for self-preservation, without one admixture of a feeling of revenge or retaliation, and without the sacrifice of any Christian principle or feeling? If men, in order to preserve their lives, fled, as did many of that body by the representatives of whom he was surrounded, at the time of the Irish rebellion, or the riots in Pennsylvania, and were on that account charged with pusillanimity and cowardice unworthy of the character of men and of Britons, surely they might reply with Colonel Gardiner, "We are not afraid to fight, but we are afraid to sin."

It was important to view the subject further, as essentially a religious subject, and to consider it in its relation to eternity. He thought that the most cursory observer would be at once convinced of the importance of giving the subject an attentive consideration. There was very much in the horrors of war to excite the shudder of every sensitive mind. They could not look at the awful picture of dying men, with their bleeding limbs, and sunken eyes, and emaciated frames, without feeling a shudder of humanity; but how much more overwhelming to contemplate the entrance of the soul into eternity! It was hurried there without a moment's consideration, the last stab of the enemy having deprived the man of reason, or having made him frantic. And when they considered that in every war thousands of human beings were thus ushered into the presence of their Creator and their Judge, were they to be told that they must submit to it at present because war was a necessary evil? Viewing this subject with the New Testament in his hands, every Christian must feel that he was bound to act out its principles, and to stand boldly forward for the cause of his God.

He could not but experience delight and honor in being permitted to take a part in these proceedings. Happy should he be to aid in carrying on the cause of this society, feeling that it was hastening on the arrival of that day when nations should learn war no more, and the song should be sung, not as the language of prophecy, but as the grateful declaration of fact, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards man.'

The Rev. Dr. J. PYE SMITH said, that it was not without considerable and, he might almost say, an oppressive feeling of difficulty, that he assented to the request of the committee to say a few words that evening. He was sure that the meeting would sympathize with him when he said, that owing to the afflicting hand of God upon him, he had not been able to hear a single sentiment which had been addressed to the assembly. He, however, rose to move—

"That this meeting fully approves the principle on which this society was formed, that all war is inconsistent with the nature and spirit of the Christian religion."

That was, indeed, taking high and holy ground; but it was the proper ground, and that which, as Christians, they were bound to maintain. He had no doubt but that the arguments against what was called "offensive war," were capable of being rendered plain to every rational mind. But it might be said, if we are threatened with the invasion of savage hordes of brutal monsters of iniquity, who will not only plunder us of our property, but inflict upon the dearest objects of our love injury inexpressible, and imbrue their hands in our blood and the blood of our children, must we not repel violence with violence? Must we not resist such adversaries as these? The

It would raise resolution would oblige them to answer "No." against the position of the society some of the strongest feelings of the human breast, but Christian magnanimity and patience of research would there be put to the test. Having gone through the painful process in his own mind-a process continued through years of anxiety, he was bound to acknowledge that he could find no rest to his soul, no satisfactory conclusion, which, as a professed disciple of Christ, he dare adopt, but in the rejection of those assumptions, and in the acceptance of the principles of the resolution. He could not make any war-even that which men had been in the habit of deeming the most justifiable and necessary-compatible with the genius and principle of the gospel.

It would occupy too much time to attempt to enter on the discussion of that great point, and owing to his distressing affliction he should probably only be repeating what had already been said. He would merely remark, that the distinction between offensive and defensive war, vanished the moment they had quitted the threshold of the cause. The difference lay in this; the former, the most wicked and aggravated form of the evil, arose from an aggression made, he would suppose, upon an innocent and unoffending people-the latter consisted in the repelling of the aggression. But the moment the principle of repulsion was admitted, from that time the two parties went on in the same way. The individuals acting on offensive war, must exert themselves to kill, burn, and destroy-to inflict injury unspeakable upon life and property, and especially upon innocent and unoffending women and children. Those who carried on defensive war must act in the same manner, inflict the same injuries, and with the same zeal and ardor, in order to bring the conflict to a decided close.

