a later period, before I can show how the Quakers make the practice of these early times support the meaning of the scriptural passages, which they advance in favour of their tenet on war.

It may be considered as a well founded proposition, that, as the lamp of Christianity burnt bright, in those early times, so those, who were illuminated by it, declined the military profession; and, that, as its flame shone less clear, they had less objection to it.  Thus, in the two first centuries, when Christianity was the purest, there were no Christian soldiers.  In the third century, when it became less pure, there is frequent mention of such soldiers.  And in the fourth, when its corruption was fixed, Christians entered upon the profession of arms with as little hesitation, as they entered upon any other occupation in life.