wwm^'M^ 
 
 I UC-NRLF 
 
 » 
 
 HH 
 
 B 3 tas MAS |: 
 
 Friends' 
 
 
 Mfc'RICAN 
 
 B?KAr;E Conference 
 
 ^^m / S>HILAPELPHIA, 1901 
 
 
 - 
 
 ■jiMMMHB^, 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 OF THI". 
 
 University of California. 
 
 OIKX OK 
 
 Accession | ''0.083 Cl(us 
 
THE 
 
 AMERICAN FRIENDS' 
 
 Peace Conference 
 
 HELD AT 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 Twelfth Month 12th, 13th and 14th 
 
 1901 
 
 Pf)ilatjelpf)ta : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE CONFERENCE 
 
 1902 
 
If 01 
 
 Copies of this Report may be secured at the 
 office of either the Friends' Intelligence?- or the 
 American Friend, Philadelphia. 
 
 Press of Ferns Jk Leach, 29-31 Xorth Seventh Street, Philadelphia. 
 
■-o-- 
 
 1lntro^uction. 
 
 ORIGIN AND ORGANIZATION OF THE CONFERENCE. 
 
 The first step toward the organization of the Peace Conference, 
 the proceedings of which are given in this Report, was t;iken at the 
 time of the Seventh Annnal Conference on International Arbitra- 
 tion, held by Albert K. Smiley at Lake Mohonk, N. Y., on the last 
 three days of Fifth month, 1901. At this Conference a meeting 
 of Friends present was called to discuss the question of holding a 
 peace conference in which members of all the religious bodies in 
 America calling themselves Friends should be invited to partici- 
 pate. The following were present at this meeting: 
 
 Alexander C. Wood and wife, Camden, N. J.; Arthur Perry and 
 wife, Brookline. Mass.; Hannah J. Bailey, Winthrop Centre/ Maine; 
 D. Wheeler Swift and wife, Worcester, Mass.; Benjamin F. True- 
 blood, Boston, Mass.; John B. Garrett, Rosemont, Pa.; Frances 
 B. G. Branson, Rosemont, Pa.; Philip C. Garrett, Philadelphia; 
 Wm. P. Bancroft and wife, Wilmington, Del.; Clement M. Biddle 
 and wife, Lansdowne, Pa.; Charles Richardson and wife, Philadel- 
 phia; Howard M. Jenkins and wife, Gwynedd, Pa.; Margaretta 
 F. Atkinson, Philadelphia; President William AV. Birdsall and wife, 
 Swarthmore, Pa.; Rufus M. Jones, Haverford, Pa.; Joshua L. 
 Baily, Philadelphia: Alfred H. Smiley, Minnewaska, N. Y.; Sarah 
 Collins, Purchase, N. Y. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood wa's appointed chairman and Howard 
 M. Jenkins secretary. After a free interchange of views, a com- 
 mittee consisting of Benjamin F. Trueblood (chairman), Arthur 
 Perry, Howard M. Jenkins, Philip C. Garrett, Hannah J. Bailey, 
 William W. Birdsall and Rufus M. Jones was appointed to take into 
 further consideration '* the holding of a conference of Friends of 
 all bodies in America on the subject of peace and arbitration, with 
 authority to add to their number, and also with authority to make 
 arrangements for such conference, if in the judgment of the com- 
 mittee it should seem proper to hold one." 
 
 This committee, in order to obtain the opinions of l-'riends 
 throughout the United States and Canada, published the following 
 circular in the Friends' papers in Seventh month. 
 
 1 00083 
 
PROPOSED FRIENDS' NATIONAL PEACE CONFERENCE. 
 
 To Friends in America: 
 
 It has been felt by a number of Friends that the opening year of the 
 Twentieth Century ought not to be allowed to pass without some general 
 public manifestation, on the part of all in America who call themselves 
 and are known as Friends, of their peace principles and faith. The hour 
 is a most important and even critical one in the history of Christian 
 civilization, and demands the active and speedy movement of all the 
 forces of righteousness, love and peace. 
 
 Throughout their history Friends have stood for goodwill and fellow- 
 ship among the nations as well as between individuals, and for the set- 
 tlement of international disputes by the friendly, rational method of 
 arbitration. In addition to their direct peace work as a religious body, 
 they have furnished a number of the leaders and organizers of the general 
 peace movement, and their large and constant influence in opposition to 
 war as radically inconsistent with both Christianity and humanity has 
 been widely recognized and felt. 
 
 The body of Fi'lends in America is in a position to-day to speak with 
 greater intelligence and wisdom, and therefore with greater power, than 
 ever before in its history. It has spread across and over the continent, 
 grown in numbers, and in recent years developed much in its intellectual 
 resources. Its history and the history of the world during its existence 
 have been full of instructive lessons as to the power of peace principles 
 and the evils of Avar, the force of which ought to stimulate to new and 
 better service. Do we not owe it to ourselves, to our history, to our 
 profession before the church and the world, to the American public and 
 to mankind everywhere, to declare ourselves anew to-day — and in a united 
 way, as we have never done before — on 'che gi-eat and pressing question 
 of the peace of the world, of the rescue of mankind from the awful in- 
 iquities and crushing burdens of modern militarism? 
 
 So far all to whom the idea of such a conference as that proposed has 
 been suggested, have expressed the heartiest approval of it, and also their 
 readiness to co-operate as far as possible in promoting it. At the time 
 of the recent Arbitration Conference held at Lake Mohonk, N. Y., some 
 thirty Friends, of different bodies, wlio were present, met, and, after 
 earnest consideration of the subject, came to the unanimous conclusion 
 that it was not only very desirable, but a clear and positive duty, that 
 such a national conference be held, provided Fi-iends throughout the 
 country in sufficient numbers approve of the project, and are ready 
 to co-operate in it as they may be able. The persons named below were 
 appointed to constitute the nucleus of a national committee, with power 
 to add to their number, to lay the subject before Friends in general, and 
 if, after the consultation, it should be deemed wise to go forAvard, to 
 have charge of the arrangements for the conference; the committee to 
 be enlarged into a representative national one. 
 
 It is proposed to hold the conference in Philadelphia, the city of Wil- 
 liam Penn, some time near the end of this year, for about three days. 
 
 The plan is to make it a mass conference, that all interested Friends 
 may attend as members, without the necessity of any official appointment. 
 
 The progi-am, it is thought best, should consist of carefully-prepared 
 papers, by the ablest and most experienced thinkers and workers in the 
 peace cause to be found among Friends (to be selected by the National 
 Committee), upon various phases of the peace question, — religious, his- 
 torical, sociological, educational, political, etc.; a limited amount of time 
 to be given to general discussion; the proceedings to be afterwards pub- 
 lished for distribution. 
 
 If the conference is held, it will be necessary to have a local commit- 
 tee of Friends in and about Philadelphia, to provide a suitable hall, make 
 
nnanpoments for the cntortainniont of visitors, etc.; and also a finance 
 comniittoe to secure throiijfli voluntary contributions funds for defraying 
 the expenses of the mcetiufj- — rent of hall, advertising, printing of proceed- 
 ings, bringing speakers from a distance, etc. 
 
 The Provisional Coinniittee, whose names are given below, desire to hear 
 at once, in response ti> this circular, from Fiiends in all parts of the 
 country, and invite the freest expression of opinion, in brief form, as to 
 the proposed conference. 
 
 Address all communications to IJenjamin F. Trueblood, Chairman, 3 
 Somerset Street, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Hannah J. Bailey, Winthrop Centre, Me. 
 Wii.i.iAM W. BiRDSAi.L, Swarthmore, Pa. 
 PiULiP C. Garrett, Philadelphia. 
 Howard M. Jenkins, Philadelphia. 
 Ri'Fi s M. Jones, Haverford, Pa. 
 Arthur Perry, Brookline, Mass. 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood, Boston. 
 
 The responses to this circular were so numerous and cordial 
 that the committee felt the duty to be clear to proceed with the 
 arrangements for the Conference. A second circular, stating that 
 it had been decided to hold the Conference, was published in The 
 American Friend and The Friends' Intelligencer at the end of 
 Eighth month. The provisional committee then enlarged its num- 
 ber and constituted the following General Committee, which pro- 
 ceeded to prepare the program and make other necessary arrange- 
 ments for holding the Conference: 
 
 Eliza C. Aemstrong, Centre Valley, Ind. 
 Haatnah J. Bailey, Winthrop Center, Me. 
 President W. W. Birdsall, Swarthmore, Pa. 
 Haxnah W. Blackburn, Zanesfield, Ohio. 
 William G. Browx, Toronto, Canada. 
 Emilie U. Burgess, Highland, JST. Y. 
 Clarksox Butterworth, Waynesville, Ohio. 
 Eliza H, Carey, Wichita, Kan. 
 William R. Clark, Emerson, Ohio. 
 Elizabeth H. Coale, Holder, 111. 
 J. Elwood Cox, High Point, N. C. 
 Sarah Ann Dale, Pickering, Ont., Can. 
 L. Maria Deane, Pleasant Plain, Iowa. 
 Jane Edgerton, St. Clairsville, 0. 
 Prof. A. M. Elliott, Baltimore, Md. 
 Allen J. Flitcraft, Oak Park, 111. 
 Philip C. Garrett, Logan (Philadelphia), Pa. 
 Job S. Gidley, North Dartmouth, Mass. 
 Abigail J. Hadley, Clarksville, 0. 
 Margaret W. Haines, Cheltenham, Pa. 
 Joseph Hill, Emerson, 0. 
 Prof. C. W. Hodgin, Pichmond, Ind. 
 
6 
 
 William M. Jackson, New York, X. Y. 
 
 Dr. 0. E. Jaxxet, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 Susan W. Janney, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Allen Jay, Eichmond, Ind. 
 
 Howard M. Jenkins, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 EuFUS M. Jones, Haverford, Pa. 
 
 Harriet Cox McDowell, New York, N. Y. 
 
 President Edwin McGrew, ISTewberg, Ore. 
 
 Elizabeth B. Miles, Newberg, Ore. 
 
 Dr. William L. Pearson, Oskaloosa, Iowa. 
 
 Arthur Perry, Brookline, Mass. 
 
 Esther Pugh, Selma, 0. 
 
 Peter W. Raidabaugh, Plainfield, Ind. 
 
 Eleanora H. Eobinson, Eichmond, Ind. 
 
 Elias H. Eogers, Toronto, Can. 
 
 Daniel Smiley, Lake Mohonk, N. Y. 
 
 President Edmund Stanley, Wichita. Kan. 
 
 President Charles E. Tebbetts, Whittier, Cal. 
 
 EiCHARD H. Thomas, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood, Boston, Mass. 
 
 President J. B. Unthank, Wilming-ton, 0. 
 
 Ella C. Veeder, Whittier, Cal. 
 
 Elisha H. Walker, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 Jane White, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 James Wood, Mount Kisco, N. Y. 
 
 Mary C. Woody, Wlnston-Salem, N". C. 
 
 Samuel P. Zavitz, Coldstream, Ont., Can. 
 
 A Finance Committee, consisting of Alexander C. Wood, chair- 
 man, Camden, N. J.; Eobert M. Janney, treasurer, Philadelphia; 
 Joshua L. Baily, Philadelphia; William P. Bancroft, Wilmington, 
 Del.; Isaac H. Clothier, Pliiladelphia, and Asa S. Wing, Philadel- 
 phia, was appointed, and through their solicitation ample funds 
 were secured to meet all the expenses of the Conference. 
 
 The Local Committee of Arrangements chosen, to whose 
 earnest, self-sacrificing and wisely-directed efforts in arranging for 
 the meetings and providing for the entertainment of members from 
 a distance the success of the Conference was so largely due, con- 
 sisted of the following persons: 
 
 John B. Garrett, chairman; Samuel S. Ash, Mordecai T. Bar- 
 tram, Clement M. Biddle, Benjamin Cadbury, Hannah W. Cad- 
 bury, Arabella Carter, Isabel Chambers, Julia Cope Collins, W. W. 
 Comfort, Howard M. Cooper, Joseph Elkinton, Sarah W. Elkinton, 
 Sarah B. Flitcraft, Joseph E. Haines, Edward H. Magill. John B. 
 Ehoads, J. Henry Scattergood, Isaac Sharpless, Walter P. Stokes. 
 Agnes L. Tierney, Mary Travilla, William S. Yaux. Jr.. Emma 
 Wain, Joseph S. Walton, Emma S. Webster, Mary E. G. Williams, 
 
John C. Winston, Stanley R. Yarnall and William Y. Warner. 
 With this committee the local members of the General Committee, 
 William W. Birdsall, Philip C. Garrett, Susan W. Janney, Howard 
 M. Jenkins and Rufus M. Jones, regularly met. 
 
 The program as finally revised and completed when the Con- 
 ference opened was as follows: 
 
 WITHERSPOON HALL, PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 Twelfth month 12th,, 13th, 14th, 1901. 
 
 IproQiam. 
 
 FIFTH-DAY MORNING. 
 JoHX B. Garrett (Philadelphia), Presiding. 
 
 10.00. Devotion. 
 
 10.10. Address by the Chairman. 
 
 Announcements. 
 
 10.30. " The New Testament Grounds of Peace." 
 
 Professor Elbert Rtissei.i., recentlj' of Earlham College. 
 
 10.55. " Elements of Peace Doctrine in the Old Testament." 
 
 Dr. George A. Barton, Bryn Mawr College. 
 
 11.15. " The Failure of the Christian Church in Regard 
 to Peace Principles." 
 
 Mary Chavner Woody, Winston-Salem, N. C. 
 
 11.35. Discussion of Papers. 
 
 12.30. Adjournment. 
 
 FIFTH-DAY AFTERNOON. 
 
 Howard M. Jenkins (Editor of " Friends' Intelligencer "), 
 
 Presiding. 
 
 3.30. Remarks by the Chairman. 
 
 3.45. " The Early Friends' Conception of War and Peace." 
 
 William G. Hubbard, Lansing, Mich. 
 
8 
 
 4.05. " The Growing Iniquity of War." 
 
 President A. Rosenberger, Penn Collegej Iowa. 
 
 4.25. " The Inherent Immorality of "War." 
 
 Mariana W. Chapman, Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 <.45. Discussion of Papers. 
 
 r.20. Adjournment. 
 
 FIFTH-DAY EVENING. 
 
 President James B. Unthank (Wilmington College, Ohio), 
 Presiding. 
 
 8.00. Remarks by the Chairman. 
 
 8.15. "Early Christianity and War." 
 
 James Wood, Mount Kisco, N. Y. 
 
 8.40. " Attitude of Christians as to War and Peace." 
 
 Dr. Jesse H. Holmes, Swarthmore College. 
 
 9.05. " The Christian Idea of Force." 
 
 Dr. Richard H. Thomas, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 9.30. Discussion of Papers. 
 
 10.00. Adjournment. 
 
 SIXTH-DAY MORNING. 
 President M. Carey Thomas (Bryn Mawr College), Presiding. 
 
 10.00. Devotion. 
 
 10.10. Remarks by the Chairman. 
 
 10.25. " Importance of teaching Peace Principles in 
 Bible Schools." 
 
 Peter W. Raidabaugh, Plainfield, Ind. 
 
 10.45. " The Principal Influences Making for Peace, and 
 How They May be Strengthened." 
 President Edmund Stanley, Friends' University, Wichita, Kan. 
 
 11.10. " Woman's Responsibility and Opportunities for 
 Promoting Peace Principles." 
 
 Mary Jane Weaver, Batavia, N. Y. 
 
 11.30. Discussion of Papers. 
 
 12.30. Adjournment. 
 
9 
 
 SIXTH-DAY AFTERNOON. 
 
 President William W. Birdsall (Swarthmorc College), Presiding. 
 3.30. Eemarks by the Chairman. 
 
 3.45. " Present Encouragements for the Friends of Peace." 
 
 Prof. Et.len C. Wright, Wilmington College, O. 
 
 4.10. " Internationalism." 
 
 Hannah J. Bailey, Winthrop Center, Maine. 
 
 4.30. " Peace Principles in Political Life and Institutions." 
 
 Augustine Jones, LL.B., Principal Friends School, 
 Providence, R. I. 
 
 4.60. Discussion of Papers. 
 
 5.20. Adjournment. 
 
 SIXTH-DAY EVENING. 
 Joshua L. Baily (Philadelphia), Presiding. 
 
 8.00. Eemarks by the Chairman. 
 
 8.15. " To What Extent are Peace Principles Practicable? " 
 
 President Isaac Sharpless, Haverford College. 
 
 8 40. " William Penn's Peace Work." 
 
 Philip C. Garrett, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 9.05. " The Present Position of the International Peace 
 Movement." 
 
 Dr. Benjamin F. Trueblood, Boston, Mass. 
 
 9.30. Discussion of Papers. 
 
 10.00. Adjournment. 
 
 SEVENTH-DAY MORNING. 
 
 Aethue Peeet (Boston, Mass.), Presiding. 
 
 [Meetings on Seventh-day in Twelfth Street Meeting House.] 
 
 10.00. Devotion. 
 
 10.10. Remarks by the Chairman. 
 
 10.20. " The Duty of the Christian Church at the Pres- 
 ent Time in the Movement to Abolish War." 
 
 Henry W. Wilbur, New York City. 
 
10 
 
 10.40. " Mistakes and Failures of Friends in Their Peace 
 Work.'' 
 
 President James B. Unthaxk, Wilmington College, O. 
 
 11.00. " The Makers of Peace." 
 
 Dean Elizabeth Powell Bond, Swarthmore College. 
 
 11.20. " The True Spirit of Peace." 
 
 Dr. William L. Pearson, Penn College, Iowa. 
 
 11.45. Discussion of Papers. 
 
 12.30. Adjournment. 
 
 SEVENTH-DAY AFTEENOON. 
 
 SuSAX W. Janney (Philadelphia), Presiding. 
 
 3.30. Eemarks by the Chairman. 
 
 3.45. '• The Eelation of Quaker Women to Peace." 
 
 Kmilie U. Burgess, Highland, N. Y. 
 
 4.10. " AYar Inconsistent with the Genius of Quakerism." 
 
 President Charles E. Tebbetts, Whittier College, Cal. 
 
 4.20. '' Constancy in our Peace Sentiment and Effort." 
 
 President Edwin McGrew, Pacific College, Oregon. 
 
 4.30. Discussion of Papers. 
 
 5.00. Miscellaneous Business. 
 
 5.20. Adjournment. 
 
 SEVENTH-DAY EVENING. 
 President Isaac Sharpless (Haverford College, Pa.). Presiding. 
 
 8.00. " Eemedies for the Prevailing Militarism." 
 
 Josiah W. Leeds, West Chester, Pa. 
 
 8.20. ''■ The Influence of Quaker Peace Ideals in Our 
 National Life." 
 
 Dr. 0. Edward Janney, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 8.40. " Peace as Involved in the Christian Method." 
 
 Dk. Rxtfls M. Jones, Haverford College, Editor of 
 " The American Friend." 
 
 9.00. Discussion of Papers. 
 
 9.30. Closing Eemarks by the Chairman. 
 
THE AMERICAN FRIENDS' PEACE 
 CONFERENCE. 
 
 JFiret Session, 
 
 The American Friends' Peace Conference, the calling of which 
 is explained in the Introdnction to this Keport, met for its first 
 session in "Witherspoon Hall, Philadelphia, Twelfth month 12th, 
 1901, at 10.00 a.m. John B. Garrett, of Philadelphia, presided. 
 In opening the Conference the Chairman said: 
 
 We all recognize that the only proper beginning for such a Con- 
 ference as this npon which we are entering is the seeking of the 
 favor of Almighty God; and as true spiritual worship is a matter 
 between the individual soul and the Creator, I suggest that a few 
 moments be first given to silent communion with Him. While we 
 are so engaged, should there be a feeling on the mind of any of the 
 duty of vocal prayer, we shall all appreciate its appropriateness and 
 endeavor to be baptized into the spirit of it. 
 
 During the period of devotion prayer was offered by Rufus M. 
 Jones and James Wood. Stephen E. Smith, of Pleasantville, N. Y., 
 in a few brief sentences said that it was fitting that they should all 
 come with feelings of self-abnegation and of true humility of soul 
 before Him w^ho had called them to serve Him; that they should 
 seek the outpouring of His infinite life and love and power in their 
 midst, that they might be able to enunciate the doctrines of the 
 fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man in such a way as to 
 make some impression not only in the United States, but also in 
 other parts of the world; that the day might be hastened when " the 
 kinu'doms of this world should become the kingdoms of our Lord 
 and of His Christ." 
 
 The Chairman: The Local Committee of Arrangements has 
 designated, as Secretaries for the Conference, Elizabeth Lloyd and 
 Elizabeth B. Cadbury. Their duties, they may feel assured, are not 
 likely to be onerous, seeing that the papers which have been pre- 
 pared have been handed in, in manuscript or typewriting; and be- 
 cause we have also a stenographer to take reports of extemporane- 
 ous remarks. 
 
 Most of us are aware that under divine l)lessing the origin of 
 this Conference is due to one who has spent many years in study- 
 ing the great problems of internationalism, war and peace, histori- 
 cally and otherwise. He is now the General Secretary of the Amer- 
 ican Peace Society. I am sure it is due to you, as also to him, that 
 
12 
 
 yoi. should hear from his own lips the account of the beginnings of 
 this movement. I will therefore call upon Dr. Benjamin F. True- 
 blood, of Boston, to speak to us before we undertake other business. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood: I cannot tell you, dear friends, how 
 great pleasure it gives me this morning to meet so many of you 
 here, from so many different parts of the country. To see you here 
 is sufficient compensation for anything that I may have been per- 
 mitted to do in the origination of the Conference. 
 
 Only a few words are needed as to the origin of the Conference. 
 For some months of last year I felt that the time had come when 
 the various religious bodies in this country calling themselves 
 Friends should unite, both for the sake of their own membership 
 and that of the public at large, in a fresh declaration of their views 
 on the subject of peace. The Society in its different branches has 
 spread, as you know, over almost the entire continent. No attempt, 
 so far as I know, had ever been made to get members of all the 
 branches together and have them speak in a united voice on the 
 great subject of peace. I had felt for many months that the time 
 had come for something of the kind to be done. I approached a 
 few Friends of the different bodies, and found them all in sympa- 
 thy with the idea. 
 
 At the time of the Lake Mohonk Arbitration Conference, held 
 by our friend Albert I\. Smiley, at the last of May this year, I ven- 
 tured to call together the Friends who were there, representing the 
 three principal bodies of Friends. I found them, without excep- 
 tion, in sympathy with the thought as it had formulated itself in 
 my mind. It was decided by those present to appoint a Provisional 
 Committee, with power to add to its number, and to issue an ad- 
 dress to the Fiiends of the continent, in order to learn whether they 
 felt as we did about it. The address was duly issued, and published 
 in the Friends' papers. The result was that from East and West, 
 North and South, there came such a voice of approval that the Pro- 
 visional Committee felt that it was right to go forward with the 
 subject. A second circular was issued, saying that it had been defi- 
 nitely decided to hold the Conference, and the Provisional Com- 
 mittee proceeded to constitute a Ceneral Committee on Organiza- 
 tion (see Introduction), a Local Committee of Arrangements, a Fi- 
 nance Committee, and to make preparations for the Conference. 
 
 The Committee, in making arrangements, preparing the pro- 
 gram, etc., have endeavored to have not only the Friends of all 
 bodies, but, as far as possible, the Friends of all sections of the 
 country, represented. Of course we could not use all the Friends of 
 the country either upon the committees, or upon the program, but 
 we have tried to get representative men and women from the dif- 
 ferent bodies, and from different sections of the continent. This 
 has been a somewhat difficult and delicate task, as you will all rec- 
 ognize. 
 
13 
 
 We have found it to be necessary, in making up our program, 
 in order to get as wide a representation and as great a variety of 
 thought as possible, to limit the papers to twenty minutes in length. 
 
 As we gather together this morning, I feel sure that it is in the 
 divine ordering. God has led us in the organization of the Con- 
 ference, and I believe He will lead us in the accomplishment of the 
 work for which we have met, and that He will enable us to do 
 something that shall be of influence in the spread of His kingdom 
 of righteousness, love and peace. I hope that throughout the en- 
 tire Conference we shall all abide under a sense of His presence, 
 His power and His guidance. 
 
 I want to say one word more: We wish you all to feel that this 
 is your Conference. If at any time during the discussions which 
 will follow the papers you feel that you have something to say, we 
 want you to feel perfect freedom to speak. We do not wish you to 
 throw the responsibility of the meetings too much on those of us 
 who have organized the Conference. Xow that the Conference has 
 met, it is yours as well as ours; it belongs to all of us; and let us all 
 put an amount of devotion, thought and prayerful interest into it 
 which shall make it a very great success under the blessing of God. 
 
 I want to thank you all this morning for your presence here, 
 and as Chairman of the Committee on Organization to give you a 
 most hearty welcome. 
 
 TnE Chairman: There are several announcements that ought 
 to be made at this time, and in view of the fact that it is now within 
 three minutes of the time designated on the program for the read- 
 ing of the first paper, I will ask you to excuse me from making 
 any remarks at this time, as the opening has been so well done by 
 our friend Dr. Trueblood. I will watch my opportunity to say any- 
 thing that is on my mind as the discussions of the papers go on. 
 
 In the first place, I want to ask that those coming from a dis- 
 tance will make themselves known to the Entertainment Commit- 
 tee, of which our friend William Y. Warner, sitting at my left, is 
 Chairman. If they have not homes already they will be provided 
 for. 
 
 Let me remind all that punctuality is one of the graces in which 
 we Friends are supposed to have been educated. As the doors will 
 be closed during the period of devotional exercises each morning, 
 it is desired that all in attendance shall have entered the room and 
 taken their seats before the designated hour of 10 o'clock. 
 
 It is the wish of those w^ho have organized the Conference that 
 the name and address of every one in attendance shall be left here. 
 If you will kindly write your names and addresses distinctly on the 
 cards which have been, or will be, handed to you, and give them 
 to one of the secretaries or ushers, we shall feel grateful. 
 
 When we enter upon the consideration of the papers, some one 
 who has been designated to open the discussion will occupy not to 
 
14 
 
 exceed ten minutes, after which the subject will be open to the whole 
 house. If we are to get through in three days the large amount 
 of work before us it will be necessary to limit the speeches during 
 the discussions to five minutes. Those who rise to speak, unless 
 known to the Chairman, are kindly requested to give their names 
 and addresses, as this will make you known to the audience, and 
 thus greatly add to the interest of the occasion. 
 
 One of the first matters of business is that of the appointment 
 of a Committee on Credentials. 
 
 Isaac Wilson: I ofiier the following: '' Resolved, that a Com- 
 mittee on Credentials, consisting of five meml^ers, be appointed by 
 the Chair, to which credentials of delegates are hereby referred for 
 examination, with instruction to present to a future session a list 
 of all duly-appointed delegates, their post-office addresses and the 
 communities which they respectively represent." 
 
 The Chairman: You hear the resolution which has been of- 
 fered by Isaac Wilson, of Canada. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood: I second the resolution, and desire 
 to say that I hope it will give rise to no misunderstanding. While 
 there are certain meetings and groups of persons which, in order to 
 be represented, have joined in sending delegates, it is, I hope, un- 
 derstood that this is a mass Conference and open to all Friends. 
 Any member of any branch of the Society who is present is just 
 as much a member of the Conference as anybody appointed by a 
 quarterly, yearly or monthly meeting, or by any group of Friends. 
 
 The resolution offered by Isaac Wilson was adopted. 
 
 The Chairman: I ought to add that we are not exclusive by 
 any means. The Conference has been widely advertised in and 
 about Philadelphia, and not a little at a distance. We hope that 
 our Christian brothers and sisters who are about us will come in 
 with the utmost freedom and share with us the benefits of this oc- 
 casion. Our purposes are largely educational, and they are to be 
 realized in a great degree by the attendance of those who are 
 about us. 
 
 The Chairman then named the following as the Committee on 
 Credentials: Isaac Wilson, Chairman; Timothy B. Hussey, Emma 
 Wain, Joseph Potts and Hannah Collins. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood: I offer the following: "Resolved, 
 that a Business Committee, consisting of not less than seven mem- 
 bers, be appointed by the Chair, to which shall be referred without 
 discussion all resolutions offered in the Conference. Said Commit- 
 
15 
 
 tee shall prepare a Declaration, to be submitted to the Conference 
 towards its close for its consideration and possible adoption, and 
 the Coniniittee shall have power to add to its number." 
 
 The resolution was adopted, and the Chairman named, as the 
 Business Committee, Dr. Benjamin F. Trueblood, Chairman; Presi- 
 dent William W. Birdsall, Howard M. Jenkins, Susan W. Janney, 
 Philip C. Garrett, Dr. Rufus M. Jones, Dr. 0. Edward Janney and 
 Professor Ellen C. Wright. The Committee was afterwards en- 
 larged by the addition of President Edmund Stanley, Esther Pugh, 
 Peter W. Eaida1)augh and Robert E. Pretlow. 
 
 Howard M. Jenkins: I have received, in my capacity as Sec- 
 retary of the General and also the Local Committee, a number of 
 communications. Some of them are resolutions, or minutes, ex- 
 pressing sympathy with the object of the meeting, and others are 
 names of delegates. I take this opportunity of handing these to the 
 Chairman, to give to the two committees that have ju?;t been ap- 
 pointed. 
 
 The Chateman: One more matter of business. The Local 
 Committee of Arrangements have asked me to say that it is their 
 judgment that the proceedings of this Conference will have such 
 permanent value that they should be published. It is suggested 
 that the Business Committee take the subject under consideration, 
 both as to style of publication, if it shall seem expedient to pub- 
 lish the proceedings, and the size of the edition. Those questions 
 can be best answered after the Committee have had communicat'on 
 with those in attendance and have learned what the desires of indi- 
 viduals or of peace associations may be. The question is largely one 
 of means. Funds have already been provided, through the generous 
 contributions of Friends, for paying all the other expenses of the 
 Conference, but the question of publication was not taken into con- 
 sideration. It will be left, therefore, with the Business Committee. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood: If any who are present would like 
 to subscribe for a number of copies of the Report for their own per- 
 sonal use, and will communicate with us, the Business Committee 
 will know much better how to proceed in the matter. 
 
 The Chairman: The time has come for the reading of the 
 papers prepared for this session. The first on the program is on 
 " The New Testament Grounds of Peace," by Professor Elbert Rus- 
 sell. Owing to ill health Elbert Russell has found himself unable 
 to be present. He has entrusted his paper to his personal friend, 
 Robert E. Pretlow, of Wilmington, Ohio, who will read it to us. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT GROUNDS OF PEACE. 
 
 BY PROFESSOR ELBERT RUSSELL, CHICAGO. 
 
 The grounds of peace in the New Testament are found in the 
 teaching of Jesus as it is exemplified in his life and interpreted by 
 the apostles. We must take Jesus's example as the standard by 
 which to interpret his teaching. Otherwise it is possible to deduce 
 from isolated sayings of the Master the most divergent and contra- 
 dictory ideas of right and wrong. 
 
 From the Gospels we learn that Jesus explicitly refused the 
 sword or any other violent means to propagate his doctrines or 
 to found his kingdom, relying only on the power of truth, love and 
 self-sacrifice to overthrow evil and secure the triumph of righteous- 
 ness. From his character and plans the military virtues and ideals 
 were conspicuously absent. The pacific virtues of the prophet and 
 sage characterized his life and determined his career. At the time 
 of his great temptation, he was compelled to decide by what 
 means he would seek to make the kingdoms of the world his own. 
 Jewish expectancy said the Messiah would secure his dominion by 
 military power. Universal experience said there was no way to 
 world dominion except by the sword. On the mount of temptation 
 Satan offered Jesus the sovereignty of the world on the same evil 
 terms on which others had before held it — by military force. But 
 Jesus refused to be a military king. Again, in Gethsemane, Peter 
 offered Jesus the service of his sword, but Jesus declined both 
 Peter^s sword and that of the angelic legions that were at his call. 
 Standing before Pilate Jesus acknowledged himself a king — a king 
 whose power rested on truth, not on might. 
 
 Such was Jesus in a world organized politically, socially and re- 
 ligiously on a basis of military force; in which military prowess and 
 conquest were regarded as the sign of greatness for the individual 
 and the nation. In that world the disappointing, incomprehensi- 
 ble, maddening thing about him was his pretence to kingship 
 without an army to back him — his claim to a kingdom which was 
 not of that world. To the Jews who were expecting a military Mes- 
 siah he was a stumbling-block. To the Eomans, who knew no 
 power but law enforced by the sword, he was an enigma. To the 
 Greeks whose wisdom did not transcend a military society he was a 
 fool. The world of that day could have understood the Christ with 
 a sword, but the cross of Christ was an offence. 
 
 If there is in the life of Jesus a real incarnation of God (and 
 there is), his whole life is an example for us to follow, and in this 
 example is found the surest ground of peace in the New Testament, 
 for the ways he trod are paths of peace. 
 
 The grounds of peace in the teachings of Jesus and His apos- 
 tles are threefold: (1) Jesus removed the distinction between fel- 
 low-countryman and foreigner, so far as men's moral obligations to 
 each are concerned, thus removing any pretext for international 
 
17 
 
 war which would not also furnish a justification for intestine war. 
 (2) Jesus forbade the use of violence to promote righteousness or 
 root out evil. (3) Jesus instructs his disciples to follow his ex- 
 ample in seeking to extend his kingdom by relying exclusively on 
 spiritual 'lathor than physical force, the forces of peace and not 
 those of war. Let us consider briefly each of these points. 
 
 I. The Jewish people had been trained to feel their peculiarity 
 among the nations, and had been encouraged to keep aloof from 
 them during their formative period, lest they should become pol- 
 luted morally and religiously by intercourse with their heathen 
 neighbors. This attitude, which had become very pronounced in 
 Christ's time, was expressed in the saying: " Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbor and hate thine enemy; " in which expression " neigh- 
 bor " means " fellow-countryman " and " enemy " means '' for- 
 eigner." But this spirit of clannishness and of hatred to foreigners 
 could not be part of the world religion which Christ came to es- 
 tablish. Christ extended to all men the privileges and obligations 
 of fellow-countrymen. " But I say unto you, love your enemies 
 (foreigners with whom you have dealings) and pray for them that 
 persecute you (the Eomans) that ye may be sons of your Father who 
 is in Heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the 
 good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love 
 them that love you (your compatriots) what reward have ye? Do 
 not even the publicans (Roman tax-collectors) the same? And if 
 ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not 
 even the Gentiles the same? Ye therefore shall be perfect (in im- 
 partial love) even as your heavenly Father is perfect." 
 
 This is likewise the lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan. 
 The young man would accept Christ's summary of the law, " Thou 
 shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." and yet justify his Jewish ex- 
 clusiveness by the word " neighbor." Jesus tells him how one of 
 the most hated of foreigners, the Samaritan, proved neighbor to a 
 Jew whom his selfish fellow-countrymen had neglected. The love 
 due a neighbor knows no national bounds. How is war between dif- 
 ferent countries possible, even for so-called patriotic reasons, if one 
 is to treat the foreigner as though he were a compatriot? 
 
 II. In the parable of the Tares, Jesus teaches that no violence 
 is to be used to remove evil men from the world and to promote the 
 cause of righteousness. Jesus's first parable, on that day of parables 
 by the sea — the parable of the Sower — had dispelled whatever 
 hopes the disciples may have had of the easy and immediate tri- 
 umph of the kingdom of God. It showed them that the preached 
 word was not always to be fruitful. We know something of the 
 character and thought of these men. James and John afterward 
 wished to call down fire Tipon a hostile Samaritan village. Peter 
 was quick with his sword when his Master was arrested in Geth- 
 semane. Simon belonged to the '' zealot " party, which had in- 
 spired some of the bloodiest insurrections against the Roman rule. 
 
18 
 
 All the disciples shared the current Jewish notion that the Messiah 
 would crush the Eoman power, conquer the nations, restore the 
 kingdom of David, and make it universal by military force. On 
 hearing that Jesus's kingdom was not to triumph at once, and by the 
 mere preaching of the word, the question would naturally arise in 
 their hearts, " What are we to do to destroy the evil that opposes 
 and secure the triumph of the kingdom after the word shall have 
 been tried and found inadequate? Shall we take the sword to de- 
 stroy the sinners and hostile Gentiles?" This natural question 
 Jesus anticipated and answered in the parable of the tares of the 
 field. The kingdom of God is not to triumph through military 
 force nor is violence to be used to keep the world good. Christ's 
 servants are to carry on the contest with evil by the means and 
 methods which he himself used. Beyond that the removal of evil 
 from the world must be left to the Son of man to whom the work 
 of judgment has been committed by the Father. 
 
 Paul and Peter were only making an application of this teach- 
 ing of Jesus when they charged the early Christians not to attempt 
 physical resistance but to be in subjection to existing governments. 
 
 III. Jesus trained a body of disciples and sent them to carry on 
 a contest against the devil and his works. He gave them full in- 
 structions for the work, but said nothing of military power. They 
 were to preach the gospel, heal the sick, to bear witness of him, 
 and suffer for their testimony, and to do these things with impar- 
 tial love for all men. In the beatitudes given at the time he chose 
 the twelve apostles, he promised them that the meek, the peace- 
 makers, and those who bore persecution unresistingly, should in- 
 herit the earth, be known as God's sons, and possess the kingdom 
 of heaven. The military virtues had no beatitude from Jesus. His 
 disciples, as he described, commissioned and blessed them, are men 
 of peace. 
 
 These, in brief, are the grounds of peace in the New Testa- 
 ment. They are fundamental in it. Christian peace is not a pre- 
 carious inference from isolated texts in the New Testament, nor an 
 appendix to Christian ethics, but it inheres in the very nature of 
 the kingdom of God which Christ came to establish on earth. 
 
 The Chairman: I will now call upon Dr. George A. Barton, 
 of Bryn Mawr College, who will read a paper upon the " Elements 
 of Peace Doctrine in the Old Testament." 
 
19 
 
 ELEMENTS OF PEACK DOCTRINE IN THE OLD 
 
 TESTAMENT. 
 
 BY GKORGE A. BARTON, PH.D.. BRYN MAWR COLLEGE. 
 
 With reference to the relation whicli the Old Testament bears 
 to the doctrine of international peace there are four possible atti- 
 tudes of mind: 
 
 1. We may take the ground that the Old Testament is a record 
 of a divine revelation, that it exhibits war as a part of the divine 
 plan, and that, therefore, it justifies warfare among Christians. 
 This attitude has been generally taken by Christians in many dif- 
 ferent centuries. It has its advocates yet. It has served to flood 
 the Christian world with wave upon wave of barbarism. Although 
 it is still advocated by some Christian teachers, it is too supei-fi- 
 cial to merit refutation in a company like this. 
 
 2. The second possible position is in part identical with the 
 preceding and in part the antithesis of it. It holds that the Old 
 Testament reeks with un-Christian barbarism, that it is a millstone 
 about the neck of the Church, and that no advance can be made 
 in the realization of the Christian ideal of peace until this unwieldy 
 impediment is cast aside. This attitude of mind is as superficial as 
 the preceding. It is produced naturally by reaction from the ex- 
 travagant claims of those who advocate the first position. 
 
 3. A third attitude is sometimes taken. It is said that the vic- 
 tories gained by Israel, which were of real advantage to the nation, 
 were not the result of war, but of divine interposition, and that 
 large military establishments were not only contrary to the com- 
 mands of God, but disastrous to the political prosperity of the na- 
 tion. 
 
 This position would be comforting, if true, but unfortunately it 
 rests upon a method of Old Testament study, which can no longer 
 be regarded as thorough. Our Old Testament historical books 
 were compiled and edited by men who lived just at the period when 
 the Hebrews were passing from a nation to a church. These narra- 
 tives were collected, not so much for the sake of history, as for the 
 religious lesson which they might be made to enforce. Without 
 doubt, too, the nation had suffered from the military ambitions of 
 its greatest leaders. Equally undoubted is the fact that there was 
 a large Providential element in the military victories won by their 
 ancestors; but in retelling the stories of these to enforce a religious 
 point of view the Providential element was heightened, the war- 
 like element, which in the early time was very real, fell into the 
 background, and the whole perspective was innocently and uncon- 
 sciously changed. 
 
 Let me give an illustration. In the sixth chapter of Joshua 
 two different accounts of the taking of Jericho are woven together. 
 In the older of these we are told how the Hebrews captured the 
 city by a ruse. They quietly marched about the city for seven 
 
20 
 
 days, in such a manner as to appear unable to attack it, thus throw- 
 ing the inhabitants off their guard, and when the garrison least ex- 
 pected it raised a great shout, and, rushing upon it, captured the 
 city. The deed was really a military stratagem, but the victory was, 
 like all victories, ascribed to Jehovah, the God of battles. The vic- 
 tory was won so easily, however, that it was ascribed in an especial 
 manner to the interposition of God, and it was only natural that in 
 later times it should give rise to traditions in which the Providen- 
 tial element overshadowed the other entirely. Indeed it is not im- 
 possible for such a point of view to be taken in modern times about 
 modern events. I have heard of a Friend, who regards the signal 
 victories of the American fleets over the Spaniards, in the war of 
 1898, accomplished as they were with almost no loss of life, as evi- 
 dence that America was as much the chosen instrument for the 
 overthrow of Spanish despotism as Israel was for the extermination 
 of the Ganaanites, and that God fought for the American fleets as 
 he did for Israel of old. If this were not an age of books and of 
 critical historical study, there might easily grow up in America a 
 very unreal tradition about that war — a tradition in which the ac- 
 tual military element, which we so much regretted, would sink out 
 of sight altogether, and an impression prevail that it was deter- 
 mined wholly by Providential interpositions. Obviously, then, if 
 we would find in Israel's history valid principles which may be ap- 
 plied to real international life in this world, we must adopt a less 
 superficial method of study. 
 
 4. A fourth attitude is possible. We may recognize that the 
 religion of Israel was the Providential preparation for Christianity, 
 that in the beginning the Hebrews differed little from their neigh- 
 bors and kinsmen either in religion or in the arts of life, but that 
 as time advanced they saw more clearly the nature of God and their 
 proper relation to their neighbors. If we proceed thus we shall ex- 
 pect their religion and morals to be crude in the early period, but 
 we shall expect, as we approach the time of the coming of the 
 Prince of Peace, to discover a clearer apprehension of those great 
 principles which should make war forever impossible. 
 
 This last is the point of view which this essay is an endeavor to 
 set forth, though obviously in the time at my disposal the proper 
 treatment of the subject can only be hinted at. 
 
 In the animal world warfare and struggle seem to be perfectly 
 natural. Biologists teach us that it is by means of these that ani- 
 mal life has been pushed for^vard to its present degree of perfec- 
 tion. Man is from one standpoint a member of the animal king- 
 dom. In the earlier stages of his development he has necessarily 
 been pushed forward by the same processes which have moulded 
 all animal life. He cannot be led forward by the lofty ideals which 
 inspire by their brightness and purity until he can appreciate some- 
 thing of their beauty and sulilimity. Until then, lik<3 his fellows in 
 the animal realm, he must be pushed forward by the blind forces 
 
21 
 
 of stnifTiTle and survival. To discover the elements of a peace doc- 
 trine in the Old Testament, we must discover the power to appre- 
 ciate the great religious trnths on which it rests. Those truths are 
 the Fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man. Until men 
 have clearly understood that God is the God of all men, and that it 
 is as wrong to injure a stranger as a brother, because both are the 
 children of the same Father, no peace doctrine is ])Ossible to them. 
 
 Xow, in the early days of Israel's national life the necessary re- 
 ligious foundation for this truth had not been laid. Each tribe, or, 
 at the most, each nation, had its god. Each nation thought it 
 must worship its own god, but it in no wise denied the reality of 
 the gods of other nations. These gods were conceived as larger 
 men, ready to fight with one another, or to over-reach one another 
 in all the ways which men would do. This applies to the early his- 
 tory of Israel as truly as to that of other ancient peoples. When 
 David was temporarily driven from his native land, and had to take 
 refuge in Moab, we hear him complaining: " They have driven 
 me out this day that I should not cleave unto the inheritance of 
 Jehovah, saying. Go serve other gods" (1 Samuel 2G: 19). Jeho- 
 vah's power was, he seemed to think, limited to Palestine, and, 
 when on foreign soil, David naturally supposed he must worship a 
 foreign god. This accounts for the fact that David practiced such 
 barbarities upon conquered enemies (2 Samuel 13: 31). From his 
 religious point of view these enemies had no rights. Obviously in 
 such an age the peace doctrine could find no root. 
 
 In Amos, the first of the literary prophets, we find a broader 
 outlook, both as regards the extent of God's rule over the nations, 
 and as regards the barbarities of war. He perceived that Jehovah 
 controlled all nations; Jehovah brought the Philistines from Caph- 
 tor and the Aramaeans from Kir, as well as Israel from Egypt 
 (Amos 9: 7). It was Amos, too, the possessor of this breadth of re- 
 ligious vision, who condemned that violation of treaties, that bar- 
 barity to women, and that disregard of the sacredness of death, 
 which are so characteristic of war (see Amos 1: 9; 1: 13; 2: 1). 
 
 It takes, in any age, a long time for a higher ideal to win its 
 way, and that was true of Israel as well as of others. Isaiah sang 
 of the birth of the " Prince of peace," in language which is much 
 obscured in our common versions of the Bible, but which is so en- 
 shrined in the affections of the Christian world that one hesitates 
 to disturb it, even in the interest of truth. "When Isaiah's lan- 
 guage is really understood, however, it differs but little from the 
 hard standards of the age of war. That Prince, as Isaiah conceived 
 him, was to be a " wonderful plotter, a very god of a warrior, and 
 a father of booty " before he was " Prince of peace." In other 
 words Isaiah's conception is still the conception of a conqueror; 
 the peace which this passage pictures was such as Kitchener is mak- 
 ins in South Africa. 
 
2^ 
 
 Many years later Isaiah had a more attractive vision. In the 
 eleventh chapter of his prophecy, when describing the Messianic 
 kingdom, he sang of a time when — 
 
 " The wolf will lodge with the lamb, 
 The leopard lie down with the kid, 
 The calf and the young lion will graze together, 
 And a little child will lead them." 
 
 This language is no donbt fignrative. The prophet pictured 
 under these animal forms the way in which human passion was to 
 become harmelss. It is not clear, however, whether his thought em- 
 braced the world in this Utopia of peace, or whether he confined it 
 to the kingdom of Israel. The words which immediately follow 
 favor the latter view. 
 
 Such religious conceptions as those of Amos were, neverthe- 
 less, bound to l^ear fruit. Under the influence of the prophets the 
 old laws were recast and king Josiah instituted a reform on their 
 basis. We now possess this work in our book of Deuteronomy. It 
 is characterized by a large humanitarian element. It sought to 
 soften the rugged features of the hard life of ancient times. It 
 instituted laws in behalf of the poor, in behalf of slaves, who were 
 usually the captives taken in war, and even in behalf of animals.* 
 In its treatment of war itself there is a milder, more human and 
 reasonable note than one is accustomed to find in antiquity (see 
 Deuteronomy 20, and cf. Goldwin Smith in Independent of Au- 
 gust 22d, 1901, p. 1959 ff.). Of the Levitical code which came into 
 its present form even later, though many of its laws are old, the 
 same may also be said.f If that code seems to limit the sympa- 
 thies of Israel at times hj enforcing kindness towards members of 
 that race particularly, it also commanded the Hebrew to love the 
 resident alien as himself (Leviticus 19: 17, 18). When we remem- 
 ber that the resident alien was usually a captive of war, we can see 
 how beneficently the teaching of prophets like Amos was taking ef- 
 fect. The idea that there was but one God and He the God of all 
 men, was producing a new conception of humanity fatal to the 
 spirit of war. 
 
 In no book of the Old Testament does this leavening doctrine, 
 that God cares for all men, and its corollary, that mercy is due to 
 all, shine out more clearly than in the book of Jonah, but we have 
 been so occupied in quarreling about Jonah's whale that the sig- 
 nificance of the message of the book has escaped us. The book was 
 written to enforce the great truths that God's care extends to all 
 men, that he chose Israel not for her own sake merely. Init to bear 
 his message of warning, of righteousness, and of mercy to all men. 
 
 *See Kent's "Humanitarian Element in the Old Testament Legisla- 
 tion," Biblical World, October, 1901. 
 
 t See Kent, in Biblical World for NOvomher. 1!)01. 
 
23 
 
 and that even the worst of Israel's enemies may find mercy with 
 God and become his people. The book of Jonah is a missionary 
 tract. The kindhness of God extends to all nations; the spirit of 
 helpful sympathy should prevail toward them in the hearts of his 
 worshipers — this is the message of this unique book, and it is a 
 message calculated to extirpate the spirit of selfishness and nar- 
 rowness from which all war springs. 
 
 The climax of Old Testament thought in this respect is reached 
 in that little prophecy, found both in the second chapter of Isaiah 
 and in the fourth chapter of Micah, the origin of which is a puz- 
 zle. Was it composed by Isaiah, by Micah, or by some unknown 
 prophet? Perhaps the latter is the correct view. From this un- 
 known seer it may have been introduced by editors into the posi- 
 tions in the books of Isaiah and Micah, where it now stands. Be 
 that as it may, in its inspired utterance we have for the first time 
 an adequate expression of what a real monotheism means for the 
 world. " The mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in 
 the top of the mountain and exalted above the hills. Many nations 
 shall give him their allegiance; his word shall rule them; he shall 
 judge between many peoples and decide concerning strong nations 
 afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their 
 spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against 
 nation, neither shall they learn war any more." One God for all 
 nations, hence one brotherhood among men, and a universal peace 
 on earth. This is the only logical view for a monotheist, and is the 
 inevitable result of a belief in one God. Such is the strength of 
 old custom, especially of custom consecrated by religious sanction 
 and rooted in human passion, that this prophetic vision did not 
 make a deep impression on the prophets' contemporaries; but nev- 
 ertheless the beautiful picture of international amity, clearly drawn 
 against the dark background of a savage antiquity, anticipated by 
 two millenniums the vision of our Whittier, who sang: 
 
 " Ea'II shall cease and Violence pass away, 
 And the tired world breathe free through a long Sabbath day." 
 
 Viewed in the manner here indicated, the Old Testament 
 neither sanctions war nor is a millstone about the neck of Chris- 
 tianity, nor is it the record of a people who lived in a world so un- 
 real that it can teach us no practical lesson. It affords a basis for 
 the peace doctrine, both because it exhibits the fact that war 
 springs from the animal side of human nature, and is fostered only 
 by a conception of God so limited as to be but little removed from 
 heathenism; and also because it reveals the fact that the doctrine of 
 monotheism cannot be really held without creating in men's minds 
 an abhorrence of the barbarities of war, and without inspiring 
 visions of a universal peace. The former element, though pain- 
 fully apparent, is a waning or diminishing element; the latter, as 
 revelation in its progress nears the Central Figure in human his- 
 tory, clearly appears as the increasing and triumphant element. 
 
24 
 
 The Chairman: The next paper, entitled "The Failure of 
 the Christian Church in Eegard to Peace Principles," is by Mary 
 Chawner Woody, of Winston-Salem, N. C, who will now read it. 
 
 THE FAIIiURE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN THE 
 PAST IN REGARD TO PEACE PRINCIPLES. 
 
 BY MART CHAWJfER WOODT, WINSTON-SALEM, N. C. 
 
 It needs no argument or incident to show the great blessing 
 which the church has been to the world — even in time of war; but 
 the signal failure of the church to fill its mission of peace is har- 
 rowing in the extreme. 
 
 The Prince of Peace came in an era of peace to establish a king- 
 dom of peace under the reign of love. There had been in the Ro- 
 man Empire alone 644 years of constant war — from Tullius Hos- 
 tilius to Augustus Caesar — with only six years of peace. But now 
 the temple of Janus was closed, and at the advent of Jesus the shep- 
 herds heard the anthem of the angels, " On earth peace, goodwill to 
 men." 
 
 The blessed Saviour taught his philosophy of love to his 
 chosen followers, established his kingdom in the midst of the na- 
 tions, and plainly stated the practical application of his principles. 
 His disciples were slow to comprehend the force of love, and on 
 slight provocation desired to call down fire from heaven on their 
 enemies. Even at the last of the three years of constant teaching 
 they misunderstood the figurative language and thought to rule by 
 physical force. Then Jesus gave to the leader the plain words, 
 " Put up thy sword, for all they that take the sword shall perish 
 with the sword"; and then an example of tenderness before the 
 eyes of the little church should have taught his followers for all 
 time that the human body was not to be mutilated and mangled 
 with implements of war. As the soldiers were binding him, at his 
 words, " Suffer ye thus far," the restoring band was loosed a mo- 
 ment until it could reach the wounded ear of Malchus and touch it 
 back to health. Previously that evening, as Jesus closed his in- 
 struction to his followers on close fellowship with himself, he left 
 the legacy of peace — forgotten in his very presence. 
 
 This peace is first in the child of God. " It is a triple peace ''— 
 peace with God, peace with our neighbor, peace with ourselves. 
 " It has a wider scope than the individual." It is the effect of right- 
 eousness that shall be peace. Cardinal Gibbons very truly inter- 
 prets the gospel when he says: " God is the God of peace to the 
 individual, the Father of peace to the family, and the Prince of 
 Peace to society." 
 
 The very force of the law of love will lead into the kingdom of 
 peace. The coals of fire will melt the stony heart. Love is the 
 most potent killing agency ever applied — cold steel and " reeking 
 tube " are not to be compared with it. 
 
25 
 
 If the Church was not to affect society why did Jesiis say to that 
 little company, " Ye are the light of the world " ? Why did lie 
 use that closer metaphor, " Yc are the salt of the earth " ? 
 
 This was a prophecy that his chosen followers were to modify 
 the whole world, that the principles enunciated by him would af- 
 fect every institution they reached. 
 
 It has been wonderfully fulfilled. Though under the light of 
 the gospel there are many thousands who have not accepted iti 
 truth, yet their whole character is modified by it. There can be lit- 
 tle comparison between the unbeliever who has been brought up 
 among Christian people and the heathen who has never come in 
 touch with the salt of the earth. But it is to be shown here where- 
 in the salt in this kingdom of peace has failed and so been trodden 
 under foot of men. 
 
 The principles of the Prince and the anthem of the angels and 
 the legacy left have not been utilized in the church, and so it has 
 lost its pacific element. It has yielded to a lower law, and thus 
 broken a higher and more effectual. 
 
 If an ear of the enemy could not be cut off in defence of the 
 Son of God, where is a sufficient cause for Christians ever to as- 
 sume the defensive? But the Christian Church has brought over 
 from the old dispensation an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, 
 and has attempted to engraft into the broad spreading tree of the 
 gospel the seclusive, exclusive exotic of the Jewish religion. This 
 has wrought untold mischief. 
 
 The Church seems never ready, when a crisis comes, to meet it, 
 because it has failed previously in not teaching the precepts of the 
 gospel, " line upon line." '' In time of peace prepare for war " has 
 been faithfully observed, and so a Christian nation, filled w^ith 
 Christian churches, rushes into war on the slightest pretext, and 
 the dove of peace cannot then be heard above the roaring artillery. 
 If the salt of the earth would keep its savor, every Christian nation 
 would be so saved by it that the folly of war would be impossible. 
 It is the business of the Church to make people kind and just and 
 wise, so that " kings would not play at the game of war." 
 
 Dr. Chalmers says it is only by the extension of Christian prin- 
 ciples among the people of the earth that the atrocities of war will 
 at length be swept away. If this is true the failure is apparent; the 
 Bible has not been sufficiently taught, the Sermon on the Mount has 
 been hid as out of date. The gospel of love has been pushed aside 
 as impracticable. 
 
 A leaflet issued by the Howard Association says: "The regi- 
 cides perpetrated by Italian and other anarchists, the assassinations 
 and conspiracies of nihilists, the vendettas of Southern Europe, and 
 the gross municipal disorders and corruptions of some of our 
 American cities have all been especially characteristic of sections 
 of people who, even if in some cases making a profession of religion, 
 have really never been habituated or inclined to an acquaintance 
 
26 
 
 with the supreme truths of God and eternity as revealed in the Holy 
 Scriptures." Professor Huxley is quoted as saying: " By the study 
 of what other book could children be so humanized? . . . No- 
 where else is the fundamental truth as strongly laid down that the 
 welfare of the state depends upon the righteousness of the citizen." 
 " The Bible is the most democratic book in the world." That many 
 grow up in our Christian country utterly ignorant of the Bible lies 
 at the door of the Church. All quarters where there are disturbing 
 elements, or likely to be, the Bible should be applied by all pos- 
 sible means more bountifully than would the health officer throw 
 salt into a cesspool that breeds diphtheria. Take the late assassin, 
 for instance. The Christian Church is responsible for such a char- 
 acter being developed in our midst. The assassin had strong con- 
 victions and a courage equal to his convictions. But that his con- 
 victions were wrong is a stigma on our instruction. If the pene- 
 trating gospel of love had been as faithfully applied to his mind as 
 were anarchistic views it is altogether probable that right principles 
 would have been maintained with even greater tenacity. But be- 
 hold the attitude of the church; it is vividly given in a cartoon of 
 a minister and an anarchist side by side, the same spirit in both. 
 The anarchist exclaims, " Kill all rulers " ; the minister exclaims, 
 " Lynch all anarchists." When will these bewildered people be- 
 lieve the gospel of love? 
 
 A modified form of Christianity has been taught and not the 
 gospel pure and simple. The Church has so often given man's idea 
 of Christianity and not God's thought. 
 
 The fundamental doctrine of love to God and faith in man has 
 not its full application. From the beginning the Church has con- 
 tinued daily to say " Our Father," but has not yet learned that if 
 we say " Our Father " we must say also " My brother." For " He 
 hath made of one blood all the nations of men to dwell upon the 
 face of the earth." Until the Church teaches the brotherhood of 
 man there can never be the federation of the world. The beloved 
 disciple gives the gauge by which every Christian is to be measured. 
 " If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for 
 he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love 
 God whom he hath not seen? " How can he say, " Our Father " if he 
 does not say " My brother " ? But the writer continues: " This 
 commandment have we from him, that he that loveth God love 
 his brother also." This means the Filipinos, the Boers, the ne- 
 groes, the Indians and the Chinese. 
 
