Such has been the general course of peace societies. More than nine-tenths, perhaps forty-nine in fifty, have acted on this catholic, conciliatory principle. The London Peace Society, though discarding every species of war as contrary to a religion of universal peace and love, has still admitted the coöperation of those who retain doubts concerning the incompatibility of wars purely defensive with the precepts of the gospel, and recommended that its auxiliaries should be organized in such a way as to embrace all the active friends of peace without reference to this vexed question. The peace societies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and other parts of our country, are well known to have gone upon this plan; the American Peace Society was organized in the same way; and the late revision of its constitution was neither designed nor expected to exclude from coöperation ANY that are willing to USE MEANS for the promotion of universal and permanent peace.

Do you ask, then, for the reason of any change in its constitution on this point? The Society, while professing to take no ground as a society on the subject of defensive war, was in fact regarded as lending its countenance to such wars, just as those who object to a pledge of abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, are claimed as advocates for some use of fermented liquors; and a few of our members so unwisely expended all their zeal for peace in trying to keep defensive war in repute, that believers in the duty of total abstinence from this custom, disgusted and alarmed, thought it inconsistent for themselves to cooperate, without a pledge from the Society, that its influence should be allowed no longer to encourage war in any form. The demand appeared so reasonable, that the revised constitution gave such a pledge, by recognising for its basis the contrariety of all war to the spirit of the gospel.

Under such a constitution, cannot all the friends of peace consistently unite? We do not propose this principle as a pledge; we do not enforce it as a test; we merely give it as a guarantee, that our influence as a society shall never go to countenance any form of war. Our general course is still the same. We continue to circulate our old tracts as the best we can find to promote our great object. Our agents, with a single addition of kindred character, are the same as before; and they deliver essentially the same lectures, and use in nearly all respects the same means for advancing the cause.

Our instrument is the simplest form of moral suasion. We do not expect, like some other enterprises of reform, to accom

plish our object by tests and pledges. We seek to diffuse light concerning the guilt and the evils of war; we aim at a right application of Christian truth and love to this subject; and we trust in God to render this leaven effectual in filling every Christian community with such an abhorrence of war, and such strong desires for peace at all hazards, as shall constrain rulers to employ only pacific expedients in settling international disputes. Our mode of procedure differs in this respect from that of the temperance cause; and not a few minds have been confused in consequence of overlooking this difference which opens a way for the consistent coöperation of those who do not perfectly agree in their views on all the points of this difficult and complicated subject.

If we cannot coöperate on such grounds, there is an end to all hope of uniting the friends of peace. And must we abandon a hope so important, if not essential, to success? Will the professed friends of this cause stand aloof, some because we go too far, and others still because we do not go far enough? With such a disposition can any cause prosper? And are the professed friends of this enterprise determined thus to cut its sinews? Will they never learn on both sides the wisdom, forbearance and conciliation necessary to successful coöperation? Are they willing by such a course to expose the cause to failure or embarrassment, and every class of its friends to scorn and reproach? "We hope better things, though we thus speak;" and we use this plainness of speech merely to dissuade our friends from a course that cannot fail to obstruct and cripple more or less all our movements in this blessed cause.

ARTICLE III.

ACTION OF CHURCHES ON THE SUBJECT OF PEACE.

THE Rev. Dr. Merrill, of Middlebury, Vt., has long been a friend to our cause; and his church, after having heard the subject of peace discussed from the pulpit, appointed a committee to take the matter into consideration, who subsequently reported the following preamble and resolutions, "which were unanimously adopted," Feb. 3d, 1837.

"The committee, to whom it was referred to consider the

subject of peace, and to recommend some plan for the action of the church, believing that most, if not all national wars, as well as all national and private quarrels, are contrary to the spirit of the gospel, which it is the duty of all Christians at all times to practise and inculcate, and that they originate in the pride, and selfishness, and passions of men; believing also, that the prevalence of the principles of peace, which is represented in the prophecies of Scripture as one of the most distinguishing characteristics of the predicted glorious state of the church on earth, must become universal before that interesting period can take place; and believing that this is a point of Christian principle and duty which has hitherto been too little thought of and regarded in the church generally, do recommend the adoption of the following resolves:

"1. Resolved, That, while this church do not see the importance, and doubt the expediency, of forming among themselves a distinct organization for the promotion of this particular branch of Christian doctrine and duty, they do cordially approve the principles of the American Peace Society, and believe it the duty of all Christians to cultivate these principles among themselves, and to make them the subject of more frequent conversation with others.

"2. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this church, it is the duty of ministers more frequently in their ministrations to inculcate these principles as an important branch of Christian doctrine; and that the pastor of this church be requested to preach on the subject as soon and as often as he may find it convenient.

