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

But I will go still farther.  I will suppose that any one of the four continents, having been previously divided into three parts, was governed only by three Quakers, and that these had the same authority over their subjects, as their respective sovereigns have at present.  And I win maintain, that there would never be, upon this continent, during their respective administrations, another war.  For, first, many of the causes of war would be cut off.  Thus, for instance, there would be no disputes about insults offered to flags.  There would be none again about the balance of power.  In short, it would be laid down as a position, that no one was to do evil, that good might come.  But as, notwithstanding, there might still be disputes from other causes, these would be amicably settled.  For first, the same Christian disposition would be manifest in the discussion as in the former case.  And, secondly, if the matter should be of an intricate nature, so that one Quaker government could not settle it with another, these would refer it, according to their constitution, to a third.  This would be the “ne plus ultra” of the business.  Both the discussion and the dispute would end here.  What a folly then to talk of the necessity of wars, when, if but three Quakers were to rule a continent, they would cease there?  There can be no plea for such language, but the impossibility of taming the human passions.  But the subjugation of these is the immediate object of our religion.  To confess, therefore, that wars must be, is either to utter a libel against Christianity, or to confess that we have not yet arrived at the stature of real Christians.

SECT.  VII.

Subject farther examined—­Case allowed, that if a cabinet of good men had to negotiate with a cabinet of good men, there might be no wars—­but what would be the issue if good had to deal with bad—­Case of American settlers, who adopted the policy of the world, and were always at war—­and of other American settlers, who adopted the policy of the Gospel, and were always at peace—­No case stronger, than where civilized men had to deal with savage American tribes.