 The Church was to be a light to the world, but it has wasted 
 much of its force in controversy. " Ye are the light of the world." 
 But how could the Church throw light upon the world when quar- 
 reling about the light itself? How could the Church win the dark- 
 minded when it did not recognize him as a brother? 
 
 When the Dutch made their settlement in South Africa it is 
 said that over their church door was this mongrel legend: '' Dogs 
 
27 
 
 and Hottentots keep out." In these diminutive people they could 
 see no trace of kinship. But under the brotherly care of the Mora- 
 vian missionaries these same Hottentots received the gospel, and 
 two years ago, at the Moravian Synod in Ilerrn Ilutt, this same 
 Hottentot mission was transferred to the list of self-supporting 
 churches. We admire the piety and persistence of the Boers, but 
 lament their forgetting that the grace of God which bringeth sal- 
 vation to all men hath appeared. 
 
 How could the Church invite the world to a peace meeting when 
 at strife within itself over possible renderings and interpretations 
 and modifieations? Filled with this enmity the Church is shorn of 
 its strength. H the prayer of .Jesus " that they may be one " were 
 fulfilled, what power the united Church would now have in averting 
 any storm cloud that might be gathering in all Christendom. She 
 might also be an arbiter for heathen countries. Instead, the re- 
 sponsibility of many wars lies at the door of the Church. For in- 
 stance, our own Civil War came only after the Church had carried 
 the strife so far as to split in two itself; then it was easy for the 
 state to follow. The Church had failed to maintain the conditions 
 of peace. Though the Catholic Church has as one of its principles, 
 " The church shuns the shedding of blood," yet the jSTew York 
 Joxirnal is authority for these words from the Pope to the Queen 
 of Spain during the conflict in Cuba: " We repeat with all our 
 heart, it is our wish that God may give victory to the Spanish arms 
 in favor of your throne and the Catholic nation." The proper 
 whole-hearted wish for the highest dignitary in the Church should 
 have been for the success of God and humanity. 
 
 Wlien matters came to a crisis the salutation from the Prot- 
 estant Church in America was in the same spirit as that of the 
 Pope; so war with Spain was inevitable. If vessels laden with sup- 
 plies to relieve suffering from the hand of Christian people of the 
 United States had waited in Cuban waters instead of a man-of- 
 war, it would not have been a menace to Spain. 
 
 By inflammatory sermons and bloodthirsty journalism both 
 church and state were carried off their base, though Fitzhugh Lee, 
 our consul, sent a cablegram that it would not do to send a man- 
 of-war to the scene of conflict; but the Maine went and slipped into 
 Havana harbor, and what has followed? And who can see the end 
 of mangled forms and garments rolled in blood? The gospel of 
 love is shut out by stronger walls than heathen superstitions from 
 the drink-maddened Filipino. 
 
 What is a little shout of glory for some name and the ques- 
 tionable honor of a rear-admiral? The mother of Worth Bagley 
 gave the true sentiment when the news of the slaughter of the 
 young ensign reached her Kaleigh home, and she exclaimed, '' Tell 
 them to stop fighting! I want no Spanish mother's heart to bleed 
 as mine does to-day." 
 
 At the close of the eighteenth ceLtury, under the leadership 
 
28 
 
 of the head of the Greek Church, Eussia. Catholic Austria and 
 Protestant Prussia partitioned out Poland. The freedom-loving 
 Polanders, with no country to defend, have come to look upon 
 all rulers as tyrants. The failure of the Church at the close of the 
 eighteenth century has borne its legitimate fruit at the close of 
 the nineteenth. What a century plant, with its deadly bloom in 
 every civilized country on the globe! Because the Church has 
 blessed and shouted over the armies, God's law. " he appointed 
 to the nations their bounds," has been broken, and a people with- 
 out a country have lost their confidence in the Church and have 
 become a deadly foe to every ruler. In the American Revolution 
 Kosciuszko drew his sword for the freedom of America. In 1901 
 a Polander takes the life of its President. 
 
 The Christian Church quotes with joy the prophecies of Isaiah, 
 but thinks them only ideal and impracticable. The great failure 
 of the Church in the past has been that it has not recognized that 
 under the leadership of the Head of the Church men are to work 
 out the fulfillment of prophecy. The mere existence of these 
 prophecies upon the inspired page is a condemnation of war and a 
 command to the Christian Church to work for their fulfilhnent. 
 
 A recent example of the success of the gospel plan has been 
 given us from the far-away New Hebrides, whose four thousand 
 men were only lately turned from cannibalism. The converted 
 chief went with Frank Paton, the son of the veteran missionary, 
 to establish a mission in one of the villages. He was met with 
 loaded rifles, and was shot in protecting Mr. Paton. In his beau- 
 tiful Christian death the chief insisted that no revenge should be 
 taken for his mortal wound. What was the result? The evan- 
 gelist says that this kind of a revenge opened the way for a band 
 of the followers of their martyred chief to go two days of each 
 week to preach Christ in the villages. What a contrast to the 
 bands sent by Christian America to Christianize the Filipinos! 
 
 Cardinal Gibbons, in a sermon at the beginning of the century, 
 said, " The teachings of the gospel form the only basis of peace for 
 the rulers of the earth. All the arts and resources of diplomacy 
 will be in vain; all the courts of arbitration and peace conferences 
 that ever shall assemble will avail but little . . . unless their decis- 
 ions are guided and framed under the invocation of the Lord of 
 Peace, who sits enthroned on the cross." 
 
 " God grant that the new century may inaugurate a new era 
 of people fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah." In a recent sermon, 
 Pastor Sailliens, of Paris, said: "To bring back the church at 
 once to apostolic simplicity, humility and spirituality seems an im- 
 possible task. ... As long as the churches adorn the arms of war- 
 riors with consecrated laurels and sing Te Deums in honor of their 
 victories, war will continue and men will kill each other in good 
 conscience, thinking they have the approbation of heaven." 
 
29 
 
 The Chairh[ax: We have tliree-qiiarters of an hour now in 
 which to discuss the three most interesting and valuable papers you 
 have heard. I shall first introduce Dr. Rufus M. Jones, of Haver- 
 ford College, who will open the discussion. 
 
 Rufus ;M. Jones: I suppose most of us are too old to remem- 
 ber how it feels to grow up, and how hard and slow it is to get over 
 certain things that are in the grain to start with. We don't remem- 
 ber, perhaps, how easy it is for the child to have the spirit of fight 
 spring up, and how slow the process is of getting rid of it entii'ely. 
 Well, now, being from observation familiar with the growth of life 
 from childhood to maturity, and the changes which it brings, we 
 ought to expect that some such thing would appear in the progress 
 of the race from childhood to maturity, and that is what we find. 
 
 There is, perhaps, no sadder note coming from the early period 
 in the history of the race tlian that almost earliest note in the Old 
 Testament. You remember a man named Lamech, who invented 
 a weapon. He is the first man, or among the first, who used his 
 head to invent something. The inventive power of man is one of 
 the greatest which God placed in the world. Well, this man 
 Lamech, as soon as he invents his weapon, as soon as he gets an in- 
 strument through the exercise of this inventive power, begins to 
 glory in it. He does not glory because he can thereby advance the 
 world's interests and make it better. Here is what he says to his 
 two wives, in the little poem — one of the earliest notes of song — im- 
 bedded there in the early part of the Book of Genesis: 
 
 Adafi and Zillali, liear my voice; 
 
 Ye vives of Lamecli, hearken unto my speecfi: 
 
 For 1 have slain a man for wounding me, 
 
 And a young man for bruising me; 
 
 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, 
 
 Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold. 
 
 That is the sort of man you have to start with. There are a 
 good many pages in the Book we read and love, through which we 
 have come to the great truths of God and of human life, and you 
 have this seventy-times-seven repeated later in another strain. "How 
 many times shall I forgive the man who hurts me?" a disciple asked. 
 "" Seven times? That is what we have been told." " I say unto you, 
 not seven times, but seventy times seven," was the answer. There 
 jou have the forgiving spirit lifted to an indefinite height, because 
 the words are indefinite words. Thus you pass along from the 
 spirit of revenge, the spirit that breathes through the man who in- 
 vents his first weapon, along to the spirit of that Personality who 
 came to show us what life really means and what spirit should pre- 
 vail in a human being. When two of his pupils came to the Mas- 
 ter and called His attention to the fact that when Elijah had diffi- 
 culties with some people, he called down fire from heaven and got 
 rid of them, and said: " Is not this a similar case? Shall we not 
 
30 
 
 ! 
 
 call down fire?" he replied: "You know not what spirit you 
 have. We are not living under the spirit of Elijah; we have passed 
 away from that. You do not seem to know what time you are liv- 
 ing in; you do not seem to realize at all the new idea of life." 
 
 We have learned in our every-day life and in what we read, and 
 this last paper this morning has recalled it to us, how continuously 
 the spirit of the old time, the spirit of Lamech and of Elijah, keeps 
 its hold on men, and goes on, in spite of the fact that the warmer 
 waters of the Gulf Stream are slowly flooding the world. 
 
 Two great figures of the seventeenth century, Oliver Cromwell 
 and George Eox, were diametrically opposite characters. You see 
 one of them going into great battles. Shouting the Psalms, he and 
 his men called on God to destroy enemies. You find the other go- 
 ing up and down among men taking the buffets, the scorn and the 
 abuse of men and saying, " I am living in the virtue of that life and 
 power which does away with the occasion for all war." That is 
 the other spirit. That very idea, however, is most beautifully 
 brought out in those very Psalms that Cromwell used to shout as he 
 went to battle. This old poet, when he was lifting up the type of 
 life that ought to prevail, said about it: " Eighteousness and peace 
 have kissed each other." There never will be any permanent peace 
 in the world until just that dream of the old Hebrew poet is real- 
 ized; just as fast as righteousness prevails peace prevails; they are 
 linked together; they are bound forever in one whole. We must 
 learn that we have to treat men as brothers; that every man is to 
 be treated as though he were our other self. We must lift every man 
 up to our own plane, and whenever we come to the point where that 
 sort of righteousness permeates society peace will come with it. 
 Righteousness and peace always will kiss each other. They belong 
 together. 
 
 The Chairman: The subject is now open for general discus- 
 sion by the Conference. 
 
 Davis Furnas: I have been interested in the papers that 
 have been read, and have enjoyed them. I fear, however, that you 
 will set me down as one of the ignorant old fogies. I was educated 
 to believe that Friends had no place in military organizations, nor 
 among military men. Now, I have been discouraged sometimes 
 when I have heard of ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, min- 
 isters in the Society of Friends, making war speeches on Decora- 
 tion Day. We may make all the profession we please; it is not the 
 profession that brings about an object, biit it is the doing of the 
 thing that we profess. When we profess to be members of Christ's 
 kingdom of peace and go around making war speeches for popular- 
 ity's sake, we shall not accomplish much in the promotion of peace. 
 Our ministers ought to stand forth in the love of Christ and pro- 
 claim nothing but peace on earth and goodwill to men. 
 
31 
 
 William G. Hubbard: If the Chair please, I wish just to set 
 my testimony to the hist paper that we listened to. While the 
 others were good, it seems to me that probably that is one of the 
 most important that we shall have. 
 
 I have had a good deal of contact with the ministers of different 
 denominations, and with churches, and I feel very keenly the force 
 of the charges of inconsistency brought against ministers of the 
 Gospel of Christ. When I was a student in college I listened to a 
 man that I had learned to love for his devoutness. On one occasion, 
 when he was making a public address, I was thoroughly shocked to 
 hear him say: "■ A rebel has no right except the right to six feet of 
 earth with a bullet in his heart." We know how many editorials 
 have been written in some of the leading papers, and often in re- 
 ligious papers, speaking in the most approving terms of war. Now 
 it seems to me — and I have felt this a great many times in my work 
 — that we have not done our full duty as believers in the doctrine 
 of peace, not to have brought this doctrine more to tlie attention of 
 the various denominations throughout the country. When I ad- 
 dressed at one time a great educational institution in one of the 
 Western States, the president of the institution and the president 
 of the board of directors both came on to the platform, at the close 
 of the meeting, and said: " That is the first address on peace I 
 have ever heard." I have heard that remark made by educators in 
 Western institutions probably a score of times. The pastor of one 
 of the large churches in Cleveland said to his congregation, at the 
 close of one of my addresses, " I think you must have been deeply 
 interested in this presentation. It is the first time I have ever heard 
 a sermon on peace." The man had been preaching the Gospel of 
 the Prince of Peace for thirty years and yet had never heard a dis- 
 course on that subject before! I presume there are a thousand 
 schools of higher grade in the United States where no address has 
 ever been given along this line. I simply want to raise this ques- 
 tion, not to discuss it: Are we doing our duty? A hundred thou- 
 sand Friends, probably, are represented here. Ought it to be pos- 
 sible that a man of general intelligence and reading should be able 
 to say, " I have never heard an address on peace? " Will this Con- 
 ference plan to disseminate more generally these arguments that 
 are being produced here, and bring the matter more strikingly and 
 more thoroughly to the attention of the Christian people of the 
 United States? 
 
 Allen Flitcraft: I have been interested in each of the pa- 
 pers, and also in the discussion. With the first paper we all agree. 
 All true, vital Christians, it seems to me, must endorse what is in 
 it. In reference to the second, I know that those who are not really 
 in the spirit of the Gospel, and are disposed to encourage war, will 
 try to support their views by the use of the Old Testament; but as 
 I read the Old Testament, and get into the spirit of the inspired 
 
32 
 
 writers who produced it, I find that it is in favor of peace. I have 
 risen merely to say this: Jesus Clirist had not anything directly to 
 do with philosophy, science or government; neither, I believe, had 
 His apostles. Their mission was of a spiritual character. If the 
 professing Christians of to-day were living in the spirit and advo- 
 cating the kingdom of Christ more than the kingdoms of this 
 world, as did the early Christians, our governments would be far in 
 advance of what they are. While we are reflecting upon the church 
 and the ministers of other denominations — and perhaps we can 
 truthfully do it — how are we living ourselves? The principles of 
 Christ will keep others as well as ministers in the spirit of the Gos- 
 pel. While we look to ministers and expect their light to shine 
 more brightly if possible than that of others, who of us are entirely 
 clear? Are we doing our duty as individual members of the So- 
 ciety of Friends? 
 
 Again, a word in reference to our government. Our govern- 
 ment is, unfortunately, not founded upon the principles of peace, 
 upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the present condition of peo- 
 ple, it would probably not succeed, if it were so founded. It is not 
 our business to endeavor to tie the hands of those that may be in 
 authority at the head of the nation, but to do our part in having 
 the condition of our hearts right. Then we shall be instrumental in 
 leading others to Christ, and in hastening the day when the knowl- 
 edge of the glory of the Lord shall fill the earth as the waters cov- 
 er the sea. Then it will not be necessary to have governments 
 founded upon force. 
 
 Anna Beaithwaite Thomas: Why is it that the church has 
 failed to grasp these principles of peace? WTiy is it that good men 
 to-day support war? I do not think it is from bad principles. The 
 ministers who have preached and written in favor of war in South 
 Africa and in the Philippine Islands have not done so, I think, 
 from a desire of glory, or for punishing enemies, or for aggrandize- 
 ment. They have done it because they thought that the cause of 
 righteousness and truth would through these wars be advanced in 
 the world; that the victory of England in South Africa and the vic- 
 tory of America in the Pliilippine Islands would be for the ad- 
 vancement of the Gospel of Christ. 
 
 One reason why the}^ have believed thus is, I think, because we 
 have not done our part in the propagation of the Gospel message 
 of peace. We peace people have been, at least we have been looked 
 upon as, negative. We have not had an aggressive spirit. If we 
 want to overcome these erroneous beliefs, if we want to carry others 
 with us, we must show that evil can be overcome with good. We 
 must actually overcome evil. We must carry out in pacific ways 
 what they think is to be done by the sword. We must let them see 
 that we are actually getting things done in Christ's way. 
 
33 
 
 Another thing: I think we ought to enlist the sympathies of 
 the young people. The peace movement has a hold on the older 
 men and women. l)ut it fails to attract the young people. Why is 
 it? Just the want of this aggressive spirit. The young generation's 
 hearts are enlisted in the cause of Christ and of His kingdom, l)ut 
 they do not comprehend the slow way of non-resistance. The peace- 
 at-any-price policy, as it is called, does not enlist their sympathies. 
 We must go forward aggressively in the name of the Lord, and 
 show them that we are overcoming evil with good, and that Christ 
 means to conquer the world. Christ was a young man (I say it 
 reverently); He understood the feelings, the emotions and the ambi- 
 tions of youth; He spoke to the young people; He still has a word 
 for them, and I believe that we ought to enlist them in this war- 
 fare. 
 
 The church has failed; T have seen so many proofs of it. I have 
 almost wept to see the representatives of the peace societies of the 
 continent of Europe stand up one after another, as they did a short 
 time ago at the Peace Congress in Glasgow, and say, " I am an un- 
 believer; I am a freethinker; I have no use for the Gospel of 
 Christ." Evidently the church has failed. We have failed to make 
 our principles a power. But we must do it. We must give energy 
 and time to presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of 
 peace. We must make people understand that Jesus Christ is the 
 Prince of Peace. If we can do that we shall be able to take away 
 one of the greatest obstacles in the world to the progress of the 
 Gospel. Many people are being kept away from Jesus Christ by 
 this one stumbling block: that the church endorses war. It is our 
 business to change that and to let people understand that the Gos- 
 pel is a Gospel of peace. 
 
 JoHX Chawxer: There are two thoughts that I want to ex- 
 press in connection with two different sides of the subject that has 
 been presented this morning. With regard to the teaching of the 
 Old Testament history, we know there are some points in it that are 
 seemingly not consistent with Christian principles. I am glad that 
 the address we have had to-day has dwelt on the points that are 
 consistent, and has pointed out the Christian principle, the real 
 Christ thread in the Old Testament, leading up to Christianity as 
 presented in the life of Christ. 
 
 In regard to the failure of Christians, I remember what I once 
 saw in a railroad train in Indiana. I took from the rack a Bible 
 that had been placed there by some Bible Association, and on the 
 fly-leaf some one had written, " Christianity has produced more 
 wars than all other causes." The answer that occurred to me was 
 the remark of the Apostle: "Whence come wars and fightings?'" 
 etc., and I wrote the reference to James beside the statement on the 
 fl}-leaf. We know, as we look back over the history of the Chris- 
 tian Church, that there is truth in the statement that it has been 
 
34 
 
 the cause of much war — has undertaken at times to disseminate the 
 principles of peace by war. We must do what we can to have it 
 different in the future. 
 
 HowAED M. Jenkins: I only want to take one moment to say 
 that I enjoyed very much all the papers of this morning, but par- 
 ticularly the presentation by Professor Eussell, and by our friend, 
 Dr. Barton. They appear to me in both cases to have gone to the 
 marrow of the subject, and to have presented it to us very admir- 
 ably. 
 
 William W. Birdsall: I have profited this morning particu- 
 larly by the presentation of the " Elements of Peace Doctrine in 
 the Old Testament." I have long found in the Old Testament the 
 finest expression of aspiration after peace. I believe we ought to 
 come more and more to see in it what Dr. Barton has pointed out to 
 us, namely, the developing expression of the mind of God through 
 the errors of men, rising more and more nearly to perfection as 
 time went on and men grew more and more able to see and realize 
 the light. 
 
 James B. Unthank: I have enjoyed very much all that has 
 been said. It has been very instructive and edifying. I wish to 
 make a suggestion: I hope that nothing which seems to reflect 
 upon our fellow Christians of other denominations will go out as 
 the voice of this Convention that is not thoroughly authorized in 
 fact. We ought not to make statements that may be offensive to 
 other Christian people, if they are not strictly true. 
 
 The Chairman: It will certainly be imderstood by all that 
 the contents of these papers are the expressions of individual 
 opinion. We have already entrusted to a Business Committee the 
 duty of gathering up the threads of discussion and of determining 
 the proper form which the Declaration of the Conference shall 
 take. This suggestion they will of course take into account. 
 
 After making announcement of meetings of the Business Com- 
 mittee, the Committee on Credentials, and the readiness of the En- 
 tertainment Committee to provide all visiting members of the Con- 
 ference with homes, the Chairman continued: 
 
 I wanted to say before leaving this place that I personally have 
 been more than gratified, and that my heart is profoundly thank- 
 ful for the response which Friends have given to the invitation to 
 meet in Conference on this subject. We have in this room at this 
 time representatives of those who claim, and rightly claim, the 
 name of Friends, from Maine to California, and from Carolina to 
 Oregon; at least one Friend has crossed the continent from the 
 borders of the Pacific to this City of Brotherly Love on the Dela- 
 are, for the single purpose of being with us here and sharing the 
 
35 
 
 benefit of a Conference like this. Surely we who dwell near by 
 ought to appreciate such a sacrifice on the part of even a single in- 
 dividual; and we ought to draw inspiration from it for the work 
 that we have in hand. I ])ersonally have felt that inspiration as I 
 have looked over this audience to-day; and I could only wish that 
 every one of you could, in turn, take a seat upon this platforui and 
 look into the face of such an audience. It is a rare company of 
 rare men and rare women. It is a gifted company, able to respond to 
 the invitation to discuss the most important and profound topics 
 that are to come before us from hour to hour. I shall vacate this 
 chair on declaring the meeting adjourned; and when we come to- 
 gether at half-past three o'clock this afternoon the place will be 
 taken by my friend, Howard M. Jenkins, of Philadelphia. The 
 meeting now is adjourned until that hour. 
 
Second Session, 
 
 Fifth-day Afternoon, Twelfth Month 12th. 
 
 The Conference reassembled in Witherspoon Hall at 3.30 p.m., 
 with Howard M. Jenkins, editor of the Friends' Intelligencer, pre- 
 siding. A few moments were given to silent devotion before en- 
 tering upon the exercises of the session. 
 
 The Chairman: We have had sent us several communications 
 expressing sympathy with the objects of the Conference. Some of 
 these, or at least their substance, will be presented at this time by 
 the Chairman of the Business Committee. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood: The W. C. T. U., of Hoopeston, 
 111., sends the following message: " ' The Lord will give strength 
 unto His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace.' We 
 most earnestly pray that this meeting may be productive of much 
 good, believing that it will mould public sentiment in the right di- 
 rection, and that you, with us, may hasten the advance of Chris- 
 tian love, and henceforth every effort may be made to settle all dif- 
 ficulties by means of that love which the Christ principle sets forth. 
 Mary G. Smith, President; Etta K. Smith, Secretary." Similar 
 communications, conveying sympathy and desiring the success of 
 the Conference, have been received (one or two of these came at a 
 later session) from " Trenton Friends' Association," Trenton, X. J., 
 signed by Louisa H. Dunn, Secretary; from the '' Association for 
 the Promotion of First-Day Schools within the Limits of Phila- 
 delphia Yearly Meeting of Friends," signed by John L. Carver and 
 Mary H. F. Merillat, Clerks; from Burlingion Quarterly Meeting of 
 Friends, Trenton, N". J., signed by Franklin S. Zelley, Clerk; from 
 Lobo Monthly Meeting, Coldstream, Canada, signed by Samuel P. 
 Zavitz and others; from the " General Conference of Friends' Asso- 
 ciations," held at Moorestown, N. J., signed by William C. Coles, 
 Chairman; from White Water Quarterly Meeting, held at Fall 
 Creek, near Pendleton, Indiana, signed by T. Morris Hardy, Clerk. 
 
 Ja:mes Wood: If the Chair please, I have a proposition that I 
 wish to present, and I ask for its reference to the Business Commit- 
 tee without reading it. 
 
 The Chairman: James Wood submits a proposition which he 
 asks to have referred to the Business Committee. That course will 
 be taken. 
 
37 
 
 The Chairman then spoke as follows on the subject, " The 
 American Ideal " : 
 
 THE AMERICAN IDEAL. 
 
 BY HOWARD M. JENKINS. 
 
 In conversation, a good many years ago. with the late Jamos H. 
 Campbell, of Pennsylvania, sometime representative in Congress, 
 and later, by appointment of President Lincoln, minister to Swe- 
 den, he described, not without emotion, an incident which had oc- 
 curred to him while in the service abroad. He was making an ex- 
 cursion far up the coast of Norway, when in one of the deep and 
 grand bays there — the fiords — he met a plain peasant of the coun- 
 iry. It was near the close of our Civil War — perhaps after tliat 
 event — and the Noinvegian, finding that the visitor was an Ameri- 
 can, questioned him with pathetic eagerness. " Tell me, sir," he 
 said, **' tell me, does that great republic yet live? " 
 
 Shall we, to-day, ask that question? Does the great republic yet 
 live? 
 
 It was, prior to the year 1898, perhaps we may say prior to the 
 year 1899, the name of the United States of America which, 
 amongst all nations, most and best moved the hearts of men. It 
 stood to them as the symbol of hope. Whether it was a plain peas- 
 ant of Scandinavia, far up toward the Arctic snows, or whether it 
 was a brown islander of the far Pacific, under tropic heats, their 
 admiration went out to the nation which seemed to stand, and in 
 large measure did stand, for the elevation of mankind. Doubt- 
 less, across the seas' breadth the scars and seams upon our national 
 edifice were hardly seen; it was the broad features, the lofty and 
 striking outline, which compelled respect. Our more sordid, our 
 less generous, qualities were obscured by the great principles which 
 we declared — those of human rights and of humane endeavor. 
 
 Let us reflect that our republic, in the year 1898, was almost 
 a century and a quarter old. Never in all that time, but once — 
 when Mexico was attacked in the interest of slavery, and by its 
 order — had we waged an aggressive war upon another nation. On 
 the contrary, those peoples who had struggled for better conditions, 
 the world over, looked always to us. It was the United States who 
 promptly recognized the republics of South America when they 
 rose against Spain; who gave moral support to Greece when she 
 defied the Turk; who did not conceal her sympathy for the Hun- 
 garians when they were in revolt against Austria; who gave the or- 
 der which freed Mexico finally of European control. Not, the 
 world over, did any people, anywhere, contending for the common, 
 the inherent, the natural rights of men, fail to look to the United 
 States for at least a sympathetic and encouraging word. 
 
 There was every reason for this. The United States was 
 
38 
 
 founded upon principles which aroused the world's hope. In its 
 declaration of the reasons for claiming an independent life, it ap- 
 pealed not to any narrow and technical reasoning, not to selfish and 
 mean motives, not to considerations of mere statecraft, not to mili- 
 tary ardor or personal ambition, but first and above all to doctrines 
 of civil liberty which applied to every nation and people, and which 
 roused them all to look for a better day. 
 
 Justice, then, freedom, goodwill, the humane and generous 
 conservation of life, the elevation of the individual man, was the 
 charter principle of the United States, and signified its Ideal. It 
 was an inspired choice. No power in human government can be so 
 great. No influence can be so enduring. It is this ideal which the 
 world needs. It is this that the world longs for. We do not doubt, 
 surely, as we survey the wide field of human experiences, that all 
 too much there is injustice, and oppression, and hardship, that men 
 sink, and women faint, and children die, because of their burdens. 
 Whether it is in the Old World or the New, whether the system of 
 government is ancient and decayed, or modern and corrupted, 
 whether the sun shines hot there or the winds blow cold, whether 
 the mountains rise high or the plains are wide, in many lands peo- 
 ple long for emancipation, and have — or did have — to incite and 
 support their hopes the example of this great republic. 
 
 What is it, let us ask more particularly, that gives vitality to 
 this Ideal? What is its animating principle? Not the methods of 
 Force. They have been exploited, amid blood and tears, for ages. 
 It is not the " prestige " of armies or navies. Caesar and Napoleon, 
 all the generals and the admirals, greater and less, have drained 
 dry that turbid stream. It is not the tinsel of " glory," the glit- 
 ter of rank, the pride and luxury of privileged classes. None of 
 these. The Old World, which has looked so longingly to the New, 
 groans under them all. To support armies, to build navies, to carry 
 on " campaigns," to work destruction, to maintain luxury and 
 pride, it has taxes that exhaust the strength of labor, and exactions 
 that grind poverty into degradation. Lands like Germany, in 
 which we are told free institutions had their birth, suffer as well as 
 Spain and Italy; Teuton as well as Latin is in bondage; Russia, Tur- 
 key, India, are all staggering to-day under systems which the Amer- 
 ican Ideal rejects. 
 
 Our system was the opposite of theirs. It was the antithesis of 
 Force, of Oppression, of Inequality, of Caste. And it was still 
 more. It had the note of generosity, of kindliness, of comradeship. 
 This made our ideal distinctive, and awakened the world's response. 
 It was because we declared Goodwill that goodwill returned to us. 
 That was the sign and the secret of our power. No guns we ever 
 made, no armor we ever forged, no apparatus of destruction we ever 
 contrived, brought us nearer to the heart of other nations. But 
 every sign we made of regard for their rights, every help we gave 
 them to continue their struggle upward and forward, made them 
 
39 
 
 our friend?, firnilv and faithfully — tied them to us with better than 
 " liooks of steel." 
 
 Such was and is the tme American Ideal. N"ot one great name 
 in Ainerican liistory ij^ associated with anytliing that contravenes 
 it. Whether we go back to the first president of the republic, or 
 farther, to tliose who planted the colonies, we shall find the one im- 
 pulse of tliose who enjoy a righteous fame in our annals was to 
 raise men, not to depress them; to help them on, not to grind them 
 down; to enlighten their minds and elevate their characters, not to 
 treat them as '* dumb, driven cattle." The spirit of the land, the 
 great intent of its peo})le. that out of which hopes sprang and fresh 
 efforts rose, that which faced hardships, which bore trials, which 
 contended with difficulties, was a generoi;s, a hopeful, amagnani- 
 mous one. 
 
 It is not new to say this. 0, no! The true grandeur of nations 
 was long since nobly defined and splendidly proclaimed. But old 
 truth must be ever freshly learned and continually repeated. We 
 mu5t drink again at the pure fountains of our national life. Our 
 duty — '' plain duty," indeed — is to preserve to ourselves and to the 
 nations the Ideal which is so honorable, and has been so honored. 
 We must keep our beacon burning. Its rays of hope are needed. 
 We must keep our true place in the world. Our work is not to 
 threaten, not to oppress, not to plunder, not to slay; it is to do in 
 the community of nations such work as a good and upright man 
 does in the community about him. This will make us truly a 
 " world power." Then we shall be able to answer joyfully to any 
 challenge, in the remotest corner of the world, " Yes, brother, the 
 great republic still lives ! " 
 
 The Chairman: The first paper this afternoon will be rv ad l)y 
 our friend, William (t. Hubbard, of Lansing, Michigan. 
 
 EARLY FRIENDS' VIEW OF PEACE SUSTAINED BY 
 
 SCRIPTURE, BY REASON AND BY HIGHER 
 
 CIVILIZATION. 
 
 BY WILLIAM G. HUBBARD, LANSING, MICH. 
 
 When George Fox was offered the captaincy of a military com- 
 pany he said, " I have come into that experience which destroys 
 the root and cause of war." 
 
 This expression, which has become classic among Friends, con- 
 tains the very substance of their views on the peace question. More 
 fully stated it is this: The Christian experience is one wherein the 
 " love of God is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost which 
 is given us." The heart and life become controlled by the love 
 which Christ manifested. Love takes out all malice, covet ousness 
 and revenge; hence destroys the very " root of war." If the Apos- 
 
40 
 
 tie James was right in concluding that " wars and fightings come 
 from the lusts that war in your members," then if you introduce 
 that which destroys those lusts you destroy " the root and cause 
 of war." 
 
 This is a simple proposition, but it contains the most irre- 
 sistible logic. Man with sin in him is a warring creature. He is 
 ferocious, unkind, unjust, inhuman, cruel. Jacob Riis takes the 
 ground that every child born since the fall of man is by nature a 
 savage, and needs to be civilized by some refining process. Whether 
 Jacob Riis is right or not, we all know there is much of savagery in 
 man's unregenerate nature. But the reconstruction that he gets 
 in his inner nature when he is regenerated by Christ takes out or 
 supplants that savage nature. 
 
 When Oliver Cromwell asked George Fox, the founder of 
 Friends' Society, if he would " promise not to take up a carnal 
 sword or weapon against him or the government as it then was,'' 
 George Fox replied: "I deny the wearing or drawing of a carnal 
 sword or any other outward weapon against him or any man. And 
 that I was sent of God to stand a witness against all violence and 
 against the works of darkness; and to turn people from darkness 
 to the light and to bring them from the occasion of war and fight- 
 ing to the peaceful gospel, and from being evil-doers, which the 
 magistrates' sword should be a terror to." 
 
 This was written by George Fox to Cromwell in 1649, and for 
 more than 250 years every true follower of George Fox has be- 
 lieved and taught that no Christian could take up the sword 
 " against the King or any man." 
 
 '' Or any man," with George Fox, covered the whole human 
 race, in all nations, heathen or civilized. All to him were children 
 of our Heavenly Father. Hence, all must be loved and cared for. 
 
 The " experience " into which George Fox had come '' de- 
 stroyed " not merely " the root and cause " of some wars, but of 
 " war," of all carnal war. 
 
 Early Friends believed and practiced this doctrine. They 
 would not go to war against the government or for the government. 
 They took this position, not from what George Fox had said or 
 done, but from what Christ had taught on the subject, and from 
 what he had wrought in them. 
 
 in the year 1675 Robert Barclay in his "Apology " (page 514) 
 declares " revenge and war an evil as opposite and contrary to the 
 Spirit and doctrine of Christ as light to darkness." He thinks all 
 tlie evils of war come from opposition to Christ. He says: 
 " Through contempt of Christ's law the whole world is filled with 
 violence, oppression, murders, ravishing of women and virgins, 
 spoilings, depredations, burnings, devastations, and all manner of 
 lascivious cruelty. So that it is strange that men, made after the 
 image of God, should have so much degenerated that they rather 
 bear the image and nature of roaring lions, tearing tigers, devour- 
 
41 
 
 ing wolves, and raging boars than of rational creatures endued with 
 reason."' 
 
 This is a graphic picture of what war produces in men when 
 they reject the " law of Christ." 
 
 William Penu's treaty and dealings with the Indians on the 
 Christian principles of brotherhood, justice and love constitute one 
 of the brightest pages in tlie history of America. In that treaty 
 William Penn asked that Christians and Indians sliould be bound 
 with '' a firm chain of friendship made between them, and that this 
 chain of friendship should always be made stronger and stronger, 
 and be kept bright and clean, without rust or spot, between our 
 children and children's children while the creeks and rivers run, 
 and the sun, moon and stars endure." Is there anything more 
 beautiful and Christlike in man's relationship with man than that? 
 Is it not astonishing that statesmen and rulers have not long since 
 seen the wisdom of Penn's policy, and formed treaties of good fel- 
 low'ship and love and arbitration all over the world? AVill it not 
 be well for this Conference to appoint a delegation to wait on the 
 President of the United States and ask him to take the initiative in 
 forming treaties with all nations to bind them to " good fellow- 
 ship " and arbitration? 
 
 SUSTAINED BY SCRIPTURE, 
 
 The attitude taken by George Fox and the early Friends is in 
 beautiful harmony with the teaching of Christ. The great Galilean 
 laid down general principles. He did not give specific laws. He 
 legislated to control conditions of life rather than the acts of men. 
 Men try to control the stream of life, but Jesus struck at the foun- 
 tain. Men make laws to control men's conduct; Jesus sought to 
 control their purposes. Men decide a certain action to be wrong, 
 then make a law forbidding it. And men of evil purpose find new 
 ways of doing WTong; hence there is no end of legislation. But 
 Jesus legislated for the unborn thought. The law-books of men 
 are too multitudinous to be counted: they would fill many large 
 buildings. The laws of Jesus Christ are few and can be read in an 
 hour. In what is generally called the Sermon on the Mount Jesus 
 announces his platform of principles. The great central thought 
 is the law of love. The most striking expression of this law is 
 found in the last ten verses of the 5th chapter of Matthew. Here 
 he declares what Erasmus called the new philosophy. This "new 
 philosophy," this " diviner law." is tha+ hve should govern the lives 
 of men. The old regime of revenge, of " an eye for an eye and a 
 tooth for a tooth," was ended. His followers were to " resist not 
 evil," they were to " love their enemies," to pray for them, show 
 kindness to them, clothe them, feed them, bind up their wounds, 
 suffer wrong at their hands rather tlian do them harm. 
 
 " Love your enemies," said the great Galilean. Why should 
 we do this? He explains in his next utterance. " That ye may be 
 
42 
 
 the children of your father in heaven." Ah, indeed! must one 
 love his enemies in order to be a child of God? That is the teach- 
 ing of the Son of God. He emphasizes it. " If ye love them which 
 love you, what reward have you ? " " If ye forgive not men their 
 trespasses, neither will your Father forgive you your trespasses." 
 Nothing could be more definite. It leaves us without choice; it is 
 this or nothing. 
 
 The standard is high, but Christ himself makes ability to " love 
 your enemies " the very basis of Sonship. Do this " that ye may 
 be children of your father in heaven." 
 
 But cannot a man love his enemies and kill them with Mauser 
 rifles and Krupp guns sometimes? If you think you can govern 
 your neighbor's household better than he is governing it, is it not 
 your duty to institute your superior rule of family government over 
 his household at whatever cost? The father of the neighboring 
 household will no doubt object to your interference. He may re- 
 sist you with force. He will doubtless call to his aid his hired 
 hands and older sons. And you may have to kill him and some 
 other members of his family. But would you not better kill off 
 half his tribe than not to have his children brought up under your 
 superior gospel rule? A military general said to a conference of 
 preachers in California: "We will make way for the Gospel in the 
 Philippines if we have to kill half of the inhabitants to do it." The 
 papers said many of the preachers cheered the expression. N"ow 
 if that is consistent with loving your enemies, then heaven is in 
 harmony with hell, murder is a virtue, hatred is love, darkness is 
 light. 
 
 But we insist that love is beneficence, it is kindness, it is help- 
 fulness. We insist that Paul was right when he said, " Love work- 
 eth no ill to one's neighbor." We insist that you Englishmen can- 
 not love your neighbors, the Boers, and go on slaughtering them 
 about the kind of government they should have in their household, 
 the Transvaal. They ofliered to arl)itrate, and after that, it seems 
 to the writer, every man killed was a man murdered. 
 
 " Love worketh no ill," and it is not love that says, " We will 
 conquer the Boers if we have to kill all the population to do it." 
 
 We make the above remark, not through desire to oppose the 
 British, but to give concreteness to our argument. The law of love 
 is in opposition to all war. It was not love that drove the Indians 
 from their lands and slaughtered them to get possession. Love 
 said, " Nay; but we will buy their lands of them "; we will treat 
 them as friends, as brethren; we will deal justly with them. The 
 King said, " But you have already bought their lands of me. Friend 
 William." But love insisted that usurpation of ownership gave no 
 right to their lands. Which was the Christian way? Let the 
 peace propaganda keep that question before all men: " ^Vllich is 
 the Christian way ? " 
 
 If the Englishman cannot love the Boer by killing hiiu, neither 
 
43 
 
 can the American love the Filipino by chasing him through swamps 
 and burning his vilhiges and destroying life till whole district's are 
 depopulated. The Filipino made a constitution and planneil his 
 own government. But King Greed said: '' We bought of Spain 
 the right to rule the Filipinos." But Spain, the usurper, had no 
 more right to transfer rule to America than King George bad a lii^ht 
 to transfer tiie land of the Indians. We should have treated the 
 Filipinos as we did Cuba, and assisted them in forming a govern- 
 ment and invited them to become a part of our government, if they 
 wished. But war tramples down rights, and constitutions, and sets 
 at naught all commandments of God. 
 
 AVAR IS IBRATIONAL. 
 
 There is no sense of right iti men's fists. If two men dispute, 
 and each contends he is right, how are they to prove which is right? 
 Certainly not by pounding each other's faces. No matter which 
 comes off best in such a conflict, it does not prove that he is right. 
 If two men cannot prove which is right by a physical contest, two^ 
 thousand cannot do so nor two millions. There is no sense of 
 right in muscle, nor in powder and lead, nor in cannon, nor in ships 
 of war. But the human mind can weigh problems of equity, and 
 reason alone can find the right. Hence Dr. Franklin was correct 
 when he said: "' War is the maddest human folly." No acts of men 
 so completely override reason as war. War is insanity. 
 
 HIGHER IDEAS OF CIYTLIZATIOX. 
 
 I-]verything that civilizes man refines his nature, makes him 
 more sensitive and kind in his feelings, more considerate towards 
 his fellow-l)eings, more careful not to hurt or oppress or to wrong 
 them? The more highly one is civilized the more he revolts at 
 cruelty, oppression, wrong and bloodshed. Hence as civilization 
 advances by a thousand processes of culture, education, refinement, 
 the opposition to war grows stronger, and the greater is the demand 
 that nations shall settle their disputes by arbitration. 
 
 The greatest teacher the world has yet received set up a stand- 
 ard of life, which, when followed, will lift men above all war, blood- 
 shed, cruelty and oppression. That standard is in the words, 
 " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 
 
 Love means beneficence, kindness. When you love you want 
 to help, to happify, to show goodwill. Love him as yourself, and 
 you will no more think of taking his life than of taking your own 
 life. 
 
 Thy neighbor may be African living in heathen cruelties. Love 
 him into a better life. Show him a better way. Don't shoot him 
 about boundary lines, nor to get his lands, nor his diamond mines, 
 nor for an}- other purpose. Treat him justly, educate him, civilize 
 him, not with New England rum nor Milwaukee beer, nor with 
 
44 
 
 Mauser bullets, nor with Krupp guns; but civilize him with Bibles, 
 missionaries, school teachers, printing presses. Teach him to '' do 
 Justly and love mercy/' not by robbery and murder, but by doing 
 justly before him. Teach him righteousness by being righteous, 
 not by despoiling him of his land and murdering him. In other 
 words, don't try to teach him the ways of peace with implements 
 of war. 
 
 It may be true, and doubtless is, that some are growing worse 
 in spite of good opportunities and good environments, but much 
 more is it true that the church, the school house, the printing press, 
 the court of justice, the reign of law, are lifting the race up into a 
 refinement where it revolts at the idea of slaughtering men by ma- 
 chinery and blowing them to pieces with giant powder. 
 
 War is concentrated cruelty. Look at those two vessels yonder 
 at sea. They have begun a tremendous cannonading of each other. 
 The roar of the cannon, the screeching of the shells and the deafen- 
 ing explosions of bombs make one feel as though all the magazines 
 of pandemonium were going off. A gunner gives the range to his 
 gun and his own head is taken off by a cannon ball, but his aim 
 sends a shell crashing into the machinery of the other vessel. It 
 explodes and sets the great battleship on fire; but men fight and 
 fight until the deck is strewn with mangled bodies, and the flame 
 has heated the iron deck so hot that it is roasting the flesh of the 
 wounded. Some are jumping into the sea to drown rather than be 
 roasted to death. Look! Yonder a great cannon ball goes plow- 
 ing its way through the bodies along that deck and scatters the 
 flesh and bones of soldiers into the air and into the sea! The great 
 vessel that cost millions is sunk by an enemy in an hour; and hun- 
 dreds of men, with dear ones at home, are dying in the flames or 
 drowning in the sea. 
 
 What does it all mean? Had the men on the victorious vessel 
 been injured by the men on the other vessel? Not the least. The 
 victors and vanquished had never looked into each other's faces. 
 They did not even speak the same language. Why, then, this aw- 
 ful slaughter of strangers? It is war. And war sets at naught all 
 laws of humanity and all requirements of mercy. In the language 
 of Sherman, " War is crueltv and you cannot refine it. War is 
 hell." 
 
 Now there is but one conclusion possible from the above con- 
 siderations. The position of the early Friends in rejecting war is 
 abundantly sustained by the New Testament Scriptures. These 
 Scriptures being given forth by divine wisdom, it follows that what- 
 ever position is consistent with them must comport with highest 
 reason and wisdom. Any other attitude would make the author of 
 them an unwise and irrational being. 
 
 It follows that as these divine teachings are better understood 
 in the light of higher civilization, it will be seen that they can be 
 applied to the affairs of nations. The fact that the United States, 
 
45- 
 
 the nation most nearly np to the Gospel plane, has had 53 disagree- 
 ments with other nations, sneh as usually lead to war, and has set- 
 tled 48 of them hy arhitration, shows that George Fox, Robert 
 Barclay and William Penn took a position 250 years ago that is 
 just now dawning upon the most advanced thinkers as true — true 
 to God, true to statesmanship, and true to higher civilization. 
 
 The Chairman: We will next have a paper by Mariana W. 
 Chapman, of Brooklyn, New York, on "• The Inherent Immorality 
 of War." 
 
 THE INHERENT IMMORALITY OF WAR. 
 
 BY MARIANA W. CHAPMAN, BROOKLYN. 
 
 Immorality is a mild term when one can hardly think of a com- 
 mand in the decalogne that is not violated in war. Crime changes 
 its aspect when it is held up in the dazzling light of that kind of 
 conflict. Our moral sense is instantly destroyed; manslaughter be- 
 comes virtue, and yet makes, none the less, fatherless children, 
 widows, and parents with broken hearts. The cruelty that runs a 
 man through with the point of a bayonet becomes honor and 
 bravery and courage, but the man bleeds and suffers and dies. We 
 have the charge of the six hundred, and it is so much greater and 
 finer and more thrilling because they do not arrive — the six hun- 
 dred. 
 
 What is the glamor that is cast over our eyes that so perverts 
 their vision? It is the lurid light of war, the perversion of moral- 
 ity. Think how nations look at their great Gatling guns, and con- 
 sider them valuable in the ratio of the number of men they will 
 sweep off of the face of the earth, the same men whom, in the per- 
 spective of peace, they would consider it incumbent to treat with 
 all respect and consideration. And then revenge! It cannot be 
 more strikingly set forth in character than in Rudyard Kipling's 
 ghastly poem of " The Grave of the Hundred Head." It was 
 after — 
 
 "... the men of tlie First Shikaris 
 Picked up their Subaltern dead 
 With a big blue mark in his forehead 
 And the back blown out of his head." 
 
 And in their vengeance upon the enemy 
 
 '■ Five score heads were taken. 
 Five score heads and twain. 
 
 And the drip, drip, drip from the baskets 
 Reddened the grass by the way." 
 
All of these heads were piled up on the grave of their young lieu- 
 tenant, and he concludes: 
 
 " Thus was the lesson plain 
 Of the wTath of the First Shikaris, 
 The price of a white man slain." 
 
 He was slain by a treacherous foe; but even treachery has its advo- 
 cates when it is practiced upon the enemy. It is the attribute of 
 a skillful general to surprise the opposing army. 
 
 We chronicle with exultation the simulation and cunning that 
 leads the enemy astray and makes him an easier victim. It be- 
 longs to this perverted standard. And then, the impoverishment 
 of the nation to compass this killing of men! All these great 
 armies must be maintained by the labor behind them, labor that 
 could be turned to so much better purpose. And what the army 
 does not get for its necessities lawfully, it must take unlawfully as 
 it goes through the country — which puts robbery at a premium. 
 Let us give everything its plain name! Horses, cattle, hogs, chick- 
 ens, corn, supplies of all kinds, carefully garnered by hard-working 
 farmers, the fruits and harvests of the year, are seized by ordinarily 
 honest men. All these things go on from camps, and there is no 
 sense of moral obliquity; and gambling — shall we speak of the in- 
 creased temptation to squander the little that belongs to the sol- 
 dier's life? and drunkenness — a temptation so prominent that 
 reams of paper have been covered with arguments for the greatest 
 safeguard against its peril! All tend to poverty, then and there- 
 after — the poverty that is the handmaiden of woe to the third and 
 fourth generation — individual poverty and the poverty of the 
 nation. 
 
 Some years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London an- 
 nounced that 40,000,000 pounds sterling must be raised for war 
 expenses, and that was before the war in South Africa. That 
 money must come out of the people at home. 
 
 There is another immorality, one of the gravest of evils, that 
 goes with camp life. Wherever there are camps come fallen women, 
 and the sequence is fallen men. Xot long ago a letter was pub- 
 lished from an army officer in India, asking for a fresh importation 
 of young girls for these dens of infamy. Where were they to come 
 from? Out of the homes of the poor! Add to this wickedness, 
 then, the sacrifice of young girls. And these men in high office 
 have called it a necessary evil. It is nothing of the kind, because 
 there is no such thing. The words do not belong together. 
 
 There is an immorality in forcing men into abnormal, unsani- 
 tary conditions, conditions that fill the hospitals with disease and 
 pestilence and mow down more men than powder and shot. Mili- 
 tary necessity, so called, not only imposes these conditions, but has 
 with it a red tape that often prevents an alleviation of much suf- 
 fering that otherwise could be accomplished. We are too familiar 
 
47 
 
 with recent details of hospital service during the Spanish war not 
 to understand this feature. 
 
 War is a violation of the entire code of morals as it lias stood 
 for the last two thousand y^'ars. It is the crime aijainst civiliza- 
 tion, afxainst all that makes life worth living-, that sei)arates hus- 
 bands and wives, mothers and sons, sisters and brothers. All who 
 are dearest the soldier leaves behind him for what is called the na- 
 tional honor; another perversion of mind, the same perversion that 
 existed in the past about personal honor when Aaron Burr shot 
 Alexander Hamilton. Hundreds of others had done the like ])e- 
 fore; but it needed that illustration to kill dueling in this country. 
 
 Now, as we look back upon our civil and fratricidal war, is not 
 the perspective bloody enough at this distance to make us know 
 that it was the grossest of immoralities, and that the North should 
 have been willing to allow, and the South to accept, indemnity for 
 every slave within its borders? It would have cost less in money 
 if they had been paid for twice over. How much less in agony 
 and suiTering and ])rivation can never be estimated. 
 
 If we have an individual morality about homicide, why can we 
 not have a collective morality about collective homicide, a collec- 
 tive conscience? It is because the ascent of man in ideals is not 
 complete. Large bodies move slowly, but the powers of light are 
 always struggling with the powers of darkness, and each time we 
 come out on a higher plane. Virtually, all nations agree that war 
 is the worst manner of settling disputes, and that really only shows 
 which nation is the strongest, not in the least which is right. That 
 kind of settlement is an immorality in itself. The world is surely 
 reaching this point of intelligence, and will soon be able to see the 
 greater morality in an international court of arbitration. That is 
 the acme of present ideals; but when it is accomplished we shall not, 
 as some may fancy, have arrived at the millennium, but we shall 
 have a basis of greater justice and morality in the settlement of 
 national difficulties. 
 
 We have, then, inherent in war, injustice, manslaughter, cruelty, 
 revenge, cunning, deceit, treachery, robbery, gambling, intemper- 
 ance, oppressive taxation, poverty, impurity of life, a transgression 
 of sanitary laws more fatal than battles, and the terrible sorrow that 
 comes to the hearts of the people. 
 
 One can easily say these sins are not confined to war. The 
 world is full of them outside. Yes, but none of them are required 
 in the line of duty. They bring no honor to the man who pro- 
 motes them. He is society's outcast, and all the forces of law are 
 against him. Public opinion does not laud one man for out- 
 generaling another. He may grow rich on the proceeds, but his 
 cunning is at a discount. He cannot rob, he cannot gamble, and he 
 cannot drink with the same impunity. Society, at least, looks 
 askance at his career. 
 
 While it is hard for the average man to touch pitch without 
 
48 
 
 / 
 defilement, we must acknowledge that many do come out of war 
 unscathed, and lead upright and honorable lives; but such acknowl- 
 edge freely the evil that is inherent. The Grand Army of the Ee- 
 public said of General Grant: " He was profoundly convinced that 
 war as an arbiter of national differences was a terrible crime against 
 humanity, civilization, and the age. It supplants statesmanship, 
 law and principle, and enthrones passion, brute force and disorder, 
 to determine right and justice." 
 
 Shall we not go one step higher in our consideration, the step 
 that lies next to morality, where the power of the Divine touches 
 the human soul? Is it so long ago that it has lost its force that the 
 Master said: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do 
 to you, do ye even so to them " ? That is, at least, one with some 
 of the last words of our lamented President: "' Let us remember 
 that our interest is in concord, not conflict, and that our real emi- 
 nence rests in the victories of peace, not those of war," So let him 
 pass into history. 
 
 The Chaieman: We have passed over in the program the 
 title of the paper of President Rosenberger, of Penn College, be- 
 cause it seems that he is not here. It was not known to those in 
 charge of the program until we began the session this afternoon 
 that he was not here; but we have a letter from him, which Dr. 
 Trueblood will read. 
 
 The letter from President Rosenberger was read, in which he 
 expressed his deep regret at not being able to be present, his great 
 interest in the Conference, and explained that his absence and in- 
 ability to prepare the paper were due to sickness in the College 
 Faculty. 
 
 The Chairman: We will take up at once the discussion of 
 the two papers that we have had; and to open the discussion we 
 will call upon our friend. President Sharpless, of Haverford Col- 
 lege. 
 
 Isaac Sharpless: It seems to me that the ground of objec- 
 tion to war on the part of the early Friends was something a little 
 deeper than the immorality of the custom. George Fox said, in a 
 quotation which has been made here, that he was led into that 
 spirit which took away the occasion of war. It seems to me that 
 one might argue in a fervid way that wars were immoral and yet 
 be in a spirit which would permit him to go into war if any little 
 turn of the argimient should suggest to him that this particular war 
 was moral. That, I believe, is what is happening all the time in the 
 case of a great number of Christian people. Abstractly they admit 
 the immorality of war; but when the particular war arises they al- 
 ways find some reason to consider that it is an exception to all the 
 
49 
 
 wjirs that have piecedi'd it, and that in this particular case, war — 
 this war — is moral. 
 
 I suppose that if a man could be possessed of the spirit which 
 (Jeorge Fox said he had, and could go into battle and stab his ene- 
 mies with bayonets and shoot them down with bullets, and could 
 undertake all the concentrated wickedness and agony which accom- 
 pany war from beginning to end, and still maintain the spirit 
 which he had when he went into a solid, religious meeting, he 
 would think, and perhaps we would think, war was right. If he 
 held the inner consciousness of rectitude when he was going 
 through these operations, then I believe that he would not object 
 to war unless argument could be framed which proved war to lie 
 inconsistent with the teachings of the New Testament. 
 
 So I should like to suggest that we must go a little deeper than 
 sinij)le moral argument in order to justify the position of Friends 
 with regard to war. We must bring people into the experience in 
 wjiich war to them becomes impossible because it is so foreign to 
 their deep personal, spiritual conviction. That state of mind is not 
 usually reached, perhaps, yet a very little distance into the real ex- 
 perience of Christianity will make a man feel more and more that 
 the occasions of war become impossible to him. 
 
 As to the moral side of the question, I perfectly agree with the 
 writer of the last paper that the moral considerations utterly con- 
 demn war; that its inherent immorality is so manifest that a per- 
 son cannot engage in it if he is conscious of the fact of its immor- 
 ality and also is obedient to the precepts of the New Testament. 
 But I would suggest that there is a kind of inherent morality in 
 tJie human race, which is, in a certain way, distinct from the moral- 
 ity of the New Testament. I do not mean that it is contradictory 
 to it. I mean it would have arisen if the New Testament had never 
 been written. Things are not right, or wrong, simply because they 
 are enjoined or forbidden by the Bible. The injunctions of the Ser- 
 mon on the Mount and the prohiljitions of the Decalogue would 
 have existed in a measure in human society, constituted as it is, if 
 there had never been any Old or New Testament. It is impossi- 
 ble for society to arise and grow up without certain fundamental 
 laws lying at the basis of it which must evolve and develop in the 
 course of the process; and these laws are just as immutable and cer- 
 tain, though they are perhaps a little more difficult to find out, as 
 the physical laws governing the universe. When, therefore, we 
 argue against war, from the moral point of view, we simply say that 
 war does violence to human nature or to human society. It is im- 
 possible for the highest ideal of civilization to exist and at the same 
 time for war to exist. 
 
 War is prohibited in the Bible. As to the New Testament there 
 does not seem to be any doubt about it. Indeed, most Christian 
 writers will say so to a greater or less extent. A writer in this after- 
 noon's Bulletin, who has a very interesting article upon this present 
 
50 
 
 Conference, practically says as much. Almost any one in the po- 
 sition of this writer, who has looked into the subject carefully, will 
 admit that with the growing sense of morality of the human race 
 there will come a gradual abolition of warfare. 
 
 I do not think that the early Friends had worked out the moral 
 and economic arguments and thus reached their opposition to war. 
 That has been a work of the time since theirs. War can, from these 
 points of view, be pronounced inexpedient and wrong; but these 
 Friends were not profound philosophers, and they had not at that 
 time all the moral and economic arguments at their command. 
 The early Quakers were idealists. It did not make any particular 
 difference to them Avhat were going to be the results of their theo- 
 ries. This is something in which we make so great a mistake. Peo- 
 ple nowadays say wars have produced beneficent results. They say 
 this particular war looks as though it were going to produce benefi- 
 cent results, and therefore that it is right. But that was not at all 
 the way the early Friends proceeded. I think that is really the dif- 
 ference between the way in which Friends have approached this 
 subject and that of some other Christian people. The early Friends 
 were not utilitarian. They did not feel that any amount of good re- 
 sults would prove the rightfulness of war. 
 
 We hear that argument again and again: "Did not the Revo- 
 lutionary War produce independence? Did not the Civil War de- 
 stroy slavery? Have not good things come from all war? Did not 
 our late war free Cuba?" We shall have to give an affirmative 
 answer to these inquiries. But that is not the question. We must 
 go to the root of the matter. We as Friends will have to abandon 
 such arguments as our main stock in trade. We shall have to go 
 back to the position of George Fox, that war is of a spirit which is 
 not in acordance with the best, most sanctified, human spirits — hu- 
 man spirits illuminated and transformed by the Spirit of God; that 
 there is deep down in the human heart a spirit of eternal justice 
 and right which renders war unhallowed, whatever its causes and 
 occasions. 
 
 From this point of view war is seen to be wrong, not because it 
 produces bad results, not because in certain cases it produces suf- 
 fering, but because it is in violation of the eternal principles of 
 right, because the spirit of God says to the spirit of man that the 
 spirit of war is entirely incongruous with it. When George Fox 
 said that he had come into the spirit which took away the occasion 
 of war. he gave us the root principle on which we must build our 
 funrlamental argument against war. Let us buttress it around a« 
 much as wo can with all these economic considerations, these 
 arguments about the immorality of war as contrasted with the New 
 Testament standards; but let us hold fast to this central principle 
 of Quakerism with regard to war, a principle which is goin? to out- 
 live all these other arguments and which is going to carry the So- 
 ciety of Friends on to victory, on this subject, at lea.st. 
 
