« 이전계속 »
But widely different was the situation of the settlers under William Penn. When he and his Fellow-Quakers went to this continent, they went with principles of Christian wisdom, or they adopted the policy of the Gospel instead of the policy of the world. They had to deal with the same savage Indians as the other settlers. They had the same fury to guard against, and were in a situation much more exposed to attack, and of course much more creative of alarm; for they had neither sword, nor musket, nor palisado, nor fort. They judged it neither necessary to watch, nor to be provided with ammunition, nor to become soldiers. They spoke the language of peace to the natives, and they proved the sincerity of their language by their continuance in a defenceless condition. They held out, also, that all wars were unlawful, and that whateyer injuries were offered them, they would sooner bear them than gratify the principle of revenge.
It is quite needless to go further into the system of this venerable founder of Pennsylvania. But it may be observed, that no Quaker-settlers, when
known to be such, were killed*. And whats ever attacks were made upon
possessors of lands in their neighbourhood, none were ever made upon those, who settled on the lands purchased by William Penn.
It may not be improper to observe, further, that the harmonious intercourse between the Indians and the Quakers continues uninterrupted to the present day. In matters of great and public concern, of which I could mention instances, it has been usual with the Indians to send deputies to them for their advice. And the former have even been prevailed upon by the latter to relinquish wars, which they had it in contemplation to undertake. It is usual also for some of these to send their children to the Society for education. And so great is the influence of the Quakers over some of these tribes, that many
* « The Indians shot hin who had the gun,” says Story in his Journal; “ and when they kucw the young man they killed was a Quaker, they seemed very sorry for it, but blamed him for carrying a gun. For they knew the Quakers would not fight, or do them any harm, and therefore by carrying a gun they took him for an enemy.” This instance, which was in after times, confirms still more strongly all that has been said on this subject. Quakers at this time occasionally armed themselves against the wild beasts of the country,
individuals belonging to them, and now living together, have been reclaimed from a savage life. These have laid aside the toilsome occupations of the chase. They raise horses, cattle, and sheep. They cultivate wheat and flax. They weave and spin. They have houses, barns, and saw-mills among them. They have schools also ; and civilization is taking place of the grossest barbarism*.
These facts, when contrasted, speak for themselves. A Cabinet of Quaker-ministers, acting upon the policy of the Gospel, has . been seated in the heart of a savage and warlike nation, and peace has been kept with them for ever. A Cabinet of other settlers, acting on the policy of the world, has been
* I refer the reader to an Account, lately published by Phillips and Fardon, George-yard, Lombard-street, of the Proceedings of two Committees, the one appointed by the Yearly Meeting of Friends of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, &c., and the other by the Yearly Meeting held at Baltimore, for the promoting the Civilization of the Indian Natives. He will see in this Account the judicious, disinterested, and truly Christian manner, in which the Quakers have conducted themselves for the attainment of this great object.
seated in the heart of nations of a similar description, and they have alınost always been embroiled in wars. If Christian policy has had its influence on Barbarians, it would be libellous to say that it would not have its influence upon those, who profess to be Christians. Let us then, again, from the instances which have been now recited, deprecate the necessity of wars. Let us not think so meanly of the Christian religion as that it does not forbid, nor so meanly of its power as that it is not able to prevent, their continuance. Let us not think, to the disgrace of our religion, that the human heart under its influence should be so retrogade, that the expected blessing of universal peace should be thought no improvement in our moral condition, or that our feelings under its influence should continue so impure, that when it arrives we should regard it not so much a blessing as a curse.
But let us, on the other hand, hope and believe, that as an opposite and purer policy is acted upon, it will do good to our own națures, good to the peace and happiness of the world, and how pour to the religion of the Gospel.
Subject finally considered— Authors of wars gener
rally justify their own as defensive-and state, that if any nation were to give up the practice of war, or to act on the policy of the Gospel, it would be overrun ly others which acted upon the policy of the world—reason to believe that such a nation would be held in veneration ly others, and applied to ly them for the settlement of their disputes-Sentiments of bishop Builer in a supposed case--Case of Antoninus Pius-Conclus sion.
HAVING now said all that I intended to say on the supposed necessity of wars, I shall for a short time direct the attention of the reader to two points,—the only two that I purpose to notice on this subject.
It is usually said, first, that the different Powers, who go to war, give it out that their wars are defensive, or that they justify themselves on this principle.
I shall observe in reply to this, that it is frequently difficult to determine where actual aggression begins. Even old aggresşions of long standing have their bearings in