"3. Resolved, That it is the duty of members of this church to contribute to the funds of the American Peace Society, to enable them to employ agents, and issue publications for the purpose of spreading more extensively a knowledge, and urging more effectually the importance, of the Christian principles of peace among the churches.”

We are glad to see one of the largest and most intelligent churches in the country taking such a stand on this subject; and, should churches of every name follow the example so far as merely to come out, and bear their testimony in favor of peace as a part of the gospel obligatory, like faith and repentance, on every follower of Christ, a public opinion would soon be formed strong enough to force upon rulers the necessity of henceforth settling international difficulties only by pacific expedients. There is in the church alone moral power suffi

cient under God to secure such a result before the present generation of Christendom shall sleep with their fathers.

And is it not time for the church to put forth this power? Can she consistently refuse or delay any longer to take some stand on this great evangelical subject? Will Christians suffer themselves still to be regarded by the unevangelized portions of our race as abettors of war, and their religion as sanctioning all its atrocities and horrors? Will they continue by their practice to endorse such a libel on the gospel of peace, on the Prince of peace, on the God of peace? While the war-system, upheld in Christendom itself for fifteen centuries, is now demanding for its support even in peace millions of soldiers, and thousands of millions of dollars every year; while it is wasting incomparably more blood and treasure than would be requisite. under God for the world's conversion; while infidels, and Jews, and Mohammedans, and pagans, all unite in denouncing Christianity as a religion of blood, or reproach its votaries with the inconsistency of preaching peace, and practising war; will the church of Christ refuse to publish, wherever her name is known, the pacific principles of her own gospel? If she does refuse, God will hold her responsible for the consequences.

We recommend no precipitate or injudicious movement. The way should be well prepared; for a church ought never, especially on such a subject, to take a leap in the dark. Let the pastor preach upon it; let it come before the whole church for inquiry, and a free interchange of thoughts; let them examine the Bible upon it; let publications on peace be circulated among them to assist their inquiries after truth and duty; let Christians fully resolve to ascertain and do what God requires of them on this long-neglected part of the gospel; and when their views are sufficiently settled, let them publish to the world such a testimony on the subject as they will review with pleasure at the day of judgment.

Here is something to be done by every church in Christendom. We would not dictate the mode; every church and pastor can select their own course; but we do feel that it is high time for all Christians to take some order on this subject, and let the world know in what light they regard the custom of The church will generally wait for their pastor to move on the subject; and we hope that pastors will bring it before their brethren in the church as soon as circumstances will allow.

war.

ARTICLE IV.

CORRESPONDENCE ON PEACE.

I. DR. ALLEN'S LETTER TO MR. LADD.

DEAR SIR, I have received the Ninth Report of the American Peace Society, in which is published the revised constitution of that Society, Article II of which is as follows: "This Society, being founded on the principle, that all war is contrary to the spirit of the gospel, shall have for its object to illustrate the inconsistency of war with Christianity, to show its baleful influence on all the great interests of mankind, and to devise means for insuring universal and permanent peace." I perceive, also, by the same Report, that my name is printed among the Vice Presidents of the Society. By the Advocate of Peace for June, I also find, that great importance is attached by the managers of that publication to the change effected by that article in the constitution of the Society.

Now, my dear Sir, it happens, that one of your Vice Presidents does not believe the truth of the principle asserted in that article, and on which, as that article asserts, your Society is founded. I have never been a believer in that principle. On the contrary, I had occasion to write for your former publication, the Calumet of January and February, 1834, and May and June, 1834, the pieces entitled "Defensive War vindicated," designed to refute the assertion of Mr. Grimké, "war in any shape, from any motive, and carried on in any mode, is utterly indefensible on Christian principles, and utterly irreconcilable with a Christian spirit."

I am not now a believer in the Quaker principle of the criminality of defensive war. I ought not, therefore, to lend even the poor support of my name to a principle which I think not founded upon the gospel, not true, and blasting to the prospects of usefulness of a Society in which I have felt an interest, and which I hoped would tend to correct the public opinion concerning war.

Nor am I alone in this strange predicament, of being nominally a high officer in a society, whose leading principle is not credited, but regarded as erroneous and pernicious. It was but a short time ago, that I was conversing with a gentleman, whose name appears in your list of officers, and who expressed views on this subject in perfect accordance with my own.

I find myself, I must confess, in a singular situation. A few years ago, I became a life-member of the American Peace Society, when it was constituted on principles which did not touch the question of defensive war. I took pleasure in contributing to its funds, in writing for the pages of its periodical, and in recommending its design. But now I learn, that the Society has a revised constitution, the second and chief article of which is, that "all war [of course defensive as well as offensive] is contrary to the spirit of the gospel." The effect of this change, I suppose,-unless I myself change too, and say, "tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis,”—is to remove me from a membership in the American Peace Society, as it now is. I