51 
 
 TiiK Ciiaikman: Our friend James Wood lias witli liim a copy 
 of tlie address which the Friends presented to President Washing- 
 ton at the opening of his administration. It is an extremely good 
 statement of the Friends' ground upon the subject of war, and it 
 seems altogether ap])ropriate to read it now. 
 
 James Wood: This address was presented on the 10th day of 
 Third month, 1789, to the President of the United States: 
 
 ADDRESS OF TUK FRIENDS TO PRESIDENT WASHINGTON IN 1789. 
 
 To the President of the United States: 
 
 The address of the religions Society eaUed Quakers, from their Yearly 
 Meeting for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the western parts of 
 Maryland and Virginia : 
 
 Heing met in, this our annual Assembly, for the well ordering of the 
 afTairs of our Religious Society, and the promotion of universal righteous- 
 ness, our minds have been drawn to consider t'lat the Almighty, who 
 ruleth in Heaven, and in the kingdoms of men, having permitted a great 
 revolution to take place in the government of this country, we are fer- 
 vently concerned that the rulers of the people may be favored witli the 
 counsel of (Jod, the only sure means of enabling them to fulfill the im- 
 jiortant trust committed to their charge, and in an especial manner, that 
 divine wisdom and grace, vouched from above, may qualify thee to fill all 
 the duties of the exalted station to which thou art appointed. 
 
 We are sensible thou hast attained great place in the esteem and affec- 
 tions of people of all denominations over whom thou presidest, and 
 many eminent talents being committed to thy trust, we much desire they 
 may be fully devoted to the Lord's honor and service, that thus thou 
 mayest be a happy instrument in His hand, for the suppression of vice, 
 infidelity and irreligion, and every species of oppression on the persons 
 or consciences of men, so that righteousness and peace, which truly ex- 
 alt a nation, may ])revail throughout the land, as the only solid foundation 
 of this or any country. 
 
 The free toleration which the citizens of these States enjoy in the pub- 
 lic worship of the Almighty, agreeable to the dictates of their consciences, 
 we esteem among the choicest of blessings, and, as we desire to be filled 
 v.ith fervent charity for those who difTer from us in matters of faith and 
 practice, believing that the general assembly of saints is composed of the 
 sincere and upright hearted of all nations, kingdoms and people, so, we 
 trust, we may justly claim it from others, and in a full persuasion that 
 the divine principle we profess leads unto harmony and concord, we can 
 take no jiart in carrying on wai', on any occasion, or mider any power, 
 but are bound in conscience to live quiet and peaceable lives, in godliness 
 and honesty, amongst men, contributing freely our portion to the indi- 
 gencies of the poor, and the necessary support of civil government, ac- 
 knowledging those that rule well to be worthy of double honor ; and if 
 any professing with us are or have been of a contrary disposition and 
 conduct, we own them not therein, liaving never been chargeable from 
 our first establishment as a Religious Society, with fomenting or coun- 
 tenancing tumults, or conspiracies, or disrespect to those who are placed 
 in authority over us. 
 
 We wish not improperly to intrude on thy time or patience, nor is it 
 our practice to offer adulation to any, but, as we are a people whose prin- 
 ciples and conduct have been misrepresented and traduced, we take the 
 liberty to assure thee that we feel our hearts affectionately drawn toward 
 thee and those in authority over us, with prayers that thy presidency maj', 
 
52 
 
 under the blessing of Heaven, be happy to thyself, and to the people, Ihat 
 through the increase of morality and true religion, divine providence may 
 condescend to look down upon our land with a propitious eye, and blesa 
 the inhabitants with the continuance of peace, the dew of heaven, and the 
 fatness of the earth, and enable us gratefully to acknowledge his manifold 
 mercies, and it is our earnest concern that he may be pleased to grant 
 thee every necessary qualification to fill thy weighty and important station 
 to his glory, and that finally, when all terrestrial honors shall fail and 
 pass away, thou and thy respectable consort may be found worthy to re- 
 ceive a crown of unfading righteousness in the mansions of peace and 
 joy forever. 
 
 Signed in and on behalf of the said Meeting, held in Philadelphia by 
 adjournments from the 28th of the Ninth month to the 3d day of the 
 Tenth month, inclusive, 17S0. 
 
 Nicholas Waln, Clerk. 
 
 You will bear in mind that this was immediately after the Eev- 
 ohitionary War, when Friends had the most trying experience; and 
 this was the first official statement of the position of the Friends 
 that had been made. It is certainly an admirable document, and 
 contains as complete a statement of the conception of the early 
 Friends in regard to war, which we are discussing this afternoon, 
 as I have seen. 
 
 Perhaps it may not be amiss td read George Washington's reply. 
 
 The answer of the President of the United States, to the address of the 
 Religious Society called Quakers, from their Yearly Meeting for Pennsyl- 
 vania, New .Jersey, Delaware and the western parts of Maryland and 
 Virginia. 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 I receive with pleasure your affectionate address, and thank you for the 
 friendly sentiments and good wishes which you express for the success of 
 niy administration and for my personal happiness. 
 
 We have reason to rejoice in the prospect that the national government, 
 which, by the favor of divine providence, was formed by the common 
 councils and peaceably established with the common consent of the people, 
 will prove a blessing tc every denomination of them; to render it such 
 my best endeavors shall not be wanting. Government being, among other 
 purposes, instituted to protect the persons and consciences of men from 
 oppression, it certainly is the duty of rulers not only to abstain from it 
 themselves, but according to their station to prevent it in others. 
 
 The liberty enjoyed by the people of these States of worshipping Al- 
 mighty God agreeably to their consciences is not only among the choicest 
 of their blessings, but also of their rights, while men performing social 
 duties faithfully do all that society or the Stats can with propriety 
 expect or demand, and remain responsible only to their Maker for the 
 religion or mode of faith which they may prefer or profess. Your prin- 
 ciples and conduct are well known to me, and it is doing the people called 
 (Quakers no more than justice to say that (except their declining to share 
 with others the burden of the common defence) there is no denomination 
 among us who are more exemplary and useful citizens. I assure you very 
 explicitly that in my opinion the conscientious scruples of all men should 
 be treated with gieat delicacy and tenderness, and it is my wish and de- 
 sire that the laws may always be as extensively accommodated to them 
 as a due regard to the protection and essential interests of the nation may 
 justify and permit. 
 
 [Signed] George Washington. 
 
53 
 
 I will state that the manuscript of this address, with the reply, 
 was found among old papers at the Twentieth Street Friends' 
 Meeting House, New York, on First-day of this week, by David 
 S. Tabor. The reply of George Washington purports to have the 
 genuine signature of our first President. 
 
 Thk Chaikmax: We will take up now the discussion of the 
 papers that have been read. Our friend, ex-President Magill, of 
 Swarthmore, will occupy the time for a few minutes. 
 
 Edward H. Magill: Among the many excellent things which 
 we have heard this afternoon, nothing impresses me more deeply 
 than the remark of our friend Mrs. Chapman, when she said, in re- 
 gard to the common saying, " War is a necessary evil ": " There 
 are no necessary evils. Evils are not necessary."' War is neces- 
 sarily an evil; that is the way it should read. I was reminded of 
 an address that I listened to with great satisfaction in this city, a 
 few years ago, on " Evolution versus Eevolution," in which the 
 speaker took the ground that our two wars — our W^ar of the Ee- 
 bellion and our Eevolutionary War — were both of them avoidable. 
 The speaker was Andrew D. White. He said in regard to those 
 two cases something like this: "" The Eebellion — the War of the 
 Eebellion — was a political blunder. It had been proposed to bu} 
 the slaves, but the objection was made that it would cost many 
 millions to buy them. Yet the war cost far more, besides the enor- 
 mous loss of life. " It could," he said, '' all have been avoided by 
 taking the advice of those moderate men in that early day." 
 
 Then the case of the Eevolution, which I, in common with all 
 the rest of you, have always been taught, Friends as we are, in our 
 schools, in our histories — everywhere — to consider a necessary war. 
 Dr. White argued that it was not so. He said that Washington and 
 his associates w^ere men raised up, no doubt, for the special pur- 
 pose, and who accomplished that purpose as no other body of men, 
 perhaps, could have accomplished it so well. But they had to begin 
 at the end of the Eevolutionary War and labor for years to get the 
 thirteen States to unite. If that labor — that labor of diplomacy — 
 had been begun in 1T?5, instead of 1783, it might have secured the 
 separation of this country from England in peace. They would 
 have accomplished it.qnite as easily as they brought the thirteen 
 States together after the war was over. Wars never settle any- 
 thing; they only put the coutestants in a state of mind so that they 
 will be willing to try to settle their controversies. If they had only 
 been willing beforehand, in the beginning, it could have been set- 
 tled without war. 
 
 The Chairman: The subject now is open for general discus- 
 sion. 
 
54 
 
 Anthony M. Kimbek: Many men preach the thirteenth chap- 
 ter of 1 Corinthians; but may we comprehend this wonderful chap- 
 ter, the wonderful saying in it: " Charity suffereth long, and is 
 kind." May the Lord help us to be faithful in this ministry of suf- 
 fering. Eespecting the second essay, I remember that General 
 Armstrong, a Christian soldier, many years ago was lecturing to his 
 class about the same subject, and one of the colored men asked him 
 how it could be reconciled with the customs and rules of war, and 
 General Armstrong frankly admitted that in time of war all the 
 moral law had to be suspended. 
 
 Joseph Powell: I want to say to members of the Society of 
 P'riends, in particular, that I do not feel so proud as some appear 
 to be of the stand we have taken in this cause. When I heard what 
 was said a little while ago about buying the slaves instead of fight- 
 ing a war, I remembered that it was not a Friend, but Elihu Burritt 
 who advocated that. A view which I have was expressed by Presi- 
 dent Sharpless so clearly and so exactly that I want us to remem- 
 ber what he said and take it to heart. I know Friends who say, " I 
 am a member, and I am considered as good a member as any ^we 
 have, probably." They think so, I know. But they say, " Prepare 
 for war." although they profess to be opposed to it. They cannot 
 "mderstand, seemingly, the condition of spirit and mind that Presi- 
 dent Sharpless has spoken of. But this is the only thing that will 
 do. We may say what we please in the way of opposition to war, 
 but it amounts to little unless we are willing to bear all the suf- 
 fering and all that is unpleasant that may come upon us if we are 
 loyal to that profession. 
 
 Samuel S. Ash: I have just a word in harmony with the ex- 
 ercises of the afternoon. We do not get all of our peace doctrine 
 from the ministers of the Gospel; we get some of it from soldiers 
 and military men. I recall an incident which took place in my boy- 
 hood, when I was making a visit with my father, who was a physi- 
 cian of the court. We visited and dined with a captain, and at the 
 dimmer table my father remarked that the only excuse he could 
 make for the captain's occupation was that sometimes, perhaps, war 
 was a necessary evil. The captain was not a moment in respond- 
 ing: " Why," he said, " Doctor, I am a better Quaker than you 
 are. War is always evil, and never necessary." 
 
 Davis Fuknas: I was very much interested in the address by 
 President Sharpless, in his statement that there is in every soul 
 something that teaches him what is right about war as about other 
 things. I believe this is the foundation principle of Quakerism. I 
 l)elieve that the Almighty Creator so ordered that every man sliould 
 have that which, if he would follow it. would teach him the right. 
 I once had an interview with a Hindoo, and found that he had — 
 
55 
 
 contrary to the views 1 had hold about the Hindoos — just as clear 
 views about many things that are wrong — al)()ut drunkenness and 
 other sins — as those who have been educated in Christian communi- 
 ties. There was a spark of divinity in him. There is in every man 
 that which is sutficient to guide him — about war as about other 
 evils — if he is only obedient to it. 
 
 Kicif ARD 11. Thomas: 1 have been very much interested in 
 what 1 have heard this afternoon, and especially agree with what 
 Isaac Sharpless has said about the secondary character of the suf- 
 fering and the expense of war. The fact of sutt'ering is no good 
 argument at all. It is a very noble thing to suffer for a righteous 
 cause. If all that war implied was suffering and exi)ense on the 
 part of those who sutl'ered willingly, there would be a great deal to 
 be said in favor of it. Of course, the fact that there is suffering 
 would make it a very serious matter and a thing not to be entered 
 upon without thought; but the mere fact of suffering may be an 
 argument in favor of a thing, rather than against it. If a cause 
 is worthy, every one of us ought to be willing to suffer for it. If 
 I thought that the peace principle meant that I was to hesitate to 
 suffer, if suffering was called for, I should despise myself and cease 
 to be a peace man. Peace principles ought to be based not on ob- 
 jection to suffering, but on objection to sin. 
 
 When it comes to the question of the inherent immorality of 
 war, it does seem to me that it is not a secondary matter. What 
 do we know of war? War is not a mere name. What does it con- 
 sist of? If there is immorality in connection with it, that does not 
 necessarily make it evil. There is, possibly, immorality connected 
 with every business. There is a possibility of disobeying the laws 
 of God in every possible line of activity that we may follow, and 
 yet we have no objection to these lines of activity. But wdien 
 anything that people do is inherently immoral, then the immor- 
 ality becomes an essential feature in it. Why was it that George 
 Fox had this experience which took away from him the occasion 
 of all wars? It was because something had happened to him; be- 
 cause he had yielded himself up to the power of God, to let that 
 power into his heart which had made him able to be strong against 
 all that was contrary to the will of God. Why is war contrary to 
 the will of God if it be not inherently immoral? If it were in- 
 herently moral it would be in accordance with the law of God. It 
 seems to me that if we can once show to Christian people that it 
 is inherently immoral, as the paper pointed out so clearly, we have 
 made a very great step forward. This is not a side consideration; 
 it is an essential element in the question. It is because war arouses 
 the passions that make earth hell; it is because it is contrary to the 
 law of God. — which is the highest immorality, — that we are op- 
 posed to it. It seems to me, therefore, that it is a matter of very 
 great importance that we should see the clear-cut lines of argument, 
 
56 
 
 and that one of the important and necessary ones is that war is 
 inherently immoral. 
 
 The Chairman: We have now very fairly discussed these im- 
 portant questions, and the Chair, therefore, proposes to bring this 
 session to a close in a very few minutes. 
 
 The Committee on Entertainment will be glad to see any who 
 are not yet provided with homes. The Business Committee, which 
 has been increased by the addition of President Edmund Stanley, 
 of Kansas; Esther Pugh, of Indiana; Robert E. Pretlow, of Ohio, 
 and P. W. Eaidabaugh, of Indiana, will hold a meeting immedi- 
 ately at the close of the session. This evening the meeting will 
 convene in this hall at 8 o'clock promptly. President Unthank, of 
 Wilmington College, Ohio, will preside, and the program as pub- 
 lished will be carried out. 
 
 One of the newspapers of the city has asked the privilege of 
 taking a photograph of the Conference, and, as there seems to be 
 no objection, it is hoped that you will all be willing to assist the 
 newspaper people to get a satisfactory picture. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood: While the photographer is getting 
 his machine ready I should like to call the attention of the Con- 
 ference to what seems to me one of the most hopeful things con- 
 nected with the peace cause — the first announcement of the Nobel 
 peace prize. 
 
 Alfred Nobel, of Norway, was the inventor of dynamite. He 
 did not invent dynamite for war purposes, and he was very much 
 troubled that it had been turned so exclusively to war ends. He 
 was a strong peace man; in his will he left millions of money, the 
 income of which he provided should be annually distributed in 
 five prizes. One of these prizes was to be given each year to the 
 individual, or society, who had during the year done the most for 
 the promotion of international arbitration and peace. A commit- 
 tee of the Norwegian Parliament was organized, which has charge 
 of the distribution of the prizes. The first prizes were announced 
 day before yesterday. They amount to something over $40,000 
 each. The peace prize this year was given to two men, instead of 
 one. One of these men, Henri Dunant, was the founder of the Red 
 Cross work. He spent his whole fortune in the organization and 
 development of this work. He is now a very old man, liv- 
 ing in a private hospital near Geneva, Switzerland. The Nor- 
 wegian Committee, in consideration of his eminent services to the 
 cause of humanity and peace, voted that he should have half of the 
 first peace price, something over $20,000. The other half was 
 awarded to the veteran of the peace movement in France, our 
 friend, Frederic Passy, who has spent more than thirty years in 
 developing the peace propaganda in his country. He well deserves 
 
this recognition of his eminent and long-continued services to the 
 cansc. The awarding at this time of this vahialile prize is cer- 
 tainly a most encouraging proof of the progress which the peace 
 movement has made, and of the public confidence which it has won 
 and now holds. 
 
 The meeting then adjourned. 
 
^bir^ Seesion. 
 
 Fifth-day Evening, Twelfth Month 12th. 
 
 The Conference reassembled at 8 p.m. with James B. Unthank, 
 president of Wilmington College, Ohio, in the Chair. 
 
 o> 
 
 The Chaieman: I shall not, on taking the chair this evening 
 make any extended remarks. I wish only to call attention to one 
 matter. I have been very much surprised in the last few weeks to 
 learn something about the Friends that I never knew before; and 
 that is, that they are in a certain sense Anarchists. I do not know 
 whether you knew that or not; but it was a piece of information to 
 me. It comes, also, from very high authority that we Quakers are 
 Anarchists. I thought we had always been, for the whole period 
 of our existence, a law-abiding people; that we had been credited 
 with even too much loyalty to government. We have been criti- 
 cized because we do not object to things in a forcible way; but we 
 have never before, to my knowledge, been charged with disbelieving 
 in government, ^ow comes a great metropolitan weekly and says 
 that Friends are to a certain extent Anarchists; and, upon having 
 the matter called in question and denied, it reiterates the assertion, 
 and says that we are Anarchists because we do not believe in parti- 
 cipating in war when the government is in a struggle. I do not 
 give the name of this religious paper, because it would be invidious; 
 but this paper believes in war, and I do not know what war does 
 but suspend all the functions of peaceable government and intro- 
 duce a state of anarchy. I cannot understand how it is that 
 Friends are Anarchists and the believers in war are so thoroughly 
 loyal to government and so much opposed to anarchy, when war 
 itself introduces into the country and into the community a state of 
 anarchy. The objection, at least, is not very consistent. I recom- 
 mend this matter to the Business Committee, that they may con- 
 sider whether it will not be wise for us, in our resolutions, to de- 
 clare, for the information of those who know nothing of our his- 
 tory, that we believe in human government. 
 
 We will now proceed with the program of the evening. The 
 first exercise is a paper upon '' Early Christianity and War," by 
 James Wood, of Mount Kisco, N. Y. 
 
59 
 
 EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND WAR. 
 
 BY JAMES WOOD, MT. KISCO, N. Y. 
 
 The battle of Actiuni, followed l)y the death of Antoiiius. 31 
 B. C, closed the long series of conflicts in the Roman empire l)y 
 which Cains Jnlius Caesar Octavianus gained his supreme position, 
 and led to his receiving the name of Augustus, never before ])ome 
 bv any one. From that date the empire continued to enjoy pro- 
 found internal traiu]uillity until Augustus died in the seventy-fifth 
 year of his age and the fourteenth of the Christian era. Thus the 
 Prince of Peace entered upon his mission when the temple of Janus 
 was closed, as it had been since 29 B. C, when Augustus performed 
 the ceremony of closing it for the third time in all Roman history. 
 
 " Xo war, or battle's sound 
 Was heard the world around; 
 The idle spear and shield were high up hung; 
 The hooked chariot stood 
 Unstam'd with hostile blood; 
 The trumpet spake not to the armSd throng; 
 And kings sat still with awful eye, 
 As if they surely knew their sov'reign Lord was by." 
 
 For a century and a half the policy inaugurated by Augustus 
 secured the peace and prosperity of the empire. Even the follies 
 and excesses of Gains, Claudius, and Nero did little harm ])eyond 
 Italy itself, while the rule of Vespasian repaired the damages in- 
 flicted by the wars of the rival emperors after Nero's death, and 
 the abilities of Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus secured tranquillity 
 and good government, and spread the beneficent influences of Ro- 
 man law and civilization. Thus Christianity was established under 
 remarkably favorable conditions of peace and prosperity, and its 
 early adherents were spared the fiery trials that an earlier century 
 would inevitably have placed before them. Parthians and Medes, 
 and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea and 
 Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in 
 Egypt and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of 
 Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians returned from 
 Jerusalem to their various homes after the day of Pentecost in 
 peace and safety, with the glad tidings of what they had seen and 
 heard. Subsequently apostles and teachers went whither they 
 would in unaccustomed security. While garrisons were main- 
 tained throughout the empire the people were not subjected to that 
 stress of pressure for military service that was always inseparal)U; 
 from a time of war, and the doctrine of peace and goodwill could 
 be promulgated with a freedom and earnestness that the ordinary 
 conditions of the empire would not have permitted. It was doubt- 
 less owing to this that in the earliest period of Christianity we learn 
 of its followers' position in regard to war only in the statement of 
 principles. 
 
60 
 
 Marcus Aurelius died in 180, and his death was followed by a 
 century of war and disorder. Thronghont the third century the 
 Eoman world witnessed a series of desperate conflicts between rival 
 claimants for the imperial purple, so that, between the death of 
 Servius in 211 and the accession of Diocletian in 284, twenty-three 
 emperors sat in the seat of Augustus, and all of these but one died 
 violent deaths in battle or at the hands of the mutinous soldiery, 
 and this one died of pestilence. Beside all this, the vigor of the 
 north had begun its assaults upon the decaying strength of Rome. 
 The favorable conditions for the establishment and growth of the 
 early church during the Augustan age, and the period that imme- 
 diately followed it, were succeedediby new conditions which se- 
 verely tried the patience and the faith of the followers of Christ, 
 and called upon them to stand firm in their devotion to the princi- 
 ples of the cause they had espoused. Like other periods of sore 
 trial the weak were sifted out from the strong, and left the body 
 steadfast in the heroic courage of a transforming faith. 
 
 It is of interest to note that the early Christians' opposition to 
 war was based primarily upon the teachings of the gospel, and 
 after that upon the fact that the military oath was distinctly pagan 
 and many military practices were mixed with idolatrous rites. 
 
 Justin Martyr, who suffered martyrdom at Rome under Marcus 
 Aurelius about the year 165, says in his Dialogue with Trypho: 
 " We, who were once full of war and mutual slaughter, have every 
 one through the whole earth changed our swords into ploughshares, 
 and our spears into implements of tillage, and now cultivate piety, 
 righteousness, charity, faith and hope, which we have from the 
 Father Himself through Him who was crucified." It is quite 
 probable that Justin's words — " every one through the whole 
 earth " — must not be taken too literally, but should be understood 
 to mean that every one who has truly learned the gospel knows 
 that these things should be. The same early Father in the Church 
 in his first Apology, chapter 39, after quoting the prophecy of 
 Isaiah respecting the going forth of the word of God from Jeru- 
 salem, and the consequent prevalence of a state of peace, says: 
 " That these things have come to pass you may be readily con- 
 vinced; for twelve men, destitute both of instruction and of elo- 
 quence, went forth from Jerusalem into the world, and by the 
 power of God gave evidence to every description of persons that 
 they were sent by Christ to teach all men the divine word; and we, 
 who were once slayers of one another, do not fight against our 
 enemies." 
 
 Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, also one of the earliest 
 Fathers, discusses the same prophecy, and proves its relation to our 
 Saviour by the fact that the followers of Jesus had abandoned the 
 weapons of war and no longer knew how to fight. 
 
 The early Church soon found that schools or sects were formed 
 among its members. The Gnostics were the earliest of these, of 
 
61 
 
 \\ hoiii Gibbon says: "' They were the most polite, the most learned 
 and tlie most wealthy of the Christian name." Very different 
 from this was the body of Montanists. They have too frequently 
 been judged by the testimony of their opponents who disliked the 
 sound and simple views which the Montanists held of tlie priestly 
 dignity of all Christians, and that the gifts of the Spirit arc not 
 confined to one order in the Church, or even to one sex, and tliat 
 the true successors of the apostles are those who receive the spirit 
 of prophecy from the Holy Ghost himself. The teachings of the 
 Montanists had a marked influence upon the great Tertullian, who 
 himself so shaped the form and policy of the Western Church. In 
 his earlier writings he seems to have thought that military service 
 might be recognized, since in his ''Apology," a pre-Montanist work, 
 he says, in Chapter XXX.: "We pray for protection to the im- 
 perial house for brave armies." Sul)sequently Tertullian was very 
 clear and explicit. In the " Soldiers' Chaplet " he says: " We must 
 first inquire whether warfare is proper for Christians. Shall it be 
 held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord 
 ])roclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? 
 Shall the son of peace take part in the battle, when it does not be- 
 come liim even to sue at law? " Again, when writing " On Idolatry," 
 he says: " You inquire whether a believer may enter the military 
 service, and whether soldiers are to be admitted into the faith. 
 How will a Christian man war without a sword which the Lord has 
 taken away? In disarming Peter he unbelted every soldier." 
 
 We have evidence of the position of the early Christians con- 
 cerning war by the writings of their opponents and persecutors. 
 Prominent among these was Celsus, an Epicurean, who wrote his 
 '■ Word of Truth " about 160 during the reign of Marcus Anrelius. 
 He objects that the state received no help from the Christians 
 either in civil government or war, and that if all men were to fol- 
 low their example, the sovereign would be deserted, and the world 
 would fall into the hands of barbarians. We know of the writings 
 of Celsus only through those of Origen, who, nearly a century later, 
 wrote a refutation of the former's criticisms. Origen replied: 
 ••' The question is what would happen if the Romans should be per- 
 suaded to adopt the principles of the Christians, to renounce the 
 service now rendered the gods and magistrates, and to worship the 
 Most High. This is my answer. We say that if two of us shall 
 agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be 
 done for them of the Father of the just, who is in heaven. What, 
 then, are we to expect, if not only a very few should agree, as at 
 present, but the whole empire of Rome? They would pray to the 
 Word, who of old said to the Hebrews, when pursued by the 
 Egyptians. ' The Lord shall fight for you and ye shall hold your 
 peace,' and if all should unite in prayer with one accord, they would 
 put to flight enemies far more numerous than were discomfited by 
 the prayer of Moses and of those who prayed with him. If all the 
 
62 
 
 Romans should embrace the Christian faith they would overcome 
 their enemies by prayer; or, rather, they would not go to war at 
 all, being guarded by that divine power which promised to save five 
 whole cities for the sake of fifty Just persons." 
 
 Surely the doctrine of peace is here placed upon lofty ground. 
 In this work against Celsus, Origen says of himself and his ])retli- 
 ren: " We no longer take up the sword against any nation, nor do 
 we learn any more to make war. We have become, for the sake of 
 Jesus, the children of peace." Again, alluding to the efficacy of 
 prayer, he says: " By such means we fight for our King abundantly, 
 but we take no part in his wars, even though he urge us." 
 
 This general position continued to be maintained a century 
 later. During the reign of Diocletian, at the beginning of the 
 fourth century, Lactantius insisted upon the absolute inviolability 
 of human life and the unlawfulness of war. He adds: " To engage 
 in war cannot be lawful for the righteous man, whose warfare is 
 that of righteousness itself." The edition of the " Canons of Alex- 
 andria " used by the Ethiopian Christians stated: "It is not meet 
 for Christians to bear arms." 
 
 Many citations might be made from Eusebius, the father of 
 ecclesiastical history, to further prove the position of the early 
 Christians concerning war, but the chain we have given from Justin 
 Martyr to the fourth century is sufficient. It is a matter of great 
 interest that in the time of Constantine, while the church, recog- 
 nizing that its practice had violated its old-time doctrines and many 
 professed Christians served in the army, there yet was an expecta- 
 tion that it would return to the true ground. The twelfth 
 canon of the Council of Nice over which Constantine himself pre- 
 sided, provided a long period of excommunication for those who in 
 the ardor of their early faith renounced the military calling, but 
 afterward were bribed to return to it. Alas, during that reign of 
 Constantine, Christian virtue so weakened that it surrendered to 
 the world, and the many evils entered the church which have so 
 long undermined its power. 
 
 Among numerous instances where individual Christians re- 
 fused to engage in military service because of the teachings of 
 Christ, one will suffice. The account is given in Ruinart's "Acta 
 Sincera," and has good historic proof. In A. D. 295, at Teveste, 
 an episcopal city in jSTumidia, the recruiting sergeant brought be- 
 fore Dion, the Proconsul, a young man of twenty-two years, one 
 Maximilian, as fit for military duty. As he was about to be meas- 
 ured, he said: " I cannot engage in military service; I am a Chris- 
 tian." He repeated: " I cannot fight; I am a Christian." Again 
 he said: " I will not serve. You may cut off my head if you will. 
 I cannot engage in earthly warfare; I am God's soldier." Every 
 argument was used to persuade him to yield, but without avail, and 
 every threat was made, and he triumphantly gave up his life for 
 the testimony of him whom he loved. 
 
(j;5 
 
 Eusebius gives a number of instances wbere Christians refused 
 to serve in the army because of pagan and idolatrous requirements. 
 One of these was a centurion named Marcellus. The legion to 
 which he belonged was holding a sacrificial feast in honor of one 
 of the Caesars. Marcellus rose from the mess-table, and, unclasp- 
 ing his military belt, threw it down, exclaiming: *' From this mo- 
 ment I cease to serve your empire as a soldier. I am resolved to 
 obey none but Jesus Christ, the eternal King. I despise the wor- 
 ship of your gods. Since the ser^'ice involves the obligations of 
 sacrificing to the gods and emperors, I renounce the standards, and 
 am a soldier no longer." He was condemned to death and be- 
 headed. 
 
 Another instance was that of Marinus, a Christian soldier of 
 Csesarea, who was about to receive promotion to centurion rank, 
 but would not sacrifice to the emperor. 
 
 There is a legend familiar to readers of church history that pur- 
 ports to show the determination of Christian soldiers not to violate 
 their consciences, nor to aid in the persecution of their brethren. 
 The story of the Theban Legion, consisting of 6,600 men, all Chris- 
 tians, has often been told, but its authenticity is very questionable. 
 It is said they were summoned from the East for the service of 
 Maximian in Gaul. When in the valley of the upper Rhone they 
 found they were to be used in the persecution of the Christians, and 
 they refused to obey the emperor's commands. Their commander, 
 Mauricius, and all the legion were put to death. The story is re- 
 ferred to A. D. 286. At that time Maximian was associated with 
 Diocletian, and there was then no persecution nor was there any in 
 Gaul during his reign. The documentary evidence in favor of the 
 legend is very weak. There was no recorded mention of it until two 
 hundred and fifty years afterward. The story is similar. to one in 
 Syria, where a Greek martyr of the same name suffered the same 
 fate. Again, it is alleged that the Theban Legion suffered in that 
 year at the spot where is now the City of Cologne on the Rhine, 
 and where the Church of St. Gereon, named for the commander, 
 commemorates their martyrdom. It may be that the Theban Legion, 
 and their suffering on the Rhine and on the Rhone, belong to the 
 same historic classification with St. Ursula and her ten thousand 
 virgins, whose bones we see in another church in Cologne. 
 
 But we must not suppose that there was equal faithfulness on 
 the part of all who made profession of Christianity. Passages in 
 Tertullian show there were professing Christians in the army in the 
 second century, and P^usebius shows there were others at a later 
 period, but there seems to be no reliable evidence that these were 
 in any considerable numbers at any time. The story of the Thun- 
 dering Legion has often been used as furnishing conclusive evi- 
 dence that the Christians of the second centur\^ united with their 
 fellow subjects in serving the emperor in the field. We are told 
 that during the war with the Germans and Sarmatians in the year 
 
64 
 
 174, Marcus Aurelius and his army were in a situation of great 
 peril. The soldiers were without water and were tortured with in- 
 tolerable thirst, and at the same time were threatened by an attack 
 from the enemy. In this extremity the Twelfth Legion, composed 
 entirely of Christians, fell upon their knees, and their prayer was 
 followed by a shower of rain which allayed the thirst of the Roman 
 soldiers, while the thunder terrified the barbarians so that a com- 
 plete victory was gained over them. The emperor, to commemorate 
 the event, gave the name of " Thundering " to the legion. But the 
 narrative will not bear critical examination. The legion had been 
 called " Thundering " from the time of Augustus. It was claimed 
 that the emperor, in gratitude for the signal deliverance, ordered 
 the persecution of the Christians to cease. That there was a re- 
 markable deliverance of the Roman army is a historic fact, but the 
 persecutions alleged did not begin until three years after the vic- 
 tory. Pagan writers attributed the deliverance to Jupiter, to whom 
 the emperor and the whole pagan army prayed, and also to the in- 
 cantations of an Egyptian magician. It is probable that some un- 
 scrupulous person started a similar claim for the ef&cacy of Chris- 
 tian prayer. 
 
 This brief examination into the subject of early Christianity 
 and war shows that in the first two centuries of the Christian era 
 the followers of Christ very generally practiced the spirit of His 
 teachings, and were obedient to His commands concerning war, and 
 that this continued with a modified completeness during the third 
 century. If the examination was continued further we would find 
 that the occupation of the throne of the Roman empire by a pro- 
 fessing Christian in the person of Constantine so united the Church 
 with the world, that the rank and pomp and wealth and fashion of 
 the latter demoralized the Church so that its sacred principles were 
 violated, its testimonies were neglected or trampled under foot, 
 pagan rites and usages were introduced into its worship, and an era 
 of decadence was inaugurated, which heroic efforts in various 
 periods have in some measure stayed, but which still continue to 
 mar the Church's efforts and to hinder her sure conquest of the 
 world. 
 
 The Chairmax: We will next have an address on the " Atti- 
 tude of Christians as to War and Peace." by Dr. Jesse H. Holmes, 
 of Swarthmore College. 
 
65 
 
 THE ATTITT^DK 01' CIIRrSTlANS AS TO PEACE AND 
 
 WAK. 
 
 BY JESSK 11. IIOI.MI'.S. IMI.l)., SWARTHMORE COLLEGE. 
 
 riivisliatiity iiu't with a ixrcat disaster early in its career — a dis- 
 aster lariicly made possible by its rapid spread — in that it came 
 to be oliieially recognized as a state religion. In its inception 
 Christianity was particularly marked ])y its strong appeal to the in- 
 dividual. We cannot in our day fully grasp the originality dis- 
 played by its founders in turning their backs upon gods who dealt 
 with mankind by the wholesale, as races or nations, and turning to 
 God who speaks to the individual soul, and for whom not the na- 
 tion, but the man, is the unit. Such conception is not. of course, a 
 new one as presented by Jesus and his followers; it was present in 
 the minds of many of the prophets, and was not unknown among 
 ancient i)hilosophies. 
 
 But such idea of God was fundamental in Christianity. It was 
 not to Jews, not to Gentiles, not to rich or poor, not to great or 
 small, but to individual men that was preached the gospel of the 
 kingdom within us. For three centuries it made its way amid 
 l)ersecution and against opposition, passing on from soul to 
 soul, uplifting the slave and humbling the master, illuminating 
 the wrecks of old philosophies, and bringing back to life a 
 zest and interest which it had in large measure lost. In those 
 three centuries it had honeycombed the Empire. Slave had whis- 
 pered the gospel to his fellow-slave, or perhaps timidly to a kindly 
 master. It circulated in the arteries of trade, it was talked in the 
 streets, it grew even when hunted into the catacombs. In all this 
 it was taught only as man to man. It was backed by no great offi- 
 cial power, but represented in all that it accomplished its own na- 
 tive force and energy. Where it won its way it was by mastering 
 the consciences of men. It had no prizes to offer by which to tempt 
 the time-server. Only a fervent conviction of truth, only a deadly 
 (or, rather, a truly living) earnestness could induce men to ally 
 themselves with a proscribed sect. We may hardly doubt that the 
 Christian Church of this time was made up of real Christians; they 
 had stood the test of fire, and with only a natural human alloy of 
 baser metal, they had been proved sterling. 
 
 It was under such circumstances that disaster fell upon it in 
 the form of an unhoped-for and dazzling success — the Empire be- 
 came officially Christian. The old and well-worn temptation re- 
 jected by Jesus himself was now offered to his Church, and it fell. 
 "xVll the kingdoms of the earth will I give thee " might have been 
 the language of Constantine when he made the Eoman empire 
 Christian in name. And what great things might not the Church 
 of the Christ do Avith all the kingdoms of the earth? The vision 
 of a new heaven and a new earth so dazzled the bishops of the 
 fourth century that they forgot to notice the small and apparently 
 
66 
 
 insignificant condition annexed, " If thou wilt bow down and wor- 
 ship me." Not for the first time was a distinctive price unnoticed 
 in the glory of immediate possession. Christianity received the 
 kingdoms of the earth, and bowed down before Satan. Thence- 
 forth there were princes in the household of him who was "meek 
 and lowly; " thenceforth Christianity went forth, sword in hand, 
 to conquer heathendom, not for the Christ-spirit, but for a nominal 
 Christianity. The Church turned from men to man. It baptized 
 nations, indeed, after it had conquered them — baptizing with water 
 — and, indeed, with fire also — but neglecting the baptism of the 
 Holy Spirit. Only incidentally, and in small measure, did it 
 spread abroad the spirit of the Master. Those methods which had 
 made Christianity so great a power that the Empire was forced to 
 adopt its name were neglected for those which had produced the 
 yery weakness under which the Empire suffered. The Church chose 
 the way of the devil to reach the ends of God, taking no warning, 
 as it might for the very ease of the journey, that it had left the 
 straight and narrow for the broad and easy way. 
 
 Christianity broke up into warring sects. It dealt with princi- 
 palities and powers; its eye became keen for estates, and it dealt in 
 souls mainly by wholesale. Almost every generation, indeed, has 
 seen small groups of individuals breaking away from the evil of 
 oflB.cial religion, and striving for a return to the spirit of Christianity 
 — to a direct walk with God, a direct communing with his self- 
 revealings. But, seeing the supreme success of the Masters fail- 
 ure, the crown of martyrdom is no longer offered beyond a certain 
 point. So soon as Christianity becomes strong enough to be dan- 
 gerous the kingdoms of the earth are offered again, and still this 
 bait is taken. Protestantism. Calvinism, Puritanism, have in turn 
 denied God in spirit while defining and explaining Him in words. 
 
 I would not be understood as indicating that Christianity has 
 been altogether lost, altogether a failure — so far from it that it 
 has always been and is to-day the leaven of human life. Its repre- 
 sentatives have been, and are, few and weak, in worldly power, but 
 they have been, and are, the hope of the world. And the long 
 look over the centuries since Christianity was Eomanized by a pre- 
 tense of Christianizing Rome does not tend to discouragement. 
 More and more, century by century, men have caught at God's per- 
 sonal fatherhood and man's brotherhood as the great facts of the 
 divine message — at love, as the fulfilling of the law. " Not by 
 might or by power, but by my Spirit " is now more than ever a tri- 
 umphant note. 
 
 I wish to use this opportunity to make a distinct plea for the 
 individual — the separate person — as the indivisible and indestruc- 
 tible unit in all matters of righteousness: that we shall undo the 
 wrong of centuries and stand responsible to God alone. Christian 
 churches and Christian nations are made of Christian men — are 
 nothing apart from them or in addition to them. The whole is 
 
67 
 
 not greater than the sum of its parts. Nothing is right for us as 
 Friends, as Christians, as citizens, which is wrong for us as indi- 
 viduals. There is no mysterious entity to be called a nation or a 
 church which may cancel our duties as sons of God, and substitute 
 another standard of right and wrong. If individuals making up a 
 church represent a spirit of force, of violence, the church cannot 
 represent a spirit of peace and goodwill. If missionaries are backed 
 by gunboats, if they collect indemnities under threat of tiie bay- 
 onet, they are missionaries of that power which promised the king- 
 doms of earth in order secretly to destroy the kingdom of heaven. 
 If citizens go forth to slay and destroy they may carry the name 
 of civilization on their lips, but they are simply homicides and bar- 
 barians. 
 
 Men salve their consciences, yea, even benumb their consciences, 
 by shifting the responsibilities of their deeds to a mj^thical some- 
 thing called a government, a ciiurch; but no power can release a 
 man from the burden of his deeds. Not that all homicide and de- 
 struction is alike evil, not that men may not deceive themselves so 
 that the worse appears the better. But this is only possible by 
 avoiding the Christian attitude and shirking the Christian responsi- 
 bility. I do not even say that all homicide and destruction are 
 necessarily culpable; but only that what is wrong for each of us as 
 a man cannot be right for each as a citizen, as a Christian. The 
 righteous laws of nations are superadded to the moral law, not sub- 
 stituted for it. All our duties as members of churches, as citizens of 
 nations, are based upon our duties as members of the human family, 
 and stand for those higher duties consequent upon closer relations. 
 They can never release us from the fundamental duty of a sense 
 of universal brotherhood. We can no more, without violation of 
 Christian principle, build our gain, our greatness, our exaltation, 
 u])on the loss of the Hindoo or the Hottentot, the Spaniard or the 
 Filipino, than upon that of our fellow-Quaker, or our fellow-Ameri- 
 can. And it i? a neglect of this principle fundamentalin Chris- 
 tianity: it is this placing metes and bounds upon our Christian 
 charity, that marks the ])arbarizing of Christianity during sixteen 
 centuries. 
 
 Some phases of this essential falsehood are these: 
 
 1. That Christianity is for peace, indeed: but that because of 
 human weakness Christians must excuse war; 
 
 2. That peace tends to make cowards of us, and that we must 
 have war in order to support the virility of the race; 
 
 3. That while violence for selfish ends is wrong, it is lawful to 
 do evil that good may come; 
 
 4. That experience shows that many evils could not have been 
 overcome without war. 
 
68 
 
 (1) Christianity is for peace among men, Init must defer to the 
 weakness of humanity. Christianity must indeed stoop to the 
 weakness of humanity, not to excuse that weakness, but to cure it. 
 We must pardon the sinner — must we also accept the sin? Jesus, 
 indeed, refused to punish the sinner; did he at the same time make 
 light of the sin? Shall Christianity trail its white robe in the mire 
 of sin to show its fellowship with sinners? Shall it do evil that it 
 may draw near to evil-doers? Not so do I understand the teach- 
 ing of the Master or the teaching of the Spirit. The Christian is 
 not called upon to be stupid, selfish, and sinful in order to reach 
 those who are immersed in stupidity, selfishness and sin. Such doc- 
 trine could never have obtained except for the pagan idea that we 
 are fractional parts of a nation or of a church, and must therefore 
 assimilate ourselves to its average quality. But the Christian atti- 
 tude is that of an independent unit, a partner with God in the 
 work of subduing his earth. His duty to God transcends all tem- 
 porary human relations. And, indeed, the conclusion at its best 
 is a reversal of common sense. Because men are weak, let us be 
 strong; because they are ignorant and violent, let us be wise and 
 gentle. If they exalt force, let us show them how much more 
 powerful is love. Of course, if our plea is that we are too weak to 
 stand against the crowd, or that avc believe the voice of the mob is 
 the voice of God and to be obeyed — that is frankly an avowal of 
 disbelief in Christianity, and should serve as an appeal to those who 
 are Christians to convert us. 
 
 (2) Does peace make cowards of us? If it does, then Christian 
 teaching is falsehood, and we should turn to a new and true gos- 
 pel. It is the worst of hypocrisy to proclaim a gospel of peace as 
 a theory and a gospel of war as a practice. And this is largely the 
 attitude of a nominal Christianity to-day. Numerous pseudo- 
 Christian ministers have exalted the value of war as necessary to 
 make men brave and self-sacrificing. In other words, they do not 
 believe that the gospel they preach ex-officio tends to produce 
 brave, true men. Occasional wars are necessary to serve as an anti- 
 dote to the effects of periods in which Christian practices prevail. 
 If for years we have been at peace — the condition longed for by 
 prophet and Messiah — therefore, lest our manhood decline, let us 
 burn cities: let us starve women and children, and kill men by 
 thousands to avert the degeneration due to peace and the preaching 
 of peace. Either Christianity is a mistake and a failure, and should 
 be given up wholly or in part, or it is triu^ and right, and should be 
 applied in times of difficulty and danger as well as in times of ease 
 and comfort. Indeed, unless it is a total failure, Christianity is 
 needed especially at times when men differ and when passion tends 
 to take the place of reason. 
 
 But, does peace make cowards of us? Let us turn first to war 
 itself for answer. Peace made the men called heroes by the news- 
 papers, who made up our armies in the Spanish war. Practically, 
 
all ut' them wi-rt' horn, educated and nialured in a period of pro- 
 fonnd peace. Hut the courage of a t;oldier is not a very high type 
 of courage. lie is drilled heforehand, so that his own will shall 
 have the smallest jiossihle activity in the time of crisis. He risks 
 being killed, indeed; hut when did taking risks come to be a high 
 type of courage? If it is so, truly, then, the gambler is somewhat 
 of a hero too. I am not arguing against the courage of the Ameri- 
 can. I fully believe in his courage; but the taking of risks, even 
 lieavy risks, is not the best evidence of it. It is the motive, not 
 the danger, that shows a hero. We have vastly better evidence in 
 the heroes of peace, wlio never fail to appear in accidents, in wrecks 
 at sea, in fires on land. These are they who take risks, often far 
 greater than those of the soldier, to save life, not to destroy it. We 
 have greater heroes than those of war, again, in those who face un- 
 flinchingly long years of monotonous labor, giving their strength 
 ungrudgingly to win comfort and happiness for their families. We 
 have heroes in our physicians, who so devote themselves to healing 
 the sick and alleviating suffering that they deny themselves even 
 the vacations whicli are their due. We have heroes in the pioneers 
 who conquer the wilderness, in the explorers who expand the do- 
 main of human knowledge, in all those whose lives are self-dedi- 
 cated to the good of others. We mistake deeply, we do injustice 
 to our race, to our religion and to our civilization, when we grant 
 our chief applause to the showy, organized national destroyers 
 rather than to the unnoticed, miscellaneous saviours, who do their 
 work, demanding no meed of praise, who never claim to be heroes, 
 but who support upon their bent shoulders the hope of the world. 
 Glory to the builder, not to the destroyer. 
 
 (3) But shall we not do evil that good may come? If good 
 come on the whole, then what we do is not evil. It is in the con- 
 sequences of an act that exists its quality, whether good or evil. 
 If an act has no consequences it has no moral element. But the 
 flaw in the ]}roposition that we may make war for a good ])urpose 
 lies in its short view. The experience of the race and the teaching 
 of our highest instincts unite in making clear that the total result 
 of war is evil, and only evil continually. It is cheap and common 
 to assert that war freed our nation from English domination, and 
 that it struck the shackles from four millions of slaves. We leave 
 ont of account the heritage of bitterness and hatred not yet out- 
 lived that followed after the Revolution, to say nothing of the 
 thousands of lives thrown away or made miserable. We skillfully 
 avoid the question, which is a vital one, whether greater self-control, 
 greater patience might not have accomplished more with less of 
 evil. And we leave out of account the evident fact that the slavery 
 question is not settled — that, indeed, it is perhaps le.'^s soluble as a 
 race question embittered by the brutal years of violence and by sec- 
 tional discord, than it was as a slavery question. Again, we fail 
 to consider what self-restraint and patience might have done. And 
 
70 
 
 our fourth difficulty is involved in our third. War is sometimes 
 necessary for the sake of others. The strong must be violent to 
 help the weak — or, as before, the end justifies the means. Even so, 
 friends, if what we look upon were the end — but there is no end. 
 In a wave of nation-wide enthusiasm we went to war with Spain 
 where men were governed badly and against their will, and where 
 starvation and torture were used to enforce submission. After a 
 harvest of suffering, disease, and crime had been reaped, we now 
 look to a Cuba free from Spain, and we find ourselves immeshed 
 in a war with a people whom we govern badly and against their 
 will, and where starvation and torture are used to enforce submis- 
 sion. Good may, indeed, come in spite of evil, for of unmixed evil 
 there are few examples in the affairs of men, but good does not 
 come because of it. If so much good has come in spite of all the 
 evil, what would not the world be if it could be brought to Chris- 
 tianity? 
 
 There is no more fundamental atheism than is involved in a 
 proclamation that God is too weak to win His way without calling 
 in the devil to His help. There is no deeper infidelity than that 
 which so distrusts the strength of righteousness that it must lean 
 upon the arm of unrighteousness. It is from this attitude of 
 apology that I would earnestly call Christians to-day. " Let us 
 have faith that right makes might," and in that faith let us fare 
 forward courageously in the path we are in. Let us no more evade 
 and pretend. Are we ashamed of the Christ and his message? If 
 not, let us speak it, and live it in spirit and in truth. May we not 
 have in clear unmistakable tones the outspoken, uncompromising 
 demand for righteousness on the part of each individual before 
 God; the selfless plea for self -conquest; for the ruling of our own 
 spirits? May we not have a definite rejection of compromise with 
 evil, of deals with iniquity, a courageous and confident stand upon 
 the power of the spirit of love to solve the hard problems of the 
 world? 
 
 The Chairman: — The next paper is on " The Christian Idea 
 of Force," by Dr. Eichard H. Thomas, of Baltimore, president of 
 the Peace Association of Friends in America. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN IDEA OF FORCE. 
 
 BY DR. RICHARD HENRY THOMAS, BALTIMORE, MB. 
 
 For our present purpose force may be briefly defined as power 
 made effective for use. Thus we speak of spiritual, mental and 
 physical force, and of the various forces of nature. Without force 
 no results are accomplished. Therefore, when a man of peace says, 
 " I do not believe in using force," however praiseworthy his mean- 
 ing may be, his words are incorrect, and he lays himself open to 
 the charge of being a mere visionary. VVlien he explains: " I be- 
 
71 
 
 lieve not in the upc of physical, but of spiritual and moral force," 
 his opponent answers: "Your cliilfl is about to cut himself with a 
 sharp knife; will you not snatch it from him?" "Certainly." 
 " lie is running toward a precipice. You shout to him to stop. 
 Either he does not hear, or will not obey. Will you not run and 
 catch him, and save him ? " 
 
 " Would yon never, for any reason, punish your child in other 
 ways than by word or look? If so, you do believe, under certain 
 circumstances, in the use of physical force." But you reply, " That 
 is different. It is right to do these things." Yes, it is right, but 
 you cannot do them without physical force. Your real contention, 
 then, is not against physical force, as such, but against the wrong 
 use of it. 
 
 We cannot even say that under all circumstances the use of 
 brute force is wrong. A Samson might hold a lunatic or a crim- 
 inal, to restrain him from violence, in his strong embrace, not bru- 
 tally, but by brute force, and receive from the most ardent peace 
 advocate nothing but praise. Then even brute force is not always 
 wrong, so it be not brutally used. 
 
 Further, if physical force may sometimes be well used, spiritual 
 and moral force may be wrongly used. The assassin of our late 
 President, for instance, claimed his deed to be morally right, and 
 if, as the Bible says, there be such a thing as spiritual wickedness, 
 there must also be a wrong use of spiritual power. 
 
 From the simple human standpoint, which is, after all, hardly 
 removed from the divine, wc may therefore conclude that of all 
 the great divisions of force, spiritual and moral, physical and me- 
 chanical, none are in themselves either right or wrong, but that the 
 moral element lies in the manner in which they are used and the 
 object to be gained. 
 
 What, then, is the teaching of the New Testament on the sub- 
 ject? First, I find no distinction made between physical and spir- 
 itual force in the sense that one is set off as being necessarily right 
 and the other as always wrong. Paul on one occasion missed a 
 splendid opportunity for making such a distinction. The only ex- 
 planation I can think of why he did not make it is that he did not 
 believe it existed. He says, indeed, " The weapons of our war- 
 fare are not carnal." How many of us would say, and have said, 
 " But spiritual." But Paul misses his opportunity and says, " Not 
 carnal, but mighty." The position is stronger. He discards car- 
 nal weapons for something better. To-day, many assume that 
 weapons not carnal are necessarily weak. Paul thought otherwise. 
 Writing to Eome, the very center and symbol of power in the civil- 
 ized world, he says that he is not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, 
 for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. 
 To the 2nen of force he brings something more forceful. This is 
 no jelly-fish sentimentalism, but the utterance of a man glorying 
 in the Source of his strength. The Christian ideal of life is a man- 
 
ly ideal, and includes struggle and conquest, not with carnal weap- 
 ons — for carnal means human nature, rising up against the rule 
 of God — not, I say, with carnal weapons, that is with force acting 
 under the direction of the lower impulses of our nature, but with 
 weapons fashioned and used in accordance with the mightiest force 
 in the universe. 
 
 That the idea of force is very prominent in the minds of the 
 New Testament writers is clear even to a superficial reader. Their 
 belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ supplied them with their 
 unit of available power. This was the standard by which they 
 estimated the possibilities of their life and work. Paul prays that 
 the Ephesians may know that this is indeed the measure of the 
 power of God in them. This estimate gave them manifest advan- 
 tages. It rendered it impossible for them to be discouraged at any 
 rebuff or defeat. Why? Christ had, humanly-speaking, suffered 
 the most humiliating of defeats, and yet through that very defeat 
 he had conquered. They knew that he had sounded depths of sor- 
 row and darkness they could never know, and that every difficulty 
 they could meet would always lie well within this unit of force, 
 which became practically available for everyone as the result of 
 the power of God working within him, as he lived in conscious sub- 
 mission to it. 
 
 This did not make them unnatural men and women. They did 
 not count upon God as savages do upon a fetich. They saw that 
 his power works through means, and they never hesitated to u.se 
 means properly adapted for their purpose. Paul, when his health 
 broke down on his first missionary journey, did not say, " The 
 power of God is sufficient," and so disregarded the danger. He 
 changed his course, and went to the mountains of northern Galatia 
 to recruit, and so came to preach the Gospel there. When he 
 knew that there was a plot against his life, he took pains to have 
 the governor who was responsible for his safety informed, so that 
 he might not be needlessly exposed to an attack by his enemies. He 
 repeatedly claimed his civil privileges as a Koman citizen. But he 
 refused to respond to the pointed intimations of Felix that he 
 should offer him a bribe, although he knew that the power of money 
 would secure his liberty. He promised his comrades in danger dur- 
 ing the terrible storm that, although the ship would be lost, all 
 lives should be saved, yet he also said that unless the sailors were 
 prevented from leaving the ship in the boats the others could not 
 be rescued. The faith of the first Church was that God had power 
 to deliver them from all danger, and therefore when they were 
 living in the will of God, and death or suffering came upon them, 
 they realized fully that this also was the will of God. The death 
 of Stephen did not dim their faith, nor did the^ exile that most of 
 them had to suffer aftenvards. The death of James did not dis- 
 courage them from praying for Peter. Why should not they be 
 put to death as their Lord had been? 
 
73 
 
 The whole atmosphere tliat tliey breathed was dilferent fioin 
 what they had known before, and from what those about them 
 knew. It was their mission to bring others into this same rela- 
 tion to God. They proclaimed neither a well-worked out system of 
 morality nor of doctrine. Both these were to a certain degree in a 
 state of fluidity. What was prominent in their ex})erience and in 
 their message was that through Jesus Christ they had come to 
 know their true relation to God and how to attain it, and live in 
 it with the power of the risen Saviour. They did not themselves 
 fully grasp all that this implies. Paul, for instance, seems to have 
 failed to understand that God has much concern for the lower ani- 
 mals, and asks, " Does God care for oxen ? " He does not seem 
 to have seen that Christian love bars out slavery. Cornelius is al- 
 lowed, so far as we know, to remain a Roman soldier centurion, 
 although there must have been duties that he had to perform in 
 heathen practices essentially connected with the army, that to our 
 minds, apart from the necessity of fighting, would be wholly out 
 of harmony wdth Christianity. His example can as well be cited to 
 support the theory that idolatry is consistent with Christ as that 
 war is. 
 
 But all these things did not affect the everlasting principle un- 
 der which the first Christians lived. It was not for them to see 
 to the end of that which shall forever be opening out fresh glories 
 and fresh avenues for love and service. The seed of Christian 
 thought and experience that they planted is still growing and de- 
 veloping. But it was theirs to learn the secret of true power, and 
 how it is known as we live in harmon}^ with the source of it, that is 
 with the spirit of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ and in confi- 
 dence in him. What, then, is the spirit of his life and teaching? 
 
 First, let us recognize that he used all the great divisions of 
 force that I have mentioned, and set us the example that we should 
 use them also. That he made use of what is known as spiritual 
 and moral power is too clear to need exposition. In his words, 
 " Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves," w-e have his en- 
 dorsement of intellectual activity as applied to practical matters. 
 In his scourge of small cords w^e have his endorsement of physical 
 force. Why should we try to deny it? With Christ, what he did 
 and what he taught are not in contrast. They mutually complete 
 each other, and this act is not out of harmony wuth his teaching. 
 True, small cords do small injury. But, explain it as you will, 
 whether he used the scourge on men or not, the act was an exer- 
 cise of physical force, used to protest against an abuse, and we lose 
 much and gain nothing by trying to explain it away. But let those 
 who gloat over this fact, and who think that it endorses the war 
 method, remember how weak small cords are, and not attempt to 
 support by them the wars of Christendom, with their thousands 
 slain, and whole districts devastated. Such a burden is too great 
 for small cords to sustain, and, after all, it is a poor argument that 
 
74 
 
 urges that because a certain degree of physical force is justifiable, 
 therefore every degree of physical force is justifiable. To protest 
 against an abuse, not even sufiiciently to do away with it, but only 
 enough to make the protest understood, is one thing, and is wholly 
 unlike doing men to death either individually or on the battle- 
 field. I think these small cords would never have been used to sup- 
 port war had not war advocates been so hard put to it to find New 
 Testament arguments for their contention, and had not peace ad- 
 vocates weakened their cause by attempting to maintain that all 
 physical force is in itself condemned by Christ. Before leaving 
 this incident let us remember that what Christ was doing was sim- 
 ply as a protest and not as a punishment, and that his choice of 
 small cords shows his care to injure no one. As to his overturn- 
 ing the tables of the money changers and driving out the animals, 
 this only gave their owners the trouble of collecting them again, as 
 it was all within the Temple inclosure, and there was no danger of 
 theft or loss. 
 
 Physical force, therefore, if it be used in a Christlike spirit, is 
 supported by Christ's example. Apart from this spirit no force of 
 any kind can be justified on the Christian idea. It is the same, 
 therefore, with Christ's teaching as we found in respect to the sim- 
 ple human point of view, that the true distinction is not between 
 spiritual and physical force, but between the use of any force for 
 worthy ends in the Christian spirit, and force not so used. 
 
