whether as committee-men or as old scholars, is we believe a healthful feeling to be especially cherished by the Society of Friends in this generation.

At a time when so considerable a portion of our members in mature life are engaged as legislators, or in local government of various kinds, it may not be out of place also to repeat the words of William Penn, quoted in this oration as a part of our Quaker heritage,

-"Words," said the speaker, "worthy to be blazoned in letters of light on the tympanum of every Legislative Hall":

"The glory of God Almighty, and the good of mankind, is the reason and end of Government: and therefore, Government itself is a venerable ordinance of God, and it is principally desired and intended by the proprietary and Governor and Freemen of the province of Pennsylvania and territories thereunto belonging, to make and establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and civil liberty in opposition to all unchristian and licentious and unjust practices, whereby God may have His due, Cæsar his due, and the people their due, from tyranny and oppression on the one side, and insolence and licentiousness on the other; so that the best and firmest foundation may be laid for the present and future happiness of both the Governor and people of this province and territories aforesaid, and their posterity!' Such was the preamble; and to the everlasting honour of the Quaker Colony be it recorded, the first of the laws was 'concerning liberty of conscience.""

With such memories of the past—with such a heritage secured for us by men so exalted in a true nobility, may the echo of this Haverford oration, floating across the broad Atlantic, awaken in our very hearts and souls an earnest longing, and induce a fervent wrestling of spirit that we may be found walking worthy of the vocation whereto we are called.

EDITOR.

IS MAN A FIGHTING ANIMAL?

PART II.

THERE is one thing that it seems very certain it is designed for us to do, as members of the Society of Friends, in regard to the principles of peace: not only to rejoice in the possession of what we believe to be clear views of the true nature of Christ's kingdom as founded on humility and love, but to accept the task of spreading these views abroad in every way as widely as possible. The possession or apprehension of truth involves a great responsibility, and if we believe that, in the good providence of God, a special light has fallen for us upon the truth that God's kingdom has come, and that it is our duty and the duty of all men now to submit to its laws and obey its commands, let us see that we are not hiding our light let us tend and cherish it among ourselves, and seek that it may shine with a clear and holy radiance among our fellow-Christians and in the world.

Ours is a professedly Christian nation, and it is not for us to say, "It is of no use-they will not hear, they will call us fools." If this kind of reasoning were to prevail no new truth would ever be proclaimed. Where would Christianity be now if the Apostles had listened to such faint-hearted words? And it is Christianity, pure and simple, that we have to proclaim in proclaiming the doctrines of peace.

One cannot greatly wonder at parrot-like people, who will not take the trouble to think for themselves (and it is marvellous what an amount of thinking an epithet, and sometimes an epigram, will save), if they

66

consign the whole subject to what they consider wellmerited contempt with the words: "So you belong to the peace-at-any-price party?" I would answer : Yes, thank God we do; we find no commands in the New Testament about national pride, scientific boundaries, and the balance of power: but we do find that we are to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us; we do find that we are to return good for evil, and forgive as we ourselves hope to be forgiven ; and we believe peace, and not strife, is God's will for nations as for men; so we do deliberately choose peace, and that at any price we may be called upon to pay for it!"

It is strange that ministers of religion, whose business it is to study the Bible, and above all the New Testament, so entirely miss the spirit of its teachings as to uphold the principles and practices of war. The fact is that this is the case with but few exceptions, and that women, whose minds one would think were peculiarly fitted to receive the doctrines of peace, and who are such terrible sufferers from the calamities of war and the scarcely less calamitous conditions of an armed peace-that clergymen and women should be the notorious supporters of war, does fill one with surprise and shame. One cannot but feel some sympathy for army chaplains and others preaching to soldiers when they come upon certain texts in the New Testament. It must feel awkward when they meet with those I have quoted about loving enemies, and that which says, "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink.” It grates strangely on the Quaker ear to hear that prayer in the Church Service which asks: "Give peace in our time, O Lord," when perhaps the bulk of those who use it do not want peace at all, would scorn to belong to the peace party, and quite approve of some war that is being waged at that moment, only provided it is far enough away from

their own doors. And then the plea that is urged"Because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only Thou, O God"-quite ignores the fact that thousands of poor fellows may be at that particular moment shedding their best blood for "us and the honour and glory of England!

It is strange indeed how a State so built up on war can, in the person of the Church to which it is united, make use of the Lord's Prayer, and put up the petition-" Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them who trespass against us"-since it does not think of forgiving or wish to forgive at all, for that would be inconsistent with "national honour," "national pride," "national interests." These are, alas, the real gods to which we, as a nation, bow; and so terrible is the divorce between the religion of the State and the religion of the Bible, that one longs for the advent of a new Elijah to cry as he of old on Carmel, "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him."

We will turn now to a few of the difficulties that are usually put forward when the subject of peace is mentioned. People say, "Surely we are right to defend ourselves. If a robber or murderer is coming upon us to injure us, or those dear to us, surely we are justified in taking that man's life, if we cannot otherwise prevent his taking ours?" Most certainly not; if a higher light has been given to us, and we have seen that Christ has forbidden us to return evil for evil, and that God's law forbids us to take human life, then we must obey that law, and leave the consequences in His hand whose precept and example we are endeavouring to follow. If we are called on to give up our lives, surely death is not the worst evil that can happen to us. How little of a reality our religion is to us, if we can think so; if we would rather be the means of sending a fellow-being into

eternity in the heat of evil and murderous passions, than to commit our own souls unto Him in well-doing as unto a faithful Creator! A Christian may be called on thus to witness for His Lord; but it is none the less true that a peaceful policy is far safer than armed resistance. Compare the experience of David Livingstone and Commander Cameron, in Africa, with that of Baker and other armed adventurers. Look at the blessing bestowed on the foundation of Pennsylvania by William Penn, and the protection enjoyed by Friends in Ireland during the troublous times of 1798. Have we any reason to doubt that the Divine requirements are founded in perfect wisdom and perfect love as well as truth?

Then we sometimes hear the "extreme case" put in a national form. "Suppose," they say, "that England were to adopt your principles to-morrow, and lay down all her defences, dismantle her forts, and turn her ironclads into merchantmen, and her soldiers into men of peace, what would be the result? Surely we should fall a swift and easy prey to our nearest neighbour

-France, or if not France, then Russia would soon fall upon us, and devour us, and wipe out our name from the roll-book of the nations!" Idle talk; where would be the glory of such a conquest? Our "worst enemy "would not be capable of such cold-blooded massacre; and, besides, is it not true that "it takes two to make a quarrel"? But, in sad and sober earnest, when was a nation ever "born in a day" to the apprehension and practice of any great truth?

No

We need not be afraid to proclaim our peace principles on the house-tops, and to use our utmost powers of persuasion to induce people to adopt them, if not from the highest motives, then from lower ones. danger is likely to arise to England from their toosudden adoption. Would there were such a danger! Would to God the eyes of our people could be opened