Here, then, as a disciple of Christ, he was brought to that most important question, could he, for any earthly consideration, take away the life of a fellow-creature, in order to preserve his own property or life? When he endeavored to put the question as in the sight of God, he felt that the spirit and genius of Christianity, the example of its blessed Author, his wondrous act of stupendous love, in dying for his enemies, would not permit it. They were thus conducted to a most important point-a point essential to the very reality of the Christian religion. He must habitually know whether he was prepared to die. If he were not living a Christian life, notwithstanding all his professions, the curse of God was on him for time and eternity; but if, indeed, he were a sincere disciple of the Saviour, and he were a martyr to his principles, he should realize what Christ had in his word declared, "If ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye." It was infinitely better to suffer wrongfully, than to escape wrong by the adoption of any measure inconsistent with the spirit of religion.

That was a hard saying-who could bear it? No heart, which did not receive God's method of reconciliation, and live habitually under a sense of God's redeeming love, would, he was persuaded, honestly and thoroughly receive that principle. One of the great objects for which Christianity was given to man, was to make all men the friends of God-reconciling them by his glorious gospel-and the friends of each other; and by acting upon its principles constantly there would be an abrogation of the most awful and prolific source

of misery that ever existed on the face of the earth. Who could read history, or reflect upon the present times, without being couvinced that such was the case?

But he might say much which was suggested, both by history and theory, to show that the extremity of that dreadful alternative to which he had alluded, was not very likely to occur. There were examples, upon a smaller and a greater scale, to show that nonresistance and placid submission had more power in disarming the enemy than opposition and resistance. There were but few warriors, he believed who would not draw back their sword, before any one who would go to them, and say that they could not, from principle, resist, but would rather lose their own lives than take away that of their foe. There was a charm in it which would go far to unnerve the most savage opponent; but if that failed, they had reason to believe that God would interpose to prevent the intended destruction. Under any circumstances, however, he would fall back to the principle that every man ought to be every moment prepared to depart to the world of spirits, there to take possession of infinite joys, the fruits of faith and holiness.

[The remaining speeches of Rev. Messrs. T. Timpson, R. Knill of St. Petersburgh, and Geo. Thompson, J. S. Buckingham, M. P., and G Pilkington, Esq., are reluctantly, but necessarily omitted.]

I have sincere pleasure in replying to thy very interesting letter, dated 7th and 10th Feb'y, which was received on the 20th of third month. It was read at the first meeting of Committee which occurred, and was very acceptable. The letter enclosed, and designed for our truly pacific monarch, met the cordial approval of the Committee, who at once decided that it should be conveyed in the most desirable channel to give it full effect. With this view, I was instructed to consult our late worthy Chairman, Robt. Marsden, Esq., who, though nominally withdrawn from that office in consequence of a delicate state of health, is ever ready to aid our cause with his counsel and influence. With the further kind assistance of T. F. Buxton, Esq., M. P., it was arranged that Robt. Marsden and Thomas Sturge, our present Chairman, should be introduced by T. F. Buxton to Lord Palmerston, at the Foreign Office, on Friday, 14th April. The deputation, whom I had the privilege to accompany, accordingly waited upon Lord Palmerston, when thy letter to the King, precisely in the state in which we received it, was put into his hands. Lord Palmerston read it attentively, and observed, that the copy of the resolves alluded to, had not yet reached the office, and further said, "I am

sure his Majesty will be much pleased to receive this letter; his sentiments are quite in unison with those it expresses. His Majesty is, of all men in the world, the most anxious to secure the continuance of peace."

*

I have been thus circumstantial in giving thee the account of our interview, which was of the most satisfactory character, believing the detail would prove interesting. It is cheering to the advocate of our principles, to observe the onward progress they are making among the nations. He may well take fresh courage from this fact amid all the supineness which still prevails around him to a considerable extent.

With very sincere esteem, I am thy friend,

ALEXANDER BROCKWAY.

ESTEEMED FRIEND WILLIAM LADD,

London, 91 Bishopsgate Street, June 22, 1837.