 To discover the Christian idea of force we must understand the 
 purpose and method of Jesus Christ. Does any one doubt that the 
 purpose is truly expressed in the words, " The Son of Man is not 
 come to destroy men's lives, but to save them"? There is also a 
 general agreement that in his method he trusted to the sweet rea- 
 sonableness of his teaching and to the divine power within him, 
 shown through his life and sufferings, to reach and convince men. 
 Some, however, claim that what he says about not bringing peace 
 but a sword, and his direction to the twelve to sell their garments 
 and buy swords, show that he had other methods also in his mind. 
 But the context in neither case bears this out. The sword he says 
 he was come to send refers simply to the family strife certain to 
 be engendered when the anger of those who do not accept his mes- 
 sage is aroused against those who do. He explains that he is speak- 
 ing of the mother and father being arrayed against the son and 
 daughter. Therefore, unless we are prepared to maintain that 
 Christ approves of family quarrels, we must understand he is not 
 expressing approval of strife, but pictorially referring to feuds that 
 must arise in the nature of the case. That his command to buy 
 swords is purely figurative is shown by his reply, when the dis- 
 ciples said, " Here are two swords." " It is enough," as though two 
 could be enough for twelve men. Later on, when Peter used one 
 of these very swords, Christ rebuked him, and soon afterwards ex- 
 
76 
 
 plained that the reason his servants did not fight was that his 
 kingdom is not of tliis world. 
 
 We are justified, therefore, in maintaining that Christ's method 
 is wholly in accord with truth and justice, and that he consistently 
 employed force on this principle, and that sooner than depart from 
 it he allowed the worst evils to come upon him. 
 
 But some say that Christ was carrying out the design of God in 
 our salvation, and that therefore he suffered, hut that we, who are 
 not the saviours of men, are on a totally different plane. Much in 
 this assertion seems to add to the glory of Christ, but, certainly, so 
 far as it teaches that we are to live on a different plane from Christ, 
 it lacks any supjiort from the words of Christ, or of any New Tes- 
 tament writer. In his prayer he says: '^ As thou hast sent me into 
 the world, even so have I sent them into the world." Again, " As 
 I am, so are ye in the world." " The servant is not above his Mas- 
 ter .. . It is enough for the servant to be as his Master." Paul 
 even speaks of filling up that which is lacking in the sufferings of 
 Christ. In the minds of our Lord and of His immediate followers, 
 the adoption of the method and spirit of Christ were essential con- 
 ditions of discipleship. Christ is more than an example. He dem- 
 onstrated and made available for all men, as it had never been done 
 before, the greatest force in the universe. Through it he won his 
 great world-victory, and upon it his followers are to rely. It is the 
 power that comes with such a surrender to God as enables us to love 
 him and those about us with a love that will not fail under any 
 provocation, a love that will cast out self-seeking and selfishness, 
 and strengthen us for any sacrifice that is needed to obey God and 
 to help our fellow men according to His will. 
 
 Tliis is so contrary to the world's idea of force that it requires 
 us to drink deep of the spirit of Jesus Christ to recognize and ac- 
 cept it. But it is only in doing so that we can have fhe faith that 
 overcomes the world. 
 
 This is very different from a mere passive acceptance of ills and 
 evil. Christ's force was not negative, but positive. Paul was any- 
 thing but a negative character. Neither of them sat down before 
 diflBculties, waiting for all things to come right. They used this 
 force to most effective purpose, and did not neglect the use of force 
 in ordinary channels, so far as was consistent with the supremacy 
 of this all-controlling force. We also, as they, have the same 
 strength available for us, and through everything that may happen 
 we are to be more than conquerors through him who loved us. 
 
 But we hear it objected: " Is peace safe? " Does any one ask: 
 "Is war safe?" Are good causes never crushed in war? Do people 
 whose defence is in firearms never have their houses broken into, 
 and never kill their wives or children, as well as the intruder, or 
 instead of him? From the point of view of safety of life and limb 
 there is, humanly speaking, no absolute safety for any one. The 
 Czar of Russia is probably in greater danger with all his guards 
 
76 
 
 than any one private citizen of his Empire. It is not a question of 
 mere physical safety, bnt of what is the most effective method for 
 the establishment of righteousness and the protection of the indi- 
 vidual, and I maintain that the strongest method is Christ's 
 method, and also that there has now been 'sufficient experience to 
 make this assertion more than a mere matter of simple faith. The 
 experience of the early colonists of Pennsylvania, as compared with 
 other colonists, and of Pennsylvania itself when unpeaceful coun- 
 sels prevailed, is a strong instance in point. The overcoming of the 
 wild mountaineers of the Caucasus by the Doukhobors through 
 persistent kindness is another example, and individual instances 
 innumerable lead to the same conclusion. And yet, since our Mas- 
 ter was ill treated and put to death, why should we complain that 
 his followers may be called upon at times to serve the truth in simi- 
 lar ways? 
 
 On general principles, therefore, the Christian idea is that we 
 trust this divine force and employ other forces only as they ring 
 true to the method and purpose of our Lord's life upon earth. On 
 this basis everything that contemplates success or victory through 
 force brutally used, or through maiming and killing human beings, 
 can never be justified according to Christ's idea of force. But this 
 limitation, so far from lessening, strengthens us in preventing and 
 reforming evil. I admit that it often works more slowly than our 
 patience is quite ready for, but it is far more certain than other 
 means. The real difficulty lies in this: first, that we hold the truth 
 too much in theory, and have made it too little an essential part of 
 our life; and, second, that we belong to a community only partially 
 Christian, if indeed we may be sure that we are wholly Christian 
 ourselves. 
 
 A broad difference between the first century and the nineteenth 
 is that in the former the nation was nominally idolatrous, and the 
 Christians in it, although without political influence, were a grow- 
 ing force leavening the whole, while we now, possessed of political 
 influence, live in a nation nominally Christian, but largely pagan. 
 The difference is apparently and really great, but among many ad- 
 vantages we have this difficulty, that there is a tendency to confu- 
 sion of ideas, because methods and policies, from being called 
 Christian, come to be regarded as such. In this way we have the con- 
 sent of many professing Christians to things intrinsically heathen 
 both in principle and application. Prominent among these is the 
 war system. It cannot ring true to any just conception of the 
 teaching of Jesus Christ. The weapons of its warfare are essen- 
 tially carnal, the passions it arouses are the reverse of Christian, 
 and the results of its work, after allowing for all the benefits that 
 can honestly be claimed for it, are the reverse of what is character- 
 istic of the work of Christ. 
 
 What then is the duty of one who believes that he has seen the 
 true Christian idea of force? Certainly he is not to withdraw from 
 
77 
 
 those about hiiiK as tliough ho were holi(>r than thoy. Moreovc>r we 
 have what the early Christians had not — political inlluence. This 
 is something that no one, either man or woman, has a right to 
 neglect. We cannot do so without being false to duty. Indilference 
 means that we are exercising the wrong influence. Wo need not 
 be always condemning those who do not see as we do, nor should 
 we forget that so long as the majority of our countrymen believe 
 that their great protection is in the force of arms, it is impossible 
 to do more than limit the building of warships and appropriations 
 for military purposes. We are to labor to render these things use- 
 less and out of date. Democracy means or at least should mean, 
 the predominating influence of men out of olUce, and the fact that 
 we may not consistently hold offices where in the judgment of those 
 who would have elected us, it might become our official duty to call 
 out the military, need not discourage us. There was practically 
 no office whatever open to the first Christians, and we know what 
 great influence they exerted. 
 
 Our position is not negative, but positive. We have, and we 
 are to use, the mighty weapons of our warfare to the pulling down 
 of strongholds, and the casting down of everything that exalts it- 
 self against the obedience of Christ. The Peace message is more 
 than a theory or than a mere moral sentiment. It is not a weak as- 
 sertion that we disbelieve in war and oppression, and believe in 
 peace at any price. 
 
 It is, to begin with, an experience — an experience of imion with 
 the God of love and truth, such a union that we are taken posses- 
 sion of and held by that love. This will enable us to live in such a 
 spirit as George Fox was in when, after he had been seriously in- 
 jured, he looked at the disabled arm, not in anger or regret, but in 
 the love of God. It is only in such an experience that we can 
 truly test whether a given proceeding is right or wrong. The 
 love of God in our hearts will then be the true decider. It is only 
 by being in an experience that does away with wars and fightings 
 and the causes of them in our own hearts, that we are able to 
 know what it is to have the mighty weapons of God, and to be able 
 truly to influence men. But if we are practically taking the same 
 attitude that others are taking upon national and international 
 questions, and simply drawing the line when it comes to actual 
 fighting, we have given up our principle, and are holding a tra- 
 dition. 
 
 Starting with the experience of union with Christ, we are where 
 we can take a correct general view oi things. Wc cannot expect 
 men who have not recognized our principle to act in accordance with 
 it. But when they do not do so, we shall not co-operate with them. 
 We should be ready, how^ever, as their brothers, in the providence 
 of God, to suffer patiently with them in every w^ay not inconsistent 
 with our position. We can do what lies within us to bring them to 
 see what is so true to us, and we can encourage everything that 
 
78 
 
 tends to promote justice and peace, everything that will help to 
 bring in an era of true and permanent good feeling at home or 
 abroad. We can endeavor to help those in official position to find 
 ways of settling disputes peacefully, and we can show appreciation 
 of their efforts in these directions. We can in times of excitement 
 exert ourselves to allay it, and we can make the most of such move- 
 ments as the Hague Convention, the Pan-American Congress, 
 Boards of Arbitration, etc., between Labor and Capital. We can 
 arouse the consciences of our fellow Christians, and, above all, con- 
 tinually live in the power of the peaceful conquering Saviour. 
 
 The Chairman: — Before opening the general discussion, I will 
 make the announcement that to-morrow the meeting will be 
 opened at ten o'clock, and the doors will be closed during the de- 
 votional period with which the exercises begin. President M. 
 Carey Thomas, of Bryn Mawr College, will preside at the session 
 to-morrow forenoon, and the program, as you have it printed, will 
 be carried out. 
 
 There will be some time now for a general discussion of the 
 papers to which we have just listened, and this discussion will be 
 opened by President Birdsall, of Swarthmore College. 
 
 William W. Birdsall: I was particularly impressed this 
 morning by that paragraph of Dr. Barton's paper in which he out- 
 lined the progress of the Hebrew idea of God and the effect of that 
 idea upon their relations with each other. When their God was a 
 God of the family, then each family considered itself to be under 
 the protection and guidance of its own God; this belief permitted 
 war with every family round about. It was a step of progress when 
 the family God became a tribal God, and family war lost itself in the 
 larger, still barbarous, idea of tribal war. So, when the idea came 
 that Jehovah was a national God, it set free the tribe from war 
 against tribe, but it set nation at war against nation. What an 
 elevation of human life it was when they came at last to see that 
 the God of their fathers was the God of men of every country and 
 every clime, that all men were of one blood, and therefore brethren. 
 It seemed to me that Dr. Barton had put his finger upon the vital 
 point in this discussion, at least so far as the bearing of religion 
 upon peace is concerned, when he said that the promulgation of the 
 idea of the fatherhood of God made necessarily unlawful every act 
 of war. But, as the idea of God became successively tribal, na- 
 tional, universal, was it not natural that in some degree at least 
 the sense of individual responsibility should be lost, and was not 
 the coming of a Messiah needed to call men back to their indi- 
 vidual relation with the Most High, and to teach them to cease to 
 think of Him as the God of nations or the God of battles, but to 
 think of Him as the Father of the individual? 
 
 The method of Jesus was the individual method; He appealed 
 
79 
 
 to multitudes, but always to multitudes as composed of individuals. 
 If you wish to get typical instances of His method, where do you 
 go? Not to His discourses to great concourses of people, l)ut to 
 His quiet talk with the woman at the well, or with one or two dis- 
 ciples, here and there. It was through His touch upon the indi- 
 vidual heart that He gained His hold upon the mind and heart 
 of His multitude of followers. How natural it was in the early 
 stages of the Christian Church for it to gain its hold upon men's 
 minds through the whispering of slave to slave, or slave to master, 
 or friend to friend, through the i)rouehing of evangelists and dis- 
 ciples; but it was no less natural, as numbers gathered, that the 
 appeal should be to numbers and that it should be forgotten that 
 it was the individual that was responsible, that it was through the 
 individual that the church was to extend. How natural it was to 
 reach out for numbers, for organization, for authority; and to yield 
 to the temptation, as the Church did, to barter its birthright for the 
 kingdoms of the world! 
 
 Dr. Holmes pointed out to us that something like this has hap- 
 pened in the history of every great religious movement. He 
 omitted our own. but he need not have omitted it. Was not the 
 appeal of George Fox to the individual? When he came into a 
 neighborhood, did he not inquire what people there were tender? 
 Did he not seek them out and minister to them as one mind and one 
 heart to another mind and heart? All through his ministry was 
 it not the individual to whom he preached; and did not those who 
 followed him and who spread the Quaker faith through England 
 and over the continent and into America pursue his method? 
 When they grew in numbers and in power and in respectability, 
 did not they, too, appeal to power — not indeed to the power of the 
 State, but to the power of their own organization; and did not 
 they, too, fail when they bartered their birthright of a living, in- 
 dividual religion for a religion hemmed in and bound by a narrow, 
 a destructive, a disowning discipline? 
 
 Like early Christianity, the Quaker faith was propagated by 
 mastering the consciences of individual men. That, it seems to 
 me, the history of every great spiritual movement declares to be 
 the true method. Organization is good; it brings together forces 
 already in existence, arranges for their best applications, and pro- 
 vides for their greatest usefulness. So long as those forces live in 
 the unities of which the organization is composed, so long is the 
 organization vital, helpful, a force in the community. Just so 
 soon as the unities of which the organization is composed lose their 
 hold upon the vital force which first called it into being, just so 
 soon is the organization a dead shell, hindering life, ready to be 
 sloughed off and discarded. 
 
 If we will truly seize this idea of the individual responsibility, 
 of the individual relation to the Source of light and truth, then, 
 indeed, shall we be enabled to apply the Christian idea of force. 
 
80 
 
 This will enable us to live in the world; to work with our fellows, 
 though they see not with us; to do the work that is laid upon us 
 without hindering the good work that is laid upon our brethren. 
 It is right for us to come together in organization for definite work: 
 it is right for us to protest as societies for every worthy cause and 
 against every evil movement. But there is a deeper foundation for 
 the culture and promotion of righteousness in the world. It is the 
 appeal, which has never failed when made, to the individual mind, 
 and its duties to the Father of Light. We do right to join our- 
 selves together in every good work; but we do the essential thing 
 when we turn to the voice of God in the soul, as George Fox called 
 upon the great Protector to do. Much talk, he says, he had with 
 Cromwell — much discourse about religion and about other things; 
 and they came upon this subject of war. The Quaker apostle con- 
 demned him not, but called him to turn to the voice of God in 
 his own heart, which he told him if he would hear would call him 
 away from the occasions of wars and fightings and lead him into the 
 peaceable spirit of Jesus. 
 
 Joseph Elkixton: I think our friend Dr. Holmes has done us 
 a great service in sounding the keynote of all true civilization, of 
 all religion worthy the name of Christianity. It has been a ques- 
 tion with me how we may approach those who do not hold the 
 views that we do; and it has seemed to me he has given us a clue 
 to the possibility of making men think it possible for them to be 
 separated from perverted popular opinion, and, if need be, from 
 their religious instructors, to have their views created by a higher 
 Power than either of these. 
 
 I wish, also, to refer to Dr. Thomas's instance of the Doukho- 
 bors, who have given us perhaps the most striking illustration in 
 recent times of what peace principles will do in practice. They 
 were sent at one time into the heart of a country infested by the 
 wildest-hearted men. sent there purposely to be annihilated by 
 them. But they maintained their peace principles even to throw- 
 ing away their arms, and they came out of that situation with very 
 few deaths from the use of arms against them. It seems to me 
 to be a most striking lesson. So does their recent deliverance from 
 Russia. There arc many other sects in that country pleading for 
 freedom of thought, but the Doukhobors alone seem to have won. 
 They have come to America by virtue, no doubt, of the sympathy 
 and help of Friends in England and here, but also, there is not 
 the least doubt, because they maintained their peace principles 
 inviolate under circumstances the most trying in modern civiliza- 
 tion. 
 
 The Chairman: As no one else seems to wish to speak, the 
 Conference is now adjourned till ten o'clock to-morrow morning. 
 
Jfourtb Sceeion. 
 
 FiFTII-UAY JMORXIXG, TWELFTII MONTII 13X11. 
 
 The Conference rc-assenil)led in Witherspoon Hall Fifth-day 
 morning at 10 o'clock. M. Carey Thomas, president of Bryn Mawr 
 College, occupied the Cliair. 
 
 A few minutes at the opening of the session were given to devo- 
 tion, during which prayer was offered hy Mary Jane Weaver and 
 Allen Flitcraft. 
 
 SI. CAKiiY Thomas: In the hrief remarks I shall make from 
 the chair, before calling on the speakers who have prepared formal 
 papers, I thought it might he of interest to call your attention to 
 the forces outside of the churches that are making for peace. 
 
 It is easy for us to let the warlike emotions of the past three 
 years, which have swept over the United States in connection with 
 our own war with Spain and England's war with the Boers, cause us 
 to underestimate the force of the public sentiment in favor of peace 
 and arbitration that has grown up during the preceding thirty years 
 of almost unbroken European peace. 
 
 In looking back over the Nineteenth Century and reflecting on 
 the great revolutions of thought and social feeling that will reach 
 their culmination only in the Twentieth Century, we can discern, 
 I think, two great movements making strongly for peace— the 
 higher education of women, the immensity of whose results we can- 
 not as yet fully foresee, and the socialistic organization of working- 
 men. 
 
 The Nineteenth Century has witnessed the abolishment of slav- 
 ery in civilized Europe and lier colonies, the reform of prisons and 
 treatment of criminals, the humane care of the insane, the founding 
 of reformatories of all kinds, and hospitals, systematic and wisely 
 directed work among the poor in slums and tenements, the regula- 
 tion of the employer in the interests of the employed, the vast 
 spread of international commerce, with its trade unions. These 
 mighty social and humanitarian movements, taking place simul- 
 taneously in all civilized countries, have created a consciousness of 
 the human kinship which unites all the inhabitants of these dif- 
 ferent countries. The International Peace Conference at The 
 Hague, in 1899, is one proof of this consciousness. The Pan- 
 American Congress now meeting in Mexico has set before itself as 
 its chief object the adoption by the South American delegates of 
 the principle of arbitration. Yet a little more than two hundred 
 years ago, in 1693, when William Penn drew up his scheme for a 
 
83 
 
 European Council of Arbitration, it was regarded as a Quaker 
 dream. 
 
 The general progress of popular sentiment will be greatly 
 assisted and hastened, however, by two distinct and specific move- 
 ments. The emergence of women as a sex into the life of affairs in 
 the Twentieth Century, and the swiftly approaching political pre- 
 ponderance through universal suffrage and organization of the 
 working man, and ultimately of the working woman, will be most 
 important factors in bringing about peace in the Twentieth Cen- 
 tury. No one who has known women that lived through the trag- 
 edies and agonies of our Civil War, or indeed of any war, can doubt 
 that the suffering of war falls more heavily on women than on 
 men, and that in consequence their influence as a sex will be ex- 
 erted for peace, just as no one who follows the discussions of the 
 workingmen's parties and the influence already exerted by social- 
 ists can fail to see that the time is approaching when the men who 
 work with their hands in one country will refuse to fight the men 
 who work with their hands in another country for any of the trivial 
 causes for which nations have often declared war in the past. 
 
 Of all the great moral and religious principles and doctrines ad- 
 vocated by the Quaker Church, peace seems to be the only one that 
 has not yet found universal acceptance. The other spiritual truths 
 taught by George Fox and his followers, in 1650, are now accepted 
 by all Christian Churches with more or less fulness. The spiritual 
 interpretation of the Bible instead of the literal, the use of the Sab- 
 bath for man and not man for the Sabbath, the subordination of the 
 symbol to the spiritual belief symbolized, the comparative unim- 
 portance of creeds and dogmas, the abhorrence of slavery, con- 
 viction of temperance, recognition of women's responsibility and 
 share in the work of the church, are now taught by all Christians. 
 
 This is not, however, equivalent to saying that these changes in 
 the thought and practices of the Christian Church have come 
 about in consequence of Quaker teaching. Quakers in the past have 
 separated themselves too much from other Christians by useless pe- 
 culiarities of dress and language which ceased to have any real sig- 
 nificance over one hundred and fifty years ago; and these superficial 
 and unnecessary differences have made them a peculiar people and 
 isolated them from other Christians. 
 
 But whatever mistakes may have been made in the past, the 
 Quaker Church is now ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with the 
 other churches in the support and dissemination of peace. It is al- 
 most impossible for any Friend of the older generation to believe 
 in war; his ancestors have suffered too much for their peace prin- 
 ciples in the past. But this is not true of the younger generation 
 of Friends; they, and indeed all of the young people of to-day, seem 
 to me warlike in spirit. For the past three years they have listened 
 to and read in the papers stirring military speeches delivered in 
 praise of war by our leading public men. We have a gallant warrior 
 
83 
 
 President in the White House, and we must renieml)er that our late 
 Spanish War lias heen the first great patriotic emotion of their 
 youth. I am usually able to carry the students of Bryn Mawr Col- 
 lege with me when I speak to them on public questions, but I am 
 not able to command their sympathy when I speak in favor of 
 peace. Those of us who believe in peace and arbitration must re- 
 member that it is necessary for us to supply the antidote of an un- 
 compromising and insistent expression of contrary opinion, unless 
 we wish the younger generation to grow up far more warlike in 
 spirit than our own. 
 
 Peace and temperance are, I believe, the next great moral vic- 
 tories to be won, and they will surely be won in the present cen- 
 tury; but it is not enough to recognize this intellectually. The out- 
 come of this Conference should be an aggressive peace propaganda, 
 not carried on separately by the Quaker Church, but in concerted 
 effort with all believers in peace and arbitration. Friends, with 
 their profound belief in peace, bred in their inmost fiber, as it were, 
 by their continuous and consistent church inheritance, stretching 
 back for over two hundred and fifty years, should become the back- 
 bone of such a propaganda. 
 
 Bacon says somewhere that " men must not turn bees and leave 
 their lives in the wound," and I am confident that the time is close 
 at hand when it will be generally recognized that the nation that 
 goes to war except in the last extremity, and perhaps even then, like 
 a colony of bees, loses in the war, whether it be victorious or not, 
 many things which constitute the true life of its people, and among 
 them sympathy, justice, tenderness for others and righteousness. 
 
 The Chairman: I will now call on the first speaker on the 
 morning's program, Peter \V. Eaidabaugh, of Plainfield, Indiana. 
 
 THE IMPOETANCE OF TEACHING PEACE PRINCIPLES 
 IN THE BIBLE SCHOOLS. 
 
 BY P. TV. RAIDABAUGH, PLAINFIELD, INDIANA. 
 
 The Bible School could have no more dangerous enemy than 
 one who would separate it from the established work of the Church 
 — the organized body. The Bible School is considered and spoken of 
 as belonging to some particular branch of the Church, just as a boy 
 or girl is thought of as having a father and mother and belonging 
 to some particular family. The Bible School is a child of the 
 Church, and should be considered as the Church assembled for Bible 
 study; its highest usefulness is reached when the youth are taught 
 the principles of the Gospel of Christ in such a way as to lead them 
 to accept Christ as a personal Saviour and to dedicate their lives 
 to his service. 
 
 The majority of those enrolled in our Bible Schools have not 
 reached maturity and need the help of mature minds in their study 
 
84 
 
 of the Scriptures. They are largely passive beings, mere receivers 
 of influence, and are in the period of preparation for the active re- 
 sponsibilities of life. They are like buds that must be unfolded be- 
 fore the beauty of the flower can be seen, or like gems hidden in a 
 casket which must be uncovered before they can reflect the rays of 
 light. Their pupilage will soon end, and they will enter upon the 
 activities of lifC;, and give to the next generation the influence the 
 Bible School has thrown around them in this period of develop- 
 ment. During this time the child must be assisted by wise and 
 pious leadership that a correct foundation for the future building 
 be laid. As you teach a child so you impress him. His mind is a 
 rich garden spot, ready to receive and respond to the seed sown. 
 
 The whole creed of a child may be summed up in a single sen- 
 tence, " I believe in (lod, my parents and my teacher." He cannot 
 get beyond this and untangle the theories of learned theologians; but 
 he does believe what is taught him by parent or teacher, because 
 he believes in them. The truths taught in the Bible School class 
 are to him the whole of the Gospel. The whole compass of truth is 
 in what his teacher says. A Jesuit priest said, " Grive me a child 
 iintil he is eight years of age, and you may have him after that." 
 By this he meant to say that during the first eight years of the 
 child's life he would so impress upon his mind the tenets of the 
 Eoman Catholic Church that he would forever remain true to the 
 teachings of that church. It is a well-known fact that a child sel- 
 dom wanders from the path in which he starts — in childhood he 
 starts for a goal and usually reaches it. 
 
 One who would use an intricate machine needs to understand 
 what it is designed for and how to use it. The mind of the child 
 is such a machine. It cannot be expected to work accurately except 
 for the purpose and in the manner its Maker has designed. T!\e 
 work of the Bible School teacher has so much to do with the child's 
 mind that it is necessary that he should have some understanding 
 of its nature and its modes of operation. He must not only study 
 the Scriptures so as to teach them correctly, but he must study the 
 child so as to impress the truth taught. He should know that the 
 action of all the faculties, except the will, is mechanical and acts on 
 the suggestions of another, and that there can be no choice or free- 
 dom only as it exists in the will. The order in which the child- 
 mind operates is, first, to perceive — grasp the truth; second, to 
 judge; third, to feel; and fourth, to choose. The faculties thus 
 brought into exercise are Perception, Judgment, the Sensibilities 
 and the Will. 
 
 Success or failure in teaching and impressing truth so as to 
 reach the will depends on whether we do or do not follow this or- 
 der. All the ideas or truths which are presented to the child-mind 
 are taken up and passed through the process of thinking, and from 
 the thought, or truth, presented it turns out the actions of life, 
 much like a machine taking in the raw material and turnino- out 
 
8o 
 
 the finished product. The inind grows only l)y receiving. Some 
 minds receive slower than others; some think slower than others; 
 some cannot be hurried beyond their own speed without great dan- 
 ger; some minds demand greater care as to statement of truths 
 than others; some demand greater care as to explanation and illus- 
 tration than others; and some depend more on repetition than 
 others, hut all reach the same end. 
 
 Some one has said: *' Sow a thought and reap an act; sow an 
 act and reap a habit; soav a habit and reap a character; sow charac- 
 ter and reap destiny." The child begins the development of a 
 good or bad character in thoughts, and these are followed by acts 
 which develop into habits that become fixed and unchanging. Mo- 
 hammed says a mountain may change its base, but not a man his 
 disposition. No one can be better than his best thoughts. High 
 ideals are incentives to high living. The most of us can think a 
 great deal higher than we live. Hence the importance of correct 
 teaching on all lines of Gospel truth in our Bible Schools. I have 
 to do with but one truth in this paper — peace principles. 
 
 False standards are raised; brute force is often held up as heroic. 
 '" The man behind the gun " is lauded, and he who can practice the 
 greatest deceit or slay the most is considered patriotic and worthy 
 of homage from his fellows. The newspapers are full of commenda- 
 tion for acts of heroism on the battlefield. The pulpit joins in tlie 
 praise of war and calls for a manifestation of patriotism on fields 
 of blood. The air is full of this thought. There is a glamour 
 thrown around the soldier's life. The young man in uniform and 
 brass buttons is the envy of other young men, and admired by the 
 ladies. He walks the street with a sense of superiority. If he is 
 killed in battle, no matter how sinful his life has been, he is looked 
 upon as a crowned hero. This thought has descended to us from 
 barbarous tribes whose greatest warriors gained the highest heaven. 
 The trend of thought is along this false standard of heroism and 
 patriotism. The literature for our children is filled W'ith it. Books 
 in our Bible School libraries have for their heroes a blood-stained 
 villain. The comments in lesson helps associate heroism and pa- 
 triotism with deeds of warfare. Our children are taught, in the 
 period of early and lasting impressions, that heroism and patriotism 
 are only found in deeds of valor on battlefields, and that it is honor- 
 able to slay an enemy of one's country. 
 
 The remedy for this evil is to teach the child the true spirit of 
 Christianity as seen in the teachings of Clirist and throughout the 
 New Testament. We must teach that impurity of thought is back 
 of impure language, that falsehood in the heart is back of the un- 
 true word, that character is the hidden life known to our conscience 
 and open before God; that reputation is not the real life of the man. 
 that reputation is what men say we are, character what we are; that 
 reputation is in the hands of our fellow men, character in our own 
 hands. Teach the child that a true hero is one not ashamed of hon- 
 
86 
 
 est toil; that labor, whether of hand or brain, is heaven's ordinance 
 for human improvement; that the hand of the son of toil is made 
 hard in a service a thousand times more honorable than war; that 
 heroism is found bending in the fields under heavy burdens; sweat- 
 ing in the workshops of the land; that heroines are found in the fac- 
 tories, clothed in calico, blanching brow and cheek to preserve the 
 whiteness of the soul; that a true heroic character is that which does 
 right. 
 
 There can be but one logical course for all writers for the young 
 and all teachers in our Bible Schools to take, and that is to present 
 the true spirit of the Gospel of Christ, and impress on the young 
 mind the brotherhood of man, that right thinking may beget right 
 acts and lead to right habits, working in them a pure character. 
 Impress the sacredness of human life, that murder is murder, 
 whether in times of peace or war. Teach the spirit of the Master 
 in dealing with enemies; that love is to be the controlling spirit of 
 the Christian's life; that the new birth means the implanting of a 
 new force in the life, a power contrary to the flesh. Instead of pre- 
 senting a picture of Napoleon or Wellington or Grant leading 
 armies on to victory, make Florence Nightingale, Clara Barton, 
 Grace Darling, John Howard or Livingstone the central thought 
 for illustration, or give a picture of that great and godly man as he 
 sailed up the Delaware Bay, and for the first time stepped on the 
 American soil with his heart beating immortal with its pulsations 
 of love for man and God. Tell how he planted the seed of a mighty 
 nation on the shores of the Delaware, and never wronged the In- 
 dian. So that to this day the story of William Penn is told in le- 
 gend to the Indian children of the West, and all who belong to the 
 " Broad Brims " are hailed as friends of the despised children of 
 the plains. 
 
 By so doing the army of bright boys and girls in our Bible 
 Schools will have the advantage of a right start in life, and the 
 principle of peace and good will toward men will be so impressed on 
 the coming generation that there will be a great forward movement 
 resulting in all differences between nations, between capital and 
 labor, between man and man, being settled on the broad principle of 
 human brotherhood. 
 
 The Chairman: The next speaker on the program is Presi- 
 dent Edmund Stanley, of Friends' University, Kansas, who will 
 speak on "" The Principal Influences Making for Peace, and How 
 They May be Strengthened." 
 
87 
 
 PRINCIPAL INFLUENCES MAKING FOR PEACE AND 
 HOW THEY MAY BE STRENGTHENED. 
 
 BY PRESIDENT EDMUND STANLEY, WICHITA, KAN. 
 
 To study the slow progress of great reforms as interested ob- 
 servers, impressed with the need of radical changes in the affairs of 
 men, conscious of the wrongs endured by society, and convinced 
 that relief can be had simply by the accepting, calls for a degree of 
 patience not easily exercised. 
 
 Surprising beyond measure is it that nations and peoples con- 
 tinue to refuse the greatest boon that in the providences of na- 
 tional experience and human life is attainable. 
 
 It took the devastation of all the nations of the earth who laid 
 claim to any achievements in skill, learning and literature, to make 
 an Alexander; the sacrifice of two million of the best of Europe's 
 people to make a Caesar; an upheaval of governments that left all 
 Europe a seething mass of political ruin to make a Napoleon. 
 These wars made heroes, but evolved them through the sacrifice of 
 nations and of national honor. 
 
 Yet in the face of history, with all its lurid facts touching the 
 horrors, waste and injustice of war, sane men, men of critical judg- 
 ment. Christian men, persist in the advocacy of rapine and murder 
 as the only feasible means of settling differences among nations. 
 
 The trend of human events — socially, economically, morally, re- 
 ligiously — is in the direction of a purer philosophy, of more intel- 
 ligent and humane economic laws, of higher and better methods of 
 preserving and cultivating moral precepts, of a Christian civiliza- 
 tion world-wide in its scope, embracing all human interests, and 
 imbued with the real, living spirit of the Master. 
 
 Apparently the economic phase of this reformation is to-day 
 giving to the world the most conspicuous evidences of real progress. 
 We could not admit, however, that the results coming in this way 
 are the greatest, important as they may seem, since much of the 
 work being done along these lines is based upon an uncertain foun- 
 dation and has nothing for defence save the advantages that come 
 through business relations and commercial transactions. It is but 
 an armistice for gain. 
 
 As the wants of man increase — and they do with every upward 
 step in civilization — a wider and continually growing field of pro- 
 duction becomes a necessity. Once, in the home, in the family, 
 nearly the entire supply of materials needful for the comforts of 
 life was produced. A house could be builded with less than a half 
 dozen tools, and little variety of materials. 
 
 Intellectual growth and refined tastes demand a change in man- 
 ner of living, and buildings, furniture, provisions, clothing, trans- 
 portation — in fact, everything wdth which we have to do — must 
 submit to transformation. 
 
 Such have been the changes in the progress of civilization that 
 
88 
 
 to-day the commonly accepted necessities of life can scarcely be 
 supplied by a score of peoples under as many different climatic con- 
 ditions. The production and exchange of that which our higher 
 civilization terms necessities is cultivating and fostering a spirit of 
 dependence, a common commercial interest, a friendly spirit. A 
 touch of material interests as well as a touch of pathos may make 
 the world kin, and unquestionably it is doing so to-day. 
 
 The wants of man have been the cause of the development of 
 great commercial interests; and the warp of these stupendous enter- 
 prises is interwoven with the woof of the surplus of every people 
 under the sun. 
 
 To make the case stronger still in the interest of universal peace, 
 the operation of this intricate machinery is dependent upon a uni- 
 versal system of credit. A structure in which the wealth of na- 
 tions is involved must be operated upon economic principles; and 
 disturbances that hinder progress, that interfere ^vith exchange, 
 that reverse fortunes, that threaten national existence itself, can- 
 not hope for encouragement from this commercial scheme now be- 
 ing unified and brought to system with astonishing rapidity. 
 
 It needs no prophetic vision to reveal the fact that in the near 
 future the financial and commercial interests of the world will be 
 arrayed on the side of imiversal peace. No one questions the fact 
 that the Turkish Empire has escaped the perils of more than one 
 war because of the financial interests that would have been jeop- 
 ardized by military conflict. Nations as well as men are debtors 
 and creditors, and as such must operate upon business principles; 
 and the uncertain turns of military campaigns can hardly recom- 
 mend an appeal to arms as a businesslike method of dealing with 
 controverted questions of national import. 
 
 Again, the limitations to conquest now thrown about civilizsd 
 warfare will tend to discourage war as a means for settlement of 
 differences. In former times the additions of territory, the increase 
 of revenue from subjugated peoples and the spoils of war, including 
 not only stolen treasure and confiscated property, but the lives and 
 services of the subdued people — these made war a profitable em- 
 ployment, a means for the accumulation of wealth. 
 
 But economic interests, humane principles, and the higher light 
 that has touched the human conscience have placed a hedge about 
 modern warfare, and the restrictive measures that have been and 
 are being thrown about it have deprived nations of the opportuni- 
 ties once enjoyed of making the vanquished people a prey to the 
 greed of the conqueror. 
 
 AVhile much financial gain may still come to a country through 
 conquest, it is a fact that there is much uncertainty connected with 
 an enterprise dependent wholly on military success, and the im- 
 mediate support of the undertaking must come from the people, 
 the business interests, the resources of the country that chooses 
 to engage in war. 
 
89 
 
 In the face of modern civilization a nation must have some 
 powel-ful excuse for engaging in war, stronger at least than those 
 which are given hy historians for many of the great struggles of the 
 past centuries. True it is that excuses given to-day are of little 
 real force: but, if compared with those of earlier periods, we must 
 admit that there are evidences of real progress. 
 
 A war in the interest of humanity is a step in advance. We 
 would condemn it as wrong, unnecessary and unwise; and yet there 
 is hack of it evidence of a development of principle that will assert 
 itself against all wars that the masses would call unjust, and against 
 many of the wrongs which accompany military operations. 
 
 The world will demand justice and equity in the administration 
 of warfare before it will accept the higher and broader truth, a 
 peaceable adjustment of differences in accord with wisdom and 
 equity. Nations may continue to wage war for just (?) causes; 
 but more and more will they come to see the lack of wisdom in the 
 choice of method for settlement of differences. In fact, I am con- 
 strained to say that no nation to-day, that has a just claim against 
 another nation, need hesitate a moment to refer that claim to the 
 honored tribunal that the best governments of the world have pro- 
 vided for the adjustment of international questions of dispute; and, 
 further, that when a strong nation makes war on a weaker one, 
 in the face of the opportunities now provided for relief, for ob- 
 taining justice, it is an admission of an unjust demand on the part 
 of the stronger. The weaker nations make war upon the stronger 
 only when forced to do so. 
 
 Our own nation could have obtained more than justice and 
 equity would have given her in the trouble with Mexico, and she 
 could have had it for the asking. War became necessary because 
 we asked too largely. Our demands were exorbitant. Mexico 
 would have given us more than was ours by right rather than risk 
 her fortunes in war. If England's claim is just and the demands 
 of the Boers unjust, could not England with safety entrust the case 
 with the International Court? 
 
 Our own sad experience in the Orient is but another example 
 of a great power making demands of a weaker people and yet fail- 
 ing to submit its policy to a court of arbitration to determine the 
 justice of the demand. There was a question in the minds of the 
 American people, and, no doubt, in the minds of the people of 
 other nations, as to our real status in the matter of the Philippine 
 Archipelago. Had we waited and inquired; had an international 
 tribunal passed upon the question, it is probable that the native 
 tribes would have accepted the consensus of opinion given by dis- 
 interested nations, and there would have been little or no war 
 necessary to establish the authority of our government over the 
 islands, if the ruling of the court had been in our favor. 
 
 We have a right to hope that there is a growth in national con- 
 science; that our civilization is producing men who are honest not 
 
90 
 
 only in individual affairs, but in national affairs as well. In every 
 school, in every home, in every church, the great principles of jus- 
 tice, honesty and truth should be inculcated, and the instruction 
 should be broad enough and comprehensive enough to reach be- 
 yond the limits of any country or any government. 
 
 The development under such teaching (and we have much of it) 
 is already a powerful barrier in the way of war policies. One will 
 say, if we fight for a just cause, " God is on the side of right, and 
 right will prevail." Right may prevail, but not because of the 
 wrong-doer. Victory does not come as a special favor to those who 
 make war to establish right. I am persuaded that the soldier on 
 the battlefield is the least to be censured for the wrongs of human 
 warfare. It is his " but to do and die "; but the greater wrong lies 
 with those responsible for his deeds, his suffering, his death. He 
 obeys the mandates of government, the law under which he lives, 
 and fills as best he knows, possibly, the place to which his environ- 
 ments have assigned him. Not so with the teacher, the clergyman, 
 the politician, the legislator, the author in the public press. These 
 are moulders of public conscience that is given expression in law 
 and put into action by the representatives of government. 
 
 To make these factors in government right in heart, in life, in 
 service, is reaching the root of the evil. If it is true that " The 
 headship of the English-speaking people passed with the opening 
 of the Twentieth Century from England to America," then it be- 
 hooves us to assume the new responsibility not only with the dig- 
 nity that becomes a great nation, but thoughtfully and prayerfully; 
 for there comes a charge to our hands that demands considera- 
 tion and bears large responsibility. The English-speaking people 
 must have a part in the progress of the new century. The ques- 
 tions that are interesting this convention are facing the world, 
 and their solution will determine in a large measure the growth and 
 character of human society. If Epicurean philosophy could work 
 moral ruin in Greek and Roman society, what may we expect from 
 equipage and conflict of arms with the intelligence and inventive 
 genius of this portentous era! May we not reasonably anticipate 
 all the moral degradation of the past with multiplied exhibitions 
 of destruction, devastation and death that follow in the wake of the 
 military campaign? 
 
 We are led to believe that the outlook is more hopeful. The 
 signs of the times certainly indicate an awakening of the public 
 conscience, a growth in sentiment against war as a factor in hu- 
 man government. 
 
 Again, immediate contact with the realities of military life takes 
 from it many of its attractions and much of its glory. The sol- 
 diers of the civil war'^were not the most active in advising the 
 nation to enter into a military contest with Spain when our diplo- 
 matic relations became strained. They had seen and experienced 
 the realities of war. There are multitudes of people Avho would 
 
91 
 
 cease to advocate an appeal to arms if they could but witness the 
 horrors of the battlefield for a day, could understand the depths 
 of its moral degradation. The illustrated story of the battle, the 
 telegraphic report, the daily and almost hourly paper that tells of 
 the sutl'ering, not of the past, but of to-day — these things are 
 bringing the realities of war in touch with the daily life of those 
 at home, in business circles, in legislative halls, and a whole people 
 can feel the real burden as though a part of the actors in the 
 conflict. 
 
 Society will not long endure this suffering, this sadness; and 
 men's consciences will cry out against the wholesale slaughter of 
 noble men, and demand that more humane methods be devised for 
 determining and settling national disputes. 
 
 Much as we may desire it, we can no longer keep away from 
 the sad view of carnage. Our ears can no longer be closed to the 
 cry of distress, the w-ail of sorrow. It is at your door and mine. 
 We read to-day the story of suffering in South Africa, and know 
 it is a living picture, the incident of the hour. We are not listen- 
 ing to recitals of incidents and experiences of last w^eek or of last 
 year; but the story, the picture, is a thing of the present. 
 
 A people intelligent, cultured, educated. God-fearing, cannot 
 and will not remain long under such pressure and in living touch 
 with such scenes of distress and suffering, such evidence of moral 
 corruption, and not cry out for relief from this universal curse. 
 
 The Christian head may, it is possible, accept a belief that war 
 is a necessity among nations, and therefore must be defended; but 
 the Christian heart, with its love, its sympathy, its compassion, its 
 self-sacrifice and devotion, cannot long stand and face the fortunes 
 of war without experiencing a conviction that it is wholly wrong 
 and its very existence inexcusable. Modern inventions are l)ringing 
 us face to face with what has hitherto been the far-off side of 
 human warfare. Heretofore we have seen the pageantry of mili- 
 tary parade, and thought to applaud. The curtain has lifted, and 
 with the echo of the applause comes the sad sigh of distress, the 
 moan of anguish and of death; and we instinctively shrink from the 
 pageantry so grand, for we know it is but a covering to hide a 
 monster of hideous mien. 
 
 These ideas, by some, may be called unpatriotic. Rather, inter- 
 national arbitration, universal peace, the abandonment of war as a 
 policy in government, are in the interest of a higher patriotism. 
 Love of country implies love of its people, its institutions, its laws. 
 It is this love for humanity that prompts the advocacy of meas- 
 ures that promote the general good, that relieve society of its griev- 
 ous burdens, that lessen suffering and sorrow, that ennoble char- 
 acter. 
 
 A government has nothing to fear from a citizenship that would 
 refer all questions of dispute to a court of justice and equity, and 
 
that abides by decisions of arbitrators in personal or national ques- 
 tions of controversy. 
 
 But what of the Church? Where has she been, and what her 
 position in the great struggle for relief from this greatest curse to 
 mankind through all the records of history? The pulpit has re- 
 sounded with the eloquence of learned and renowned teachers in 
 spiritual things, who have tried to justify and sanctify human wax- 
 fare. They have called the thing righteous, when they must know 
 that it has been the means of destroying the fruits of years of mis- 
 sionary labor. It has blocked the way to missionary success, and 
 has caused the uprisings and revolts which have resulted in the 
 massacre of multitudes of faithful missionaries and untold thou- 
 sands of the people that have accepted the gospel through their 
 teaching and labors. 
 
 One could scarcely believe the story of the Church. The pic- 
 ture is too dark to dwell upon, and we stand mute and condemned. 
 There is no excuse to offer. May we not hope that those who pro- 
 fess the name of Christ are learning more and more of the real 
 spirit of the Master, and that the professing Christian world is com- 
 ing into a better understanding of his precepts and his life. 
 
 I am constrained to believe that there is a verj' marked growth 
 of sentiment in the churches; that the followers of the Christ are 
 learning this lesson as never before; and that we may confidently ex- 
 pect a much more general acceptance of this great gospel precept, 
 as found in the Golden Rule, than has been known in the ages past. 
 
 ( )n this, as well as on every other great social and moral ques- 
 tion, there must be a side consistent with the Christian profes- 
 sion. Trickery and intrigue, deception and falsehood, secret con- 
 niving and open dishonesty, inhimian cruelty and wholesale slaugh- 
 ter — these are acknowledged requisites for successful campaigning. 
 Christ condemns them all; and in place of these he establishes for 
 his followers the precepts embodied in the Golden Rule. The 
 world accepts the one side and conforms to its teachings. There is 
 no ])lace for the Church unless it be on the other side. 
 
 The Christian is not different from the world so long as he 
 follows in the footsteps of the world; and the kingdom of our 
 Christ can never grow strong by and through the services of men 
 who profess loyalty to him, but in life continue to conform to the 
 precepts of the world. 
 
 From every pulpit should this truth be declared, for truth it 
 is: " There can be no war among the Christian nations of the 
 world to-day if the Church as a imited force will stand opposed to 
 it." Many of the wars of history could have been averted if the 
 Church had fully comprehended the teaching of the Master on this 
 important question; and at no time has the Church been more pow- 
 erful than it is to-day in shaping the course of government and in 
 r.oulding public opinion. 
 
 After all, the Church is, must be, the most effective force in 
 
5)o 
 
 this i-eformation. And on every hand we see evidences of a change 
 of sentiment, a giowtli of opinion in favor of humane and reason- 
 able methods of dealing with questions herotofovo submitted to the 
 arbitrament of war. The work of various Christian organizations 
 of modern times has tended to unify the Church, and with this uni- 
 fication of interest comes the conviction that only through a deeper 
 spirituality can we hope to enjoy the full benefit of the real power 
 of the Church, as a united body working for the establishment of 
 the kingdom of Christ. It is the spirit of the Christ that the 
 Church must understand, must teach, must exemplify in human life, 
 that her benign influences may be felt, her better precepts under- 
 stood, and her laws recognized and embodied in the governments 
 devised and operated for the welfare and happiness of humanity. 
 
 I am constrained to believe that the advocates of peace are 
 becoming more practical in their views and in their teaching. It 
 is not ours merely to stand steadfast for a principle and to suffer 
 for a testimony. It is ours to meet the great and perplexing ques- 
 tions of government and help to solve them. Convince the na- 
 tions of the world that there is a more Just and more economic way 
 of settling questions of dispute, a way more in harmony with the 
 age. more helpful to society, more humane, more reasonable, and 
 right will prevail, war will be relegated to the past; justice will rule 
 in the affairs of nations, and the social, financial, moral and spir- 
 itual progress of mankind that will follow will be without parallel 
 in the history of the world. 
 
 The Chairman: The last formal paper of this morning will 
 be on " Woman's Kesponsibility and Opportunities for Promoting 
 Peace Principles," by Mary Jane Weaver, of BataAda. New^ York. 
 
 WOMAN'S RESPONSIBILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
 PROMOTING PEACE PRINCIPLES. 
 
 BY MAEY JANE WEAVEE, BATAVIA, N. Y. 
 
 In a few days we shall have come up to tlie first Christmas of 
 this new century, to the day set apart to commemorate the birth 
 of him whose advent was heralded by a multitude of the heavenly 
 host, praising God and saying, " Glory to God in the highest, and on 
 earth peace, goodwill toward men." On that day a multitude of 
 the earthly host of his professed followers will take up this same an- 
 them, proclaiming it far and wide. If only a deeper comprehen- 
 sion of this wonderful proclamation and the responsibility resting 
 upon us for its fulfillment could come to all God's children this 
 Christmastide than they have ever known before, this gospel of 
 peace would have a voice every day in the year, and would soon be 
 published everywhere in all its fulness and blessedness. 
 
 Certainly the time has come when there should be concerted, 
 persistent effort on the part of peace-loving Christians to get the 
 
94 
 
 ear and reach the heart, particularly of the Church at large. Min- 
 isters of the gospel of the Prince of Peace are in the main silent 
 on this subject. With them an arrest of thought on this line is 
 absolutely necessary, and I hope that some means may be devised 
 at this Conference, having this end in view. Somehow this leaven 
 should be worked into the masses also. 
 
 Friends from the first have believed that war is entirely con- 
 trary to the teachings of Christ and the spirit of the gospel; hence 
 the promulgation of the principles of peace in an earnest, forceful 
 way is entirely consistent with our attitude. This is a message 
 God would have us bear to the world. How can we be true to Him, 
 or consistent with our profession except we are doing all we can 
 to bring this great truth to bear on the minds and consciences of 
 all we can reach? Being right ourselves is not sufficient. AYe must 
 agitate and educate. 
 
 While I rejoice in all peace societies the world over, I believe the 
 Eeligious Society of Friends ought to be the strongest, the most 
 pronounced and the most aggressive of them all. Our responsi- 
 bilities are measured by our opportunities, and in our Society 
 women have large opportunities and privileges, such as are not ac- 
 corded in any other branch of the Church. Within our wide field 
 of service the way is open for them as for men. Some one has 
 said: " When Christian womanhood is aroused she will make war 
 upon war with weapons that are mighty, for the great forge in 
 which her weapons will be cast is the forge of God Almighty him- 
 self." 
 
 It would seem that women who pay the first cost of human life, 
 who go down into the jaws of death to become the mothers of men, 
 would naturally protest against the destruction, in the awful carn- 
 age of war, of a treasure so precious; that mother-love would rebel 
 against a system which takes from her the son in whom she has 
 invested so much from infancy to manhood, and, if occasion re- 
 quires, places him where he must do his best to destroy the life 
 of others, or give up his own life in the attempt, and this in the 
 face of God's command, " Thou shalt not kill." 
 
 Those of us whose eyes are open to the great crime and wrong 
 of war must not fail in our duty to arouse Christian women, par- 
 ticularly, to a consciousness of this, or we shall be answerable for 
 the consequences of our neglect; we shall be brought into account 
 for sins of omission as well as sins of commission. Woman can 
 and consequently ought to engage in this work. In behalf of her 
 own sex she should do this. The degradation and utter ruin of 
 women in connection with army life is appalling, and certainly is 
 a motive sufficient to lead women who love home and purity, and 
 who regard the sanctity of the marriage relation, to a vigorous and 
 persistent protest against the system which makes such crime and 
 shame a possible thing among civilized people. 
 
 A recent incident is a case in point. It is related by Corporal 
 
95 
 
 Diffenderfer, of West Chester, l*a., who has recently returned with 
 a company of soldiers from the Philippines. He said: " There was 
 a somewhat remarkable scene when we left for home, on account of 
 the wives which many of the soldiers had taken to themselves while 
 on the island. The women over there are purchased for from 
 five dollars each upward, and nearly every soldier has one. When 
 we came away, of course it was impossi&le for the men to bring 
 them along. But when we arrived at the port from which we 
 sailed it was found that one of the governors of a province had sent 
 about one hundred of the wives to the port, and every one of 
 them wanted to come with us. There was no end of trouble, until 
 the matter was adjusted by the officers, who persuaded the women 
 to remain at home." 
 
 What a spectacle! What a reproach to a Christian nation which 
 has been praying God to bless it in its effort to subjugate the poor, 
 ignorant Filipinos by force of arms, that it might civilize and 
 Christianize them! And then the ruinous effect of such deeds upon 
 the soldiers themselves, and through them upon others, when they 
 come back to their loved ones so demoralized! This ought to 
 stir every woman to valiant deeds in opposition to war. May the 
 Lord waken us up to our responsibility! 
 
 Women's opportunities for work along this line are so many and 
 so varied that it would be hard to enumerate them all, but I will 
 mention some that impress me as very important. 
 
 First, the mother's duty in regard to teaching her children in 
 moral and spiritual things. Dr. Vincent says: " Home teaching is 
 above every other, and should have first place. It has the first op- 
 portunity with the child. Its priority gives it superiority. It has 
 the firm confidence of the child. It has the fervent love of the 
 child. It has unchallenged authority. It has unconscious in- 
 fluence. It has the opportunity to illustrate. It has the oppor- 
 tunity to reiterate." Xo danger of beginning too early. This 
 should be in the truest sense an infant school. And while we try 
 to bring the great truths of religion within the comprehension of 
 the children, we should also give them reasons why we believe cer- 
 tain things to be right or wrong, which others about us do not see 
 as we do. Particularly in these days of militarism, when the pomp 
 and circumstance of war seem to have such place with the people, 
 should we endeavor to impress the children with the teachings of 
 our Saviour in regard to peace. This is a very important thing, 
 that they may be fortified and prepared to meet the temptations 
 that will beset them as they enter school life, and come in touch 
 with influences outside the home. If children could be taught to 
 settle their difficulties by arbitration, they would be learning a 
 very important lesson, and one that would be a blessing to them 
 all their lives. 
 
 The large majority of Bible and secular school teachers are 
 women, and they have much to do with moulding character. If 
 
96 
 
 they were only advocates of peace, what an influence for good they 
 would exert in turning the current of the child's thought into the 
 right channel. If our children are to remain in fellowship with 
 us, and be loyal and faithful Friends, and be trvie to our principles 
 and testimonies, they must have clear, intelligent views of the 
 truth, and be able to give to the world a reason for the faith that 
 is in them. 
 
 The hope of the future is in the children of to-day. If mothers 
 and teachers were conscious of their blessed opportunities and great 
 responsibilities, and were doing their best to train up the children 
 in the way they should go, what mighty influence for good would be 
 set in motion through the men and women of the next generation. 
 
 Our children should be familiar with all that has been and is 
 being done for international arbitration. They should be impressed 
 with a loftier, nobler idea of heroism than war at its very best has 
 ever been able to inspire. They should be taught concerning the 
 cost of war, the awful destruction of human life, — a thing which 
 God alone can give and which he alone has the right to take, — and 
 how enormously prolific it is of vice and crime, cruelty, drunken- 
 ness and licentiousness. Military drill in schools, many of our chil- 
 dren's toys and story-books, and pictures in our homes and on 
 the walls of our schoolhouses, engender and foster a military spirit. 
 
 Physical culture is important. The body should be trained as 
 well as the intellect. Our children must have playthings and books 
 suited to their capacity. All this could be provided for without 
 objectionable features, if mothers and teacliers would bring their 
 influence to bear towards eliminating that which is harmful, and 
 putting into its place that which is harmless and which would tend 
 to educate along right lines. 
 
 "What a power for good or evil the mother holds within her 
 grasp! " I saw the Holy Spirit shining in my mother's face," said 
 a college professor, " and her piety and faithfulness drew us, a large 
 family, saie into the service of the Master, though our father was 
 not a Christian until we were all grown up." Love is the highest 
 and most potent of human qualities, and the mother has this 
 mighty agent at her service. A habit of referring everything to 
 the arbitration of our Heavenly Father is the very best form of gov- 
 ernment in a home; and in this way peacemakers are trained. 
 
 The mother should claim the same right to life, liberty and the 
 pursuit of happiness for her son that is accorded her daughter. 
 This cannot be while war exists. The peace-loving mother should 
 go with her children into their school life. Our text-books on his- 
 tory, the most of them, glorify war, teaching that in the strength 
 and efficiency of the army and navy of the nations in large measure 
 rest their glory and power. Men of war are set before them as he- 
 roes. Until these books can be changed — a thing concerning which 
 something has been already done — this teaching must be counter- 
 acted by that of the home. There the mother has her chance. 
 
97 
 
 If women who are teachers would use their influence to secure 
 the writing of ess<iys and papers on peace and arbitration by stu- 
 dents in our schools, — the public schools and those of higher grade. 
 — the reading of these and their discussion in lyceums and literary 
 societies particularly would result in the formation of peace senti- 
 ment, and lasting impressions would be made on the minds of those 
 who took the time to prepare the papers and those who listened 
 to them. 
 
 Our children and youth should know what generals and those 
 regarded as military heroes have said against war. A gathering up 
 and presentation of the utterances of those who know most about 
 it, who speak from actual experience, would be a forceful lesson in 
 education along the path of peace and international arbitration. 
 
 Women to-day ought to be in close touch with all reform move- 
 ments. The way is clear for this. Those of us who are doing what 
 we can ought to be adding to these tides of influence by inducing 
 others to join us in our efforts, — not simply to accept our theories, 
 but to work with us. 
 
 I'his is a day of organizations, particularly among women, for 
 moral, religious, social and literary purposes. The Women's Chris- 
 tian Temperance Union, which is, in my opinion, the most efficient 
 of them all, is the only one with which I am familiar which has a 
 department of Peace and Arbitration. This, under the leadership 
 of our friend, Hannah J. Bailey, in the National and World's 
 W. C. T. U., is a power for righteousness. But I do not know of 
 a literary circle among women where this has a place on the pro- 
 gram, except among Friends or where introduced by Friends. I 
 would suggest that in our home neighborhoods we take occasion 
 to get a hearing on this subject, particularly before societies organ- 
 ized for study and investigation. 
 
 Then we have our peace literature, which is religious and con- 
 vincing, and which ought to have a wide circulation. A large class 
 of intelligent, thoughtful readers would be reached through the 
 insertion into the papers and magazines of the day, both secular 
 and religious, of articles on peace and arbitration. The press, par- 
 ticularly the religious press, is a mighty lever, and ought to be used 
 in lifting people up into the clear atmosphere of God's truth, where 
 they can see light in his light concerning this matter. Here is a 
 wide field for the activities of women. 
 
 We must work outward along all lines if we would reach the 
 masses with this truth. Above and beyond every other power in 
 the hands of women in our Society should be our work in the minis- 
 try of the gospel. We have the privilege of proclaiming to the world, 
 under the baptism of the Spirit, and in the name of him who came 
 from the Father into this world " to guide our feet into the way of 
 peace," that " unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and 
 the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be 
 called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting 
 
98 
 
 Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government 
 and peace there shall be no end." While this refers, no doubt, to 
 the eifect of Christ's work upon the heart of the individual, bring- 
 ing the will of man into harmony with the will of God, it must 
 refer also to the matter of peace among men and nations. 
 
