In the sketch I have now given of the tenets of this sect, you cannot have failed to observe how closely their notions with regard to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity tally with those of the great body of the church; the differences being all on points of minor import, if we except the ceremonies of baptism and the Lord’s supper; which, being the appointment of Christ himself, we are not at liberty to reject. And yet, be it observed, the Quaker does not presumptuously reject them, but merely acts upon, as we suppose, an erroneous view of their nature. On points of minor difference it may be observed, that He who was the PRINCE OF PEACE, and came to establish it, never specifically forbad war, (for there may be cases where it is merely self defence,) but left it to the spirit of the gospel to remove the _causes_ of war. {22} We all know the appellation bestowed on the Centurion, Cornelius: and when soldiers came to John the Baptist saying, “What shall we do?” he merely sought to retrench the disorders and injustice which those who follow the profession of arms might be tempted to commit; but did not condemn their necessary employments. We may therefore fairly conclude that the sweeping condemnation of _all_ war by the Quakers, is not warranted by Scripture, although it is in many and indeed most instances, entered upon far too carelessly. One of the main distinctions of the Quakers is the rejection of certain amusements and pursuits, which others on the contrary consider as innocent, believing that the religion of Christ rather encourages than forbids a cheerful spirit, and allows by the example of the Saviour, a participation in social pleasures: and that “an upright, religious man, by partaking in such pleasures, may be the means of restraining others within due bounds, and by his very presence may prevent their degenerating into extravagance, profligacy, and sin;” {24a} and such do not feel in their hearts that _these_ {24b} are the “pomps and vanities of the world,” which by their baptismal vow they renounce. But surely it is possible that different persons may regard the same pursuits and amusements in a very different light, and yet both may be conscientious in their views, and both, whether in abstaining or enjoying, be equally doing that which is lawful and right in the sight of God. That very amusement or pursuit which is a snare to one, and therefore to be avoided by him, may be a source of innocent, and perhaps profitable recreation to another. It is the intention, the _animus_ with which an act is done, and not the act itself which constitutes the sin. “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: to his own master he standeth or falleth.”