I trust that long ere this thou hast received my letter of the 6th of last month, which conveyed information that thy Address to William IV was presented by a deputation of the London Peace Society to Lord Palmerston, and that his lordship promised to convey the same to the hands of the king. I have now the high satisfaction to communicate a copy of Lord Palmerston's letter in reply, which was received just previous to our annual meeting. The interest with which this document will be received, will be greatly deepened by the previous announcement, that our beloved monarch, the pacific king William, has been taken from an earthly crown as, we reverently trust, to receive in heaven one eternal and unchanging. May it please Him by whom "kings reign, and princes decree justice," to incline the heart of our young and hopeful queen to follow our late monarch, her revered uncle, in the course of peaceful legislation for which his reign was so eminently marked, and which will form so bright a feature in our regal chart!

Our annual meeting was large and peculiarly satisfactory. Thy address to the King, and Lord Palmerston's reply were read, and added greatly to the interest excited on the occasion. The collection, always small, was larger than usual. We rejoice to learn from thy letter that the cause is moving on so well with you, and in such influential quarters. I allude to your theological institutions. Much may be anticipated from the proper bias given to that interesting class, those designed for the important work of Christian pastors, as well as to the youth in all seminaries. The direction of youthful ardor and talent in the course of useful and benevolent enterprise, is an object, compared with which, the most splendid conquest of arms must sink abashed.

Thine truly in the bonds of peace,

To the Rev. G. C. BECKWITH:

ALEXANDER BROCKWAY.

Waltham Abbey, near London, June 30th, 1837.

MY DEAR SIR,-Your favor of the 20th of April came to hand along with one from Mr. Ladd. They had been detained some time at the post office in London on account of the demand of £18. 18s. 8d.

for the parcel in which they were enclosed. I had no right to anticipate the honor and pleasure of a letter from you. Accept my thanks for the unexpected kindness.

I am glad that you have espoused the cause of peace, and that you are able to give it your undivided attention. My feeble efforts have generally been by stealth. Other objects and societies have engrossed nearly all my time. The care of a Christian church, and four or five stated services every week, does not leave me much leisure. Yet there is no cause lies nearer my heart than the cause of peace. I feel glad that you take it up not as a political question, but as part and parcel of Christianity. Where this is omitted in the ministry of reconciliation, the gospel is mutilated, and its glory is concealed. A young man going to the Bahamas as a missionary, took his leave of me on Lord's day evening, when I exhorted and charged him, as he would answer it at the last day, to preach to the people a full gospel, the gospel of peace, and that, if he had not studied the subject, to begin immediately, and never rest till his mind was perfectly satisfied respecting the sinfulness or the lawfulness of war. It adds to my pleasure, that you are not an half-way man, but that you condemn war under every name and pretext. He that opens the door to let in what is called defensive war, cannot possibly shut it against any war. Dr. Williams of Rotheram said that the phrase, "defensive war," was a solecism in language. A person acting only on the defensive, cannot be said to be in a state of warfare. To defend is merely to guard against, and to ward off, danger, not to return it; to screen one's self, but not to injure another. But war in its very nature is to inflict injury. Both parties in a state of war act professedly upon the defensive. Bonaparte said he had the happiness to reflect, that he had never been the aggressor.

Your letter is full of good news. I am happy to learn that the leaders of public opinion are embracing the cause of peace; that the subject is made extensively known, and that the people are apparently predisposed to listen, consider, and to weigh the arguments adduced; that ministers of the gospel are coming forward not only by hundreds, but by thousands, to advocate the cause; that the press, and the periodicals, and public papers lend their aid; and that seminaries of learning are throwing their weight and influence into the scale of peace. I wish I could truly say as much for the press, the ministers and seminaries in my own country. It is lamentable to observe the indifference manifested by gospel ministers in general, and the apathy of many who dare not oppose, nay, who professedly believe the correctness of our sentiments. If Christianity does not condemn war Now, it never will condemn it. Those who preach a warlike Christianity, never can consistently expect a Millennium.

But notwithstanding all, the principle is making way, and gaining ground in the public mind, and not at a very slow pace. The peace society has not indeed been so active and energetic as the importance of it requires. Still we have room for congratulation. Our last meeting was the best we ever had. We had a member of Parliament in the chair, and another addressed the meeting with great effect. The speech of Dr. Pye Smith made a deep impression; and so did several others. The assembly was more numerous than on any former occasion. One circumstance created a very great interest, viz., the letter of our highly esteemed and inde