 Therefore, we should not only be loyal subjects of His spiritual 
 kingdom, but as his ambassadors we should bear to the world his 
 message of love and goodwill, and, clad in the armor of God, 
 skilled in the use of the sword of the Spirit, we should ceaselessly 
 wage our peaceful warfare against everything which interferes 
 with the spread of his kingdom and the establishment of righteous- 
 ness and peace on the earth. 
 
 The Chaikman: We have closed the papers two minutes un- 
 der schedule time, and so there will be time for the discussion of 
 them; the discussion will be opened by S. Edgar Nicholson, of Bal- 
 timore. 
 
 S. Edgae Nicholson: It is probable that among the Friends 
 gathered in this Conference there is only one opinion as regards the 
 undesirability, the inexpediency and the wrongfulness of war. Be- 
 lieving as we do, therefore, our obligations are two-fold in charac- 
 ter. First, we must of necessity spread the doctrines of peace intel- 
 ligently and forcefully among the largest possible number of Chris- 
 tian people, till they, with us, are possessed of a conscience that 
 says that war is both wrong and inexpedient. Second, we must put 
 forth constant effort to solve present-day problems in a practical 
 way, that will make the avoidance of war not only possible, but real. 
 
 Undoubtedly Friends have been widely and grossly misunder- 
 stood on the question, perhaps at times through unwise presenta- 
 tion of our beliefs, and untimely denunciations of existing condi- 
 tions, and sometimes because of a disinclination of others to recog- 
 nize the basis of our position. By some we have seemed to be op- 
 posed to the government, with no heart of sympathy for national 
 interests or for the national welfare, and yet measured from the 
 standpoint of genuine and intense interest in all that makes for 
 good government, good citizenship and the exemplification of the 
 highest types of Christian manhood, it is to be doubted if a more 
 patriotic people exists in our land. 
 
 To my mind, the problem of peace is the problem of co-opera- 
 tion with government in the effort to solve governmental problems. 
 The peace idea projected on any other basis must fail. It is not 
 sufficient to denounce war and say it is wrong. That may satisfy 
 individual conscience, but it affords little consolation to the officials 
 of government, perplexed by grave national or international dis- 
 turbances, to be simply told that war is wrong in the abstract, with 
 no spirit of co-operation manifested, and only words of censure 
 given. I would not be understood as criticising the advocates of 
 
99 
 
 peace, but only am constrained to emphasize that which seems to 
 me of supreme importance — the fact that the problem of peace is 
 the problem of co-operation with government in the solution of its 
 difficult problems. 
 
 When the difficulties with Spain were beginning to culminate, 
 and the storm cloud was gathering, and men, moved seemingly })y 
 humanitarian love for Cuba, were clamoring for inhumanitarian 
 treatment of Spain, had the advocates of peace been strongly 
 enough allied to have given potent assistance to the President in 
 holding in check the war spirit until peaceable measures could have 
 worked the deliverance of Cuba, as the President evidently believed 
 could be done, that struggle would probably have been avoided. 
 
 When Spanish rule had been overthrown in the Philippines, 
 later events that have brought deplorable bloodshed could 
 probably have been avoided, if peace advocates could have led the 
 administration to immediate and friendly treaty with the natives. 
 If it be said that the spirit of greed made that impossible, it is 
 only to say that peace, as opposed to war, has not yet become prac- 
 tical and potent. For, if peace principles cannot be assimilated in 
 our mechanism of government to the subduing of other influences 
 which are selfish and designing, we are hardly in position to com- 
 plain of the results. 
 
 But back of all this is a subject that is more vital yet to the 
 question of the abolition of war. When the advocates of peace can 
 be so thoroughly united and organized that they can take proper 
 hold of governmental problems, when the issues are forming that 
 ordinarily culminate in war, and are able to give such direction 
 that peaceable solutions are assured, then will war be at an end, 
 among civilized peoples at least. Whatever other results may 
 grow out of this Conference, I believe that lasting good would be 
 accomplished by laying the groundwork of a system for the proper 
 study of all questions that may lead to national or international 
 differences. Xot only that, but the day of our fondest hopes 
 would be hastened were we able to project the peace movement 
 on such a basis that at all times there would be the closest and 
 most cordial relationship existing between peace advocates and the 
 administration. 
 
 I am the more impelled to this belief by the conviction that 
 governments are not likely to abandon war because of the simple 
 declaration that war is wrong. Deplorable as it is, and however 
 it may indicate a condition of moral degeneracy, I doubt if the 
 world reaches a condition of absolute peace without the manifested 
 agencies of causes that are secular, absolutely selfish it may be, 
 and wholly outside of purely religious considerations. The belief 
 that peace is the rule of Christ, established for human conduct, 
 must ever be the incentive for the right initiation of peace move- 
 ments, and in fact must ever stimulate aggressive efforts in the pro- 
 motion of peace, but the fact remains that we must be able to touch 
 
100 
 
 » 
 
 other forces, that of themselves will greatly aid, and perhaps be 
 the final determining influence's, in the solution of our national and 
 international differences. 
 
 The pioneers of the agitation on the question of human slavery 
 were impelled by the overwhelming idea that human slavery is 
 wrong, and were possessed of a conscience on the subject that 
 voiced itself in a thousand ways, but it was only when the more 
 secular and selfish ideas of political expediency were injected 
 into the question that the doom of slavery was sealed. True, had 
 the Quaker idea on the subject been early adopted as the rule of 
 practice, and had we been in position to impress the importance of 
 human freedom upon the thought of the nation, the Civil War 
 might have been avoided; but the day of settlement having been 
 postponed, it seemed that other forces inevitably would become 
 even paramount in the final issue. 
 
 To-day the advocates of temperance reform denounce the saloon 
 system as being wrong and immoral, and undoubtedly the issue 
 should be determined from that basis, but already economic ques- 
 tions have injected themselves forcibly into the matter, and they, 
 with other similar agencies, will, we believe, hasten the doom of 
 this agency of evil. 
 
 Similarly is the promulgation of the peace cause. The tend- 
 ency of the civilized nations to consider arbitration as the best 
 means of settling international differences, is probably the most 
 hopeful indication we have of the ultimate triumph of this move- 
 ment. Whatever we may do to bring about the agreement before 
 hand to settle all differences by a court of arbitration, will make 
 us a factor in the ushering in of the era of world-wide peace. 
 
 Another influential element working for peace is the wide- 
 spread recognition of mutual commercial interests by the civilized 
 nations. When this recognition becomes more universal, nations 
 v/ill be less inclined to go to war, and will be more ready to find 
 peaceable means of settlement, and the day will be hastened when 
 some future International Conference will unite in an agreement 
 which, when adopted, will be recognized as binding, and wars will 
 be remembered only in history. 
 
 Meanwhile, let this agitation go on. Sentiment created, crys- 
 tallized and organized is a 'mighty force in public affairs. Let us 
 bo sure of our own ground, be ready to keep in touch with every 
 other legitimate force at work for the establishment of the princi- 
 ples we advocate, seek to co-operate more and more in a system- 
 atic way with our government in the consideration of perplexing 
 questions and, better than all, get in position to give direction to 
 great governmental problems, and some glad day there will be the 
 realization of our hopes, the sword will be beaten into plowshares, 
 the reign of the Prince of Peace will become universal, and the 
 prophecy will become a fact that " The knowledge of the glory of 
 the Lord will cover the earth as the waters do the sea." 
 
101 
 
 The Chairman: The subject is now open for general discus- 
 sion in fivo-minute speeches. 
 
 David Newport: At a meeting held in this city just before 
 the Civil War there was a little woman, known to many of us, who 
 was called to speak. Her text was this: " The weapons of our 
 warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling 
 down of strongholds." She spoke, I suppose, about fifteen min- 
 utes, and when she had concluded she met with a wonderful re- 
 ception from the audience. 
 
 The cause of it was the great superiority of her remarks over 
 those of the speakers who had preceded her. It was the dark 
 period before war. There seemed not a ray of hope. Frederick 
 Douglas was in great agitation. Wendell Phillips thought the 
 chains of the slaves riveted more firmly than ever. She plead that 
 the remedy was to be found in the spiritual, in the power of the 
 Spirit of God, and that with this there could be no failure. She 
 thus kindled great hope in the minds of those present. 
 
 Socrates, as reported by Plato, speaking of the causes of war, 
 says that they grow out of the carnal mind, of the animal nature, 
 and that the remedy is to be found in the spiritual. The animal 
 man delights in quarreling and fighting. He delights in hearing 
 of war championship and heroism. The very thought of it pleases 
 him. But with the spiritual man it is otherwise. 
 
 The thought I wish to express is that the cure for war is 
 spiritual. It is the Spirit of God that worketh in men to will and 
 to do of His good pleasure, in the home circle, in the circle outside 
 of the home, and in the commerce and business of the world. This 
 is the truth which we must inculcate, that the spiritual weapons 
 are mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds. I 
 am not discouraged. The paper read by our brother was a very 
 encouraging one. 
 
 Mariana W. Chapman: I find myself at heart in unity with 
 many of the speakers; not only the last one, who declares that 
 spiritual weapons are the best; but also with the friend who opened 
 the discussion, who declares that a little secular work must be 
 done, and that things must become expedient in government before 
 they can be successful. I think you will agree with me that one 
 of the most important things to get behind Congress is a peace 
 constituency, and I do not know a larger constituency of peace-lov- 
 ing people in this country than the womanhood of America. I 
 believe, therefore, that you will have your true peace force behind 
 this government when you admit women to a voice in the govern- 
 ment, when their opinions are not only influence, but are counted 
 at the ballot-box as well. 
 
102 
 
 William L. Pearson: George Fox used to have his " open- 
 ings." You have all read of them. If any Modern got near the 
 heart of the Almighty, it was he. I am reminded this morning 
 that some of those " openings " were toward the house of Crom- 
 well, and that some of his most effective work and personal con- 
 ferences with men were with Oliver Cromwell. 
 
 We have a President of the United States who embodies in his 
 character something of the Cromwellian, modified, of course, by 
 the spirit of our own times. But have we a true insight into the 
 Divine sources of peace, and have we the courage of our convic- 
 tions, to put our power into use with the administration at the pres- 
 ent time? We need our practical side of life. All our theories and 
 brilliant discussions may be of small value unless we do in some 
 way make ourselves felt by approaching those who can turn the 
 affairs of men, politically speaking. I believe that we should make 
 a great mistake in this Conference if we did not in some way rec- 
 ognize the truly benevolent purpose of the present Administration 
 toward the islands of the seas that have come into our possession. 
 But, on the other hand, we must by all means try to realize the 
 leaven of war spirit that is leavening the whole lump of society, 
 permeating it unobserved, perhaps, by the heads of government, 
 and perhaps too little observed by ourselves. Let us beware of 
 what is coming from it, of what is even now being effected by it. 
 Let us do our part, as we are assembled here, and see that the use- 
 fulness of this Conference shall be the very greatest in counteract- 
 ing this growing power of evil. 
 
 Mary Chawner Woody: It seems to me that our peace prin- 
 ciples have been too much theory; they have not been properly set 
 forth in practical form; we have not had the far-sighted thinking to 
 bring them down to practical application in times of necessity. 
 There is no doubt, as was hinted, that the President, at the time of 
 the Cuban crisis, was waiting and waiting and waiting for some 
 person's " openings " to lead him into some peaceable way. It 
 is in such ways as that that the workers for peace have failed; too 
 much theory, not enough preparation for practical action. Our 
 women have failed to make sentiment and thus to make ready for 
 emergencies. When such papers as were filled with the war spirit 
 came into our homes and the men folk of the family came in with 
 their heads full of the war sensations and excitement, our heads 
 were not cool enough to quiet them down. It does seem to me 
 that, after all, whether women have the ballot or not, there is a 
 powerful force that they may apply in the home. They must be 
 prepared to meet such emergencies. Why cannot the President of 
 Bryn Mawr, as she has told us, carry the girls with her on the sub- 
 ject of peace? We send to that institution the best girls we have. 
 Where does the trouble rest? Was the Jesuit priest right when he 
 said that the first eight years would determine the character of 
 
103 
 
 the child? It certainly is, it would seem to me, or the President 
 of Bryn Mawr College could lead the girls on this subject. 
 Women, let us go back to our work, to the mothers' meetings, to the 
 women in the factory towns, to the women all over the country, 
 to teach them to teach the children, that we may thus create the 
 sentiment that will hold the nation steady until the men who 
 formulate great principles shall be able to carry them through in 
 times when great diplomacy is needed. 
 
 Davis Furnas: I have been much interested in hearing from 
 the various speakers and the various essays that have been read 
 the idea of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. 
 I believe in that. The All-Father who created all men and re- 
 quires of all to give an account of the deeds done in the body is 
 the controlling influence, if they will but receive it, over all man- 
 kind. Now, what I want to say is this: We have heard this morn- 
 ing about the proper training of children. We tell our children in 
 the Sabbath Schools that there are people far off who are so low 
 that we must go and teach them, and that we must give money to 
 bring about that object. We ought to be careful not to do this 
 in such a way as to inculcate the idea that they are a different 
 order of beings from ourselves; that they are down almost to the 
 level of the brute creation. We should seek to leave the impres- 
 sion that they are the children of, and under the influence of, the 
 same Eternal Power that we claim as our Father and Guide; and 
 that it is our duty to recognize them as brothers. Otherwise the 
 children may get a very false impression of the brotherhood of 
 man. 
 
 Dr. Moeeow: I have the honor of being the Secretary of the 
 Pennsylvania Bible Society, and I have been very much struck with 
 the use made of Holy Scripture and the spirit of prayer in this 
 Convention. When the Peace Convention was held in Rome, there 
 was no prayer. Nothing, I believe, gives to us such strength as our 
 conscious dependence upon the Spirit of God. 
 
 I heard a peculiar story about an African recently of the sup- 
 posed influence of the Bil:)le upon a dog. He said to a missionary 
 that he was in great distress about this dog. The dog had been 
 a great fighter. " But," said he, " he ate up my New Testament, 
 and all the fight has been taken out of him." There is a moral in 
 this story which we may fairly enough take into our hearts, that 
 the spirit of the Book is the spirit of peace. 
 
 When it was said just now that the ladies were to bring up 
 their children in the way they should go, I thought of what was 
 said in a mothers' meeting in Chicago not long ago, that that 
 was excellent advice for the mothers, but perhaps they had better 
 go the same way themselves two or three times. Isn't that what 
 is needed, not merely the telling the children about peace, but 
 
104 
 
 doing all that we can to show a determination against the war spirit 
 and the soldier life? There is no man in society to-day more pop- 
 ular than the soldier, and the mothers are not going in the way 
 they ought to go; they are training up their children in the army 
 spirit, or the navy spirit. 
 
 It was said not ve^ long ago by a Jewish rabbi in this city, 
 that the Lord Jesus had His limitations, because He used physical 
 force in carrying out His reform; that He made a whip and drove 
 the traders out of the temple. But it is certain that Jesus never 
 struck a man. The translation which we have is bad and mislead- 
 ing. The correct version indicates that the whip was made to 
 drive out the sheep and the oxen. Jesus never struck a man. He 
 comes under none of the limitations of His own time. He is larger, 
 fuller, universal. He has the right of truth to be called the Prince 
 of Peace. I plead that we may enter into the thought of our de- 
 pendence upon God. He rules. He overrules all conspiracies, all 
 rebellions, revolutions and wars, for the purpose of pushing back 
 the darkness and bringing in the reign of light and peace. 
 
 Dr. Morrow then offered a short prayer for the blessing of God 
 to rest upon the deliberations of the Conference. 
 
 EuFus M. Jones: We must never forget that there are two 
 things we are trying to do; in the first place, we are trying to 
 educate society by educating individuals; we are trying to estab- 
 lish new ideals of life, and we are doing it, first, by education. If 
 the time is to come when the woman is to have the ballot, then 
 we want a good woman to vote, who will vote right. Our first 
 effort must be — whether we are thinking of the voting woman or 
 the voting man, the man in society or the woman in society — to 
 get a truly trained and educated man or woman who has the true 
 ideal of life. Part of the purpose of this great Conference here 
 is to push on this work of educating men and women and societj. 
 
 But there is another end which must not be lost sight of; we 
 have got to do something practical. You cannot get work done 
 in this world, anywhere or at any time, except by resident forces. 
 Two of our speakers have touched on this line; they have been 
 showing that if we are to accomplish very much we have to hitch 
 on somewhere, to bring force to bear. We must accomplish some- 
 thing with those who determine the destiny of nations. That idea 
 has l)een very well brought out by S. Edgar Nicholson, and by 
 William L. Pearson and others. 
 
 Now, would it not be a pretty good way to do that to have ten 
 or fifteen good, strong, true, wise, valiant Quakers in the Congress 
 of the United States? What is the trouble with that idea, and why 
 are we not doing something in that direction? 
 
 In England there are about 17,000 Friends. Ten of them are 
 in the. House of Commons. Nobody who knows anything about 
 the last hundred years can doubt that the man who has done moit 
 
105 
 
 to make the ])rinciples of peace mean something to the world was 
 Jolin Bright. lie was a fighter; he didn't believe in non-resistance, 
 in one sense, though he did in another. He believed in being 
 aggressive, to make his principles nnderstood; he stood for them 
 and lived for them and wrote for them, and he went out of office 
 because he believed in them, and he stayed out until he was called 
 back as a victor. 
 
 The other man who has made our great truth most known and 
 best understood and most of a force in American society, was the 
 poet, John Greenleaf Whittier, who was a practical politician, as 
 everybody knows who has read his life. Probably no Friend since 
 the time of William Penn has been more of a practical politician, 
 determining who should be nominated and who should be elected, 
 than Whittier; and probably to no man was the election of Senator 
 Sumner, of Massachusetts, more directly due than to the influence 
 and power and practical work of this Quaker poet. He carried his 
 idea not only into his poetry, in almost every line of which it 
 breathes; but also into the caucus, and into the town house. 
 
 I want to say, without taking up further time, that whatever 
 we think about getting women into the right places as a remote 
 possibility, it is a matter of immediate concern that we get the 
 right men into the right places; and there is no reason why, in the 
 next fifteen years, we should not have six Senators and fifteen Rep- 
 resentatives at Washington; and I hope w^e shall go to work, not 
 to wire-pull and to pack conferences, or anything of that sort, but 
 by the proper methods to get the right men where they can work 
 out our great ideals of life, and make the principles of peace and 
 righteousness prevail because they become, so to speak, resident 
 forces. 
 
 Elizabeth Lloyd: The thought that I have is somewhat in 
 line with that dropped by the last speaker. It was suggested in the 
 paper last evening that we, although peace people, believe in force. 
 Now, it seems to me that what we need to do is to substitute, 
 , gradually, but as rapidly as possible, moral force for physical force 
 in all human relations. The time has hardly come when any of 
 us, perhaps, would be walling to do without policemen entirely, or 
 without jails; but in our best prisons to-day the purpose is to re- 
 form men rather than to punish them. 
 
 We all know how great is the moral force of some people. A 
 group of men may be swearing and telling obscene stories, and one 
 pure woman coming into their midst will cause all this to stop, 
 not by any physical power, but by the righteousness that is within 
 her. Now, in home, in school, in the community, everywhere, let 
 our influence go toward the substitution of moral force for jihysical 
 forces. Leave physical force for the adapting of the material uni- 
 verse to the use of man; use moral force in our relations one with 
 
106 
 
 another, and the highest kind of moral force is that which is the 
 result of development. It is true of organisms, as of individ- 
 uals, " that the first of our duties to God and ourselves is to grow." 
 
 Catheeine M. Shipley: Just one sentiment I have for the 
 Conference: 
 
 " One who never turned his back, 
 But marched breast forward; 
 Who never dreamt the right 
 E'er worsted — wrong would triumph; 
 Who held, we fall to rise. 
 And sleep to wake." 
 
 Joseph Elkinton: I would like to suggest that a message be 
 sent to President Eoosevelt, expressive of the interest and sympathy 
 of this Conference with him in his present responsibilities, with 
 encouragement to him to promote as far as may be in his power 
 the attainment of peace through the influence of our national gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 The Chairman: In accordance with the rules adopted, that 
 recommendation will be given to the Business Committee for con- 
 sideration. 
 
 Edwin McGrew: I came as a learner to this Convention; but 
 I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without expressing my 
 hearty appreciation of the messages of this morning. The ques- 
 tions discussed in the two papers bearing on the subject of educa- 
 tion of children become old to us, and thus lose much of their 
 urgency. Someone has said, " Thoughts become deeds, and may 
 become crime " ; and it is such outcomes as these that we are to 
 guard against, as has been suggested in the papers and in the 
 various remarks that have been made. 
 
 With reference to the practical application of our peace prin- 
 ciples, I feel most deeply in sympathy with the spirit of what has 
 been uttered. Our peace work must be of such aggressive and 
 powerful nature that it will be felt on all possible lines. We 
 must search about to find opportunities for the expression of our 
 sentiment. However impractical the suggestion may seem, I cer- 
 tainly am ready to help as far as possible in the West toward the 
 election of any member to the House of Eepresentatives. I am 
 glad of this suggestion, and hope it may be worked out in the most 
 direct way. 
 
 John Chawnee: A short time ago I remarked to a member 
 of the Society of Friends in high standing in England, that it was 
 my conviction that but for the pressure of public sentiment and 
 the newspapers upon President McKinley, he would have solved 
 
107 
 
 the Cuban question without war. I was astonished when he re- 
 marked, " I prayed that America might go to war with Spain, and 
 when the report of the destruction of the Maine came I rejoiced." 
 That man is one who is anxious to see the condition of the world 
 improved ; who is especially interested in the condition of criminals 
 everywhere. The reason he felt as he did, so he said, was because 
 he believed it was impossible ever to get a better condition of affairs 
 under Spanish rule, and that the Spanish rule could never be 
 broken in Cuba without war. In other words, he was of the 
 opinion that it is necessary to do evil sometimes that good may be 
 accomplished. Certainly I do not agree with the opinion he ex- 
 pressed; but it shows us that there is a necessity still of present- 
 ing the sentimental side of this question, to say nothing against 
 what has already been expressed on the practical side. 
 
 In conversation with another person, a Non-Conformist minister 
 in England, I was surprised to hear the sentiment expressed in sub- 
 stance that the war with the Boers was a necessity; that they had 
 oppressed the native races around them; that they had been pre- 
 paring for this contest for years, and that it was unavoidable. I 
 was surprised to find that there are many Friends who lean strongly 
 toward that sentiment and who, if they do not openly express it, 
 apologize for the war. So there is necessity even among the 
 Friends of teaching the principles of peace anew. 
 
 In regard to the fact that workingmen will ultimately have 
 great influence in the solution of the peace question, I wish to al- 
 lude, in a sentence or two, to some observations that I recently 
 heard made by two gentlemen. One of them was sometime ago 
 in the Transvaal as a mining engineer, I think; and the other a 
 miner recently returned from the Transvaal. The war with the 
 Boers, it is claimed, was undertaken for the good of the English 
 inhabitants in their territory. What is their condition now? Be- 
 fore the war miners received $5.00 a day. What do they receive 
 now? A dollar and a half a day. What goes with the balance? 
 It is supposed to go, though the miners have no means of knowing 
 that it does absolutely go, to the government to support it in the 
 war. Now, if the war was undertaken in the interests of the Eng- 
 lish subjects, they are beginning to feel — at least the English labor- 
 ers in Africa are beginning to feel — that they have to bear the 
 burden of it; and in tlie future we may suppose that they will not 
 be anxious to see another war. 
 
 JoHK B. Gaerett: Just a few words, to allude to some re- 
 marks that have been made during the past hour. In the first 
 place, with regard to the Friend in England who had prayed that 
 America might engage in war with Spain, I thought it might have 
 been a pertinent question whether he had wrestled in prayer to God 
 on behalf of Spain that she might ameliorate her treatment of the 
 inhabitants of Cuba. When people talk of praying that war may 
 
108 
 
 be engaged in, they would better, I think, look back at their own 
 hearts and see whether their share in the amelioration of the suf- 
 fering of mankind by means within their power in their own com- 
 munity has been performed. 
 
 I listened with great interest, as evidently the whole company 
 did, to the suggestion of Dr. Rufus M. Jones with regard to the 
 representation of Friends in the legislation of the land. I want 
 the editors of the Society journals to take the matter to heart, for 
 they, above all others, can make the idea go. But there are prac- 
 tical difficulties, as every one of us who is interested in this subject 
 knows, connected with our engaging in the work of the national 
 Congress, or even of our State Legislatures, and I want to call at- 
 tention to some of these. There are functions of the national Leg- 
 islature that no one of us could consistently perform. While I 
 agree most heartily that it is desirable that there should be an 
 influence of this sort in the national Congress, I trust that the man 
 who comes forward as a candidate for that office will be very sure 
 of his ground, and be determined in advance that he will refrain 
 from those portions of the duties which attach to that office or 
 those offices which he cannot do conscientiously before his Master. 
 
 Attention has been called to the prominence of Friends in Great 
 Britain in political life. We all are aware, no doubt, that the pro- 
 portion of Friends who have served in the Parliament of Great 
 Britain, as compared with other religious denominations, has been 
 and is very large, and that the proportionate influence of Friends 
 in Great Britain over the national legislation is far greater than is 
 the case in our own. There is one feature of their political system 
 that contributes to it very largely; and that is, that any one who is 
 competent tositin the British Parliament mayrepresent anyconstit- 
 uency in tTie whole kingdom. He does not necessarily reside in the 
 district which he represents; a considerable proportion of the mem- 
 bers of Parliament do not reside in the districts which they repre- 
 sent. Moreover, the constituencies in Great Britain vary a great deal; 
 some of them are very small, some of them practically within the 
 giving of a single individual. There are men who wish to be rep- 
 resented in the Parliament by their own personal friends; and it 
 is thus comparatively easy for one who represents a great moral 
 idea to find that he has a constituency somewhere in the country. 
 He can find a constituency which is ready to send him to Parlia- 
 ment that that very idea may find its fullest expression before the 
 British people. No such thing is possible in the United States. 
 In the State of Pennsylvania, with its thirty Representatives, if 
 a man moves from one side of the street to the other, out of the 
 district which he has represented into another, he can no longer 
 represent what he had represented before. The absurdity of it 
 is apparent to us all. But let us go on and work as we may, and let 
 us take to heart the example of the poet Whittier, who did work 
 with a clean hand and heart, and contributed marvelously to the 
 
109 
 
 creation of public sentiment, not only immediately around him, but 
 throughout the country at large. 
 
 I am glad that what was said by the president of Uryn Mawr 
 College drew from our friend Mary Woody a reference to the teach- 
 ing of our educational institutions generally on the subject of 
 peace. There is one thought 1 want to present to us for our comfort 
 and hope; and that is, that the heads of the educational institu- 
 tions of Friends in America, from Maine to California, are in sym- 
 pathy with this Conference and its work; and we need no better 
 assurance than we have had in this very session to-day, and in the 
 other exercises from first to last, that the leading educational men 
 and women of the Society of Friends in America are, as has been 
 recognized by the Committee on Program, of all others those who 
 have made this sul)ject a study and are fitted and ready to educate 
 our young people aright in regard to it. Let us be assured bj rea- 
 son of this fact, that there is hope of the right education in peace 
 principles not only of our own young people, but also of the large 
 percentage of the students of Bryn Mawr College and of our other 
 institutions who have not had the advantage of a Quaker training 
 in their youth. 
 
 The Chairman: I want to say that if the students of Bryn 
 Mawr College are somewhat warlike, I think they are the least war- 
 like of any body of 417 young women that can be found. I only 
 meant to bring out that the young people of the country are not 
 rightly and thoroughly educated as they should be on the peace 
 question. 
 
 After announcements, the Chairman declared the Conference 
 adjourned till 3.30 p.m. 
 
ytftb Session, 
 
 Sixth-day Afternoon, Twelfth Month 13th. 
 
 The Conference re-assembled at 3.30 p.m. The session was pre- 
 sided over by William W. Birdsall, president of Swarthmore Col- 
 lege. 
 
 After a few moments of silent waiting upon God, the Chairman 
 said: 
 
 The Chairman: I find upon the program an item, " Eemarks 
 by the Chairman." My loyalty to the Committee on Program will 
 not permit me to pass by that item unnoticed. And yet my loyalty 
 to those who have presented and who will present definitely-pre- 
 pared discourses will not allow me to forget that the ground of 
 any remarks I may make is likely to have been more forcibly cov- 
 ered in some paper which has been read, or which will be read. 
 My consolation is that if these be vital truths, as we believe them 
 to be, they cannot be too often rehearsed in our ears. 
 
 The progress of peace, like that of every other great movement 
 in the world, partakes of the nature of evolution. Its real advance 
 is to be measured not by comparing to-day with yesterday, but by 
 comparing century with century, and age with age. When we 
 make such comparison, it is impossible for us not to be joyful, not 
 to be hopeful and courageous for the future. 
 
 In the present, it seems to me that there are three great causes 
 making for a hopeful forward look. It may be that many of you 
 will disagree with me as to one of these causes. However that may 
 be, I firmly believe that the nature of modern warfare and the prep- 
 arations for it constitute one of the causes which make it practically 
 impossible for great nations to go to war one with another hereaf- 
 ter. Other lessons have doubtless been taught by the war in South 
 Africa; but certainly this lesson has also been taught, that the com- 
 pany of men which goes up against a city to take it, if that city be 
 fortified and defended upon modern lines, has an almost impossi- 
 ble task. The expenditure of men and of means in the undertak- 
 ing of war now by any one of the great nations of the world against 
 any other one of them will be such as to appall any ministry and 
 necessarily give pause to any government. War, therefore, between 
 the leading nations of the world, I confidently expect, is now a 
 thing really of the past. 
 
 The second of the three great causes which I have in mind has 
 already been presented to you; it is the present imity of the world, 
 which has come about through other forces than those of the spirit. 
 
Ill 
 
 forces which are largely material, or economic, hut which are vital 
 and of the greatest possible potency in moulding the character of 
 the time and the trend of men's minds. We depend for the fur- 
 nishing of our breakfast tables and of our clothing upon the pro- 
 ducers and the merchants of every corner of the world; we are 
 connected in thought and in feeling, as no generation of men ever 
 has been before, with all the peoples of the world. The people 
 with whom we talk in the morning through the medium of the 
 telegraph and the newspaper; the people with whom we make 
 friends in the short weeks of a summer holiday; the people with 
 whose institutions and whose persons we have become familiar 
 through their writings, or through their travelings, or through 
 ours, are not the people with whom we shall wish readily to go to 
 war. The present and the growing unity of the world is a great 
 force in the promotion of the world's peace. 
 
 I have put last that which is truly first, namely, the progress, 
 the spread, of the kingdom of Christ in the world and in the hearts 
 of men; for surely the spread of charitable thought, the growth of 
 sympathy of man with man, and of people with people, is of his 
 kingdom; and surely men now do love peace to a degree and in a 
 manner which has never before been true. 
 
 And here I come to what seems to me the vital consideration of 
 a real peace conference, namely, the growth, the spread, of the 
 peaceable spirit. I attended not so long since a conference on 
 arbitration, and a prominent feature of the proceedings was a dis- 
 cussion of the number of arbitrations that had occurred between 
 the nations of the world in the decades of the past century. It 
 seemed that those present regarded with disfavor some decades in 
 which the number of arbitrations had been less than in the previous 
 decades. They seemed to think that the progress of peace in the 
 world was to be measured by the number of quarrels which men 
 had had to settle by " leaving them out " to other people, and not 
 by the absence of quarrels themselves. The growth of peace, my 
 friends, is to come about not so much by amicably settling our 
 quarrels as by not quarrelling. We ought to be called, as George 
 Fox called the Protector, as I stated last evening, to that voice of 
 God in the heart which will take us away not only from wars and 
 from fightings, but from the occasions of wars and of fightings. 
 
 Before calling for the first ]japer of the afternoon, I am pleased 
 to be al)le to announce a more complete carrying out of the idea 
 of this Conference than was at first thought practicable. It gives 
 me pleasure, as I have no doubt it will give you pleasure, to know 
 that, at the request of the committee, Ida Whipple Benham, of 
 the Rogerine Friends, Mystic. Conn., whose poetic work is well and 
 favorably know tbrf)ngh some of our leading journals, has pre- 
 pared a poem, which will be read to us by Rufus M. Jones. 
 
113 
 GENTLE AND MIGHTY. 
 
 BY IDA WHIPPLE BENHAM. 
 
 The Child that in the manger lay, 
 A babe, a lamb, yet strong to bless, 
 
 Dwells in the contrite heart alway, 
 And proves the power of gentleness. 
 
 "Joy to the world, the Lord has come! " 
 "Glory to God, to men goodwill! " 
 
 Now hush the bugle and the drum. 
 And bid the haughty strife be still. 
 
 What lips were loudest in the fray 
 
 Of wrathful words, what hands would smite 
 
 With fist or sword, be still to-day, 
 And learn the law of peace and right. 
 
 Such wisdom as from self proceeds, 
 The sapient lore of worldly lust, 
 
 Forget, with all those ruthless deeds 
 That, from the dust, return to dust. 
 
 Oh, not with boastful threat and blow 
 Doth man achieve his true estate, 
 
 But loving, trusting, toiling, so 
 
 God's gentleness doth make him great. 
 
 Ye leaders of the multitude, 
 
 With their up- reaching hands in /ours. 
 Lead to the one eternal Good, 
 
 The Love that ransomed, heals, endures. 
 
 Yea, all ye stewards of the Lord, 
 Make haste to do His perfect will; 
 
 Obey the voice : " Put up the sword I " 
 Obey the voice : " Thou shalt not kill ! " 
 
 And ye who stretch your limbs at ease. 
 Forgetful of a brother's claim, — 
 
 Down, from your couches to your knees! 
 Thence rise to work in Jesus' name. 
 
 White is the harvest, large the yield; 
 
 Lift up your eyes and see the glow 
 Of fair wheat shining in God's field. 
 
 The call is sounding, rise and go. 
 
 The Chairman: We shall now have the pleasure of listening 
 to a paper on the '" Present Encouragements for the Friends of 
 Peace," by Professor Ellen C. Wright, of Wilmington College, 
 Ohio. 
 
113 
 
 PRESENT ENCOURAGEMENTS FOR THE FRIENDS OF 
 
 PEACE. 
 
 BY TROFESSOR ELLEN C. WRIGHT, WILMINGTON^ OHIO. 
 
 Edward Everett has left us a most eloquent description of the 
 natural dawn, as witnessed hy himself in an early morning trip from 
 Providence to Boston. With the pencil of an artist he paints 
 for us the darkness and silence of the midsummer's night, the spec- 
 tral lustre of the stars, the position and appearance of the planets 
 and constellations as the journey hegins. Presently there is a timid 
 approaching of twilight, a softening of the intense blue of the 
 sky, a departing of the smaller stars, and a shifting of heavenly 
 scenery by unseen hands of angels. Then follow, in order, a kind- 
 ling of the east, a purple streaking of the sky, an inflowing tide of 
 morning light, till at last, " the everlasting gates of the morning are 
 thrown wide open, and the lord of day begins his state." 
 
 The figure is well worn, but it remains so striking a type of the 
 beginning, growth, and glorious ending of all great reforms, and 
 especially of that which has come and is coming to encourage the 
 friends of universal peace, that one may be pardoned, if it is im- 
 possible to contemplate one without a reminder of the other. 
 
 The darkness and horror of past ages in their setting of blood, 
 the advent of the Prince of Peace, the gradual and, for a time, 
 slow spread of his teachings, the speedy growth of the same, in 
 the past half century of rapid transit, and the surprising and almost 
 overwhelming evidences that all nations are now yielding to the in- 
 coming light of truth, and are soon to accept the better way, form 
 a panorama as much more glorious than the advent of day as the 
 substance is greater than the shadow. 
 
 It is the business of this paper to bring together into one view 
 some of the signs that make for encouragement. It is but a pleas- 
 ant task to turn our thoughts to the hopeful outlook; for from 
 every side loom up evidences that we are in the dawn of the day 
 that is to usher in the reign of universal and perpetual peace. 
 
 To encourage is to put heart into the w'eary toiler and arm 
 him with new strength for continued struggle. Nothing puts heart 
 into the worker for any cause as does evidence of growth toward 
 linal success. But the signs of encouragement in the present can 
 be understood and appreciated only Ijy at least an occasional glance 
 at the past for purposes of contrast. 
 
 In the infancy of the world men were like children, who in- 
 tuitively strike at whatever injures them; who "use the fist until 
 they are of age to use the brain." The fighting instinct, like that 
 of hunting and fishing was developed, too, in a crude condition of 
 mankind, by the struggle to preserve life. But these elements are 
 now eliminated. The world has reached its majority, and its ex- 
 perience has changed and improved its attitude. The cruelty once 
 
lU 
 
 condoned by a state of semi-development is no longer in keeping 
 v'ith the humane and fraternal feeling of an advanced civilization. 
 
 The very absurdity produced by attempting to fit old military 
 customs of a decayed period upon the new order of things in this 
 young, new century, constitutes, in itself, a source of encourage- 
 ment; for nations, like individuals, can tolerate anything better 
 than ridicule. How incongruous it appears for a people whose 
 compassion has been cultivated till it builds hospitals for dumb 
 brutes, and puts its greatest offenders to death by as painless a 
 method as possible, to be asked to listen with pleasure to a para- 
 graph like this from a citizen of a Christian nation: 
 
 " A few thousand massacred last Good Friday filled English- 
 men with joy during the Holy Easter season, and whetted our ap- 
 petite for what has followed on a larger scale at Khartoum. The 
 reports indicate that our perfected machinery of slaughter have 
 been effective in mowing down some 10,000 or 12,000 men who 
 were fighting for their country, and in wounding a still larger num- 
 ber, who, at this very moment, are lingering out their last mo- 
 ments in indescribable agony in holes and hiding places into which 
 they have crept to die. Such, sir, are the glorious doings for which 
 bishops are thanking God, poets are writing impassioned sonnets, 
 and over which almost all our able leader writers in the press are 
 waxing hysterical with delight." 
 
 Can anything be more certainly working out its own overthrow 
 than the attempt of a system to reconcile for a moment this ming- 
 ling of the spirit of thanksgiving and rejoicing with the contem- 
 plation of deeds that shock and torture every nerve and fiber of 
 modern humanity? 
 
 The system, then, in the light of the twentieth century, is self- 
 destructive. How pitiful is the attempt to humanize anything so 
 brual as war? But nations have a code of honor, and that code 
 says you must no longer use bullets that flatten easily in the hu- 
 man body. How long will it be till the honor of nations will de- 
 mand that no bullets at all shall be used? 
 
 Nations are coming to wince under charges in which once they 
 gloried. They fear to be called brutal; none are willing to ac- 
 knowledge the citizenship of Czolgosz. America knows he is none 
 of hers. Jews are indignant, Russians offended and Poles put on 
 the defensive whenever the question is sprung. Any ambitious 
 motives for modern war are veiled under cover of protection for the 
 natives of South Africa or the West Indies, or pity for the victims 
 of Spanish cruelty. 
 
 For the first two or three centuries of the Chrisian era the fol- 
 lowers of Christ, when asked to take up carnal weapons, said, " We 
 are Christians and cannot fight"; but from the time when Con- 
 stantine, seeing that Christianity was becoming popular and would 
 strengthen his empire, drove his soldiers into the river and had 
 them baptized by battalions, the idea of necessity prevailed that 
 
115 
 
 such nominal Christians might fight, and there grew up the notion 
 of holy wars; and we have the anomaly of the Crusades and other 
 wars professedly for holy purposes, until the idea became almost 
 universal that the Christian's duty was scarcely done till he had 
 lifted up the sword in defense of something or other. 
 
 But the advent of that gentle-spirited Swarthmore preacher 
 who said. '* I am in love with all men and cannot fight against any," 
 began to call the followers of Christ back to the purity of their first 
 principles, and to George Fox and his followers has been entrusted 
 for two hundred and fifty years the sacred mission of interpreting 
 correctly to a fighting world the real teachings of the Prince of 
 Peace. 
 
 How well this has been done only he who gave them the mission 
 may know; but in these later years have come an array of events 
 that fill them with renewed hope and encouragement. 
 
 The trend of human thought in the past has been so in harmony 
 with the idea that war is essential, that it is amazing so much has 
 been accomplished in a little more than half a century. Instead 
 of a few feeble folk standing for a principle under fire of ridicule 
 and persecution, now every nation has its advocates of peace. Men 
 and women in all ranks of life have espoused the cause. 
 
 The Polish publicist who has written so learnedly as to influence 
 so powerful a patron as Nicholas II. has for one of his strongest 
 arguments against war that it is now out of date. He shows that 
 it is the absence of militarism as known in the old world that gives 
 the United States her commercial supremacy. This is turning the 
 eyes of other nations to our better system. The statesmen of the 
 day are busy with the problem of devising methods that shall su- 
 persede those of war. 
 
 This change in men's minds and feelings on the subject of peace 
 and war is a permanent one; for it is founded upon right and jus- 
 tice, and is the outgrowth of circumstances attendant upon advanc- 
 ing Christian civilization. Peace is becoming the demand of the 
 age. and when popular opinion protests against war, its doom is 
 sealed. 
 
 Once even the clergy exalted war as a great agent of progress, 
 Davies, " a devout divine," urged his hearers " to cherish a war 
 spirit as derived from God, as a sacred heaven-born fire." Others 
 have declared that war is essential to the life of a nation; that it 
 strengthens it morally, mentally and physically. 
 
 But David Starr Jordan shows that such utterances can proceed 
 only from the grossly ignorant. He points out what, in the light 
 of the age, needs no demonstration, that the warring nation is the 
 decaying nation; because she reverses the natural law of develop- 
 ment through heredity. She sacrifices her able-bodied to the dragon 
 of war. She exterminates instead of conserves her best. So the 
 warlike nation of to-day must be the decadent nation of to-morrow. 
 
116 
 
 Such leaching as this from educated and intelligent men forms 
 one of the strongest sources of encouragement. 
 
 Educators are teaching the young, not only in the schools, but 
 from the platform and the press, that there is a grander concep- 
 tion of patrotism than has prevailed in the past; that it is better 
 to live for one's country than to die for it; that it is nobler to set 
 the example of aood citizenship in time of peace than to win laurels 
 on the field of blood. 
 
 The histories prepared for school schildren, and even for their 
 elders, are improvements over the old, for they do not dwell so 
 much upon revolting, detailed descriptions of battles. The model 
 history of the future will not only exalt the peaceful exploits of in- 
 dustry which promote true wealth and human happiness, but will 
 teach that arbitration is able to settle all difficulties between na- 
 tions as well as between communities and individuals. 
 
 As the consequence of this modern teaching, a new generation 
 is coming up, who advocate peace. The young men of Europe are 
 weary of militarism and long to throw off the yoke it imposes upon 
 them. 
 
 That world-wide movement among the young which is inter- 
 national, interdenominational and interracial, the United Society 
 of Christian Endeavor, is laboring to popularize the cause of inter- 
 national arbitration. It presented to Congress a peace memorial 
 signed by thousands of names, in which are such sentiments as 
 these: " We wish to express our abhorrence of war, and our solemn 
 conviction that it is the duty of every civilized nation to do all in 
 its power toward making war impossible. We wish to record our 
 desire for a speedy establishment of an international tribunal of 
 arbitration." 
 
 Woman has learned that she has an important part in the 
 extermination of war. When the western woman goes for the first 
 time to the continent of Europe, she is shocked at sight of multi- 
 tudes of women toiling at the manual labor of husbands, brothers, 
 and sons who are giving to their country a grudging service de- 
 manded by an enslaving military system, and henceforth she feel* 
 that all this must be changed. Women everywhere are coming to 
 see that war is one of their greatest enemies, robbing them by 
 wholesale of the dearest treasures of life. So we come to have 
 such great organizations as the " Woman's Universal Peace Alli- 
 ance." and a department of Peace in both the National and the 
 World's Woman's Christian Temperance Union, that powerful or- 
 ganization which penetrates the remotest corners of the earth. The 
 International Council of Women, which includes all women's clubs 
 of America, signed a petition asking for a permanent court. 
 What has woman ever undertaken in united body that she has not 
 in time accomplished? 
 
 The press, through the agency of peace advocates^ is flooding 
 the world with innumerable pages of literature. The few, feeble 
 
117 
 
 tracts and pamphlets of earlier days have been succeeded by ad- 
 dresses, sermons, prize essays, magazine articles, peace periodicals 
 and books in abundance. Prose, poetry, satire, debate and the 
 powerful cartoon have all been summoned to contribute to the 
 teaching that all war is brutal, and may be done away with by 
 the peaceable method of arbitration. If you fear that all this is but 
 dry reading and neglected by the multitude, here is the modem 
 method of making any subject acceptable to them. 
 
 Fiction, that form of literature which the masses read, is prom- 
 ising to become a mighty ally in reform work. Harriet Beecher 
 Stowe is credited with a gigantic blow in the destruction of the in- 
 stitution of slavery, and modern novelists are undertaking to show 
 the hideousness of war, and to put into attractive form sentiments 
 averse to the common theory that war is ever to be encouraged 
 «r even tolerated, 
 
 Commerce in these later times has so bound the different na- 
 tions together that the mere rumor of war in one is able to disturb 
 the markets of the others. Shuttling trains, electric wires, steam- 
 ships and ocean cables combine to make the whole world next-door 
 neighbors. Men who deal with one another in honorable commer- 
 cial relations develop friendships and fellow-feeling that shut out 
 all desire to employ against each other rapid-fire guns or maximite. 
 It is maintained by some who have given the subject deep thought 
 that the ethical principle underlying commerce will of itself finally 
 suppress war. 
 
 It is a most hopeful sign that the laboring classes, upon whom 
 the heavy burden of war falls, are becoming more and more op- 
 posed to it. Workingmen everywhere are developing among them- 
 selves a sentiment favoring peace and universal alliance. 
 
 The study of social and political economy, which has become a 
 part of the curriculum of almost all schools, is impressing upon all 
 thoughtful persons how enormously costly in men and means 
 is any system of war. France is bewailing her numerical condition 
 as indicated by the proportionate rate of increase and decrease of 
 her population. All nations point with pride to a fat census roll, 
 but they are learning that war is the greatest depopulator. The fi- 
 nancial cost of war has long been held up as a motive of prevention, 
 but the cost of building, arming and maintaining modern ships of 
 war, of manipulating modern equipments, and firing and exploding 
 modern murder machines, is so enormous that it makes the past 
 seem like child's play. And all this does not take into account that 
 other aw^ful drain upon the moral and spiritual forces of the world. 
 The past few decades have witnessed a series of peace confer- 
 ences and congresses increasing in frequency and prestige, as public 
 interest has arisen. At first these assemblies received little atten- 
 tion, even in the cities where they were held. Now magistrates and 
 city officials, in robes of office, come out to meet and welcome and 
 
118 
 
 honor the lovers and advocates of peace. A president holds a re- 
 ception for assembling delegates and invites them to his palace. 
 
 The advance steps taken by the nations for the establishment of 
 a permanent tribunal, though depreciated in some quarters, are a 
 source of the strongest encouragement. Never was a birthday more 
 gloriously celebrated than that of Nicholas II., on the 18th of May, 
 in 1899, which saw the opening of what General Harrison was 
 pleased to call " one of the greatest assemblies of nations which the 
 world has yet seen.'' The Hague Conference is said to have done 
 more for the world than a multitude of battles. Its treaty has been 
 called the Magna Charta of international law; The Hague the capi- 
 tal of the world. 
 
 This " High Court of Nations " and of Christendom will find 
 something to do. The greater nations have called it into being, 
 and when they have learned to use, by using, its beneficent aid, the 
 smaller ones will be compelled to submit their differences to the 
 same tribunal. 
 
 Encouragement grows out of the very evils that are afflicting 
 our country. The frequent strikes resulting from the different 
 standpoints of capital and labor, of employer and employee, are 
 training bodies of men far and wide in the use of peaceful arbitra- 
 tion, which means to stop and think about it; and thus transfers 
 disputes from brute force to the realm of thought and reason. How 
 easy and natural will be the passing to questions of larger content, 
 and engaging a greater number of men. 
 
 The South African War is a terrible blot on the fair name of 
 Great Britain, but it is teaching her best citizens a lesson that will 
 long be remembered. Sir Joseph Pease, member of the British 
 Parliament, has recently said that in the more than thirty years of 
 his parliamentary life he has never known, in the House of Com- 
 mons, so much opposition to war as now. 
 
 Our own nation has learned many lessons from the mistakes of 
 her policy in recent wars. Those mistakes have challenged the 
 study and thought of the best and wisest citizens, and summoned 
 the aid of the ablest statesmen in their discussion. 
 
 A great and sudden test of character has recently come to our 
 nation in the manner of its chief magistrate's death, and the rank 
 and file of citizens have borne it with a spirit that shows we are 
 growing more Christlike, and consequently more unwarlike. 
 
 The discouraged worker will tell us that our hopes are Utopian; 
 that storm clouds are gathering everywhere; that all nations are 
 in an inflammable state and need but the igniting match to flash 
 them into universal war. But the wars and rumors of wars that 
 are left are only the shrieks of the spirits as they take their de- 
 parture from the body politic of nations. All difficulties and seem- 
 ingly backward movements are only evidences that our reform is 
 following the natural trend of all reforms. The apparent retro- 
 grade movements are but surface currents; the great majestic tide 
 
119 
 
 is toward the desired end. These are hut a few of the manifold 
 signs of encouragement. 
 
 The Temple of Janus is soon to be closed forever. The world 
 cannot creep back into the narrow shell whence it came. When 
 once a reform so gigantic gets a start, its very momentum carries it 
 onward. The mightiest contribution that has ever been made to 
 civilization is the idea of universal peace. 
 
 Is this a namby-pamby optimism that believes all things are go- 
 ing to come out right whetlier we work or not? No; our mission 
 is inherited from our forefathers. Their spirit cries out to us, 
 "Go on! go on! You have a thousand things to encourage you 
 where we had one. Let not our toil have been in vain. Make u^e 
 of every strategic point; guard every avenue of defeat; keep the flag 
 of peace floating." 
 
 Eternal vigilance is still the price of success, and a meeting like 
 this is but to arm ourselves anew with weapons for our peaceful 
 warfare for peace. 
 
 We dare not stop. We are like builders with a heavy beam 
 poised above our heads, ready to be placed, with steady, united 
 hands, into its sockets. 
 
 The greatest of all sources of encouragement is that the silent 
 and invisible forces are for us. The stars in their courses are fight- 
 ing against our enemy as they did against Sisera. The Lord God 
 Omnipotent reigneth. 
 
 The Chairman: The next paper will be upon the subject of 
 " Internationalism," by Hannah J. Bailey, Superintendent of the 
 Peace Department of the World's and National Woman's Christian 
 Temperance Union. 
 
 INTEENATIONALISM. 
 
 BY HANNAH J. BAILEY, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PEACE 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE V^^ORLD'S AND NATIONAL W. C. T. U. 
 
 The world is gradually moving towards internationalism. Busi- 
 ness naturally takes a leading place in the movement. One part 
 of the world does not produce what another part does, consequently 
 trade must be established between the different sections, and thus 
 indirectly are they brought into harmony, for it is to the advantage 
 of all to be at peace. There are thousands of business men who 
 are selfishly opposed to warfare, inasmuch as it greatly interferes 
 with their foreign trade. Some think that for the sake of self- 
 protection duties should be charged upon all imports; others believe 
 in free trade, and still others in reciprocity. The question arises: 
 Which of these methods is best adapted to the interests of inter- 
 nationalism? And this question is answered according to one's own 
 preference and advantage financially. 
 
120 
 
 Because of business requirements, an International Postal 
 Union has been established, all nations which have Joined it agree- 
 ing to send their first-class mail to all others in the union for five 
 cents per half ounce. A universal postage stamp is now needed. 
 It is embarrassing for those who wish to have postal communica- 
 tions with people in foreign lands to have no practical means of en- 
 closing return postage. This is especially so in the case of authors 
 who want to submit manuscript to the inspection of editors of for- 
 eign publications. When we realize that the postage stamp itself 
 is a thing comparatively recent, we can hope that one that is inter- 
 national may materialize in the near future. 
 
 This suggests the thought that there may be also an interna- 
 tional system of money, and no doubt it will be the decimal system 
 which originated among the savages, who did their counting upon 
 their fingers. This is the system now in use, as we all know, in the 
 United States and Canada. 
 
 This brings us to the thought of finances considered interna- 
 tionally, and what a great factor is this. The Eothschilds and the 
 house of the Barings have long been known, and exerted a finan- 
 cial infiuence in all the civilized world. When, a few years ago, 
 the balance hung between a gold and a silver standard in the 
 United States, trade was not only much paralyzed in this country, 
 but the whole world waited breathlessly for the result, knowing 
 how much was at stake; and none but those who understand the 
 financial market can comprehend the terrible stagnation that is 
 brought about by warfare. The very rumor of a war in this coun- 
 try will cause no small stir in Wall Street, New York, and in all 
 the great money centers of the world. 
 
 Modern inventions have done much towards making the world 
 one family. The steamships and the locomotives have gone to the 
 uttermost parts of the earth. The steam cars not only traverse 
 the desert, but have invaded the sacred soil of Palestine and have 
 made their way across Siberia; and now great international railroad 
 systems are being talked of. The telephone, the telegraph and the 
 electric light are now found not only on all of the continents, .but 
 likewise in the islands of the sea. 
 
 Dress has become largely international, as a glance at the pic- 
 tures of the lady members of the homes of royalty of the world will 
 show. At a world's fair the different nationalities of the most 
 notable visitors can hardly be distinguished by their dress alone. 
 France sets the fashion and the world follows. Such a state of 
 affairs has advantage from an economic standpoint, but it is de- 
 stroying, in a measure, race individuality. The missionaries of 
 Japan tried to induce the native women to keep to the native dress 
 because it was so much more artistic in style than that which was 
 being donned by them as obtained from the French fashions. 
 
 We often wish that internationalism would bring into use one 
 language. There never has been a universal language since Tower 
 
of Babel times. Latin was for years the language of the courts. 
 The English language is fast spreading over the world. The sim- 
 plicity of its structure makes it well adapted to any people. But 
 will the Anglo-Saxon race be the one great final race upon the 
 earth? Some do not believe this, and they declare that England 
 will have to fall as have other nations, for God has not forgotten the 
 terrible opium trade she has imposed upon China, and the more 
 terrible wars for which she is responsible. We deplore that, though 
 the United States has been guilty of less, yet, as a nation, her 
 hands have not been free from the blood of others. The American 
 band was playing " There'll be a hot time in the old town to-night " 
 while hundreds of human beings were sinking to their eternal des- 
 tiny, and the cause of their death was the fact that they belonged to 
 Cervcra's fleet. There would be nothing but the bitterest disdain 
 for a man who would, while singing a street song, deliberately push 
 a man into the sea; but what is the difference? Ah, friends, is 
 such a system of settling international difficulties civilization? Is 
 it Christian? 
 
 International fairs — the Columbian Exposition, for example — 
 do and have done much towards bringing the nations into closer 
 harmony. 
 
 But most of all can this desirable result be brought about by 
 utiliziiig the International Court of Arbitration. The Peace Con- 
 gress at The Hague has been one of the great blessings that have 
 come to the world. The international peace conferences that have 
 been held annually by peace workers for years have, doubtless, ex- 
 erted a great influence in bringing this about. 
 
 It is an encouraging sign of the time that some of the colleges 
 have professorships of international law, and one can advance the 
 cause of civilization by furnishing funds to institute such a chair 
 where there is none. Law is the opposite of war, as order is of 
 chaos. Some seem to have the idea that those who would dispel 
 militarism from the earth would allow wrongs to go unrighted. 
 Nothing could be farther from the truth. All wrongs should be 
 righted as far as humanity can right them, but the advocates of 
 peace teach that they should be adjusted in a sensible manner — 
 by arbitration, and not in the haphazard manner of warfare, where 
 chance plays so important a part and the suffering and sin are 
 simply indescribable. 
 
 We get some idea of the darkness of present internationalism 
 from the late Chinese trouble, where the powers of good and evil 
 were contending for the mastery. From a human standpoint, 
 China was opposed to the entire civilized world, and she then 
 learned the meaning of internationalism. The Chinese Minister at 
 Washington explained it well. He said that if obliged to leave the 
 United States, he did not know where to go. He did not care to 
 return to China, and there was no foreign country open to him, 
 
122 
 
 for China was at war with all the world. How happy, indeed, is 
 " that nation whose God is the Lord," the Prince of Peace. 
 
 Hegel, the great philosopher, has shown very plainly that no 
 man lives for himself alone; that there is an artificial life, as it were, 
 for which the child must he disciplined; hence arises the need of 
 culture and education, these to adapt the child to the institutions 
 which await it — the home, the church and the state. We might 
 go further and say that no nation exists for itself alone, hut each 
 exists for all others, and the sooner the world learns that the high- 
 est good of each nation is the highest good of all nations, the better 
 it will be for all. When one nation suffers because of warfare, all 
 nations suffer indirectly. The trail of the serpent is upon all; 
 hence, from the standpoint of political economy, if for no other rea- 
 son, militarism should be universally denounced. 
 
 It would greatly promote a true internationalism if all the in- 
 fluence for militarism and the so-called glory of war should be 
 obliterated from the school books of the nations. If school his- 
 tories should give accounts of the achievements of governments, 
 nations and of prominent individuals, of scientists, politicians, edu- 
 cators and philanthropists in times of peace, or independent of war- 
 fare, omitting the mention of war, except as an event, the cruel 
 practice of settling international diflficulties by force of arms would 
 soon be relegated to the past and men would " learn war no more." 
 If the honor and glory now bestowed upon warriors who have done 
 the most harm to the losing side were given to worthy poets and 
 other authors, to inventors, discoverers, leaders in righteous causes, 
 in moral reforms and in genuine religious teaching and the promul- 
 gation of the gospel of the Prince of Peace, there soon would be 
 " no need of arsenals and forts." The song of the angels on the 
 first Christmas morning would be the victory song of the world, and 
 all nations would join in the march of Peace. 
 
 Christ prayed that his disciples might all be one. Some believe 
 that this means there must be but one denomination, and that the 
 entire Christian world will come to be one religious organization. 
 It is probably immaterial what our individual opinions may be 
 upon non-essential points, but it is quite important that we be 
 agreed upon the great underlying facts and elements of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 We hear a great deal in these days about universal brotherhood. 
 It is true that God is creator of us all and that " one touch of na- 
 ture makes the whole world kin," yet does not the Bible everywhere 
 distinguish between the children of God and the children of the 
 evil one, between the children of light and the children of dark- 
 ness? Not until the heathen and the unregenerate in Christian 
 lands are brought to Christ will the world be one in Christ Jesus. 
 Let us pray earnestly for that time. 
 
 The kingdom of peace will surely some time be established on 
 earth. What the prophet has foretold must surely come to pass: 
 
123 
 
 " And lie shall judge among the nations and shall rebuke many 
 people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their 
 spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against 
 nation, neither shall they learn war any more." 
 
 When the World's Fair was being held in Chicago there was one 
 tent occupied by South Sea Islanders exhibiting their native wares. 
 A large placard was posted near the entrance of the tent upon 
 which were printed words reading like this: "' Visitors are requested 
 not to ask these people about the now-abandoned practice of can- 
 nibalism among their ancestors, as they do not like to hear it spoken 
 of." There will be a time in the future when the Anglo-Saxon 
 race will be ashamed to have the present practice of warfare al- 
 luded to. It is humiliating now-, that the twentieth century opens 
 with " wars and rumors of war." May God grant that wlien an- 
 other century dawns upon the world its inhabitants will have for- 
 gotten the barbarism of warfare and will only know it as a matter 
 of history that had to be recorded to be complete, although it must 
 be so to the shame of our children's grandchildren. 
 
 An important factor in promoting true internationalism is the 
 recent practice of holding international conventions in the inter- 
 ests of religion and of philanthropy in different parts of the world. 
 The Christian Endeavorers, the Young Men's Christian Association, 
 the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, the Peace Societies of 
 the world and the women's international organizations are on the 
 list of those who have thus promoted international co-operation and 
 the cause of peace. 
 
 The president of " The Women's Universal Alliance for Peace," 
 the Princess Wiszniewska, said at a banquet of peace in Paris, that 
 more than tw^o millions of women had joined the movement of 
 " war against war." The president of the International Council 
 of Women. May Wright Sewall, of Indiana, is an earnest advocate 
 of peace, and the topic is always given a very prominent place on 
 the program for all public meetings of this organization of organiza- 
 tions of both a national and international character. 
 
 The World's Woman's Christian Temperance Union, with a 
 membership of more than three hundred thousand, has a Depart- 
 ment of Peace and Arbitration, which has been organized in eleven 
 different countries and in twenty-nine States in our nation. Its 
 literature and influence have been extended into every civilized na- 
 tion in the world. It has found many warm advocates of this 
 beautiful cause among missionaries, and it has been chiefly through 
 their helpful efforts that the initial steps have been taken in intro- 
 ducing and organizing this department work. The work has been 
 done chiefly by the methods of lectures, sermons, Bible readings, 
 utilizing the public press, organizing peace bands and introducing 
 peace teaching in Loyal Temperance Legions and Bible Schools. 
 Also peace principles have been promulgated by much personal 
 work done by national, State, county and local superintendents and 
 
124 
 
 their helpers. Telling resolutions have been introduced by them 
 into many conferences and conventions of various religious and 
 philanthropic organizations. Petitions, memorials and protests in 
 the interests of peace have been circulated, and letters bearing re- 
 quests have been sent to public officials. Influence has been ex- 
 erted against military teaching in public schools and Bible schools; 
 also against prize-fighting, lynching, capital punishment and every 
 other phase of man's cruelty to man. So much of the work done 
 under the auspices of the W. C. T. U. is educational that the results 
 of its best efforts on the line of peace as well as some others cannot 
 be known until some years have passed, and perhaps not until many 
 of the workers have gone into the life beyond. 
 
 There are many who would die for their country, but what ia 
 most needed to-day is men and women of courage who are willing 
 to live for their country, to live " for the cause that needs assist- 
 ance," and " for the wrong that needs resistance." That is a hero- 
 ism consistent with a twentieth century civilization. The most 
 costly, noblest heroism is the living sacrifice, the sustained resolve, 
 the courage of conviction, the daily consecration of powers to God 
 and to humanity. 
 
 " The world is our country and all mankind our countrymen '* 
 is the sentiment of true internationalism. 
 
 " Only the Golden Eule of Christ can bring in the Golden Age 
 of man." 
 
 The Chaieman: A paper upon " Peace Principles in Political 
 Life and Institutions " has been prepared by Augustine Jones, 
 Principal of Friends' School, Providence, Ehode Island. Augus- 
 tine Jones found himself unable to be present; the paper will, 
 therefore, be read by Timothy B. Hussey, of Maine. 
 
 PEACE PRINCIPLES IN POLITICAL LIFE 
 AND INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 BY AUGUSTINE JONES, LL.B., PRINCIPAL FEIENDS' SCHOOL, 
 PEOVIDENCE, E. I. 
 
 The most essential outcome, so far, of political institutions, is 
 the establishment of peace and domestic tranquillity within the civ- 
 ilized nations themselves. Municipalities and citizens, in modern 
 times, submit their causes to organized courts and to arbitration 
 for settlement, and have outgrown trial by battle and the brutal 
 methods of antiquity, within the domain of the nations where there 
 exists real government. 
 
 The recent treaties and international efforts to apply the same 
 ethics in international contests, which are so satisfactory in giving 
 peace within the nations themselves, are the strongest possible evi- 
 dence of modern progress towards the peace of the world, and the 
 
125 
 
 most inspiring promise for the future of the race. English his- 
 tory illustrates the pacific effect within States of the modern polit- 
 ical structure, the union of many small communities under one gov- 
 ernment. The many great federations in modern times of once 
 belligerent but now peaceful communities, dwelling together in 
 unity, all suggest by irresistible logical sequence the holy alli- 
 ance of the governments of the world, in su])port of one universal 
 court of international arbitration. This paramount subject de- 
 mands the sympathy, wisdom and energy of every Christian on the 
 globe. 
 
 The writer was admitted this past summer to the court rooms 
 of the Permanent International Court of Arbitration at The Hague, 
 The nineteen most important nations have already, with certain 
 restrictions, appointed judges to that court, and joined in treaty 
 obligations to abide by its conclusions. This structure is the crea- 
 tion of nineteen States, or political institutions, resting themselves 
 on numerous other subordinate political institutions down to the 
 individual citizen. If you know what war is, you cannot enter this 
 sacred court room, dedicated to peace on earth and goodwill to 
 men, without a throbbing heart, for this is indeed holy ground. 
 The tremendous shocks of war, which would in years to come have 
 convulsed nations, toppled over thrones, fixed the fate of empires, 
 changed the map of the world, extinguished life and light in thou- 
 sands of happy homes, may hereafter on this spot be prevented by 
 the potency of law and time-honored precedents, administered with 
 reason and justice. 
 
 We have thus far outlined what the complete work already ac- 
 complished through politics is, and what gigantic work politics 
 has yet to do before the millennial peace possesses our planet. 
 
 But there is, however, a more vital and practical portion of our 
 subject to be considered; that is. political life, or politics in action, 
 leavened with peace principles. Politics is the science or practice 
 of government for the preservation of the peace and prosperity of 
 the State. Peace is, then, one of the most important objects to be 
 sought in government. 
 
 If the principles of peace are to be active in politics, they must 
 take hold of public opinion, " the governing principle in human af- 
 fairs," as Alexander Hamilton said, with a strenuous purpose born 
 of conviction that they are the greatest need of human society at 
 this moment, that they are the very essence of Christianity, which 
 is love to God and to men. The principles of peace must be agi- 
 tated, until the public mind is awakened to its highest duty; then 
 politics will be potent to advance the cause. Christian ministers 
 ought to be the anointed heralds of this gospel; they ought ex 
 officio to proclaim these principles upon every house top, and every 
 Christian soul ought to join in the chorus, to agitate and agitate 
 without ceasing. 
 
 I very much doubt if this question would have been presented 
 
126 
 
 here, if there had not been two different kinds of politics in the 
 world. One seeks the public good at personal loss and even suffer- 
 ing; this is heroic patriotism; the other barters the public interest 
 for selfish, mean ends. Men of this last class can have very little 
 interest in the peaceable fruits of righteousness. If they seek your 
 vote, it is in general for a purpose which you cannot approve, and 
 you find it a critical work to make any entangling alliances 
 with them. These are the two extreme classes in politics, with 
 totally different ethics. We must, however, take into account that 
 few men are wholly bad or good, and that there is a large number 
 of men in politics who are rather neutral, moved from time to time, 
 like the ballast box, with tlie changing wind and tide. 
 
 Can any man who belongs to the upright class of politicians 
 who act from lofty ethical motives have influence and be useful 
 with and among politicians of all classes and bear through it all a 
 stainless character and an uncorrupted soul? One very acute ob- 
 server of public men once asked: "Who touches politics and is 
 thenceforth clean ? " We answer without hesitation, John Bright, 
 Charles Sumner, and a host beside them. 
 
 Probably no man was ever more thoroughly imbued with peace 
 principles, ever endured more in his own person for them, ever bore 
 aloft the white flag of peace more irresistibly and gloriously than 
 Bright, indifferent to the jeers and scoffs which fell firelike on his 
 spirit, sensitive as a woman's, but majestic and unconquerable like 
 Cromwell's, England's greatest orator. 
 
 How was it that this man, almost alone, saw great public evils as 
 no other public man seemed to do, with the eye of a prophet; saw, 
 and with a voice which had no equal for power and beauty, spoke 
 words of truth and soberness, often unheeded, nevertheless words 
 brim full of wisdom, loud warnings of impending danger? Strange 
 to say, he never gave false alarms. The causes which he advocated 
 were sustained by subsequent history, with hardly an exception. 
 No other public man's record was ever more absolutely vindicated 
 by time and events. 
 
 He himself attributed it to his lifelong training in the Society 
 of Fxiends. He had been taught to mind the Light within, Christ 
 within and conscience, to avoid all expedients in public and private 
 life which did not accord with the inner witness. He says: 
 
 I do not know why I differed from other people so much, but some- 
 times I have thought it happened from the education I had received in the 
 religious sect with \\hich I am connected. We have no creed which nion- 
 archs and statesmen and high priests have written out for us. Our creed 
 so far as we comprehend it, comes pure and direct from the New Testa- 
 ment. We have no thirty-seven articles to declare that it is lawful for 
 Christian men, at the command of the civil magistrate, to wear weapons 
 and to serve in ^\ars — which means, of course, and was intended to mean, 
 that it is lawful for a Christian man to engage, in any part of the world, 
 in any cause, at the command of a monarch, or of a prime minister, or 
 of a parliament, or of a commander-in-chief, in the slaughter of his fellow- 
 men, whom he might never have seen before, and from whom he had not 
 
1-27 
 
 received tlie ^inallost injury, and against whom he had no reason to feel 
 the smallest touch of anger or resentment. Now my having heen brought 
 up as I was would lead me naturally to think that going 3,000 miles off, — 
 for it is nearly as far as that by sea, — to carry on the war with Russia 
 in the Crimea, was a matter that required very distinct evidence to show 
 that it was lawful, or that it was in any way politic or desirable. 
 
 John Bright for two years (1854-1856) constantly opposed the 
 was with Russia, almost alone. He suffered great abuse from the 
 press and from other sources. He had been very popular, and re- 
 ceived everywhere welcome plaudits, swelling the notes of praise 
 for years, but his firm attitude against the wars with Russia and 
 China cost him his seat as representative in Parliament for Man- 
 chester, and serious illness came to him from political anxiety. 
 Birmingham immediately elected him as her representative, in 
 Avhich office he remained during his life. He has given the follow- 
 ing vivid description of his conflict: 
 
 Well, I cannot forget all that took place on that occasion. There is 
 much of it I wish I "could forget. I wish I could forget the slanders 
 that were uttered against me; slanders from many writers of the press, 
 and. I am sorry to say, some of the most bitter were from those people 
 who are supposed to write for the religious newspapers. T should be 
 glad if I could forget that T was at one time hissed and hooted by mobs, 
 and forget, further, a story that I was burnt in effigy by those I was 
 most anxious to serve; and, finally, that in consequence of the course I 
 took on a great public question. I lost my seat in Parliament for one of 
 the first constituencies in the kingdom. But I may recollect that, after 
 all, I never lost the sense, and I have not lost it yet, that I did what 
 was my duty to my country, under the tryingand difficult circumstances in 
 which I was placed. 
 
 He favored always " peace, retrenchment and reform." His 
 most notable speeches, some of them, were made against increase in 
 armament, against more extended defences. He was intensely op- 
 posed to meddling in the differences between foreign nations. He 
 struggled to avoid entangling alliances with other countries. This 
 had been the policy of Sir Robert Walpole, Charles James Fox, 
 Sir Robert Peel and others, though not successful always. But Sir 
 Robert Peel, noble, self-sacrificing, patriotic, was the chief proto- 
 type in the political character and course of John Bright, in inter- 
 national affairs. A double portion of the spirit of Elijah did rest 
 on Elisha. Peel was taken away suddenly, but he left a worthy 
 exponent to uphold and vindicate his political doctrines. 
 
 John Bright was opposed in 1882 to the war in Egypt, as he was 
 to all wars everywhere, including the Afghan and Zulu, and he 
 very soon resigned his seat in the Cabinet, an office worth to him 
 ten thousand dollars annually, beside the dignity and honor which 
 attended it. This he did without hesitation, although it might es- 
 trange him from his life-long political and social friends. He has 
 given, fortunately, his own most interesting account of this painful 
 severance. He said in the House of Commons, July 17th, 1882: 
 
128 
 
 The Hou^e knows, at all events, those who have had an opportunity of 
 observing any of the facts of my political life for forty years, know, that 
 at least I have endeavored from time to time to teach my countrymen 
 an opinion and doctrine which I hold, which is, that the moral law is not 
 intended only for individual life, but is intended also for the life and 
 practice of States. I think in the present case there has been a manifest 
 violation of international law — and of moral law — and therefore it is im- 
 possible for me to give any support to it. I cannot repudiate what I have 
 preached and taught during the period of a rather long political life. I 
 cannot turn my back upon my belief and deny all that I have taught to 
 many thousands of others during the forty years I have been permitted 
 in public meetings and in this House to address my countrymen. One 
 word onlj' more. I asked my calm judgment and my conscience what was 
 the path of right to take. They pointed it out to me with an unerring 
 finger, and I am humbly endeavoring to follow it. 
 
 The most conspicuous feature of John Bright as an apostle of 
 peace principles in political action, was his firm foundation upon the 
 bed rock of Christian New Testament ethics; there was no confu- 
 sion in his mind. His course was directed by the true polar star of 
 morals. He said again in 1858: 
 
 May I beg you, then, to believe, as I do most devoutly believe, that 
 the moral law was not written for men alone in their individual churches, 
 but that it was written as well for nations, and for nations great as this 
 of which we are citizens. I believe, too, that if nations reject and deride 
 that moral law, there is a penalty which inevitably follows; it may not 
 come at once — it may not come in our lifetime — but, depend upon it, the 
 gi'eat Italian is not only a poet, but he is a prophet when he says: 
 " The sword of Heaven is not in haste to smite 
 Nor yet doth linger." 
 
 How his soul would be stirred if he were now living, over the 
 sickening details of the South African war. The Zulu war was 
 but as a fly by an eagle to the violence of this one, and yet how 
 earnest was his protest against that. If he had been in Parliament 
 these recent months, the present British Cabinet, dishonored and 
 discredited by unholy conquest, would have felt the weight of his 
 tremendous moral prestige, his cogent and irresistible eloquence, 
 and yet above all his consummate ability to convince and change 
 votes. It may reasonably be doubted whether the present war 
 could have had existence if Bright and Gladstone had been alive 
 and in the councils of the nation. 
 
 The last words of his which I shall quote ring out like inspired 
 prophecy of the recent sad events in British annals. He said, you 
 remember: " We have the unchangeable principles of the moral 
 law to guide us, and only so far as we live by that guidance can 
 we be permanently a great nation, or our people a happy people." 
 
 My friends, those were words of soberness and wisdom. The 
 English people have not, in this unjust and cruel war, been under 
 the " guidance " of the moral law, and they are not now a happy 
 people. Multitudes of their noblest youth have perished; their 
 homes are desolate, mothers refuse to be comforted. Her public 
 debt increases fearfully. England has lost her exalted, proud lead- 
 
129 
 
 ership and supremacy in the galaxy of nations. Her enemies, bid- 
 ing their time, in the hour of her bitter distress, in a long-drawn- 
 o\it war with less favored communities, scoff at her, and if they 
 dared, would evidently extend her afflictions and w^eaken her. 
 There is only one safe course for men and nations alike, and that 
 is to do right. 
 
 I have chosen John Bright, with his forty years of experience 
 in the British Parliament and in public life, a thorough outspoken 
 apostle of peace principles, fearless, able and consistent in his sup- 
 port of the cause in every vicissitude of his political fortunes, be- 
 cause he is considered historically the greatest and most conspicu- 
 ous advocate in political life who has voiced those principles. His 
 life work in upholding the cause of peace before the whole world 
 at its commercial center, himself long a prominent member of the 
 government of the most powerful nation in the world, his noble 
 moral character, each and all contributed to extend his ceaseless 
 influence world wide. He has settled forever, both in Parliament 
 and in public meetings all over the kingdom, that peace principles 
 can be effectively presented and agitated with great success. He 
 has shown that, under the influence of a venal and warlike press, 
 a senseless delirium for war may be created, which subsides after 
 cruel slaughter and havoc, and this is followed by sober reason, 
 repentance and sorrow; that there have been no wars for centuries 
 ■which in the end have been by wise and pure men regarded as 
 necessary or useful to mankind. John Bright and his coadjutors 
 did more to advance the peace cause than had been done for cen- 
 turies in all lands before their time. 
 
 From the group of men that surrounded John Bright the gospel 
 of peace was carried to the heart of Alexander of Russia, and the 
 light that was then set up still burns brightly from the throne of all 
 the Russias. Hence we have the Conference at The Hague. No 
 one can study faithfully the influence of these persons in this cause, 
 and reasonably doubt that by agitation the public mind may be 
 aroused to the enormity of evil, and that public sentiment is om- 
 nipotent in political life and institutions. 
 
 Fifty years of congresses of nations held in different countries, 
 composed of eminent, representative publicists and statesmen, and 
 conferences like that now held annually at Lake Mohonk, have cre- 
 ated public opinion and powerfully inspired political institutions 
 with peace principles, the fruit of which appears in treaties, in a 
 court of international arbitration, and even in a touch of altruism 
 in the very laws of war. 
 
 We might properly include the influence of all the distinguished 
 men, writers, orators, agitators and earnest Christian souls, un- 
 known to the world but registered on high, who have struggled in 
 season and out of season to enlighten their fellow men, to create 
 public opinion, and who have, without knowing it, been guiding 
 political life and institutions. 
 
130 
 
 The recent international reciprocity movement, which seems 
 to promise very much in the future for the peace of the world, is 
 the masterful work of political organizations seeking profit chiefly 
 through peace principles. The white-winged ships of commerce, 
 and the great and small ocean steamships, freighted with the prod- 
 ucts of every zone, are gradually gathering the nations into com- 
 munion and intercourse, which must end at last, if continued, in 
 the federation of nations, in arbitration and peace, developed and 
 directed by the political life and political institutions of the world. 
 
 We must not be in haste for heavenly perfection, but take 
 knowledge of the Divine patience which has brooded over erring 
 humanity many centuries. How little does the race yet compre- 
 hend that Light which came to this world two thousand years ago, 
 and has never ceased to enter constantly thick spiritual and intel- 
 lectual darkness. Yet progress is certain; now slowly, now rapidly, 
 the light of civilization extends. There is a vast difference between 
 the savage, barbaric life that once was and the enlightenment in 
 the most favored nations of to-day. 
 
 Truth seems to us sometimes to retire before the armies of the 
 aliens, but it is really ever uppermost, and following we may always 
 look for great and permanent advance. We verily thought a few 
 years since that we had come out at last into the eternal sunshine of 
 peace, but we were hurled back suddenly by the two most enlight- 
 ened nations into dark clouds and cruel war, without necessity or 
 reason. 
 
 But the bitter lesson which is following these deliriums of war 
 and blood will teach us, if we can learn it no other way, the wick- 
 edness, foolishness and extravagance of both conquests. 
 
 The burdens of war in all ages fall upon the poor and weak 
 most heavily; they are slaughtered, they are taxed, they suffer most. 
 They are God's outraged poor everywhere, broken-hearted mothers, 
 sisters and lovers, whom no sympathy can reach, only pity, for it is 
 the iron fate of war. The Christian ministers might close the gates 
 of war forever, but instead they, with lusty enthusiasm, blow the 
 bugle blast and let loose the dogs of war, consecrate the simple, 
 childlike victim devoted to war and his weapons, and exhort him to 
 do anything but remember his New Testament and its words, 
 " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 
 
 The remedy is enlightened Christian public opinon, in political 
 life and institutions. 
 
 The Chairman: The discussion of the topics raised in the pa- 
 pers of the afternoon, which will continue for not more than half 
 an hour, will be opened by Dr. Edward H, Magill, of Swarthmore 
 College. 
 
 Edward H. Magill: If the discussion of these papers means 
 finding any fault with what has been presented, I surely have noth- 
 
131 
 
 ing whatever to say. These three papers, being naturally connect- 
 ed, have presented a very bright and hopeful outlook for the cause 
 of peace. 
 
 I have only a few words to say on the one point of " Interna- 
 tionalism," presented in one of the papers this afternoon, just to 
 emphasize what has been said. Six years ago a system of interna- 
 tional correspondence between professors and students in different 
 nations was started by Professor Millet, who lives in Southern 
 France. He thought "that it would be a good thing for the sake of 
 the study of the languages that students should interchange let- 
 ters and correct each other's letters, and also that it would be a very 
 valuable means of making the citizens of the different nations ac- 
 quainted with each other and thus tend to remove misunderstand- 
 ings and causes of war. To-day there are between 12,000 and 
 15,000 letters going all the time between the nations of France, 
 England, Germany, Italy, the United States, Spain and Canada. 
 What a significant thing it is that the central bureau in Italy, in 
 Milan, should be under the charge of the Peace Association. E. T, 
 Moneta is president of that peace society, and he conducts the 
 bureau there. Dr. Hartman, in Leipzig, is very much interested 
 in the cause of peace, and he is conducting the bureau there. Pro- 
 fessor Millet, in France, who invented the system and has done so 
 much to put it forward, and is a prolific writer, sends me whole 
 reams of paper on the subject of peace. He writes much for the 
 journals of France. His wife is president of a peace society in 
 France. "W. T. Stead, the editor of the Review of Reviews, who 
 is so highly regarded by most of us, but who has lost recently much 
 of his standing in England, largely because of his bold stand 
 against the Boer War, is interested in the movement. His office 
 is the central bureau for England. The central bureau in thia 
 country is not far away (at Swarthmore, Pa.). 
 
 We have first, then, in this work, the teaching of the languages; 
 but we know that the correspondence will make pupils acquainted 
 with each other and that thus will come about an exchange of views 
 and a wider acquaintance among the young people of the rising 
 generation. 
 
 We have got to wait until this generation passes away before 
 we can expect the great things that we have been speaking of this 
 afternoon. When I was a boy 1 could wait till to-morrow or the next 
 day, or perhaps the day after, for anything I wanted very badly, but 
 not beyond that. Now, if I can get something accomplished in four 
 or five generations, or before the twentieth century is over, I shall 
 feel comfortably well satisfied. We shall have to be satisfied to 
 get perhaps late in the twentieth century these things that you 
 have heard predicted this afternoon. In a few days we shall finish 
 one year of it, and we shall have ninety-nine more years left to do 
 work in. 
 
 I will close by saying that the secret of the whole business of 
 
132 
 
 making all such changes is to begin with the young, to begin in the 
 home, and then to continue in the school, in business, everywhere, 
 to carry out these principles of peace, of brotherly love, of the 
 golden rule. A Golden Rule Brotherhood was established a year 
 ago last August in New York. Its purposes were fully set forth 
 at the Pan-American Exposition at Buffalo this year. It has a 
 small actual membership. But the Golden Eule Sisterhood, as 
 May Wright Sewall, its president, reported in Buffalo, has a mem- 
 bership of several millions. The way to get to be a member of 
 either of these is to make up your mind that you are going to 
 act on the Golden Rule. Everybody knows that the Golden Rule 
 is a very old story. But it is an entirely new thing to put it in 
 practice. Those, therefore, who make up their minds that they 
 will obey it every day, as far as possible, will be truly members of 
 the Golden Rule Brotherhood or the Golden Rule Sisterhood, and 
 will thus help to bring about the great results at which we are aim- 
 ing. 
 
 ^ 
 The Chaikmax: The papers presented this afternoon are now 
 open for general discussion. 
 
 Stephen R. Smith: This expression has weighed with me 
 much to-day: "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy 
 might." I have listened with gi'eat interest and rejoicing to the 
 many splendid papers that have been presented and the discussions 
 that have followed them. I have been enthused with them. I 
 have enjoyed seeing the city of Philadelphia, its great buildings and 
 its City Hall. But at the entrance to the hall there is an equestrian 
 statue of a warrior of the flesh; then there is at the top the grand 
 monument to William Penn, who was pre-eminently the preacher 
 of righteousness and of peace. His " holy experiment " in govern- 
 ment was a great deed. His treaty with the Indians was the only 
 one that was ever cemented without an oath, and said to be the 
 only one ever kept between nations. But there I beheld, staring 
 me in the face at the orifices of the building, six grim engines of 
 destruction. Friends, we need to change public opinion on these 
 matters. If Ave have been enthused here, we need to take that 
 enthusiasm home with us and engage in home missionary work. 
 We need the spirit of Christ in our souls, our whole being filled with 
 the Holy Ghost, so that we may do our work effectively, as George 
 Fox did his. Let us not forget, as we go home, that we do not wish 
 to have it said that this Congress was simply a mutual admiration 
 society. Let us put our shoulder to the wheel and work while it 
 is day. 
 
 The Chairman: I would like to suggest to my friend Stephen 
 E. Smith that possibly those disused and decrepit cannon in the 
 plaza of our City Hall may be symbols of the wornoutness and use- 
 
133 
 
 lessness, the " gonebyncss/' if you will allow me to use the word, of 
 the system of war; for certainly no one could fire them off, and 
 they are perfectly harmless. 
 
 David Ferris: I have listened with intense interest to the 
 various papers read, and the views expressed on this vital question 
 of war, now so earnestly engaging our attention. We, who call 
 ourselves Friends, are almost unanimous in pronouncing all war in- 
 consistent with the teaching of Jesus and with the spirit of Chris- 
 tianity. I have nothing to add by way of argument. I want to en- 
 dorse the views expressed. Though variously worded and given 
 from different points of view, they all converge to the same general 
 conclusion. I unite with that conclusion. 
 
 I wish lovingly to exhort Friends to more faithfulness in living 
 this vital testimony of '"peace and goodwill"; that it may perme- 
 ate our life and pass from us as the healing from Jesus; that we 
 may live, as George Fox said, " in the virtue of that life which takes 
 away the occasion of war." 
 
 I have felt that during the past three years, while the war fever, 
 like a moral pestilence, has swept over our land, we Friends have 
 not exerted the influence that we should have done on public senti- 
 ment regarding war. Why? Because too many of us have com- 
 promised, have excused, have palliated the wrong. While many 
 have worked earnestly to stay the curse, there have been many 
 others who have used such excuses as these: " God can bring good 
 out of this seeming evil," " We must be loyal to our government." 
 Our political affiliations have been a source of weakness. Choosing 
 the least of two evils is not an uncommon plea. Some of us have 
 even gone so far as to justify the present Philippine war. These 
 Friends may be honest and sincere, but I think the war excitement 
 has warped their judgment so that they cannot see clearly. 
 
 Will not such excuses, if carried to their logical conclusions, 
 justify any iniquity or cruelty that the mind can conceive? So our 
 " trumpet has given an uncertain sound," and we have not exerted 
 the influence against the present wars, Avhich a faithful upholding 
 of this precious testimony would have given us. 
 
 Even in our most unselfish and honest endeavors to promote jus- 
 tice and truth we must expect opposition; "for so persecuted they 
 the prophets before " us; or as our Quaker poet says: 
 
 " Every age on him who strays 
 From its broad and beaten ways 
 Pours its seven-fold vial." 
 
134 
 
 "We need a higher courage than is shown on the battlefield, for 
 we must sometimes bear the condemnation of those dear and near 
 to us. 
 
 "Hard to bear the stranger's scoflf; 
 Hard the old friends' falling otl"; 
 
 Hard to learn forgiving. 
 But the Lord his own rewards.. 
 And his love with their's accords 
 
 Warm and fresh and living." 
 
 Do not justice and true patriotism and our Christian profession 
 of peace plead with us to unite in using our influence with our 
 country and government to give freedom to these injured and op- 
 pressed people who have been so long and so earnestly struggling 
 for it? Can we not all unite in this good work? 
 
 " Have we been faithful as we knew, 
 To God and to our brother true; 
 To Heaven and earth ? " 
 
 Are these meetings we have been holding an augury of our fu- 
 ture united action to bring peace to our country? If so, we may 
 take courage and have faith that a brighter day is dawning; for 
 when all Friends can be united in a righteous cause they will carry 
 conviction with them. 
 
 In all the papers read and the addresses made the Christian 
 standard of overcoming evil with good has been upheld. It has 
 been a great satisfaction to attend this Convention. I feel it is the 
 opening of a better day for Friends. It is a reunion full of hope. 
 Let us work cordially together for the help and uplift of humanity, 
 and the work will draw us nearer together in Christian love. Then, 
 if we can unite in trying to influence our government to give the 
 Filipinos their liberty, that we may hope will be eventually success- 
 ful, then we will have done our part to 
 
 " Break the chain, the yoke remove. 
 
 And strike to earth oppression's rod. 
 
 With those mild arms of truth and love, 
 
 Made mighty through the living God." 
 
 Anna Beaithwaite Thomas: I have been deeply interested 
 in this question of internationalism. The means that have been 
 brought forward in the last few years for bringing the nations of 
 the world into harmony with each other are altogether in line with 
 the root-truth of the Society of Friends. You may remember how 
 George Fox said, " Friends, be universal in your spirits." A belief 
 that the Spirit of the Lord deals with every human soul should 
 make us interested in every individual whom God has created. It 
 makes no difference whether they are black or white, Americans, 
 English, Boer, Filipino, Chinese, or what not. It is this principle 
 
135 
 
 of the love of God to every individual soul that has made me a 
 peace woman, and lead me to try to put peace principles into action. 
 I have been thrown in the course of my life with people of different 
 countries. As a girl, I went with my parents on a religious visit 
 through Europe. I was brought in that way into close touch with 
 the people in France, Germany, Switzerland and Italy. I became 
 intensely interested in many of them; I saw their religious life; I 
 was present in meetings where the power of the Holy Spirit came 
 upon us, and I was baptized into sympathy with many of the peo- 
 ple. Could I afterwards view with any satisfaction the thought of 
 war with those people whom I knew and loved individually? I 
 have since been brought into close touch with Christian people in 
 Norway and Denmark and other places. I have relatives and 
 friends in the East, in Japan, in China, in South Africa, even. 
 When we get into this Christian touch with other peoples, we begin 
 to understand that war cannot be God's will. When such beautiful 
 ideas as those of peace are held up before us, we say sometimes, 
 "That is idealism." Well, what is idealism? Idealism is the 
 truth. I believe; and whenever we see anything beautiful or true or 
 good, we may take it for granted that that is God's will. The beau- 
 tiful ideal of peace, universal peace, I am not prepared to wait 
 even one century for the fulfillment of it. Why should we wait? 
 If the Christian Church, if even the whole body of Friends, would 
 rise in power, in the power of God, we could bring in the day of 
 peace much sooner than the end of this century. 
 
 The Conference then, after announcements and a moment of 
 silence, adjourned till S p.m. 
 
Stitb Session. 
 
 Sixth-day Evening. Twelfth Month 13th. 
 
 The Conference re-assembled in Witheispoon Hall, for its sixth 
 session, at 8 p.m., under the presidency of Joshua L. Baily. A few 
 moments were given to silent waiting upon God. 
 
 The Chairman: Those of us who have had the privilege of 
 attending the sessions of the Conference yesterday and to-day can- 
 not have failed to notice the gradual development of the doctrine 
 and practice of peace as set forth in the different papers which have 
 been read. 
 
 First, " The New Testament Ground of Peace," as presented in 
 the admirable paper of Professor Eussell, and then " The Elements 
 of Peace Doctrine in the Old Testament," as unfolded in the schol- 
 arly paper of Doctor Barton, all showing the gradual progress lead- 
 ing up to and reaching its full development in the teaching of our 
 Lord . 
 
 The Decalogue brought do^vn from the mountain in the hands 
 of Moses, and our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, were shown to be 
 harmonious parts of one beneficent scheme in which was manifested 
 .the Brotherhood of Man as well as the Fatherhood of God. We 
 were shown that the early Christian Church was uniform in its tes- 
 timony to the peaceable nature of Christ's kingdom, " I am a Chris- 
 tian and therefore I cannot fight " being the all-sufficient reason as- 
 signed for the maintenance of their peace principles. 
 
 Passing down the centuries we were shown how primitive Chris- 
 tianity declined as Church and State became united, men forsaking 
 the teacliing of the Prince of Peace and seeking the spread of Chris- 
 tianity by force of arras. It was claimed that not until the middle 
 of the Seventeenth Century were the peaceable principles of primi- 
 tive Christianity revived by the preaching of Fox and Penn and 
 Barclay. We were made sorrowfully aware of the sad extent to 
 which the members of the Christian Church, not excepting our own 
 portion of it, had so often failed to bear a consistent testimony 
 against all wars and fightings. 
 
 " The Inherent Immorality of War " and " The Christian Idea 
 of Force " were the subjects of two valuable papers, the clear teach- 
 ing of both being profitably emphasized by several speakers. 
 
 We were reminded of the duty of parents and teachers to incul- 
 cate the principles of peace in the home as well as in the Bible 
 School, and " The Opportunities and Eesponsibility of Woman for 
 Promoting Peace Principles " were presented in an earnest appeal. 
 
137 
 
 The peace principles which should govern us in political life 
 were also forcihly presented, and the consistent position in oppo- 
 sition to all war so steadfastly maintained by the illustrious Quaker 
 statesman of England, the late John Bright, was commended as an 
 example worthy of emulation. 
 
 And now, having gone thi^ far, it is proposed that we this even- 
 ing review the field from quite a different standpoint. It seems al- 
 most like taking a backward step to open anew the question as to 
 '' the extent to which peace principles are practicable/' and yet this 
 is the query propounded as I read it in the printed program for this 
 evening. It having been shown to us that the Gospel of Peace is 
 graven in the very bed rock of our Christianity, that for the main- 
 tenance of their testimony against war the early Christians, as well 
 as the early Quakers, suffered imprisonment and divers tortures, 
 and even the loss of life itself; and in view of the many examples al- 
 ready quoted of the triumphs of peace principles under the most 
 adverse circumstances, is it still an open question " To what extent 
 are peace principles practical?" Fortunately, the committee has 
 confided the discussion of this question to one so well qualified to 
 handle it that I am quite content to leave the field to him. 
 
 The Chairman: "To What Extent are Peace Principles 
 Practicable?" is the topic which will be spoken to by President 
 Sharpless, of Haverford College. 
 
 TO WHAT EXTENT ARE PEACE PRINCIPLES 
 PRACTICABLE ? 
 
 BY PRESIDENT ISAAC SHARPLESS, HAVERFORD COLLEGE. 
 
 Is it ever right to do wrong? Will the achievement of great 
 and beneficent results justify the commission of an act which, but 
 for these results, would be immoral? Has a man the right to put 
 his conscience in the path of progress and impose the consequences 
 of his beliefs upon other people? May we hold a theory as right in 
 itself if in practice it is impossible? 
 
 These and a great many similar questions immediately arise 
 to the man who is asked to solve the problems of life in the world 
 as at the present constituted. They do not arise simply in that ab- 
 normal condition of things which we call war, but are ever present 
 with us in our ordinary civilization in times of peace. We employ 
 detectives who lie and drink and dishonor trust and friendship be- 
 cause we say they are necessary for the suppression of crime. The 
 whole criminal administration is in use of methods in which a per- 
 fectly moral man could hardly join. Business life is not always con- 
 ditioned upon perfect trust and honesty, and there are those who 
 would say it would be impossible to succeed on this basis. The code 
 of politics justifies the commission of a number of at least doubtful 
 
•138 
 
 acts, which, for good ends, are winked at by excellent people. The 
 first man that you will meet on the street will tell you that while a 
 state of society which practices the precepts of the Sermon on the 
 Mount would be ideally beautiful, yet they are entirely impossible 
 of fulfillment under the present circumstances and may be laid 
 aside for better times. It comes to us as a moral tonic, but at the 
 same time a matter of surprise, when we hear a successful business 
 man announce that he would not accept a directorship in any com- 
 pany or own a share of its stock if any questionable methods for se- 
 curing legislative favors were necessary to be adopted. 
 
 There is no doubt about the answer of the early Friends to these 
 questions. They were not opportunists. The least matter of con- 
 science was worth more than the whole world. Better lose life and 
 goods, and sacrifice all future apparent good of society, than violate 
 one iota of the moral law. They could lose; they could suffer; they 
 could die; but they could not do wrong. 
 
 But government, business, society and politics at the pres- 
 ent time have codes of morals of their own which are perfectly un- 
 derstood and justified by many excellent men, but which are greatly 
 different from the code of the New Testament. There is no sub- 
 ject on which this divergence is more conspicuous than the subject 
 of war. The questions are again and again asked of " peace men " : 
 " How are you going to apply your principles to existing condi- 
 tions? What would you have done if you had been in charge of 
 affairs at Eevolutionary times, or during the Civil War? Your the- 
 ories seem to be in accord with the highest Christian sentiments, 
 but they are not applicable. It becomes necessary to fight, and the- 
 ories of right and wrong have to give way in the face of present 
 necessities." There are a great many who consider themselves good 
 " peace men " who will go to great lengths to avoid a war, and who 
 fully recognize the evils of war; yet they say that under desperate 
 circumstances the evils of peace would be still greater. They say 
 that any abstract principles lose their validity, and that of the two 
 courses possible we must take the one that, in our judgment, seems 
 to produce the fewest evil results. 
 
 To this class of people several replies may be made. One is that 
 they cannot possibly judge what the results will be. The wisest of 
 us are short-sighted, and we can probably in every case reverse the 
 motto of Paley and say that whatever is right is expedient. If a 
 Christian martyr had argued that he could do more for his cause by 
 living than by dying in some obscure village of the Roman Empire, 
 he would have had a plausible case. He might have supposed that 
 many Christian converts would have been the result of his later ef- 
 forts if he would only temporize a little and utter some meaningless 
 phrase signifying his devotion to the genius of the Emperor. But 
 we are now quite sure that his death meant more to Christianity 
 than his life could ever have been. Luther might easily have ar- 
 gued that his influence at Rome in favor of reform within the 
 
139 
 
 Church would have been far more potent than liis probable isola- 
 tion and apparently suicidal attacks upon it. But from the point of 
 view of expediency he would have made a great mistake. The cases 
 in history of men who bravely took the losing side because it was 
 right will occur to every one of you, and in looking back you will 
 recognize that nearly all the great impulses toward better things 
 which the world has received have come from this sort of people. 
 The blood of the martyrs has been the seed not only of the Church 
 reforms, but also of all reforms in politics and society. The fear of 
 consequences has been the plea of the coward and the time-server, 
 and the little gains that the best of them have made, even when 
 their intentions have been good, do not stand out in history. 
 
 I cannot now argue the question as to the abstract righteousness 
 of war. For our present purpose we will assume that the answer is 
 in the negative. But it will not do simply to stop here. It may 
 serve the individual conscience of him who takes this view and in- 
 duce him to say that for himself this settles the whole question. 
 And so it should. But he has duties to others as well as to himself, 
 and if he desires to avert from society the evil effects of warfare he 
 must indicate some method of living which will seem reasonable to 
 others. It is very right that there should be among us those who 
 plant themselves firmly on the high ground of principle and say, 
 " Come what will, war is wrong and no exigencies can make it 
 right." But there are very few people, even Christian people, who 
 believe this. They may, at some future time; but I think there is 
 some obligation upon ultra-peace men to show how far they will 
 extend their principle, and under what conditions peace regulations 
 of society can be enforced. 
 
 We have on one extreme the teachings of Tolstoy and his disci- 
 ples, who claim that all resistance is wrong, and consequently that 
 all government is wrong, for government at its best is only a method 
 to resist invaders of personal rights. Hence the whole machinery of 
 police and jails and courts of justice, and laws and executives should 
 be abolished, criminals should be met only by forbearance and pas- 
 sive resistance, and the great example of universal love should be 
 shown to the world, let the consequences be what they will. 
 
 We do not feel sure that there is not more in this theory than 
 most people are willing to admit. We have found in our ordinary 
 experiences that a man who is met in a generous spirit will practi- 
 cally always so respond, and that most of the difficulties which come 
 to us are the result of deviations from absolute justice and kindli- 
 ness on our own part. It is probable that there are men so ruthless 
 and imfeeling as to strike at the rights and even the lives of pa- 
 tient, generous and bravely suffering victims, but such people are, 
 I believe, much more rare than we usually assume. In what com- 
 pany will not the life and honor of a helpless child be perfectly 
 safe? How very few there are who would insult or injure old age 
 or sickness! So we say that every approach toward the position of 
 
140 
 
 Tolstoy, even if that position be in itself an extreme, is a gain for 
 the world, which is altogether too sceptical of the strong defences 
 of purity and righteousness. But it is not necessary to carry the 
 matter to this extreme. Usually among the so-called " peace men " 
 a distinction is made between police and military measures. The 
 one is permitted, the other is reprobated, and I suppose the line 
 with most of us would be drawn, not at the denial of all resistance, 
 but at the use of methods which would be in themselves criminal. 
 
 It is probably a mistake to call Friends non-resistants and non- 
 combatants. They have not been so in the past. In the seven- 
 teenth century they resisted with unflinching courage and mighty 
 success the efforts to quench their privileges and narrow their du- 
 ties. No braver fight ever occurred. They have never had but one 
 opportunity to attempt to conduct the State according to their prin- 
 ciples, and that was in early Pennsylvania, and we must pause a lit- 
 tle time to find out how, in this practical test, they applied their 
 doctrine of the wrongfulness of military measures. 
 
 In 1688 the colony was asked to form a militia. The governor 
 appointed by Penn was an old Cromwellian soldier, who urged it 
 upon the council, which was largely Friendly. After a conference 
 the Quaker members gave as their decision: "We would not tie 
 others' hands, but we cannot act. We would not take it upon us to 
 hinder any, and we do not think the governor need call us together 
 in the matter. We say nothing against it and regard it as a mat- 
 ter of conscience to us." Not infrequently similar demands came 
 from the crown. The universal custom of the Quaker Assembly 
 was to throw the responsibility upon the non-Quaker lieutenant- 
 governor. In the matter of appropriating money for military ex- 
 penses their practice was varied. In 1709 they appropriated £500 
 in response to the promise of the governor that it should not be 
 " dipt in blood." Two years later they made a similar appropria- 
 tion without the reservation, and Isaac Norris, a Friend minister 
 of high standing, defended it on the ground that it was simply a 
 supply for the government, and the fact that the government chose 
 to spend it in war was not a responsibility of theirs. 
 
 When, as a result of ill-treatment of the Indians and French in- 
 trigue, the troubles began on the frontier, between 1740 and 1750, 
 there were many demands made upon the Quaker Assembly for 
 money for military purposes. These, after some haggling as to 
 terms, were generally voted, though the purpose for which they 
 were to be applied never stated warlike expenditure. In one case 
 it was for bread, beef, pork, flour, wheat and other grain. Frank- 
 lin said that the " other grain " was construed to mean gun powder, 
 to which construction the Assembly appears to have made no ob- 
 jection. 
 
 A line of forts stretching from Easton to the Maryland bound- 
 ary was built with money so expended, and several laws were passed 
 organizing a militia. In the latter case it was always provided that 
 
141 
 
 no one was to be forced to perform military services. The meetings 
 were expected to keep their own members out of it. It was a fa- 
 vorite phrase in a law/* Whereas this province was settled, and the 
 majority of the Assembly have ever since been of the people called 
 Quakers, who, though they do not, as the world is now constituted, 
 condemn the use of arms in others, yet are principled against bear- 
 ing arms themselves," etc., etc. This seems to have been the 
 Quaker policy through the whole of the provincial days. They were 
 convinced of the unlawfulness of war for themselves, but did not at- 
 tempt to impose their principles upon others. After the first ten 
 years Pcnn and his successors never appointed a Quaker governor. 
 If they had it is difficult to see how the province would have been 
 governed. It may be a question of casuistry whether a man should 
 make it easy for some one else to do that of which he himself does 
 not approve provided the second man's conscience is not troubled. 
 But whether right or wrong, that seems to have been the consistent 
 policy of the Pennsylvania Friends in provincial days, and there is 
 some justification for those who say that pure Quaker principles are 
 not adapted to government, in the policy of the Quakers themselves 
 when in power. 
 
 They thought, in 1756, they must resign their places in the Leg- 
 islature. The executive branch of the government had declared 
 war against the Indians, and it was the opinion of the wisest 
 Friends, both in England and America, that the exigencies of the 
 case were such as to demand the entire withdrawal of Friends from 
 the responsibilities of government. This was in itself a confession 
 of failure. They could have remained in power apparently indefi- 
 nitely, so far as the electors were concerned. In the fall of 1755, 
 after Braddock's defeat, and when the Indians were ravaging the 
 frontier, twenty-eight of the thirty-six members elected to the As- 
 sembly were Friends. Their constituency evidently had faith in 
 their methods of solving the difficulty, and were willing to try these 
 methods further. 
 
 So far as I can see this condition of affairs could have lasted un- 
 til the Revolution, for their political machine was in excellent order 
 and they were practically sure of re-election. I think that they in- 
 tended to resume their places in the government after the troubles, 
 which they believed would be temporary, should have been over- 
 past. But there was continual rumor of war on one side or the 
 other for twenty years, and then the great cataclysm occurred which 
 ended their infiuential connection with the government. Whether, 
 in the light of subsequent events, they did right in voluntarily with- 
 drawing is a question. At any rate it would have been a more per- 
 fect experiment in the practicability of peace principles if they had 
 remained in power as long as they were the honorable recipients of 
 popular votes, and so had shown whether or not their theories were 
 available in stormy times. The truth of the matter seems to be that 
 the virtues must go together. Justice to the Indians and French 
 
142 
 
 and adjacent colonists was an indispensable condition of peace. I 
 am not at all convinced that a Quaker government in America, in 
 1776, could not have also solved the great question of English op- 
 pression without a war, if it had had the opportunity during the 
 preceding years, and the eradication of slavery in the State at the 
 time it was abolished by the meetings might reasonably be supposed 
 to have obviated the necessity of our Civil War. If, therefore, 
 peace is to be practicable among nations, a large amount of other 
 virtues must also exist. And until this is possible we will have to 
 admit that there are limits to the application of our doctrine. I 
 believe that both John Bright and General Grant are credited with 
 the statement that all wars of the present century migh have been 
 avoided if reasonable and cool views had prevailed in advance. But 
 in a great majority of cases one side or the other has a desire to 
 fight for the sake of fighting. 
 
 We might, therefore, come to these conclusions: First, that it 
 is our duty to fight for the right and against evil, and fight hard, by 
 methods which are not themselves wrong. Second, that a man or 
 a society that believes war to be wrong must keep out of it, let the 
 consequences be what they will. Third, that one cannot impose his 
 views upon others, who, with equal honesty, have come to a differ- 
 ent conclusion; that he must respect the motives which take many 
 men into war, and give them the honor which their terrible self- 
 sacrifice deserves; for to the man of fine feelings and honest con- 
 victions nothing could be more repellent than enduring the horrors 
 of battle and the awful demoralization of camp life in place of the 
 comforts and duties of home and civil society. Fourth, that as all 
 the virtues work together, any one who advances the cause of right- 
 eousness in any direction is a friend of peace, and especially he who 
 shows a man or a nation how to practice forbearance in the face of 
 injury, and to deal kindly and generously with an opponent is doing 
 his best to remove the causes of war. But, as these causes will con- 
 tinue to operate, it is our duty, by the establishment of arbitration 
 and other methods, to avert wars, even when otherwise they would 
 be inevitable. 
 
 Upon these points certain remarks may be made. It is impos- 
 sible to avoid giving aid and comfort to wars and warlike tendencies 
 unless one goes to a desert isle and lives by himself. Even if we 
 do not join the army we pay taxes for its support. I do not know 
 that any peace man omitted to write checks after the opening of 
 the Spanish War because stamps were necessary to make them legal, 
 and these stamps were expressly a Avar tax. Any one who has read 
 the records of Friends during the Eevolutionary times knows how 
 difficult it was for them to hold their position of neutrality between 
 parties and of consistent opposition to everything that pertained to 
 war. Some drew the line at personal service, some at payment of 
 war taxes, some at handling the paper money issued in support of 
 the war, some at selling supplies to the army, and some at subscrib- 
 
143 
 
 ing to tests of allegiance to the government while at war. The spirit 
 and results of the war are so inextricably mingled with our general 
 civilization that he who lives in it must support them inevitably. 
 But w^hile it is difficult to draw the line this much is clear, that cer- 
 tain acts are unquestionably over the line, and he who takes the 
 ground that war is a violation of the Christian moral law must 
 not confuse his mind by arguing that it is right for him because the 
 cause is just, or the consequence apparently good, or the necessity 
 dire. For himself the line of duty must be marked out regardless of 
 where it will lead. Any compromise yields mental confusion and 
 gives away his cause. 
 
 But when we come to judge our fellows we have no right to 
 place our standards upon them; whether through education or con- 
 viction their consciences are different from ours. Many doubtless 
 take part in martial display or actual warfare from love of glory, or 
 love of adventure, or love of money, but there is a solid residuum 
 w^hich regards war as an inevitable and at times a justifiable evil, 
 and takes it up with reluctance and at a great sacrifice. We cannot 
 fully judge of motives, but we know that this class contains a very 
 considerable number of our fellow citizens, and I should be imvrill- 
 ing to oppose any measures, like honest pensions or honors, which 
 a grateful nation would adopt to give expression to its appreciation 
 of exalted self-sacrifice. I do not think that we should necessarily 
 keep clear of flag-raisings and other public ceremonies of this sort, 
 for the Stars and Stripes represent a great many things in America 
 besides military display. The flag stands for liberty, civil and re- 
 ligious; for equality; for a democracy which is unquestionably 
 stronger than in any other nation of the world, all Quaker princi- 
 ples of incalculable preciousness. It stands for commerce and trade, 
 and in the main, too, it stands for peace, for our government has 
 done more than any other to advance this cause by promoting arbi- 
 tration and by self-restraint. We will have to admit also that splen- 
 didly beneficent results have sometimes followed a war, and that 
 military heroism is not an empty name. 
 
 Seeing, then, that the success of sound principles in practice is 
 to depend on the education of the community and the removal of 
 causes which tend toward strife, we have before us a very practical 
 field of work. I do not mean that w^e should cease to point out that 
 the spirit of war and the spirit of the New Testament are contrary 
 to each other, and so gain converts to strictly peace views; but we 
 must remember that it is hard even for us who have looked at the 
 question for years from a peaceful standpoint to understand just 
 what is right in all cases. We can give our right hand of encour- 
 agement to the men who are establishing the principles of arbitra- 
 tion between nations and individuals, and we can oppose legislative 
 actions which encourage martial feelings among boys in schools and 
 colleges. But we may have to admit that pure righteousness can- 
 not be applied; that a strictly peace man could not be President of 
 
144 
 
 ( 
 the United States though he might be a policeman on our streets; 
 that we cannot explain to all opponents just how our principles 
 would work in the present tangled condition of affairs; indeed, we 
 may hold that they will not work at all in certain emergencies, and 
 like John Bright after the bombardment of Alexandria, and the 
 Quaker legislators in Pennsylvania in 1756, we will simply have to 
 withdraw them and live quietly until better days come. 
 
 On the other hand we must have a firm faith that they are right, 
 and, therefore, because right is always strong, that they are much 
 more capable of application than the world believes or we can see, 
 and in this faith we can keep our own consciences clear, and labor 
 hopefully for the slowly growing peace sentiment to ripen its benefi- 
 cent fruitage. With our two centuries of vantage we ought to de- 
 velop the inspiration and the leaders of practical advances, and not 
 be satisfied simply with the instruction of our own membership. 
 
 The Chaieman: With your indulgence I will now make use 
 of a part of the time which by the program is allotted me, but 
 which I did not occupy in my opening remarks, to relate two cir- 
 cumstances which came under my own observation illustrative of 
 the practicability of peace measures. Some of you may remember 
 the great strike on the Pennsylvania Railroad which occurred some 
 twenty or more years ago. At Pittsburg, where the disturbance ap- 
 pears to have commenced, a very serious riot ensued. Hundreds of 
 cars belonging to the railroad company were burned, and buildings 
 and other property valued at millions of dollars were destroyed. 
 The local soldiery were ordered out, and several regiments were 
 sent to the scene of the riot from other parts of the State, and it 
 was only after much bloodshed and loss of life that the rioters were 
 overcome and peace restored. 
 
 The strike extended to Philadelphia. Here great trains of cars 
 stood motionless upon the railroad tracks, the fires were drawn from 
 under the locomotive boilers, and the angry strikers were gathering 
 in groups along the lines of the road. The danger seemed immi- 
 nent. The Mayor of the city — William M. Stokeley — quietly and 
 privately called together at his office a select number of business 
 men for consultation as to what should be done. ■' Call out the 
 military," " Telegraph the Governor for additional troops," was the 
 advice of the majority. " Not that," said the Mayor; " my experi- 
 ence is that the presence of soldiers under such circumstances only 
 excites the riotous spirit and provokes resistance. Give me several 
 hundred additional policemen and assure me of the money that will 
 be required for their pay and you may hold me responsible for the 
 peace of the city," or words to that effect. 
 
 There was no time to be lost. The recommendation of the 
 Mayor was adopted, the gentlemen present agreeing to be responsi- 
 ble for the expense incurred. The Mayor had in part anticipated 
 the action of the citizens and had already summoned a large addi- 
 
145 
 
 tion to the regular police force, and with some further increase he 
 was able to place men all along the line of the road where violence 
 scorned to be most threatening, orders being given to quietly and 
 gently disperse the strikers wherever they appeared to be congre- 
 gating and to counsel them to return to their homes. What was the 
 result"? Without the firing of a gun, or the shedding of blood, or 
 the destruction of property, the riot was prevented and the peace of 
 the city preserved, and all this, mark you, without the presence of 
 a soldier. 
 
 Another instance let me relate, an exemplification of practical 
 disarmament which I met with in a recent visit at Nassau, on one 
 of the Bahama Islands. There are four very strong fortifications 
 commanding the harbor of Nassau. One of them, Fort Charlotte, is 
 on a rocky height almost as unassailable as the Heights of Abraham 
 at Quebec. But all these forts are dismantled. There are many can- 
 non there, but they are all spiked, and only bats now inhabit what 
 were once the quarters of the soldiers. There has been no other 
 condition there for nearly a third of a century. There is a fine- 
 looking police force, made up of negroes, but not a soldier under 
 arais on the island; and the inhabitants suffer no hardship from the 
 lack of military protection. An old woman put the whole matter 
 in a nutshell when she queried of me, " Do you ever hear of fight- 
 ing men going where there is nobody to fight? " 
 
 One other circumstance, not of personal observation, but his- 
 torical, seems to me quite worthy of mention in this connection. 
 Many of you will remember that in the war of 1812 between Great 
 Britain and the United States there were many very disastrous en- 
 gagements on the lakes which separate the United States from Can- 
 ada. Indeed, the naval fleets of both nations were almost entirely 
 destroyed. I think that it was John Quincy Adams who, after the 
 conclusion of peace, was first to suggest that the great lakes should 
 be declared neutral waters on which no war vessel of either nation 
 should thereafter be permitted. It was not long after that, under 
 the Presidency of James Monroe, John Quincy Adams being Secre- 
 tary of State, this provision was carried into effect by solemn treaty 
 between the United States and Great Britain, and now for more than 
 three-fourths of a century along the coast lines of this great chain 
 of lakes and upon the waters thereof — an area of even greater ex- 
 tent than the Mediterranean Sea — the white-winged Dove of Peace 
 has held her unbroken sway. Is not this a notable example of the 
 practical application of peace principles? — an example which other 
 nations may find it wise and beneficent to follow, that thus there 
 may ultimately be brought about the reign of peace throughout the 
 earth. 
 
 The Chairman: We shall now have an address on "William 
 Penn's Peace Work," by the President of the Indian Aid Associa- 
 tion, and a member of the Board of Indian Commissioners ap- 
 
146 
 
 pointed by the President of the United States, Philip C. Garrett, 
 of Philadelphia. 
 
 WILLIAM PENN'S WORK FOR PEACE. 
 
 BY PHILIP C. GARRETT, PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 Three prominent figures were chiefly influential, during the six- 
 teenth century, in perpetuating the life of the Society of Friends. 
 The passionate fervor of a number of very zealous converts doubt- 
 less added great momentum to the movement; but these three men 
 — the one as the originator and organizer, the second as the ex- 
 pounder of a new and somewhat startling propaganda, and the third 
 as its practical exponent, conserved and established this revival of 
 pure primitive Christianity. These remarkable men were George 
 Fox, Robert Barclay and William Penn. 
 
 The role of William Penn was largely in the line of civil and 
 religious liberty and peace, but at all events to illustrate in his own 
 Province, and also in his citations from the lives of devoted Chris- 
 tians in all ages, the truths they all advocated. 
 
 In so far as the Quaker movement was a peace movement there 
 was one striking fact about the three. Two of them were the sons 
 of distinguished warriors. Penn had been himself a soldier, and 
 even George Fox was bona fide oft'ered a commission in Cromwell's 
 army. 
 
 Undoubtedly they were all men of peace; but I would call atten- 
 tion to the fact that their antecedents would have made them men 
 of war, and at the outset it was seemingly not yet revealed to them 
 that the inevitable result of accepting the Gospel of Christ was the 
 abandonment of war. It was not that they did not fully accept his 
 revolt from the Mosaic law of revenge, " an eye for an eye and a 
 tooth for a tooth " ; only that their thought had not been forcibly 
 directed to the extent of the revolution, into which their independ- 
 ence of the later religious traditions, and reversion to the original 
 type, were leading them. 
 
 The early Friends made no specialty of peace; they had no pat- 
 ent for it; they made no aggression upon war. From the nature of 
 their belief they were necessarily opposed to war, simply because 
 they sought to be Cbristlike Christians; and it was impossible to 
 imagine their Divine leader in the heat of battle, slaughtering his 
 fellow men and the lilies of the field incarnadined by his holy hand. 
 It was not conceivable. And so while they did not attack war as 
 an institution to be perfected by science and machinery, all physi- 
 cal combat was to them unallowable. 
 
 So secondary a place did Robert Barclay assign to war in his 
 Apology, that he introduced it last of all subjects, under the sin- 
 gular head of " Salutations and Recreations." He begins his ar- 
 raignment thus: " The last thing to be considered is revenge and 
 war, an evil as opposite and contrary to the spirit and doctrine of 
 
147 
 
 Christ as light to darkness." This is plainness of speech. In an- 
 other place he avers that " it is as easy to obscure the sun at mid- 
 day as to deny that the primitive Christians renounced all revenge 
 and war.'' 
 
 We therefore see that the early Church was really as stalwart on 
 this subject as the Society of Friends, and that Christians have sim- 
 ply fallen away from the primitive faitli in this as in many other 
 respects. Our call is to call them back in these last days to the 
 ancient foundation upon which Christ builded his Church. But we 
 cannot forget that military officers were referred to by our Saviour 
 without reprobation as belonging to an established institution 
 which he himself did not attack specially. The centurion was a 
 just man, and one that feared God with all his house. 
 
 George Fox, like his Master, made no direct attack upon war, 
 but warned his followers when offered great places and commands 
 in the army, to " keep out of the powers of the earth, that run into 
 wars and fightings," and " denied them all." To those who offered 
 him a captaincy he said that he " lived in the virtue of that life and 
 power that took away the occasion of all wars " ; and he wrote to 
 Cromwell that he " denied the wearing or drawing of a carnal sword 
 or any other outward weapon against him or any other man," and 
 that he was " set of God " to bring people from the causes of war 
 and fighting " to the peaceable Gospel." 
 
 Robert Barclay treated war much in the same vague way. War 
 as a separate and concrete monster was reserved for the modem re- 
 former. The theorists of the seventeenth century cultivated the 
 peace of God and all its blessed fruits. Fox and Barclay were the- 
 orists. Penn was practical, and, like the reformers of the twen- 
 tieth century, would abolish wars. There is a difference in the two 
 attitudes. Even Penn, though grappling with the subject in a more 
 personal and concrete way, held somewhat aloof from our modem 
 ultraism. 
 
 The comments of George Fox on the suggestion that he himself 
 serve in Cromwell's army sound rather like the words of one who 
 has other work to do and another mission to perform, than those of 
 one to whom this method of settling scores was abhorrent per se. 
 So his well-known saying to his courtier friend, when consulted as 
 to wearing a sword, " Wear it as long as thou canst," was not the 
 utterance of a man who was abhorring the institution of war, but 
 of an apostle of the inner light, of a prophet who pointed every 
 Christian to the teacher within the soul, of the Baptist who called 
 men to the baptism of the Spirit as the only true baptism. Indeed, 
 these inspired men had not yet come to facing the specific evils of 
 war and slavery, but were still combating the spirit that led to all 
 such evils. The true Christian divinity, until now, needed an apolo- 
 gist. Men were imprisoned and beaten for believing in it, not with- 
 standing Christ's own assurance that " he that speaketh a word 
 
148 
 
 against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, neither in 
 this world nor in the world to come." 
 
 In the first century of Quakerism, then, war was not regarded 
 as a distinct science, or an institution to be condemned or con- 
 doned, but simply as the natural expression of man's evil nature. 
 
 William Penn, however, through the unique opportunity af- 
 orded him by the debt of the Stuart king to his father, the admiral, 
 God having put it into his mind to " beat this spear into a pruning 
 hook," and seize this chance to establish a model government, was 
 brought into more direct and effective contact with government and 
 war than his coadjutors. Fox and Barclay; and it thus happens that 
 the most perfect opportunity in history — the most perfect possible 
 — fell into the hands of a Quaker: — the opportunityto demonstrate, 
 as a ruler, the entire practicability of conducting government with- 
 out war. 
 
 Not only so, but the situation into which the providence of 
 God introduced him threw him into circumstances the most diffi- 
 cult for the preservation of peace, and therefore the most conclu- 
 sive, when the experiment proved successful; for he was brought 
 face to face — not with civilized and Christian nations, but with 
 painted savages, who had never yet heard the Gospel of Christ. It 
 was in the midst of these that he showed government could be con- 
 ducted without one drop of blood being shed. 
 
 Amid difficult negotiations, questions of intrusion on their ter- 
 ritory, and of purchase and sale of it, with people of antipodal cus- 
 toms, Penn contrived to live on terms of perfect justice, in amity 
 and mutual esteem with the native redskins. His neighbors, the 
 other English colonies, were in nightly fear of torch and tomahawk. 
 And yet, for two generations, a province capable of containing ten 
 million souls was governed with conspicuous success without sol- 
 diery. The experiment well called " holy " lasted well nigh a cen- 
 tury — a full generation after the death of its author, — endured un- 
 til the peace-loving Friends were ousted from the government of 
 Pennsylvania, and, but for that, might have continued to this day. 
 
 But although, soon after the middle of the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, the Scotch-Irish and more combative element of the popula- 
 tion obtained the mastery of Pennsylvania, the colossal statue of its 
 Quaker founder, surmounting the dome of the metropolis, attests 
 the pride of her people in her founder, and her belief in his unri- 
 valed statesmanship. In this twentieth century the plant that his 
 right hand planted is blossoming out into a world-bloom. The suc- 
 cess of the demonstration cannot be gainsaid. No completer proof 
 is practicable than that made by William Penn of the entire feasi- 
 bility of maintaining a nation without arms, and this perfect experi- 
 ment stands out unchallenged and shines as a beacon light from 
 the seventeenth century to the twentieth that needs not to be re- 
 lit. A nation can be, for a nation has been, conducted without arms 
 for three-quarters of a century. On one occasion Lord Baltimore 
 
149 
 
 tried to make war upon the colony, and sent an army from the 
 south, but his lordship discovered that it required two to make a 
 quarrel. He found no one to fight, and so marched back again, and 
 the boundary was subsequently settled in peace by Mason and 
 Dixon, for this invasion was on account of a boundary dispute, 
 which is a frequent cause of war. 
 
 Fiske attempts to belittle the experiment of Pennsylvania, as- 
 cribing the seventy years' peace, not to Penn's efforts to maintain 
 it by justice and conciliation, but to what he calls " Indian poli- 
 tics." It is clear to me that Fiske is mistaken, and that in other 
 hands than Penn's the colony would have been an Aceldama, like 
 those further East. Fiske did not know how complete was the 
 goodwill between Onas and the Indians, nor was he apparently 
 aware that other Friends beside Penn traveled north and south 
 through the wilderness, among the most dangerous aborigines, un- 
 molested and welcomed. They were welcomed because without 
 guile or selfishness they were full of love, and love begets love. The 
 shrewd and penetrating sons of nature would not harm them, and 
 in their presence the tomahawk slumbered. 
 
 The New England colonists could not live at peace with the red 
 men, because they themselves were quick to provocation and 
 prompt to arm. 
 
 After Penn's return to England his deep interest in the great 
 cause that had so much engrossed his thoughts was undiminished, 
 and in his retirement from society and the world he still devoted his 
 pen to the cause of his divine Master. Ten years after the colony 
 was launched on its voyage of demonstration he gave forth this 
 second memorable contribution toward the permanent peace of the 
 civilized world. The lurid clouds that veiled the sunset of his life 
 had begun to gather around his head. His enemies had temporar- 
 ily wrested from him his province; they had smirched his irre- 
 proachable character with false charges of treason on account of his 
 friendship with King James, and he was in involuntary retirement. 
 It was at the time that he wrote his beautiful " Fruits of Solitude." 
 It was then that he extended his thoughts of peace beyond the lim- 
 its of Sylvania to the federation of man, and wrote his Essay for the 
 Present and Future Peace of Europe. 
 
 The scheme was a great one, greater in its practical than in its 
 theoretical or Quakerly characterization; and it was greater as com- 
 ing from the same factory as the conclusive experiment in Pennsyl- 
 vania which was now well under way. The mind that gave forth 
 this essay was the same which inaugurated and ultimately perfected 
 this divine demonstration. It was therefore authoritative on the 
 subject of international peace. Penn's voice was a voice to be heard 
 on this subject; and it would have been heard if the world's ears 
 had been open. But " men love darkness rather than light because 
 their deeds are evil," and with the carnal ear they love the confused 
 noise of battle rather than the " still, small voice." 
 
150 
 
 It was not in the irony of fate, but in the ordering of an all- 
 seeing Providence that William Penn was the offspring of a distin- 
 guished admiral in the British navy, who was invested with knight- 
 hood for his services in war. This courageous advocate of peace 
 was himself a warrior in his youth, but changed. " Out of the 
 strong came forth sweetness." The evolution was not a sudden one. 
 The familiar portrait in armor, which his grandson, Granville Penn, 
 says is the only portrait ever painted of him, truthfully represents 
 him as a soldier. " His spirit," wrote Granville Penn, in his memoir 
 of Admiral Sir William Penn, " was high and enterprizing; and the 
 forwardness he displayed on the occasion of a mutiny of the sol- 
 diers in the castle of Carrickfergus, induced the Duke of Ormond 
 to think of giving him the active command of the company of foot 
 attached to his father's government of the fort of Kinsale." His 
 father's objection perhaps saved him from a military career. 
 
 He had already been deeply impressed by the preaching of 
 Thomas Loe, who, like himself, had been an Oxford man, and with- 
 in the next year after the affair at Carrickfergus he was irresistibly 
 drawn to attend another " conventicle " where the same Friend 
 again preached. For thus participating in a " tumultuous assem- 
 bly," so called, he was cast into prison. And thus began a faithful 
 service in the Lamb's army, which lasted to the end of his days. 
 
 Three years later his father, the admiral, died, and his filial son 
 thus gently refers to his profession of arms: " How far he was a 
 master of his art, both as a general and a seaman, I leave to the ob- 
 servation of his friends, his own constant success, and what here- 
 after may come to public view of his remarks." 
 
 Love and admiration for his father may account for this tepid 
 reference to the military art, but to a certain extent it pervaded his 
 view of the subject. This was on the courtier side of his character. 
 In his opposition to war he was hardly an extremist; or perhaps I 
 should say more accurately, was not violent. He had the inclina- 
 tion of the practical statesman to see all sides of a question. He ap- 
 proved to a certain extent of the use of force, of police, for example. 
 
 And when we now come to deal with his scheme for the peace of 
 Europe, we shall find that it contains features which Friends of the 
 present day would regard as inadmissible. The essay is too long for 
 the limits of this occasion, and much of it is occupied by an argu- 
 ment in favor of the plan. It is only needful to refer to two sec- 
 tions, which contain the kernel of it. The author intimates that 
 it was suggested by the design of Henry IV. of France, or of his 
 Minister, Sully, to bring about by force, or forceful diplomacy, a 
 somewhat similar union of the European States to which each 
 should contribute its appropriate quota of a common armament. 
 The main feature of the essay was an imperial Diet, or Parliament, 
 which was to sit once in one, two or three years, before which sov- 
 ereign assembly should be brought all differences depending be- 
 
151 
 
 tween one sovereign and another that cannot be made up by private 
 embassies before the session begins. 
 
 The Diet was to represent the nations of Europe, and he pro- 
 ceeds to particularize by naming the number of representatives from 
 each nation. There were only six from England, while Germany 
 was assigned twelve, France ten, Spain ten, and Italy eight, all more 
 than England, which shows the changes time has wrought in the 
 relative importance of these powers. He goes on to say: " And if 
 the Turks and Muscovites are taken in, as seems but fit and just, 
 they will make ten apiece more." " Sweedland " and Poland were 
 each to have four, although the half-barbarous Muscovites have 
 swallowed or partitioned the latter out of existence since. 
 
 The remarkable feature of the scheme is found in the following 
 lines, which sound somewhat warlike: " If any of the sovereignties 
 that constitute these imperial states shall refuse to submit their 
 claim or pretentions to them, or to abide and perform the judgment 
 thereof, and seek their remedy by arms, or delay their compliance 
 beyond the time prefixed by their resolutions, all the other sov- 
 ereignties, united as one strength, shall compel the submission and 
 performance of the sentence, with damages to the suffering party, 
 and charges to the sovereignties that obliged their submission." 
 
 He somewhat naively adds: " To be sure Europe would quickly 
 obtain the so much desired and needed peace to her harassed inhabi- 
 tants; and consequently p«ace would be secured and confirmed in 
 Europe." Although the last paragraph smacks of " practical poli- 
 tics," possibly somewhat too much, we must allow for the age in 
 which the writer lived, and admit that he is far in advance of that 
 age. If Penn had been more powerful, perhaps if it had not been 
 for Ravaillac's dagger, Europe might have been as far advanced in 
 the direction of peace in 1700 as it has been brought at the House 
 in the Wood in 1900. 
 
 It is remarkable that this scheme, which is worthy of The 
 Hague Conference, and is one of the most statesmanlike and feasi- 
 ble propositions ever emanating from a potential source, has not 
 attracted more notice than it has, especially that it did not receive 
 more attention with Henry IV.'s endorsement than it appears to 
 have received, from the publicists of that period. I believe that 
 even William Ladd, the so-called Apostle of Peace, did not men- 
 tion it in his prize essay (published about 1840) on a " Congress of 
 Nations." Clarkson refers to it briefly; so does Janney; but Hep- 
 worth Dixon seems to be the only biographer who has discovered 
 that the plan " attracted much attention at the time." I have not 
 found any reference to it in the English histories. It may be rather 
 presumptuous to claim for William Penn a potential position at 
 the time this essay was published. It was written when he was 
 much under a cloud, indeed when he was actually a prisoner under 
 surveillance in his own lodgings, on account of Fuller's charge of 
 treasonable conspiracy to seat on the throne one of the pretenders. 
 
152 
 
 Penn was finally heard and acquitted by the King himself; but he 
 was scarcely in a position to give him much influence at the time. 
 
 I can only briefly revert to the third unique lesson taught by 
 William Penn on the subject of peace and war. It is regarded as 
 vital, even to a nation peaceably disposed, that it should maintain 
 an army for defence, in case of an attack from without. But I 
 have already referred to the originality of the reception of Lord 
 Baltimore's invasion. There was no beating of drums and sum- 
 moning of minute men by William Penn's forces, no defending of 
 bridges with muskets, no ambushes, no panic. 
 
 The slumbering country disarmed the invaders, who were met 
 by grazing herds beside the still waters, against which their arms 
 were valueless; and thus Penn proved the fallacy of the above 
 common assumption, and the futility of armies for defence. 
 
 Has he not demonstrated three great facts? — First, that a coun- 
 try can be ruled without war; second, that Europe may safely re- 
 duce her armaments by uniting in a Diet and pooling her forces, 
 and, third, that armies are not necessary for defence. 
 
 Alas! that the sun of this glorious man should have set in 
 gloomy clouds; but few have left behind them grander memories 
 of duty done, of seed sown, and promise of golden fruitage, with 
 earnest of perfection. 
 
 In our estimate of the contributions of William Penn to the 
 long movement against the hydra-headed monster, war, we may 
 safely rank them high on the roll of historic accomplishments. 
 Probably no other man has evolved from his laboratory more prac- 
 tical and conclusive proofs, either of the advantage of abandoning 
 war or of its feasibility. But his glory is of a kind that seeks no 
 blazoned heraldry nor lofty monument; better the simple white 
 stone at Jordan's. 
 
 The Chaikman: "The Present Position of the International 
 Peace Movement " will now be presented to us in an address by Dr. 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood, of Boston. Dr. Trueblood is well known 
 to you all as the Secretary of the American Peace Society. 
 
 THE PEESENT POSITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
 PEACE MOVEMENT. . 
 
 BY BENJAMIN F. TRUEBLOOD, BOSTON. 
 
 Eemarkable changes have taken place in the world in respect to 
 war since George Fox first " saw " and was " taken up in the love 
 of God," became an " heir of the gospel of peace," was " brought off 
 from outward wars," and began the great gospel peace testimony 
 of which the whole Christian world has learned. 
 
 In order to be able to utter the old message of the gospel of 
 peace with freshness and power in our time as he declared it in his, 
 
153 
 
 we must know where we are, what are the conditions around U3, 
 what conquests of peace have already been made, and where and 
 how the spirit of war still lies entrenched and unsubdued. Sev- 
 enteenth century methods will not do now. We are facing the de- 
 mands of a new time, and we should give all diligence to under- 
 stand its behests. 
 
 George Fox did no specialized peace work. The time was not 
 ripe for it. It was against war as such, the sum total of its spirit 
 and deeds, that he let go his broadsides of gospel truth and ex- 
 perience. Peace sentiment had to be made, for as yet there was 
 none. That was largely the task of his day. With the system of 
 war, as a political institution, he did not attempt to deal. 
 
 At the middle of the seventeenth century war was substantially 
 perpetual. It raged continuously. No practical means of arrest- 
 ing it was then possible of realization. Men did not wish it ar- 
 rested. The only thing that had been accomplished toward its 
 diminution was the disappearance in considerable measure of pri- 
 vate war, whose brutalities had tilled the Middle Ages. Not even 
 this would have gone had there not been plenty of fighting in other 
 forms. The so-called humanizing of war, the lopping off. that is, 
 of some of its incidental cruelties and sufferings, had only just be- 
 gun, through the influence of Grotius. Nothing had been done 
 toward lessening the practice of duelling. International war was 
 not more prevalent than civil war, which raged everywhere and 
 kept every country of Europe distracted and laid waste with fire 
 and sword. George Fox himself, after his majority, lived through 
 three civil wars, one of which lasted nine years. 
 
 But now, after two hundred and fifty years, how different the 
 circumstances! Christianity, education, commercial development, 
 progress in science, in economic knowledge, in political institutions, 
 in modes of communication and travel, have wrought marvelous 
 changes. Private war is no longer heard of. Few people now 
 know what it was. The duel, as a serious life-and-death encounter, 
 has disappeared in large measure from civilized countries. Civil 
 war has practically passed away in what we call Christendom, with 
 the exception of parts of Latin America, where it remains as a 
 savage sort of spectacular social distraction. Races and peoples oc- 
 cupying the same territories have ceased fighting and been com- 
 pacted in various ways into settled nationalities, within which so- 
 cial order reigns and the institutions of law dispose of what few 
 quarrels still remain. Large sections of human society and great 
 areas of territory have thus been brought into what is practically 
 perpetual peace. Only international wars and those for territorial 
 or commercial expansion still remain. Even these are much less 
 frequent than formerly. 
 
 If peacemakers are to do their work intelligently in our time 
 and not waste their strength beating the air, they must acquaint 
 themselves with the facts of this large elimination of war already 
 
154 
 
 accomplished and not paint the world any longer in seventeenth 
 century colors. Recognition of the remarkable gain which has 
 been made gives strong practical ground for insisting that inter- 
 national and colonial wars also may just as easily be abolished, and 
 that it is no credit to either the intelligence or the moral char- 
 acter of the civihzed powers that such wars have not already been 
 made impossible. 
 
 Since the seventeenth century the development of peace senti- 
 ment and its organization have been no less remarkable than the 
 decline of war. The two have been, in fact, different sides of the 
 same movement; for it is impossible that war should have declined 
 unless there had been a sentiment against it, expressing itself effect- 
 ively in one way or another. 
 
 In the seventeenth century, and even in the eighteenth, there 
 was no organized, co-operative peace work, unless we call that of 
 the Friends co-operative. There were not enough workers at any 
 given time to co-operate. Henry IV., Cruce, Grotius, George Fox, 
 Rheinf els, William Penn, and in the next century, St. Pierre, Locke, 
 Leibnitz, Montesquieu, Condorcet, Turgot, Rousseau, Adam Smith, 
 Lessing, Herder, Bentham, Kant, did their work each in his own 
 way and practically alone. These were great men, and, with their 
 philosophic plans of perpetual peace, they made a great record, 
 but no popular movement gathered about them. To-day, such has 
 been the transformation of sentiment that there are now no less 
 than four hundred and fifty peace associations, each with a mem- 
 bership of scores, hundreds or thousands, doing their work with- 
 out intermission in many countries. They count among their ad- 
 herents numbers of the most capable men living. But these so- 
 cieties do not represent a thousandth part of the sentiment which 
 is now for peace, some of it working effectually in other organiza- 
 tions, and some of it lying around loose and going to waste. 
 
 There are now regular international peace congresses, un- 
 dreamed of even a century ago, national and local arbitration con- 
 ferences, a great peace union of many hundreds of members of the 
 national parliaments, a pei manent internat:ional peace bureau, an 
 international law association of distinguished jurists and publicists 
 working for arbitration and other means of promoting more am- 
 icable relations between nations. There are also distinguished 
 specialists like John de Bloch devoting their time and their fortune 
 to the destruction of war and its implements, and eminent authors, 
 read all round the world, bringing war rapidly under the ban of 
 literature. 
 
 Thus peace sentiment has not only developed very greatly, but 
 has also reached a state of powerful and permanent organization. 
 Of this fact every friend of peace ought to inform himself, to ac- 
 quaint himself with the history of the movement, and in some way 
 to connect himself permanently mth it. To attempt to do peace 
 work single handed and alone in our day, without co-operating 
 
155 
 
 with the body of organized laborers, is as serious a mistake as if one 
 should attempt single handed to build his own house, gather his 
 food and clothe himself. It is a bit of saintly ignorance or ego- 
 tism of which too many sincere friends of the cause are guilty. In- 
 dividual work, which everybody ought to find, and even the work of 
 particular societies, can be most effectually done when it is done 
 in fellowship with the work of others. 
 
 Since the days of Grotius and George Fox international asso- 
 ciation, then little known except in matters of war, has devel- 
 oped marvelously in all sorts of peaceful ways. Travel, trade, 
 swift communication by ship and wire, the intermingling of peo- 
 ples and races, treaties and conventions for various common inter- 
 ests like the Postal Union, into which every organized government 
 in the world has entered, have made the world already one neigh- 
 borhood, have awakened a wide sense of brotherhood, and con- 
 tributed immensely to the promotion of general peace. The pres- 
 ent status of international relations in these matters is a much 
 better gauge of the gain which peace has made than the sum of 
 all the peace associations organized or peace and arbitration con- 
 ferences held, important as these are as agencies. These associa- 
 tions and conferences are simply the prophetic scouts of the great 
 societary movement which is coming steadily and irresistibly on. 
 
 No less remarkable has been the progress since the seventeenth 
 century in the application of pacific methods in the settlement of 
 disputes between nations. The need of such methods began to 
 take deep hold of men's minds from the beginning of that century. 
 Henry IV., in the very dawn of the century, advocated, as is well 
 known, a federation of Christian Europe. Grotius, in 1625, pleaded 
 with the Christian rulers to employ arbitration instead of such in- 
 cessant and ruinous fighting. Cruce, in 1623, deeply affected by the 
 continual shedding of blood for the most trifling causes, and by 
 the consequent ruin of commerce, advanced a project for an inter- 
 national tribunal, the first known to have been made. Hesse- 
 Eheinfels, in 1666, proposed a " society of sovereigns " for pre- 
 venting war. Pufendorf. six years later, in his " Law of Xature 
 and of Nations," advanced a similar scheme. William Penn, in 
 1693, worked out his famous plan for a diet or parliament of na- 
 tions. Early in the eighteenth century Saint Pierre, following up 
 the work of his predecessors, elaborated in great detail a design for 
 perpetual peace. In 1758 Vattel, the distinguished Swiss jurist, 
 again brought forward a project of arbitration. Toward the close 
 of the century Bentham, in England, pleaded for a European fra- 
 ternity in the form of a common tribunal; and Kant, in Germany, 
 advanced the bold idea of an international state through the pro- 
 cess of federation. 
 
 These plans of perpetual peace or projects for the prevention of 
 war were the highwater mark of political and humanitarian think- 
 ing when the nineteenth century opened. During that century. 
 
156 
 
 just closed, we see the principle of arbitration, over which these 
 great minds had been working, gradually blossom out in practice, 
 like a magnificent century plant. Plans for a cong.'ess and court 
 of nations continued to be put forward by men of the highest rank 
 — John Stuart Mill, William Ladd, David Dudley Field, Bluntschli, 
 Leone Levi, Professor Corsi, Lemonnier, Hornby, and others; by 
 the Peace Congress, the Interparliamentary Union, the Interna- 
 tional Law Association, by bar associations and by distinguished 
 government ministers. But, while this work was going on, the 
 governments themselves fell under the influence of the rising tide 
 of opinion and took to arbitrating their controversies. 
 
 During the century just closed nearly one hundred temporary 
 tribunals and arbitral commissions were established for the adjust- 
 ment of disputes, some of them disposing of several cases. In the 
 second decade of the century three cases were thus adjusted. In 
 the third decade five. By the end of the century so common had 
 become the practice of arbitrating disputes between nations that the 
 number of cases had run up to just under two hundred. More than 
 sixty of these were in the decade just closed, or an average of over 
 six per year for the whole ten years; and the nations participating 
 in them number thirty-seven. This is a record of extraordinary 
 historical significance, and yet so little is it appreciated or even 
 known that it has foimd its way into not a single well-known book 
 of history, the most of it into none at all. 
 
 While these arbitrations were taking place, the movement for 
 a permanent international tribunal, which began to take definite 
 shape in the first half of the century, developed to such an extent 
 that it became the chief feature of the entire peace movement in 
 the decade from which we have just passed. It was supported by 
 all the peace organizations, by the Interparliamentary Union, the 
 International Law Association, by bar associations, by the great 
 organizations of women, by social clubs and religious unions, by 
 influential sections of the press, by legislators and diplomats, by 
 parliaments, and at last by presidents, kings and emperors. It grew 
 in its last stages into a veritable crusade of great extent and power. 
 
 Out of these three long centuries of peace thinking and plan- 
 ning, of organized peace effort and the practice of arbitration by 
 governments came the Hague Conference and the setting up of the 
 Permanent International Court of Arbitration. This august in- 
 stitution, in which nineteen powers, practically the whole civilized 
 world, are already represented, formally declared open on the 9th 
 of April last, was not the work of the Czar of Eussia, nor of any 
 knightly crusader, nor of any bar association or particular organiza- 
 tion. Nicholas II. was the providential instrument of calling the 
 Conference. He did his great deed at the right time and in the 
 right way. But when the Conference met, with three whole cen- 
 turies of momentum behind it, it |froceeded to do the work which 
 
157 
 
 those centuries had prepared for it, as if the Czar of Russia had 
 never been born. 
 
 The Hague Court, now only just eight months old, has not 
 yet done any business (the Supreme Court of the United States 
 did no actual work for two years and a half), but it is itself the 
 grandest piece of business in a political way that has ever been 
 done. It is not a failure from the fact that it has not yet had op- 
 portunity to do anything. It never can be a failure, however it 
 may have to be supplemented or even superseded by something 
 more perfect. The Pan-American treaty of 1890, never ratified, 
 was not a failure. The Anglo-American treaty of 1897, rejected 
 by the Senate, was not a failure. The Italo-Argentine treaty of the 
 same year, never formallv adopted, it seems, was not a faih.re. N'oth- 
 ing done in the historic development of a great principle is ever a 
 failure. The peace movement which has such a splendid history of 
 three centuries behind it — to go no farther back — and of which 
 the Permanent Arbitration Court is the consummate present ex- 
 pression, has yet wider sweeps of triumph before it. Of the appear- 
 ance of these when the time has ripened, through the workings of 
 the Divine Providence and the faithful efforts of the friends of the 
 cause, no one who believes in the omnipotence of God, of truth and 
 of love, will have the least doubt. 
 
 It seems, at first view, an incomprehensible anomaly that, while 
 war has so much decreased and the cause of peace has made such 
 large gains, the standing armaments of the nations have reached 
 such a point of development in size and expensiveness as at the 
 present time. But these very armaments, ludicrous as the thought 
 may seem, are in their way an evidence of the growth and spread 
 of peace. They would have been impossible two centuries ago, when 
 every part of society was kept exhausted by continual fighting. 
 Their economic possibility lies in the vast increase of wealth which 
 the general disappearance of civil war has given opportunity to 
 produce. They are feeding upon and devouring the fruits of peace 
 and without it could not continue to exist. 
 
 But these armaments are also an evidence that the old brutal 
 spirit of greed, hatred and violence still survives from the past. 
 They have primarily no relation to the internal affairs of the na- 
 tions. Their motive is the surviving greed, ambition and hatred, 
 which, since their citizens ceased to fight among themselves, the 
 nations have turned more fully against one another and let loose 
 in such totally un-Christian and atrocious ways upon weak and ill- 
 civilized peoples. 
 
 These bloated and frightfully costly armaments are at the same 
 time a conspicuous evidence of the surviving moral stupidity and 
 primitive brainlessness of these great internally peaceful groups of 
 men, in not practicing toward one another the common sense which 
 they have learned to use within themselves, and in destroying in 
 
158 
 
 this colossal way the wealth which they are so anxious and careful 
 to create in their internal life and by foreign trade. 
 
 The considerations which I have adduced are sufficient to indi- 
 cate clearly the present position of the peace movement, and of 
 the great evil which it is seeking to abolish. They also point out 
 the specific ways in which our task at the present time may be most 
 effectually performed. These may be summarized in a few sen- 
 tences: 
 
 1. We may fairly insist that the large elimination of war which 
 has already taken place gives just ground for believing that all 
 war will ultimately be done away; that we are not acting as en- 
 thusiasts and dreamers when we thus declare, but are reasoning 
 upon the most solid historical grounds; and that it is those who 
 maintain that war will never be entirely abolished who are irra- 
 tional and sentimental. 
 
 2. Since, speaking in general terms, only international 
 wars and those for territorial and commercial expansion remain, 
 we should direct our chief efforts against these, instead of against 
 war in the abstract, and should endeavor to make it plain that at 
 this age of the world's advancement they are wholly needless, econ- 
 omically unprofitable and in every way unworthy of nations pro- 
 fessing a high degree of civilization, love of right and liberty, and 
 claiming to be guided by Christian principles. 
 
 3. We should make every possible effort to secure the establish- 
 ment of the reign of law instead of brute force in the realm of in- 
 ternational affairs as it has been so largely established within the 
 nations, and should maintain against all comers that there is no 
 more reason in our time for international anarchy than for anarchy 
 and civil war within the civilized States. 
 
 4. We must let our testimony ring out straight and uncom- 
 promising against the growing military and naval establishments 
 of our time, as entirely out of date, as economically ruinous and 
 morally debasing to the populations of the countries, and as having 
 now no ground for existence except that of greed, jealousy and 
 hatred worthy only of barbarians, 
 
 5. We must throw our influence at all possible points toward 
 a larger friendly association and co-operation of the nations — 
 in trade, in travel and residence, in treaties and conventions for 
 promoting common interests, in scientific and hygienic investiga- 
 tions, and the like. 
 
 6. In view of the remarkable success of arbitration the past 
 century, we ought to declare in unhesitating terms that the set- 
 tlement by this means of two hundred controversies of nearly every 
 conceivable kind, in every one of which the difficulty has been 
 finally and permanently disposed of, leaves no ground for believ- 
 ing that there is any sort of international dispute which may not 
 be arbitrated without the least loss of honor or prestige. 
 
159 
 
 7. "We are fully warranted in claiming that the civilized na- 
 tions, by the getting up of the Hague Court, have cut from beneath 
 them the last ground for believing in the necessity of war, and 
 that they cannot hereafter appeal to brute force without self-con- 
 demnation and self-stultification. 
 
 8. We must recognize, enter heartily into and co-operate in all 
 possible ways with the organized peace propaganda, as the most 
 effective way of fitting ourselves for our own personal work and 
 making our voices heard in behalf of this greatest of all social move- 
 ments. 
 
 While doing our work along these specific practical lines, 
 marked out for us by the general condition of the times in which 
 we live, we shall have opportunity to work in at every turn all the 
 old ethical and Christian arguments against war, which will never 
 lose their force and appropriateness until the sound of the last can- 
 non has died away and the last fit of international passion has spent 
 itself. 
 
 The Chairman: The papers which we have heard this even- 
 ing will now be open for discussion. The discussion will be opened 
 by William C. Dennis, who has just been chosen by Albert K. 
 Smiley as the new Secretary of the Lake Mohonk International 
 Arbitration Conference. 
 
 William C. Dennis: Dr. Trueblood has referred to the fact 
 that private war is a thing of the past. It seemed to me that it 
 would be interesting to consider for a short time the method by 
 which private war disappeared, as this may possibly throw some 
 light on the way in which public war will finally disappear. 
 
 There were at least four stages in the history of the disappear- 
 ance of private war. When our Saxon ancestors wandered over the 
 forests of Germany, private war was entirely unregulated; it was 
 their method of doing justice between man and man. There were 
 no rules; when one man injured another, the family of the injured 
 man went and took vengeance on the wrongdoer in any way they 
 saw fit. They could surprise a man at any time of day or night and 
 kill him. That seemed a little bit hard; so afterwards private war 
 was regulated. A rule was established that if one man had mur- 
 dered another the relatives of the injured man could not go in the 
 night-time and attack the one who had done the injury; they must 
 go in the daytime. Thus private vengeance began to be regulated. 
 There is an old English statute that if one man accidentally fell 
 out of a tree and killed another man by falling on him the relatives 
 of the latter must fall out of the same tree on him and kill him. 
 
 Finally, the Siate got to be a little stronger, and courts were 
 set up as an alternative for private war — not as a substitute, but as 
 an alternative. An injured man might proceed to take vengeance 
 according to the rules, unless the offender offered to buy himself 
 
160 
 
 off. In that event the case went to the court. That was the third 
 stage, where the court and the private war were alternatives. 
 
 Then, of course, came the last stage, when private war was 
 finally abolished by the court taking its place. That was the his- 
 tory of the disappearance of private war. 
 
 Public war has so far followed a similar course. In the first 
 place it was unregulated; there were no rules. Prisoners were killed 
 in the early days, perhaps even eaten. Then they came to be finally 
 sold as slaves. Still, there were no rules. Then came Grotius and 
 the Laws of War; war passed into the stage of regulation. Now we 
 have just reached the third stage — the stage where we have an al- 
 ternative to war, the Court of International Arbitration. In the 
 time of Henry II., or just previous to his time, the courts were 
 itinerant; they were not regular, stated courts at permanent places. 
 Henry set up in addition a permanent Court of Appeal. We have 
 just done the same thing in the matter of arbitration between na- 
 tions. Heretofore we have simply had tribunals of arbitration 
 made up for the occasion; now we have a central, permanent court, 
 not yet compulsory. 
 
 There is still one great step to be taken, to make the resort to 
 the court compulsory, as it is now in private affairs. I was talking 
 the other day along this line with a member of the Society of 
 Friends, a man who does not believe very much in the immediate 
 future of international arbitration. He pointed out the fact that 
 private war was quite limited; that the two individuals who en- 
 gaged in it belonged at least to the same tribe, that there was some 
 connection between them. He went on and pointed out that pri- 
 vate war did not cease until a strong central power was established. 
 " Now,'' he said, " if my analogy proves anything, it proves that 
 before we can get rid of war between nations there will have to be 
 a strong international political State to stand behind a tribunal of 
 arbitration," and he thought it would be a long time before we 
 came to this stage, and until that time the future of arbitration was 
 •very doubtful indeed. 
 
 It does not seem to me that he has met all that the analogy re- 
 quires. In the first place, we have already a sort of international 
 State. That is what we have been hearing about to-day. In the 
 times of the Saxons, England was a heptarchy; now the world is 
 something of that sort. The Dual Alliance and the Triple Alliance 
 have come very near reducing the warlike unities of the world to 
 three; and however bad they are, it is better to have them reduced 
 to three than to have thousends, as there were in the past. The 
 concert of Europe, imperfect as it is, unsatisfactory as it has been, 
 has at least accustomed the nations to acting together. We have 
 thus the germ of a political, international State. We have been 
 hearing to-day that we have in process of formation an interna- 
 tional State in a different sense, namely, socially, religiously, indus- 
 trially, commercially. We have in that way an international State 
 
161 
 
 such as our Saxon ancestors never dreamed of. National bounds 
 were then conclusive; society did not go outside the State; it did not 
 usually go outside the community. Nominally the church went 
 outside of the State, but not very much. Now, as has been repeat- 
 edly pointed out to-day, society is international. Labor unions are 
 international; your laborers in Germany do not want to rejoice 
 over the misfortunes of laborers in France. However much we may 
 regret that close lines are being drawn between capital and labor, 
 it at least has its advantage; it is abolishing the national lines. 
 Thus we do have an international State, socially, politically, re- 
 ligiously and industrially in the sense they did not have in the days 
 of our Saxon ancestors. 
 
 History does not have to move exactly in circles; it may some- 
 times move in spirals. The unification that we have had in the 
 past has been by force. England was made into one country by 
 force; we got up to the present state of unification largely by might. 
 We shall not get the unification of the future by force, but by 
 consent. I do not think it is physically possible to get it by force. 
 There will never again be such a favorable opportunity as in the 
 time of Napoleon to establish a world-empire by force. Democracy 
 is making it so that one man cannot get the start of the world as 
 Napoleon did; all the rest are acquiring the intelligence to combine 
 and stop it. Probably no great nation will ever be defeated worse 
 than France was defeated by Germany in 1870, and yet Germany 
 never thought of annexing France. The war would have been go- 
 ing on yet if Germany had attempted to do anything like that. If 
 the unification of the future is to come by consent, it is natural 
 that it should not come first to the executive. A world-State made 
 by force would naturally come to the executive first; but a world- 
 State made by consent would naturally move along the lines of 
 least resistance and come through the organization of the judiciary. 
 
 For all these reasons it seems to me that the analogy of the abo- 
 lition of public war along the same general lines as that of private 
 war does not require that we have any international State in a po- 
 litical sense before we see the success of an international tribunal 
 like that at The Hague. 
 
 This way of the judiciary first is the Quaker way, the method of 
 William Penn. Two hundred years ago William Penn made the 
 first proposition, so far as I know, for a strictly judicial court. 
 Other people planned national councils, but they were more or 
 less political or religious schemes. He proposed a court, pure and 
 simple; and we as Friends ought to take up the work that he in- 
 itiated; we ought to stand behind and promote the one practical 
 step which can be made now, which is the supporting of the 
 Hague tribunal. Our immediate duty is to see that it is made ab- 
 solutely impossible for this country to go to war without submit- 
 ting to that tribunal any dispute which it may hereafter have with 
 any nation. 
 
163 
 
 The Chaieman: We have now time for four five-minute 
 speeches, 
 
 Joel Boeton: The object of this gathering is to confer in 
 reference to the outlook for peace, and it is no doubt an opportune 
 time for this. I have wished since we have heard these excellent 
 papers and discussions that we had the ears of the world. We who 
 are assembled here are all peace people; but we have been sleeping, 
 and it is time that we were aroused and aroused somebody else. Had 
 we been aroused six years ago, as we are at the present time and 
 have been in the past three years, there would have been, in my 
 judgment, no war. The outlook for peace at the present time, how- 
 ever, is to me quite encouraging. As was said this morning, na- 
 tions do not care now to meet one another in war; the destruction 
 of life, the loss of property, are too great. Again our close connec- 
 tion with other nations by commerce, by religion and education is 
 an indication that we cannot afford to go to war. The manner in 
 which nations are tied together to-day by the cable makes us no 
 longer individual nations; the people of the world are one people. 
 War, for these reasons, must cease. 
 
 The Hague Conference, the International Court of Arbitration, 
 already referred to, is to me one of the greatest steps in the right 
 direction. But all is not yet done. What we need to do is to 
 arouse ourselves to action and to stir up the sleeping sentiment 
 about us. I know of no better motto for us than those words of the 
 late ex- President Harrison, uttered in New York, that " Christ in 
 the heart and His love in the nation " is the only cure for all the 
 ills that confront us to-day, 
 
 HowAED M. Jenkins: I wish to take only about a minute to 
 Bay that in my judgment the presentation made by most of our his- 
 torical writers, by most of those who have had the attention of the 
 American people and of other people, in regard to the Indians of 
 Pennsylvania, has been made with the intention of detracting from 
 the fame of William Penn. This is very largely due to the genius 
 of that prince among American historians, Francis Parkman. 
 Parkman has been followed by pretty much everybody else. He 
 took his ideas from two sources: first, the New England idea, which 
 was that the Indian was a heathen and ought to be exterminated; 
 and, second, from the presentation by the writers of the State of 
 New York, particularly Albert Gallatin, who had the idea that the 
 Indians of Pennsylvania were always and entirely subject to the 
 Five Nations of New York, and were in general such a poor lot 
 that Penn's living in peace with them was no particular credit to 
 him. 
 
 That is the theory which runs through all our history of Penn's 
 work with the Indians, and against which the writers of Pennsyl- 
 vania have either not contended at all, or have contended in vain. 
 
163 
 
 It is an illusion; it is not true; I think it is totally unfounded in 
 fact. The Indians of the Delaware Valley were much like the 
 other Indians of the United States. Penn and the early FriendSj 
 the early colonists of Pennsylvania, lived in peace with them be- 
 cause they adopted a true and honest and generous peace method. 
 
 William L. Price: It seems to me that those old sages made 
 their pious claim rightly when they treated war as only the nega- 
 tion of the things they should stand for. They were constructive 
 people; their religion and their economics were full of construction; 
 they stood for something positive, something in advance of the 
 other people. Now it seems to me that for the Society of Friends 
 to meet in Conference of this kind and merely send out the same 
 old message against war, does not put it on constructive grounds 
 at all, or in advance of its always understood position. It means 
 almost nothing simply to proclaim again what the Society has al- 
 ways stood for. It would mean much if this Conference or any 
 similar conference should take up the lines of constructive, eco- 
 nomic thought that have been intimated here — questions of 
 broader trade association, and more perfect relations between the 
 nations. It would be a constructive work and one on which the 
 Friends could start the world if they would take up the peace mes- 
 sage of our President who was shot, his last and greatest message, 
 in which he said, that too long we had stood alone, and the time 
 had come when we must reach out our hands to all the world. I 
 think that shot should go around the world from this kind of con- 
 vention far more than a mere peace proposition. Then there is 
 another point, and that is, that " The kingdom of heaven is at 
 hand " means something, and has always meant something. The 
 trouble is that we have always expected the kingdom of heaven to 
 come from without; whereas Jesus meant that it was at hand in the 
 sense that it was in the hands of the people to whom He spoke, that 
 it was in their power to bring it in then, not after awhile, not after 
 growth, but immediately. That was always true, and it is still 
 true. 
 
 The Conference then adjourned, after a moment of reverent 
 silence, to meet in the Twelfth Street Friends' Meeting House at 
 ten o'clock on Seventh-day morning. 
 
Seventb Session. 
 
 Seventh-day Morning, Twelfth Month 14th. 
 
 The Conference gathered at 10 o'clock, on Seventh-day morn- 
 ing, in the Twelfth Street Meeting House, with Arthur Perry, of 
 Boston, Mass., presiding. 
 
 The session opened with a period of devotion, during which 
 vocal prayer was offered by Anna Braithwaite Thomas, of Balti- 
 more, and remarks were made by Isaac Wilson, of Canada, in which 
 he expressed his gratification that the Conference had met and that 
 the Friends were thus trying in a more practical way than previous- 
 ly to carry out their high profession, and his desire that all might 
 abide in the spirit of living prayer, that the power of the life of 
 peace might be individually realized. 
 
 The Chairman: I esteem it a privilege to preside at a session 
 of this Conference, and thus to some extent be identified with its 
 work and its purpose, for its work is the re-statement and uphold- 
 ing of the time-honored testimony of Friends in behalf of peace, 
 and its purpose to consider ways and means of doing away with the 
 horrors of war by abolishing war itself. 
 
 Time and again the Meetings for Sufferings or Executive Meet- 
 ings of our several bodies have addressed memorials on this subject 
 to those in political power, which have been as beacon lights on the 
 pathway to peace. 
 
 The present Conference affords opportunity for the re-examina- 
 tion of the foundation of our peace principles, and the issuance to 
 the world of an appeal for the support of international arbitration. 
 We are accused of having high ideals and impractical theories. But 
 history has in many instances demonstrated the wisdom as well 
 as the possibility of referring international disputes to special courts 
 of arbitration, and to-day the great nations of the earth have united 
 in establishing the Hague Permanent Court of International Arbi- 
 tration. The practical and sensible course for the advocates of 
 peace is to bring every possible influence to bear to secure the ref- 
 erence to this court of international claims which have failed to be 
 settled throught the ordinary diplomatic channels. 
 
 It is also important that we uphold the hands of those in au- 
 thority in the administration of the affairs of our country who 
 openly proclaim that they desire that peace shall prevail. It is an 
 old adage that responsibility sobers and steadies one's judgment, 
 and it is a well-known fact that the great rulers of to-day seek to 
 avoid war, and resort to it only when forced by an overwhelming 
 
force of popular opinion; and even when nation does go to war 
 with nation, each seeks to throw the responsibility upon the other. 
 
 Another practical work, then, in the direction of peace is the 
 creation of a wholesome, right and pure public sentiment upon this 
 question. Papers have been read before this Conference bearing 
 directly upon this suggestion, namely, the necessity of educating 
 the rising generation to right ideas of force and patriotism. In 
 this connection I am tempted to add an incident or two in illustra- 
 tion and support of tlie ground taken in Dr. Thomas's very ex- 
 cellent paper on the " Christian Idea of Force." In the late civil 
 war many Friends were drafted, among them a young man, who, 
 while confined in camp pending the disposition of his case, rcfu-ed 
 to join in military duty, and for continued disobedience was ordered 
 to be shot. When brought before the men who were to execute 
 him, he uttered these words: " Father, forgive them, for they know 
 not what they do." The soldiers refused to shoot, and the mounted 
 ojBBcer, in his anger, attempted to drive his horse over the man, 
 but without success, and he was ordered back to quarters. Who, 
 in this incident, was the real hero? \Vho displayed true courage? 
 Who had real force? 
 
 Again, a father and son, drafted into British military service 
 many years ago and refusing military duty, were condemned to be 
 shot. The woman who was to lose husband and son sat between 
 them, holding the hand of each when the fatal shots were fired; 
 where was the courage then — in the soldiers behind the guns, or in 
 that wife and mother and those heroes who gave up life rather 
 than violate conscience? We do not mean to misrepresent or be- 
 little the courage or patriotism of soldiers, but these are the great 
 truths that we want to teach our children. We do believe in force, 
 and we do believe in courage, but the greatest force is the power of 
 the Spirit, and the highest courage is that of self-sacrifice. 
 
 Agitation and education, co-operation with all who sincerely 
 desire that peace shall prevail, will advance our cause. I trust that 
 the committee will act favorably upon the suggestion that this 
 Conference send resolutions of sympathy to President Roosevelt, 
 assuring him of our confidence in the sincerity of his purpose to 
 preserve peace, and of our desire to uphold him therein. We can- 
 not endorse all the methods by which some would maintain peace, 
 but we can commend the purpose in view. President Sharpless 
 showed us last night how almost impossible it is even for Friends 
 to be absolutely consistent in their testimony against war. Let us 
 be charitable to those who cannot go the full length with us, and 
 work with them as far as they will go. I do not look to see war 
 abolished simply because it is wrong and unchristian, but because 
 the time is coming when, even from a worldly point of view, it will 
 be inexpedient, and the very selfishness and avarice which were 
 once the cause of wars will then compel peace. 
 
166 
 
 The Chaieman: The first paper on the program this morn- 
 ing is by Henry W. Wilbur, of New York city; subject, " The Duty 
 of the Christian Church at the Present Time in the Movement to 
 Abolish War." As he has not yet arrived we will take up the next 
 paper, by President James B. Tin thank, Wilmington College, Ohio, 
 upon the subject, " Mistakes and Failures of Friends in their Peace 
 Work." 
 
 MISTAKES AND FAILURES OF FRIENDS IN THEIR 
 PEACE WORK. 
 
 BY PRESIDENT JASCES B. UNTHANK, WILlVaNGTON COLLEGE, OHIO. 
 
 To make the mistakes and failures of one's own denomination 
 the subject of inquiry and discussion seems such an ungracious act 
 that I hesitate to undertake it. Most of us who are here to-day owe 
 so much to the Society in which we were born and reared, and look 
 upon it with so much love and veneration, that the idea of such in- 
 vestigation suggests ingratitude and disloyalty. 
 
 It would be a much pleasanter task to recount the story of our 
 successes and achievements. And yet if Friends still have a mission 
 in the world, if they are called in the providence of God to serve the 
 cause of righteousness and truth in the future, there may be more 
 profit in resolutely and dispassionately considering our mistakes 
 and failures than in congratulating ourselves on what we have al- 
 ready accomplished for the world. It is, therefore, in no spirit of 
 carping or criticism that I undertake the task assigned me; and if 
 any statements made or sentiments expressed in this paper seem se- 
 vere or disagreeable they are not made with any feeling of unkind- 
 ness or irreverence, but with a sincere desire to tell the truth and 
 promote the cause we have met to consider. 
 
 I shall not discuss the sul^ject from the liistoric standpoint, as 
 that would be more curious than practical; but I desire to treat it 
 more from the philosophic standpoint with the purpose to show if 
 possible the causes of our failure. 
 
 In the first place, then, there is one principal mistake that 
 Friends have made with respect to their attitude concerning this 
 peace movement, and all the others have grown out of it and are 
 subordinate to it. There have been two main causes of this mis- 
 take, as I understand them, and it shall be my purpose to show how 
 these causes have operated to produce their results. 
 
 The principal mistake has been in a failure to inaugurate and 
 carry on energetic, well-organized and persistent efforts to dissemi- 
 nate peace principles. Our efforts have been too desultory and un- 
 certain to produce lasting effects. 
 
 The mission of Friends has always been, at least until recent 
 years, largely directed to professing Christians rather than to those 
 outside the churches. Our distinctive work has been educational 
 
and reformatory rather than evangelistic. George Fox's message 
 was primarily addressed to church members, " professors," as he 
 was accustomed to style them; and early Friends were largely gath- 
 ered from the established Church and the various dissenting bodies 
 of that day. Ever since that time the idea that took such strong 
 hold upon the founders that they held advanced views upon cer- 
 tain essential doctrines of Christianity, which were neglected by 
 others, has prevailed and still persists to a large degree. 
 
 This being the case, it could hardly be otherwise than that our 
 mission, as we apprehend it, should be to enlighten the conscience 
 of those professing Christ's name, and bring them up to higher 
 standards of faith and practice rather than to increase the number 
 of nominal Christians. In some of the questions upon which we 
 took high ground we have had large influence and have been mainly 
 instrumental in effecting several important reforms in religious and 
 social matters. 
 
 We have done much to bring about the separation of Church 
 and State, thus securing religious toleration and freedom for all de- 
 nominations. The repeal of conventicle acts, the abolition of tith- 
 ing taxes, of judicial oaths, of enforced military service, have been 
 largely due to the efforts of Friends. 
 
 Our influence in some of these movements has been out of all 
 proportion to our numerical strength, and affords just ground for 
 that pleasant retrospect in which we are somewhat wont to indulge. 
 The question naturally arises, Why have we been able to accom- 
 plish so much in these directions while in the matter under consid- 
 eration by this Conference we have achieved so little? I take it for 
 granted, of course, that at least partial failure in our peace work is 
 conceded by all. Certainly no well-informed person, no matter how 
 strong his Quaker proclivities, will assert that we have done all that 
 we might have done and ought to have done to promote this great 
 reform. The reason for this difference in results lies partly, I think, 
 in the fundamental difference between the two cases, so that the 
 means and methods used successfully in one case were wholly inap- 
 plicable to the other. Failure to see this distinction led naturally 
 and inevitably to a failure to adapt the means used to the end to be 
 obtained. 
 
 The efforts of early Friends were primarily directed against re- 
 ligious oppression in its various forms. They were zealous and ag- 
 gressive in advocating the right of religious freedom for themselves 
 and other dissenters. This brought upon them the violent opposi- 
 tion of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. They soon found 
 themselves confronted, in Mr. Cleveland's phrase, " by a condition 
 instead of a theory." 
 
 As Friends they could not forcibly resist the civil law, nor could 
 they conscientiously obey its requirements. The only thing they 
 could do was to go to jail, and the only thing the authorities could 
 do was to send them there. Here was a situation in which the 
 
168 
 
 Friends had the decided advantage of their opponents, although it 
 may have appeared quite the reverse. But it was a situation exactly 
 suited to Quaker tactics, to use a military phrase. Thirteen thou- 
 sand Quakers in English jails for conscience' sake, with an indefi- 
 nite number of others ready to follow their example, was too strong 
 a protest against intolerance to go unheeded. The authorities were 
 utterly nonplussed by the non-resisting Friends, who, however, 
 showed no signs of weakening in regard to their main contention. 
 The right demanded must be conceded or larger jails must be built. 
 They chose to grant toleration as the easiest, most practical solution 
 of the difficulty, and so Friends won their case. Tbus our first and 
 greatest conquests were won by meekly and patiently suffering for 
 a conviction. Thus we had early stamped upon us by the very con- 
 ditions of our origin that peculiar disposition tbat has since charac- 
 terized us as an organization, to wit: a genius for suffering rather 
 than for action. If Friends could promote a cause by going to 
 prison, by standing in the pillory, by suffering the spoiling of their 
 goods, they were always ready and sometimes apparently anxious 
 to do so. 
 
 But these qualities, it will be observed, are passive rather than 
 active, and can only be useful in promoting truth under certain 
 well-defined conditions. They are in marked contrast with that 
 aggressive activity which characterized Fox and his co-laborers in 
 that earlier stage of our historic development that preceded the per- 
 secution. Since the first generation of Friends passed away it has 
 been their sufferings that have been commended and held up for 
 approval as a shining example. We have heard little of their ag- 
 gressive zeal and energetic activity; this seems to have been lost 
 sight of in our excessive admiration for their patient virtues. So 
 thoroughly then hare we become imbued with the idea of the value 
 of meekness, patience, forbearance and suffering, so inwoven have 
 been these virtues into our organic structure that it becomes a ques- 
 tion whether we are longer capable of that high and noble enthusi- 
 asm, that strong and powerful impulse to activity, that ardor and 
 zeal for positive convictions that must characterize the individual 
 and the Church whose mission is reform. Advanced ideas, combat- 
 ting, as they often must, traditions hoary with age, ignorance dense 
 and widespread, selfishness comfortable and conservative, and in 
 fact every form of human weakness and depravity must be pro- 
 moted and disseminated by other and more active agencies. 
 
 I am not disparaging or under-valuing these noble qualities. I 
 honor and respect them as essential to the reformer; but unless they 
 are combined with more active virtues they are of little worth. A 
 man must first be aggressive enough to get himself hated suffi- 
 ciently to be thrown into jail before he can help a cause very much 
 by suffering for it in that way. A mere desire to go to prison, to be- 
 come a martyr, may indicate a very morbid and unhealthy mental 
 condition. These things are only the incidents and accidents in the 
 
160 
 
 life of him who works for the promotion of some worthy cause. 
 Really there is not now, nor has there been in English-speaking 
 coimtries for many years much opportunity to suffer in the cause of 
 peace. War is a temporary, sporadic condition of society, not a 
 chronic or normal one. To oppose war in the abstract as wrong in 
 theory would not be objected to anywhere. To refuse to perform 
 military service in a country where armies are raised by conscrip- 
 tion may be considered as criminal and punished as such, but it can 
 hardly be regarded as a protest against war itself. To oppose a par- 
 ticular war when in progress may become treason and be punished 
 as such; but it is not likely to have much weight, if any, against the 
 war system. War is an evil that must be corrected by educational 
 methods, by appeals to the higher and nobler instincts of human 
 nature, by inculcating sound principles of morality, by creating 
 in the public mind a truer sense of justice, by convincing public 
 sentiment not only of its inherent immorality, but also of its utter 
 unreasonableness as an expedient; and this educational work must 
 be carried on in time of peace while the public mind is not inflamed 
 by those passions and prejudices that render all appeals to reason 
 and the finer sensibilities futile and vain. 
 
 Here has been for the past two hundred years and more a fine 
 opportunity for the exercise of those active and aggressive qualities 
 that characterized the first Quakers, but which seem to have died 
 out when the first generation passed away. The great mistake 
 which Friends have made in their peace work is that they have not 
 worked at it. The only reason why a movement of such transcend- 
 ent importance, one that is sustained by the best interpretations of 
 Christianity, by the purest morality, by the most weighty consider- 
 ations of equity and expediency has not made more progress is that 
 it has not been preached with that enthusiasm and eloquence and 
 logic that it deserves. 
 
 We as Friends must bear our share of this responsibility, for we 
 have been the natural and avowed champions of this doctrine for 
 two centuries and a half, and we have not produced that impression 
 on society that we ought to have done — have not come up to the 
 measure of our great opportunity. 
 
 Here was a cause worthy of the best efforts we could have put 
 forth; worthy of our wisest counsels, of our clearest thinking; a 
 cause that appeals to every high instinct in human nature, to every 
 manly virtue, to every chivalrous feeling; a cause whose success 
 means the well being of millions of human beings, whose failure or 
 postponement means untold misery and distress to the innocent 
 and helpless victims of war; a cause which deserves the most unsel- 
 fish devotion and the most energetic support, and yet it has failed 
 to arouse us to any high pitch of enthusiasm or action. During the 
 period covered by our history the cause has made great strides for- 
 ward, to be sure; but I regret to feel that we have not even con- 
 tributed our share of the efforts and sacrifices that have produced 
 
170 
 
 this progress. Why do I think so? Because the evidence of such 
 service is wanting in the history of our Society. We could not have 
 been as active and energetic as we should have been without making 
 our mark in history. Where are our great names, distinguished by 
 their learning and eloquence, and glorified by their devotion to this 
 cause? Where is that body of noble literature that ought to have 
 grown up amongst us in our efforts to promote so noble a reform? 
 We shall search for both in vain. 
 
 I have now given what may be termed the historic reason for 
 our failure to fulfill that great mission as a reform organization that 
 seemed especially marked out for us by the hand of Providence, and 
 of which Friends have been dimly conscious through all these years. 
 I propose now to give what may be regarded as a sort of constitu- 
 tional reason, based as it is on the inherent nature of Quakerism 
 itself. 
 
 Now it may be necessary for me, for fear of being misunder- 
 stood, to preface this part of the paper by the statement that I am 
 a genuine Quaker. I accept and believe most of the essential doc- 
 trines of Friends as I understand them, and do not desire to be un- 
 derstood as speaking from the standpoint of a hostile critic. 
 
 The second cause of our failure to inaugurate and push forward 
 an energetic and vigorous campaign against the war system is to be 
 found in the misunderstanding or perversion or misapplication of 
 some of our favorite doctrines. Any truth may be exaggerated or 
 extended beyond proper limits, and thus become grave and even 
 fatal error. And the most spiritual truths seem most liable to this 
 abuse. Take the doctrine of peace itself which we have met to 
 consider. I am not at all certain but that Friends have carried their 
 opposition to carnal warfare to such extremes that they have made 
 it apply even in the spiritual realm as well; and that practically 
 they have become so peaceful, so inoffensive, that they are even op- 
 posed to an energetic, uncompromising warfare in favor of truth. 
 It is supposed that we belong to the general Church Militant on 
 earth, that though the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but 
 spiritual they are mighty through God to the pulling down of 
 strongholds, and that we are engaged in actual contest against the 
 powers of darkness and sin. 
 
 The Christian life is a warfare and we are not to allow our dis- 
 belief in the use of carnal weapons to dull the edge of our opposi- 
 tion to error and wickedness, nor are we to slacken our ardor for 
 truth from fear we may incur somebody's displeasure. 
 
 Friends have never been in danger perhaps of committing the 
 error of the man in the story who wanted peace so much that he 
 expressed himself as being determined to have it, even if he had to 
 fight for it. 
 
 The doctrine which has above all others, perhaps, distinguished 
 Friends is that of the immediate influence and guidance of the Holy 
 Spirit. It has always been regarded by us as a particularly sacred 
 
171 
 
 tiuth. It is the sine qua non of our theology; and yet it is particu- 
 larly open to misconception and misapplication. 
 
 I doubt if there has been any mistake from which we have suf- 
 fered more in our peace work and our work along other lines than 
 from the wrong notions we have entertained concerning this doc- 
 trine. 
 
 In the first place, this claim to immediate revelation has devel- 
 oped a tendency amongst us to exaggerate, if I may use a term so 
 strong, the supernatural element in moral and religious matters, 
 and has led us to depreciate and discredit the ordinary means and 
 methods by which desirable ends may be promoted. Too exclusive 
 dependence upon divine guidance and wisdom may lead to a neg- 
 lect of the natural processes of reaching judgments and determining 
 right causes of action. 
 
 I fear we have been so jealous of this doctrine that we have been 
 wont, at least in the past, lo look with distrust upon superior natu- 
 ral endowments, and especially to regard intellectual culture and 
 training as dangerous because incompatible with deep spirituality. 
 In matters of a purely secular nature we try in all our undertakings 
 to adapt the means to the end to be accomplished. We study the 
 case in order to discover its nature and difl&culties. No use of our 
 powers of observation, of investigation, of analysis, of reasoning, 
 appears to us out of place in such a matter. We know that such a 
 method of procedure is immeasurably better than dependence upon 
 momentary impulses or fortuitous circumstances. 
 
 When we come to matters religious or moral we throw aside our 
 common sense, discard ordinary methods and especially disclaim 
 any use of our rational faculties, on the ground that they are in- 
 adequate to these higher purposes. This may be quite true, but it 
 does not follow because the natural powers are insufficient that they 
 are therefore useless. They are to be supplemented, not superseded, 
 and only when we have exhausted ordinary means for accomplish- 
 ing noble ends and aims have we any reason to expect the extraor- 
 dinary and supernatural to be supplied. The two are in no way an- 
 tagonistic, but harmonious. Abuse of this doctrine has led to many 
 false notions concerning things sacred and profane. There is really 
 no ground for the distinction so often made in the minds of many 
 between the ordinary and natural forces and what may be termed 
 spiritual forces so far as their sacredness is concerned. They both 
 have the same origin and both are doubtless equally approved for 
 the specific purpose for which they were intended. I think our 
 false ideas, therefore, of immediate revelation have led us into too 
 exclusive dependence upon what may be termed extraordinary 
 means and to the consequent neglect of those ordinary means and 
 appliances that may be used to influence men's minds and conduct. 
 We have been so afraid of " creaturely activity " even in matters of 
 moral and social reform that we have not made a proper use of 
 those natural powers and forces that may be legitimately used un- 
 
1T2 
 
 der all circumstances for the promotion of right ideas. Behind the 
 dogma of the utter worthlessness of mere human effort undirected 
 by divine guidance we have taken refuge until it has become a stock 
 excuse for chronic inactivity and shirking. If man is something 
 more than a mere automaton, if he is a creature endowed with re- 
 sponsibility, then the very possession of powers of reasoning and 
 persuasion is a sufficient warrant for the exercise of these faculties 
 in behalf of righteousness and truth. 
 
 Again, the idea of personal responsibility growing out of the 
 doctrine of divine guidance has led to the development of an ex- 
 treme individualism amongst Friends, which, while it has promoted 
 individual initiative and action, has not been favorable to con- 
 certed, harmonious and systematic effort of the Church as a whole. 
 In its very nature it is unfavorable to that deliberative study and 
 discussion of means and methods necessary to secure organized and 
 systematic co-operation along a pre-determined line. Until recently 
 such a thing as a Conference like this was almost wholly unknown 
 amongst us. Consequently we have had no well-matured plans, no 
 systematic organization for carrying on a vigorous and persistent 
 propaganda for the abolition of the war system and the introduc- 
 tion of less brutal and more rational methods of settling differences. 
 Our efforts have been individual and sporadic. We have lacked 
 that cohesion, that esprit de corps, necessary to united, well-consid- 
 ered and harmonious action. We have failed, therefore, to wield 
 that influence that comes from a compact organization. My time 
 limit is reached. I can only add that I trust that this Conference 
 may mark the dawn of a better day, when we shall work more 
 unitedly and more effectually for the promotion of this great cause. 
 
 The Chairman: The next paper to be presented is on the sub- 
 ject, " The Duty of the Christian Church at the Present Time in 
 the Movement to Abolish War," and will be read by Henry W. Wil- 
 bur, of New York city, who has now arrived. 
 
 THE DUTY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT THE 
 
 PRESENT TIME IN THE MOVEMENT 
 
 TO ABOLISH WAR. 
 
 BY HENRY W. WILBUR, EDITOR OF THE " YOUNG FRIENDS' REVIEW," 
 
 NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 To speak a word in the line of the topic of this paper, without 
 being censorious or rancorous, will not be easy, and may be impos- 
 sible. If the purpose so to discuss the question is not even approxi- 
 mately realized, it will not be on account of the unwillingness of 
 the spirit, but because of the weakness of the flesh, provoked by the 
 evidence of an unchristian and warlike temper exhibited in the 
 name, but against the fame, of the Church. 
 
1?3 
 
 Accurate and accepted definition will make a good foundation 
 upon which to build the fabric of orderly statement and logical, 
 dispassionate discussion. 
 
 A Christian, as the dictionary describes him, is " One who be- 
 lieves in the religion of Christ, especially one whose inward and 
 outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ." 
 
 According to the same authority a church is " A formally or- 
 ganized body of Christian believers worshipping together." 
 
 Having found out what a Christian is, and that a church is sim- 
 ply men and women of the specified exalted character banded to- 
 gether, it is in order to ask. What is the duty of these collective 
 Christians to-day in the movement to abolish war? 
 
 Manifestly the answer to that question will depend upon 
 whether war ought to be abolished at all. If the battlefield is a 
 sort of training school for teaching the Christian graces; if it devel- 
 ops a measure of love and a line of activity which will give the 
 Church a stronger grip upon the hearts of men, then the Church 
 should become a recruiting office, and the individual Christian a 
 man-of-war. 
 
 If, on the other hand, war is contrary to the spirit and teaching 
 of the Gospel; if it destroys rather than conserves life; if it inspires 
 hate of one's fellows, to say nothing about his enemies, then war 
 ought to be abolished, every Christian ought to be an abolitionist, 
 and the Church a universal peace society, chanting the song of the 
 angels as it promotes peace on earth and goodwill among men. 
 
 The dictionary definition of war is all too brief and technical 
 to describe the bloody issue involved in what is called " A contest 
 between nations or states carried on by force of arms." To deter- 
 mine whether war comports with Christian teaching we shall need 
 to understand what inspires it, what sort of conduct characterizes 
 its progress, what effect it has upon those who engage in it. 
 
 Considered in the light of common sense, war is the old feeling 
 of personal vengeance transferred to and practiced in public affairs 
 — the law of Moses followed by the nations as against the law of 
 Christ. It is national savagery, the tooth and claw spirit exhibited 
 in government; the brute made manifest in collective human na- 
 ture; an exhibition of the primitive and undeveloped, recognized as 
 unchristian in personal human nature. 
 
 Two nations have a misunderstanding; they fancy that the 
 crooked path will l)e made straight and the obscure way plain, if 
 the way is lined with death and the path strewn with devastation. 
 When the end of the carnage comes; when the strife has burned it- 
 self out in the besom of destruction; when one side has been im- 
 poverished as to its cash, and decimated as to its manhood, and 
 must sue for peace, the nation which has inflicted the greatest dam- 
 age, and piled up the largest number of the adversary's dead, flat- 
 ters itself that this horrible evidence is proof positive that its quar- 
 
174 
 
 rel was just. The condition would be ludicrous were it not so 
 tragic. 
 
 The picture has not been overdrawn. No artist ever wielded a 
 brush dipped in colors adequately scarlet to tell the whole sad story 
 of carnage over which the god of battles presides. But false educa- 
 tion and unchristian ideals have warped the human Judgment and 
 calloused the conscience until the clear vision of the Son of Man 
 does not illumine the understanding. 
 
 Hosea Bigelow's statement, " As for war I call it murder/' will 
 meet the witness of the sober second thought in the minds of most 
 men. " Learning and art, and especially religion, weave ties that 
 make war look like fratricide, as it is," says Emerson, and the sen- 
 timent meets with a hearty amen in many quarters. But wars come 
 and go in the main because sentiment is not crystallized into con- 
 viction and organized into public conduct. 
 
 We are not considering the topic from the standpoint of the 
 past, but of the present. The anthropomorphic literalism of the 
 ancient Jewish theologians need not hamper us. Their dim percep- 
 tion conceived of the Almighty as a man of war and a god of bat- 
 tles; but the spirit of the new dispensation, the religion of life and 
 love which the Master established and the spirit of truth, first pure 
 and then peaceable, which he left as a legacy to his disciples for all 
 time, does not admit of the life-destroying trade of war. 
 
 The human imagination, whether Pagan or Christian, at all fa- 
 miliar with the Sermon on the Mount, or the wayside ministry of 
 Jesus, has never conceived him playing the role of warrior. His ar- 
 mament can never be more carnal than the sword of the Spirit; his 
 feeling for men less than a race-including love. It is idle, therefore, 
 to spend time proving that the Prince of Peace was not a warrior, 
 or that war cannot exist when that perfect law of liberty which he 
 brought to light prevails. 
 
 It should be remembered that we are not considering the third, 
 the eleventh or the sixteenth century, but the twentieth. We are 
 confronted with duty as magnified in the lens of the larger light 
 and liberty of two thousand years of accumulated Christian experi- 
 ence. The present concern is not condemnation of the wars of the 
 crusades, but the abolition of war to-day. 
 
 We are now face to face with a query: What can the Christian 
 Church do and what ought it to do to assist every effort looking 
 towards the abolition of war? Manifestly it can become a potent, 
 practical moral force in the world, as well as stand for a distinct 
 type of theology. It can put forth a concerned and consistent effort 
 to make real the practical gospel. It can stand at the parting of 
 the ways and plead for peace, while it does its best to displace the 
 war spirit which delights to destroy life, by the brotherly spirit 
 whose meat and drink is to preserve and protect life. 
 
 The world needs a vast deal of teaching regarding right prin- 
 ciples. Centuries of combat have left the race possessed of monu- 
 
175 
 
 mental errors and manifold subterfuges. War has always been the 
 practice of the nations under provocation, and the supposition is 
 that what always has been always will be. But that is simply one of 
 the world's misconceptions. It has been the misnomer of the con- 
 servative and the axiom of the advocates of things as they are, ever 
 since the spirit of procrastination began to oppose the spirit of 
 progress. 
 
 The Church is admirably equipped to assist in the removal of 
 this misconception. Her own history has been a constant evidence 
 that established custom, hoary-headed habit, the beaten track of 
 conservatism, does not constitute the divinely-appointed order of 
 social, moral, intellectual and spiritual progress. The Church 
 should teach the possibility of a growth in grace, not a permanency 
 for disgrace; an evolution in righteousness, not a seK-satisficd con- 
 tent with partial accomplishmment, low ideals, and the notion that 
 any condition less than perfection has been blessed with everlasting 
 life. The Church should labor to remove the misconceptions and 
 misnomers of the ages. 
 
 One of the world's misconceptions is that the spirit of peace is 
 effeminate; that to fight is manly, and to refrain from a quarrel 
 provoked by brutality is to play the coward's part. The Church 
 should teach manliness, that manliness which has the manliness of 
 the Master as a model, and there was nothing effeminate about that. 
 Wlio has ever dreamed that the calm, consistent manliness which 
 did not demur at the crown of thorns, and which marched unflinch- 
 ingly to the cross and Calvary, was cowardly? 
 
 It is better to dodge the blow of the bully than to sink to the 
 level of the bully by paying him off in kind. That is peace for the 
 man personally, and peace with honor just the same. It is better for 
 the nation to let provocation real or imaginary, evaporate in the 
 crucible of diplomacy; to invoke the delay of the sober second 
 thought, than to resent injury on sight, and resort to the nonsensi- 
 cal philosophy that two calamities make a blessing. That is peace 
 for men publicly as a nation. 
 
 What better business can the Church be in than teaching the 
 young people, and the old people for that matter, for whose instruc- 
 tion in righteousness she is responsible, the simple duty of ruling 
 one's own spirit. Peace is the product of thoughtfulness, of rea- 
 son, of self-control; war is the offspring of passion — the first flash 
 of hate in the powder pan of anger. A better motto over the 
 church door than " Eemember the Maine " is the words of Habak- 
 kuk, " In wrath remember mercy.'' 
 
 Among the subterfuges which obscure the world's thinking 
 none are more vigorously or viciously pushed than the notion that 
 national grandeur, greatness and permanency rest upon military 
 power and prestige; that the nation which will not or cannot fight 
 shall surely die, if it is not already dead. This view of the case has 
 been tremendously exaggerated and distorted, until the conclusion 
 
176 
 
 has been almost reached that the one essential of national perma- 
 nency is a military footing, and that the breath of a healthy na- 
 tion's nostrils is the spirit of war. 
 
 Yet we have a standing refutation of this monstrous folly before 
 our eyes. It is only about three hundred years since the mighty 
 Philip II. passed away from earth, and ever since that time Spanish 
 history has been marching backward, and fighting vigorously all 
 the while in the midst of retreat. Spain did not go to pieces and 
 lapse into weakness because she forgot how or became afraid to 
 fight. Her history illustrates the essential fallacy which inheres in 
 many of the theories which men advance to account for the 
 grandeur and stability of nations. With no lack of bravery in bat- 
 tle; with a loyalty to the power ordained in government which al- 
 most amounted to adoration; with reverence for religious authority, 
 which is one of the most mighty cohesive forces in the world; with 
 all this, Spain has decreased from being a national giant, until now 
 she is one of the puniest pigmies among the European Powers. 
 Evidently, the calculating machine of the materialistic ready-reck- 
 oners in national affairs has slipped a cog. There seems to be some- 
 thing necessary to national growth finer than force, and without 
 which force is unavailing. 
 
 The magnificent machinery of the Church ought to be steadily 
 employed in teaching the truth regarding the forces and factors 
 which make for national strength, because they tend to purity and 
 peace. 
 
 Among the stumbling-blocks to the Christian's constant and 
 consistent testimony in behalf of peace is the dwarfed and stilted 
 notion of patriotism constantly pressed upon him by the preachers 
 of his Church, the politicians of his choice, and the party paper 
 from which he gets his intellectual pabulum, and his civic and often 
 his moral ideas. " My country, right or wrong," is this shibboleth, 
 and he concludes that that means that his citizenship must endorse 
 what his manhood repudiates. 
 
 An analysis of his shibboleth would take away all of its sting, 
 and the power it has to enslave. Of course a man's country is his, 
 good or bad, just as his body is his, black or white. He had no 
 power to choose the place of his birth or the color of his skin. But 
 that does not mean that the citizen shall rejoice when his country 
 goes wrong. His business, on the other hand, is to contribute the 
 effort and the influence which shall at least tend to make his coun- 
 try right. He may love it when wrong, but the test of his loyalty 
 as a citizen in the State and a Christian in the Church is that he 
 shall then love it in sorrow, and labor with an eye single to its se- 
 cured righteousness. 
 
 May we not learn another lesson from Spain, the finished pro- 
 duct of bald conservatism and blind, unthinking, parrot-like devo- 
 tion? Buckle, the historian, says: "Loyalty and superstition, rev- 
 erence for their clergy, were the leading principles which influ- 
 
177 
 
 enced the Spanish mind and governed the march of Spanish his- 
 tory." Leaving Buckle, may we not conclude that time has shown 
 that mere loyalty to a machine is not the stuff of which enduring 
 national character is made? Loyalty that is simply blind endorse- 
 ment of the powers that be, though they be diabolical, has killed 
 more civilizations than it has cured. We are living in an age of the 
 world when moral quality and the ability to discover and apply new 
 principles are the things that count. What the nations need to-day 
 worse than standing armies, or steel-plated cruisers, or submarine 
 destroyers, is conscience. The duty of the Christian Church is to 
 inspire, educate and make tremendously alive the constructive con- 
 science. 
 
 The progress of civilization and the history of Christianity 
 prove conclusively that free government is the product of original- 
 ity in thinking and liberty of expression. The government cannot 
 be benefited by the progressive spirit of its individual parts unless 
 they express themselves. No government will progress in right- 
 eousness if its citizens approve its wrongdoing. For the citizen to 
 tell the government when he thinks it is wrong is not treason, but 
 concerned patriotism. Anglo-Saxon civilization would have gone 
 down hill with Spain had it not stood for progress, encouraged 
 growth and conferred the power of initiative and the privilege of 
 reform upon its individual citizens. The Church is a moulder of 
 citizens. She ought to teach an independent and progressive rather 
 than a parrot-like and thoughtlessly acquiescent patriotism. In 
 short, she ought to make of every man and woman a force for social 
 righteousness, and every voter an advocate of peace, even in the 
 midst of war and the political vituperation which war engenders. 
 
 The Church has the right, and it is her duty to demand that 
 her generally and specially retained advocates shall not misrepre- 
 sent the Christian ideals. When the jingoes in and out of Con- 
 gress, in the spring of 1898, were bombarding an unwilling Presi- 
 dent to begin war with Spain, some of the heaviest cannonading 
 came from the pulpits of the country, and the exhortation in be- 
 half of blood-letting is still the speech of not a few of those who 
 declare that they are " ambassadors for Christ." 
 
 A few months ago, when the President of the United States 
 was stricken by the bullet of an assassin, the most vehement regrets 
 that lawless personal vengeance was not summarily visited upon the 
 murderer came from supposed teachers of Christian ethics, occupy- 
 ing some of the popular pulpits in the land. 
 
 The champion defender of the looting practiced by the armies 
 of the Christian allies during the late unpleasantness in China 
 holds the parchment of an ordained minister and the brief of a 
 Christian missionary. Examine the authoritative declarations of 
 Dr. Gilbert Reed regarding this matter. On page 583 of " The 
 Forum " for Seventh month, 1901, Dr. Reed, in writing about 
 " The Ethics of Loot," said: 
 
178 
 
 " For the crime thus committed by the instigation of the Man- 
 chu court, it seemed at the moment that no punishment could be 
 too severe. ' Eaze the city to the ground!' ''Burn the palace!' 
 ' Let ruins mark the site of the greatest crime of the century, and 
 prove a warning to coming centuries.' I am not sure in the new 
 moments of reflection . . . but that the first thought if carried out 
 would have been for the greatest good of the greatest number. As 
 a mild modification of such drastic proposals there grew up the ro- 
 mantic system of looting." 
 
 On page 584 of the same magazine Dr. Eeed thus delivers him- 
 self: 
 
 " A somewhat similar mode of looting was that of entering 
 houses other than those occupied, and taking the best that could be 
 found. Old resident? of Pekin not only knew where the wealth was. 
 but generally distinguished between the Chinaman who was a 
 friend and him who was a foe. For the former they sought protec- 
 tion; from the latter loot. Personally, I regret that the guilty suf- 
 fered so little at my own hands." 
 
 To make the efforts of loot doubly sure, in the North China 
 Herald of Third month, 1901, the same Dr. Reed said: 
 
 " Now and then I branched out to loot from those who were 
 our enemies, and I only regret I didn't have more time to loot from 
 such despicable wretches, instead of leaving so much to others, in- 
 cluding not a few loot critics. If, however, those from whom I have 
 looted want their things back let them meet me face to face and I 
 will * take the matter into consideration.' " 
 
 The point is that the duty of the Church is to assist in the aboli- 
 tion of war, which engenders in men such unchristian character, 
 and while she is doing that she should insist that her representa- 
 tives do not misrepresent her. 
 
 Made up of the disciples of the Great Teacher, the Church can- 
 not in consistency do less than teach the Christian ideals regarding 
 personal conduct and public policy. A prominent educator in a 
 recent magazine article said: " Our highest politics aim at con- 
 serving the arts of peace; our first poetic lessons are in an Iliad that 
 cannot be appreciated without a bloodthirsty joy in killing." The 
 adult communicants of the Church, and the children whom she is 
 educating to recruit her membership, demand at her hands impres- 
 sions upon their hearts and consciences of holier ideas regarding the 
 tenderness and awfulness of human life than Greek, Roman or 
 Norse heroes tell or teach. 
 
 The Christian test of valor and manhood is not made on the 
 battlefield, where the very environment tends to make one sell life 
 cheaply. On the contrary, the Christian hero is he who in unsel- 
 fish devotion binds up the wounds inflicted on life's Jericho road, 
 and helps emancipate from the servitude of sin a submerged hu- 
 man spirit. From the standpoint of the Founder of the Church, the 
 Good Samaritan is a more ideal type of the Christian than the great 
 
179 
 
 soldier. A wide and expanding field of lahor looms iTp before the 
 Church at the present time to teach her own her own truth. 
 
 Perhaps the conclusion of the whole matter can he pressed into 
 a paragraph. The sanest method at the present time to abolish 
 war is to displace the war spirit in the hearts of men, and in the 
 purpose of the nations. That is the sure cure for the curse of 
 war. But it may be too slow and too primary to suit the quacks 
 upon the one side, and the impatient enthusiasts on the other. 
 Wliatever will help to remove the war spirit will be valuable, and 
 the educational and moral labor necessary to that end is in the 
 direct line of the duty of the Church. 
 
 There is encouragement, of course, in the fact that the econ- 
 omic drain involved in war discourages a resort to it, and tends to 
 make the nations slow to wrath when the temptation comes to en- 
 gage in battle. 
 
 That it is no longer easy or desirable for nations about equally 
 matched to refer their differences to the arbitrament of the sword, 
 also has its value in the direction of peace. The wars of the last 
 quarter of a century have in the main been wars of the strong 
 against the weak, and have demonstrated the essential moral and 
 physical cowardice on the part of the modem warriors. That, also, 
 will have the tendency to shame the strong nations into the more 
 peaceful attitude. Part of the duty of the Church is to discourage 
 the temper and conduct of the bully among the nations. 
 
 But when we consider the case in its fullness, and all the ten- 
 dencies now prevailing, the center of the movement to abolish war, 
 is, as has been said, to displace the war spirit. That is a task which 
 belongs to all the educational processes, beginning at the cradle and 
 continuing to the end of present-world life. Producing that result 
 is a large part of the purpose permeating the genuine Christian sys- 
 tem, although it has only to a limited extent been taken up by the 
 Church. Manifestly the duty of the Church is to be practically 
 and potentially Christian. 
 
 The whole temper of the present movement to abolish war 
 might be changed for the better if the Church would use her in- 
 fluence in any practical and forceful way in promoting the discus- 
 sion and propaganda of the movement. It goes for the saying that 
 the Church could discourage warlike methods and belligerent lan- 
 guage in treating the peace problem. 
 
 Just as all men who criticise government are not traitors, so all 
 men who have not yet become peace advocates are not heathens. 
 May we not charitably consider them partially developed Chris- 
 tians? It will be well to remember that all men have in some par- 
 ticular come short of fulfilling all provisions of the law and the 
 gospel, and the blindly warlike Christian is simply defective at a 
 different point than some of us. Christian sympathy with the 
 frailties of men lies at the base of all well-regulated efforts at prac- 
 tical reform. 
 
180 
 
 True, the progress towards peace has been a snail's pace, but 
 the progress goes on. It is the duty of the Church to push the car 
 of progress, not to obstruct it either by her opposition or her indif- 
 ference. 
 
 The problem of peace touches our political and public life, and 
 demands that the Christian citizen's relation to government shall 
 be up to the level of his Christian ideals. If the Church is true to 
 the mark of her high calling she will lend a hand in developing 
 that kind of citizens. 
 
 From within the circle of the Church, holier than the French 
 cardinal ever dreamed, there should proceed no curses, not even 
 for the warrior. Her function is to inspire and uplift, to develop 
 an intense love for men, and the life which they possess. In this 
 atmosphere the spirit of war would die for the want of nourish- 
 ment. 
 
 But the Church will not be mechanically lifted from her leth- 
 argy. Her progress and her work in the world as a body of collec- 
 tive Christians will depend upon the extent to which her individual 
 members follow the leading of the Christ-spirit as it speaks in their 
 hearts, and invites them to a more abundant righteousness and a 
 larger peace. 
 
 As the individual Christian follows this holy leading, the ambi- 
 tions of the warrior and the destroyer will cease to allure him, 
 and the promise which will make his soul stretch its wings, and be 
 glad in its strength, will be the apostolic declaration, " How beau- 
 tiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace and bring 
 glad tidings of good things. 
 
 The Chaieman: The next is a paper upon " The Makers of 
 Peace," by Dean Elizabeth Powell Bond, of Swarthmore College. 
 
 THE MAKERS OF PEACE. 
 
 BY ELIZABETH POWELL BOND, DEAN OF SWAETHMOEE COLLEGE, PA. 
 
 This conference must be of the nature of a prayer. Our souls 
 are reaching out toward the infinite soul for light and guidance 
 and help to see how we may be makers of peace. And although it 
 may seem a futile thing for a few hundred men and women to come 
 together for interchange and illumination of thought, still, our 
 hearts may glow with the faith of Hartley Coleridge's lines: 
 
 ' ' Far is the time, remote from human sight, 
 
 When war and discord on the earth shall cease ; 
 Yet every pi-ayer for universal peace 
 Avails the blessed time to expedite." 
 
 There is on exhibition in this city a powerful picture entitled, 
 " The Conquerors." It is an epitome of the story of war. Out of 
 the sombre, far-away background come the conquerors three abreast 
 
181 
 
 on their great war horses. Caesar is in the forefront, with Rameses 
 and Alexander on either side. Close behind press Attila and Na- 
 poleon and Sennacherib, and lesser conquerors beneath their bar- 
 baric and their Ciiristian banners. Their " way to glory " is 
 through an avenue of dead men lying tier upon tier on either side. 
 In these unnumbered hosts of dead we may fancy "• the five hun- 
 dred thousand chosen men of Israel " whom Abijah and his people 
 slew with great slaughter; the ten thousand that fell down at Na- 
 poleon's word of command; the more than ten hundred thousand 
 slain in " great Caesar's " conquering marches. But " the conquer- 
 ors " can no more go forward. Death has reduced to the ranks 
 these men of might; now, they stand, naked souls in the presence of 
 the Supreme Commander! 
 
 True, these conquerors are conquered. But down through the 
 ages, in the blood of their sons, and their sons' sons, have come the 
 seeds of war from their fatal sowing! True, we have not Ca?sar and 
 Alexander and Napoleon; but we have the commanders of all the 
 nations of the earth, still carrying on wars for defence, and wars 
 for mastery, and wars for the spread of civilization! 
 
 Said a school-master of a preparatory school, not long ago, in 
 my hearing: " The work with boys seems to me to be very much 
 like writing upon the sand of the seashore. You think you have 
 made a deep impression at some point, and along comes a wave, and 
 it is gone." What is true of the schoolboy seems hardly less true 
 of the human race in its preparatory school of this world's life. 
 
 A few months ago I stood for the first time beside Grant's 
 Tomb on the Hudson. As I came to the impressive structure, the 
 brief inscription, the dead soldier's own words, " Let us have 
 peace ! " seemed to me a message from out some higher, purer 
 sphere.. It gave me a strange feeling of translation into another 
 time and place. Here was a memorial from a grateful nation to a 
 military hero; an expression in enduring marble of gratitude for 
 service, in part, it is true, with cannon and sword. And yet there 
 are no emblems of war to remind us of the soldier. The sculp- 
 tured figures that seem only to accent the fitting simplicity of the 
 marble structure bear tbe olive and the laurel — emblems according 
 well with the eloquent appeal of the hero, " Let us have peace! " 
 
 Is there anywhere in the world beside a monument to a military 
 hero, that thus perpetuates his cry for peace? Let us be thankful 
 that this high-water mark of civilization has been reached. A 
 wave of militarism has gone over us, and has swept away appar- 
 ently the standards of national righteousness that would express 
 themselves in such a memorial. Military heroes of this genera- 
 tion will doubtless be commemorated with emblems of war; but 
 there stands the eloquent record in marble, that once in our na- 
 tional history, the victorious soldier pleaded for peace! 
 
 War is not an evil to be legislated away any more than small- 
 pox. War is a disease of souls, and so long as the germs of war 
 
182 
 
 find in the crudeness or selfishness of men the conditions for their 
 growth, so long will armies recruit themselves for aggressive war- 
 fare upon the weak, or for defense against the invasions of the 
 strong. 
 
 When, in 1897, the war against Spanish rule in Cuba was threat- 
 ening, the New York letter in the Philadelphia Ledger said that 
 men were tired of peace, that they were blase, that they were hun- 
 gering and thirsting for the excitement of war. And it is true 
 that men flocked to the camps to make ready for battle, with much 
 of the spirit of college boys putting themselves in training for ath- 
 letic contests. In monarchical countries where the power of one 
 man is to be maintained; where the exaltation of the King means 
 the debasement of all other men class by class, it is easy to see that 
 the " divine right of kings " must intrench itself behind a standing 
 army. But within the borders of a Eepublic there is every chance 
 for peace. Said Charles Sumner, in 1871, in his address on the 
 duel between France and Germany: "All hail to the Eepublic, equal 
 guardian of all, and angel of peace. Our own part is simple. It is, 
 first, to keep out of war; and, next, to stand firm in those ideas 
 which are the life of the Republic. Peace is our supreme voca- 
 tion. To this we are called." 
 
 What does it mean that in two decades after this noble address, 
 men of this Eepublic had become tired of peace, blase, thirsting for 
 the excitement of war! Must it be, that like waves upon the sea- 
 shore, tides of human feeling from unfinished human nature must 
 at intervals wash away the foundations that seemed built upon ever- 
 lasting principles? Blase in this thrillingly interesting world, 
 where scientific research is bringing us clearer glimpses of creative 
 plans and method and power; and making us to feel more and more 
 at one with God! Thirsting for the excitement of war, when there 
 is the glorious excitement of making two blades of wheat grow 
 where one grew before! 
 
 Do away with war — you and I in our greater or lesser places 
 in the world! It is a seemingly hopeless task for the individual, 
 one here and another there, to work against the strongly in- 
 trenched armies of the world. The world believes in its armies — 
 it does not believe in Christ. This is our terrible unbelief: " Lord, 
 help thou our unbelief! " There is a tradition that when the Egyp- 
 tians prayed to Osiris for release from a plague of crocodiles, deliv- 
 erance came through the little ichneumon that diligently destroyed 
 the eggs of the great reptiles. 
 
 We may not be able to place in our National Congress the men 
 who would be makers of peace in the national councils. Prompt 
 co-operation with the executive officers of the nation may not turn 
 back the tide of war that now and again rises in human history. It 
 may be long years before woman shares in the active responsibilities 
 of government. We cannot yet have her service in that way against 
 war. 
 
183 
 
 But there is a service that comes within the power of every 
 human being, from the least to the greatest, from the young to the 
 aged, from the unlettered to the scholar — the labor to destroy the 
 seeds of war. The small seeds of war are in human souls, forever 
 starting into life, forever striving for possession. The impulses of 
 selfishness are the seeds of war. Whenever we would seek our own 
 advancement at the cost of some other soul, then these seeds of war 
 quicken in their native element. Whenever we wantonly infringe 
 upon our neighbor's precious rights, in trade among men, or in 
 social relations, these small seeds of war respond with electric swift- 
 ness, and strike root, to irritate and torment and despoil the beau- 
 tiful possibilities of the day or the year. Even the jangling of un- 
 tuned nerves may be the stimulus of these baleful seeds into mala- 
 rial growth. The makers of peace have been named the children 
 of God. In their energized heart of love the seeds of war wither 
 away. If we could be loving enough in our relations to men, no 
 seeds of war could ever spring into bitter thought or hateful action 
 between man and man, nor into cannon-led battalions between na- 
 tion and nation. Then, how the desert places of life would grow 
 "ten thousand roses on forbidding walls"! Then, how all the 
 energy that is paralyzed by discord and heart-achings would be 
 turned to the joyous doing of life's work. Then, would the billions 
 of dollars expended in the last century's wars, be diverted from the 
 work of destruction, to the work of building up. 
 
 Let us cherish hearts of hope to measure the progress of the 
 world, not by its laggard steps and seeming retrogressions, but by 
 the heights which it now and then touches, and go forward with 
 the unfailing patience of Him to whom a thousand years are as a 
 day! 
 
 The Chairman: We shall now listen to an address on "The 
 True Spirit of Peace," by Dr. William L. Pearson, of Penn College, 
 Iowa. 
 
 THE TRUE SPIRIT OF PEACE. 
 
 BY PEOFESSOR WILLIAM L. PEARSON, PENN COLLEGE, IOWA. 
 
 Peace is not simply a state of pacification. It is not merely a 
 condition in which conflicts of words and weapons have passod 
 away; nor does the cessation of inward struggle naturally issue into 
 peace. Its content expands beyond the definitions of the lexico- 
 grapher. ISTeither do courts for compromise and arbitration usually 
 comprehend it. 
 
 The peace of Christ and of unity means all these, and far more. 
 But neither the world nor the church has fairly conceived it. Peace 
 is not negative; it is particularly positive; it is not merely the ab- 
 sence of conflict, but the prosperity of realized divine blessing. In 
 nearly every apostolic salutation after " grace," by which one en- 
 
184 
 
 ters into the presence and favor of God, " peace " is the great com- 
 prehensive blessing of life. In the kingdom of God, next to right- 
 eousness, which must forever be the foundation, peace with God and 
 men is the precious, practical fruit of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Hence it is that the placid face and gentle manner do not always 
 indicate a peaceful spirit, just as a calm surface of the sea does not 
 necessarily imply a quiet deep sea. From the springs of a worldly 
 or a wilful life come up mire and dirt, even when the restraints of 
 society and the discipline of a better civilization apparently con- 
 trol it. There is not in it the real peace that constitutes Christian 
 self-mastery. 
 
 On the other hand, the mind permeated, empowered and domi- 
 nated by the Spirit issues into life and peace. Peace as God's gra- 
 cious gift vouchsafed by the Holy Spirit of adoption with favor into 
 the Heavenly Father's family embraces all other blessings in the 
 life of his regenerate and faithful children; and, according to Isaiah 
 and Paul and Jesus, none others know genuine peace. " Peace " 
 was among Christ's last benedictions upon his disciples before his 
 death, and his first blessing after the resurrection was, " Peace be 
 unto you." No other has the prerogative to confer this blessing, 
 supreme and peculiar beyond all understanding in its power to 
 guard heart and thoughts, so that one may say, 
 
 ' ' These surface troubles come and go, 
 Like rufflings of the sea ; 
 The deeper depths are out of reach 
 To all, my God, but thee." 
 
 Thus we see the genuine Christian peacemakers are they who 
 have been constituted such by Christ himself. It was his not mere- 
 ly to break down every wall of partition and bring all classes and 
 conditions and nations and races face to face in order to eliminate 
 their differences; he is not merely the matchless peacemaker by 
 virtue of his authority over men, but himself is our peace, and con- 
 stitutes his elect at once possessors of peace, and henceforth pro- 
 claimers of God's peace and goodwill to men. Practical Christians 
 are naturalized citizens of the kingdom of grace, peace and assured 
 prosperity. Such are " the peacemakers that shall be called the chil- 
 dren of God." One can never be a servant of the Prince of Peace 
 in the full, free sense without possessing his Spirit of peace, the 
 supreme satisfaction that always arises from the consciously ac- 
 cepted heavenly irenicon. In the case of Christ, the spirit suffered 
 in Gethsemane and sank on Golgotha, when his own right arm 
 might have protected him, or legions of angels might have been 
 summoned to his help. Too few fully realize the fact that if he 
 had not thus possessed himself in the spirit of peace, our peace 
 would never have been made possible by the breaking of the bonds 
 of death and the grave; he would never have been the Prince of Life 
 and Peace. At a time when furious factions sprang up in a night, 
 and bands of zealots daily ran mad, was not the world poor, indeed, 
 
185 
 
 to have only one Son of Man, who, being empowered by the spirit 
 of peace within him np to the point of self-mastery, could triumph 
 over evil and the evil one? Yet such an one! King of Peace be- 
 cause he was King of Righteousness, King Eternal! It was thus 
 that he, the author of peace, is authorized both out of the depths 
 of an unfathomable experience and with the sanctions of the al- 
 mighty, loving Father to announce in his own name, to all sincere 
 peace seekers, " Pax vdbiscum " (Peace be unto you). 
 
 We should give encouragement to every honest effort towards 
 peace, and where the Church neglects God's gospel of peace it may 
 be our duty to co-operate with even the agnostic. The heroism of 
 Professor Virchow and his two coadjutors, who used annually, in 
 the face of ridicule, to offer in the German Parliament their resolu- 
 tions looking to disarmament, should receive our hearty applause. 
 And yet, we are Friends — but friends of Christ only if we do what- 
 soever he commands. In the Society of Friends Christ's word 
 ought to be the voice of the eternal: " The way to work the works of 
 God is, first, to believe on his Sealed and Sent, and to take one's 
 commission from him for the work of God." Only thus shall we 
 feed on the Bread of Heaven, know the Life Eternal, possess the 
 true spirit of peace. 
 
 What man may ever, in his own name, assume the divine pre- 
 rogative? "Whose is the right to bestow peace upon his fellowmen? 
 Can priest or potentate bestow the blessing? Who may thus exalt 
 himself above his kind and dictate the terms of peace? Rameses II., 
 Israel's oppressor, made conquest of Palestine and Syria, and would 
 gladly have exalted himself to say to a conquered world, " Peace 
 be unto you," but in a drawn battle with the Hittite emperor he 
 met an equal and was rescued, as he believed, from the midst of 
 his foes by the intervention of his god Anion. Yet, he who would 
 assume the exalted prerogative over men, did not hesitate to en- 
 grave his own instead of the name of Anion on the tablets of vic- 
 tory, to eft'ace his god's in order to insert his own name, and even 
 to erect statues of himself in the temples of the gods, to take his 
 place in the midst of the Egyptian trinity. Somewhat similarly a 
 modern Bismarck, and then a Wilhelm II., after the old king and 
 general had constructed an empire by conflict and conquest, would 
 announce the Pax vobiscum as umpire of the European countries, 
 declaring " The bayonets of all Europe point towar«is Berlin." In 
 the same spirit many a proud prince or august ecclesiastic would 
 have peace on earth, along with the universal sway of his own will. 
 
 How wide the contrast between all these and the spirit of Paul, 
 the first to make conquest for Christ in Europe! Differing Chris- 
 tians were to " give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the 
 bonds of peace," in order to " attain unto unity of the faith and of 
 the knowledge of the Son of God." Among differing races and 
 ranks of men, wherever and whenever disputes arose, and especially 
 among themselves, the Christians " should thankfully welcome the 
 
186 
 
 unfailing arbitration of the peace of Christ in order to the unity 
 of the body." " Let the peace of Christ rule, arbitrate, in your 
 hearts, unto which ye were also called in one body, and be ye thank- 
 ful." The spirit of peace first seeks the divine equation in every 
 one's own inward conflict, and submits every issue between men to 
 the Prince of Peace, remembering that " the Lord's servant must 
 not strive, but be gentle towards all." Hence it would have been 
 entirely foreign to Paul to utter in his own name among the breth- 
 ren any sort of Pax vobiscum. The spirit of peace is impossible, 
 as is peace itself, in the would-be autocrat peacemaker. Instead of 
 the Pax vobiscum of divine prerogative, and unlike every autocratic 
 ecclesiastic, this prince of apostles would say to those of like faith 
 with him, "Pax ndbiscum (Let us have peace)." 
 
 It is characteristic of the spirit of peace to stand immovable 
 upon the conceived will of God, daring to do right, willing to suf- 
 fer wrong rather than do wrong. Let us open our eyes to the aw- 
 ful fact of sin, with all its fearful consequences. The world has 
 been and is sin-cursed, and selfishness, iniquity, conflict and suffer- 
 ing must obtain for some time to come. " No variableness nor 
 shadow cast by turning " upon the stage of diplomacy, political or 
 ecclesiastical, can conceal such condition before the increasing light 
 of God, and while the twentieth century Friend must withstand all 
 war and war spirit, yea, rather stand for the coming Messianic 
 reign of peace, as firmly as our stalwarts of the seventeenth century 
 did, we should be the last people on earth to become misled by 
 sweet sentimentality on the subject. Events of the last five years 
 have compelled the advocates of peace to pause and read the signs 
 of the times. Haply it was only to sound forth again to peoples 
 and rulers their appeals for peace and peaceful methods, and pro- 
 test upon protest has gone up to heads of governments, sometimes 
 from labor unions and other fraternities, but slightly understanding 
 the spirit and ideals of peace. This is all only negative. But the 
 ardent advocates of peace must never forget that their first business 
 is to possess and to proclaim both the Prince of Peace and his peace 
 evangel, a thought too often overlooked in times both of continuous 
 peace and of exciting conflict of arms. 
 
 And yet the Christian testimony contains more than word or 
 deed. Every worthy testimony is a testimony with the spirit; it is 
 spirit and life. Christ freely yielded up his life to his enemies, for 
 his enemies' sake, and as freely commended his spirit to the Father 
 for the Fathers glory. It may not be forgotten that he who of- 
 fered his life for us also breathed his spirit upon us, and that an 
 all-sufficient, soul-satisfying self-sacrifice calls for an ever-living, 
 suffering Saviour realized in us as touched with a feeling of all hu- 
 man infirmities. Hence in the advancing revelations and experi- 
 ences of a Paul and a Peter, the baptism and fellowship of Christ's 
 sufferings became ideal in the higher phases of Christian life and 
 service. Christ ever has crowns for those who will bear the cross. 
 
187 
 
 but he miipt continuo to bear the cross alone who will too 
 eagerly snatch the crown. In the sinful, suffering world's conflict 
 they were to make up that which was lacking, not of the atoning 
 sacrifice, but in the afflictions of Christ for the body's sake. The 
 royal son of heaven's and of Israel's king was also the son of the 
 Hittite's wife, of a Moabitess. of a harlot, and possibly of a Jezebel. 
 It is neither dry dogma nor poetic fancy, but a fact of first order 
 in the divine providence, that the spotless, suffering High Priest 
 and King " passed through the heavens " to the lowest rung of the 
 social ladder, and home again. Somehow, in " the light of life," it 
 is kingly and Christlike to answer thus truth's call, and only thus 
 may truth slowly and surely build upon and in the foundations of 
 society and thence rise in triumphant grandeur. 
 
 The London Meeting for Sufferings is pre-eminently the most 
 unique and extraordinary ecclesiastical body of modern history. 
 And while the conditions in England differ from those in this 
 country, one only need fairly feel the weight of war-burden resting 
 upon many of those meetings to fear lest the war-god may some day 
 find the American Society of Friends asleep with the weeping Spirit 
 of Peace perched over her head. 
 
 May modern Friends, like Christ and Paul and Peter, have the 
 true spirit of peace! Aye, more; we must have it in order to be 
 Christ's true peacemakers, in order to be the Friends our fathers 
 were, and under the clear sky of the twentieth century we may, 
 must be, more than 
 
 " Half our fathers' shadows cast at noon." 
 
 We should be taller and broader and stronger than they. Our 
 question is only as to the power of the spirit of peace. Examples 
 might be multiplied anywhere in the history of the Society of 
 Friends. 
 
 Let two examples suffice. When every one, every ecclesistical 
 society or political party who dared, appealed to the sword with 
 the furious zeal of a mistaken divine authority to enforce his own 
 creed and claim, when the first Friend, with hundreds of faithful 
 followers, was spending one-fourth of his forty active years in 
 dreadful dungeons, and much more under dire persecutions, 
 Thomas Carlyle, surveying the whole latter half of the seventeenth 
 century, spies out a single figure of masterly Christian fortitude, 
 and writes: " There is in broad Europe one free man — George Fox, 
 the greatest of the moderns, — he looks heavenward from his earth 
 and dwells in an element of mercy and worship." But this is not the 
 whole of it. The Spirit of God, who will conform all of us into the 
 spirit of peace — for the unity of the Spirit is in the bond of peace 
 — impelled George Fox eagerly onward to proclaim and promote 
 life and peace among his fellows. Drinking in the elements of the 
 divine nature, the true spirit of peace becomes partaker of an extra- 
 ordinary divine-human benevolence, the brotherly love which is 
 
188 
 
 suffused and surcharged with the divine love and obliged to find an 
 outlet in the lives of men. It was this spirit of peace which filled 
 and possessed William Penn and led to the " Holy Experiment," 
 whose real meaning is only beginning to be fully felt. 
 
 Finally, the gentle, supremely courageous, suffering, true spirit 
 of peace is a prophet's voice in the wilderness, faithfully speaking 
 forth the word of the Lord until his generation sees it. Only an 
 example. It was given John Bright alone to speak the word of 
 God in Parliament as to the Crimean War. More than thirty years 
 afterwards, driving one Sabbath evening to the London Station for 
 the last time, and passing the monument upon which is inscribed 
 " Crimea," he remarked, " The ' a ' should be transposed, and let 
 it read ' A Crime.' " To this all thoughtful Englishmen would now 
 say. Amen! 
 
 On my first visit, many years ago, I first read appropriately 
 posted aloft in the bell tower of Independence Hall in Penn's City 
 of Brotherly Love, Longfellow's lines, " Peace on Earth," which 
 shall fittingly show the prophetic view of the spirit of peace: 
 
 " Down the dark future, through long generations, 
 
 The echoing soiinds grow fainter and then cease ; 
 And like a bell with solemn sweet vibrations, 
 
 I hear once more the voice of Christ say, ' Peace ! ' 
 Peace ! and no longer from its brazen portals 
 
 The blast of War's great organ shakes the skies, 
 But, beautiful as songs of the immortals, 
 
 The holy melodies of love arise." 
 
 The Chairman: The subjects presented in the papers will 
 now be open for discussion, and the first speaker will be Amos 
 Saunders, of Brooklyn. 
 
 Amos Saunders: As I say what I have in mind I hope that I 
 shall not be understood as criticizing our fathers of the past, or 
 those of us who are here. 
 
 It is a sad fact to me that we have only one hundred thousand 
 members instead of one million. If we had the latter we might 
 go before the Congress of the United States and demand, whereas 
 now we have to be simply suppliants and perhaps receive in re- 
 sponse the hint that we are anarchists. 
 
 There is another sad fact, and that is that we have so few men 
 who are capable of speaking to the great crowds that gather in such 
 assemblies as the Christian Endeavor National Conventions and 
 other places; that we have not those who can command those im- 
 mense audiences and declare for peace in such a way that the world 
 must hear. In the large cities we have so few men that are able to 
 move the masses and lift men up into the great Gospel of peace that 
 our Master declared. 
 
 It seems to me that we need constructive work, beginning down 
 at the bottom, a constructive work that might have been begun 
 years ago and been felt to-day. We need, as I have indicated, in- 
 
189 
 
 creased membership, that we may declare with more positiveness — 
 at least with more force — the Gospel of peace. 
 
 The statistics show that seventy per cent, of all the people that 
 become Christians, become so before they are eighteen years of age. 
 I have no doubt that seventy per cent, or more of those of us to- 
 day who stand for the subject of peace, stood so before we were 
 eighteen years of age. The principles that we are trying to carry 
 out were implanted in our minds in childhood. It is not difficult, 
 therefore, to see where our field of labor lies. It belongs to that 
 period in the life of the individual when he is most susceptible to 
 impressions. 
 
 If, then, we would be strong in the future for peace, so far as 
 numbers are concerned, we must reach and win to our church the 
 children and young people. I know there are some who think that 
 it is not numbers but character that Friends want. " Quality and 
 not quantity," they tell us. Quality is good, but quality and plenty 
 of it is a great deal better. We need a stronger ministry, for the 
 proclamation of the Gospel of peace. The strength of the ministry 
 is planted in childhood and early life, and is further developed in 
 the college and university. 
 
 We need men, as has been indicated in this Convention, who 
 are able to stand in the Congress of the United States with a force 
 able to stem the strongest tide in times when the excitement of war 
 is on. It was said the other day that one of the difficulties in get- 
 ting men of peace principles into Congress was the lack of a con- 
 stituency. If we had the numbers we should have the constituency 
 that would put men into Congress where their voices could be 
 heard as John Bright's was heard in the Parliament of England. 
 
 There are many of us here whose voices can be heard only by 
 petition; but every one of us is in touch with childhood somewhere 
 and can thus make ourselves heard in the future. There has been 
 a tendency where I have known the Society to bring children into 
 touch with our church and its agencies, get them interested and 
 then allow them to go to other denominations to be cared for. In 
 this way many of them have been led away from peace principles, 
 and brought into the spirit and advocacy of war. If we had put 
 them under the training of our own denomination and kept them 
 there, we should have had more men of peace to stand for the prin- 
 ciples and the cause of peace. Let every individual of us put forth 
 efforts not only that the children of the church may be rightly 
 taught, but that the children that come in contact with us may be 
 brought in and made lovers of peace, so that in the years to come 
 we may have largely increased numbers to declare our principles 
 and render them more effective in the life of the nation. 
 
 RoBEET E. Pretlow: a number of times during this Con- 
 vention I have thought of an estimate of Jesus Christ by two promi- 
 nent Jews whom I have recently seen. Both of them conceived the 
 
190 
 
 essential principle of Jesus Christ to be that which we Quakers 
 hold — the principle of love, of brotherhood, of peace. One of them 
 says the Jew rejects Jesus Christ as a dreamer, an idealist, because 
 this idea of His good-will and peace is impracticable in a world such 
 as ours. The other regards this as the chief and most beautiful 
 point in the character of Jesus, and says that the light was too daz- 
 zling for His nation; they could not stand the blaze of the sunlight, 
 and so rejected Him. But he closed with the pertinent query, 
 " Has Christianity accepted Him? " 
 
 Some of our discussions have seemed to me to echo a little of 
 that first estimate, that Jesus Christ is the bringer of ideals and 
 dreams, which are exceedingly delightful to contemplate, but which 
 in a world of men are impracticable. If Jesus Christ's teaching 
 was true — and I do not need to discuss its truth before an audience 
 of Friends — if the principles which He enunciated are right, they 
 not only ought to be obeyed, they can be obeyed. Whatever ought 
 to be done can be done. God does not demand impossibilities in 
 this world. It is quite within the range of possibility for those who 
 name the name of Jesus Christ not only to have peace in their per- 
 sonal and social relations, but to demand it in the State, and get it. 
 
 Our attention has been drawn this morning to some of the fail- 
 ures of Friends. It seems to me that they have been very perti- 
 nently put before us. One of our great failures has been extreme 
 individualism. We have seen the vision of Jesus for ourselves; we 
 have felt some transformation in our own natures as we have con- 
 templated Him; and then we have drawn the robe of our sanctity 
 about us, withdrawn ourselves, wrapped ourselves up in ourselves, 
 and let society go its way. We have set ourselves on a pedestal, as 
 the old saint did, for the world to gaze at as a specimen of the best 
 and holiest; but we have not got down with Christ's spirit among 
 men and inculcated that spirit among our brethren as brethren 
 among them. 
 
 The Friends' Church, it seems to me, needs a rejuvenation, a 
 refilling with that old spirit that was in Fox and Penn and other 
 early Friends, that made them not content to hold views themselves 
 and enjoy them, but made them sacrifice the comforts of life, social 
 position, means, and go out to bring the truth to all men every- 
 where. Peace cannot be secured among men unless we bring it to 
 them in a living form. When Jesus Christ came to the world He 
 found religion congealed. There was no flowing of the spirit God- 
 ward. Traditionalism reigned. When George Fox came, he found 
 the world again wrapped up in tradition and following what other 
 men had thought and said and done. I want to ask the question here 
 for our candid and serious consideration, whether the time has not 
 almost gone for us as Friends to keep talking about peace as Fox 
 and Penn saw it, and reviving what they did, instead of bringing 
 it into living contact with the affairs of this time and this day. 
 
 It has been brought out in these discussions time and time 
 
191 
 
 again that there can be no peace without righteousness. For us to 
 go into the world and simply make a plea, when war breaks out, 
 that that war shall stop, that our ideas shall now be put into prac- 
 tice, and that this particular piece of fighting shall cease, seems to 
 me short-sighted and unwise. If the Friend longs for peace in gov- 
 ernment, he must begin at the root and seek righteousness in the 
 government as the necessary antecedent of the peace which shall be 
 lasting. The Friend who withdraws himself from political activity, 
 who cuts himself off from his relations with men in the affairs of 
 government, or compromises with iniquitous political machines and 
 condones and takes part in things which are in themselves ungodly, 
 loses all possible influence for peace at a later date. 
 
 Joseph Elkinton: We have had the scourge of small cords 
 applied very beneficially and stiraulatingly this morning. One 
 phase of the subject has been sufficiently dwelt upon. I thought 
 it might perhaps be my place to hold up the other. We are all 
 under bonds to this Conference to preserve sweetness of spirit; 
 but peace of mind depends upon justice and truth of statement. 
 
 When I think of George Fox standing before Cromwell; of 
 Mary Fisher going to the Turk, hazarding her life in that perilous 
 journey; when I think of Isaac Norris on this side handing up his 
 lonely vote against a warlike measure; when I think, also, of John 
 Pemberton and others in the assemblies of the people here, and 
 remember how Dr. John Fothergill and David Barclay on the other 
 side appealed to George III. not to go into that greatest of all mis- 
 takes in the line of war; when I remember the history of our So- 
 ciety and what a magnificent record it has made for peace, the 
 force of fact is far greater than the force of words. 
 
 There have been thought and action in this generation, just as 
 truly as in any before. Ther: have been in this house to-day men 
 who have stood before successive presidents of the United States 
 pleading that they would not endorse any warlike measure. I have 
 looked upon their gray hairs with the greatest veneration; and I 
 know that the spirit of the fathers is in them. I know that the ap- 
 peals of the Meeting for Sufferings of this Yearly Meeting have 
 gone out time and again in behalf of peace, with no uncertain 
 sound and with no uncertain effect, ultimately. I know that the 
 Meeting for Sufferings in London has done its duty, and is doing 
 its duty now. 
 
 I know there is indifference to this great subject in our mem- 
 bership, and I wish all to be stimulated to do their duty; but I be- 
 lieve this duty is only to be performed as we have the spirit of the 
 prophets in us; as we stand with +he convictions that they had — 
 alone, it may be, sometimes, but nevertheless willing to be alone. 
 But I believe that the fervor of their spirits wil come down, has 
 come down, to us, so that we shall send our message ringing 
 through the ages, accumulating force; I doubt not it will accumu- 
 
192 
 
 late rapidly henceforth; it will not go down with the thunders 
 of Sinai; it will not go down with those misconceptions of our lov- 
 ing Father, who has been so long called the God of Battles; but 
 it will go down with all the sweet reasonableness, with all the ir- 
 resistible persuasiveness of the spirit of Christ. 
 
 I want these newspaper reporters to know that this Society is 
 yet alive, has a testimony to bear, is bearing it, and if any other 
 society in 250 years has borne equally well any such testimony, I 
 want to know it. I do not say this to congratulate ourselves, but 
 to give credit to the efforts of our fathers and our forefathers, and 
 to those in this Conference who have steadily withstood up to this 
 very time all war measures. I believe if the severe test of the past 
 were again put upon us to-day, we should stand it faithfully, some 
 of us at any rate. With all deference to those who have expressed 
 the view that we have seriously failed in important ways, I hope 
 that they will go awr.y from this place knowing that there is a liv- 
 ing peace testimony still extant among us. 
 
 John B. Wood: In William. Pearson's remarks he says, 
 " Paul's testimony was, ' Ye shall not strive.' " That word was the 
 Greek word " fight." Paul said, " Ye shall not fight." Of course, 
 the Christian translators had to put it " strive," because they be- 
 lieved in fighting; but the word in the Greek is "fight," and not 
 " strive." 
 
 The Conference then adjourned till 3.30 p.m. 
 
Etflbtb Session. 
 
 Seventh-day Afterxoox, Twelfth Month 14th. 
 
 The Conference re-assembled in Twelfth Street Meeting House 
 at 3.30 p.m. Susan W. Janney, of Philadelphia, presided during 
 the afternoon. The session was opened by a season of devotion. 
 
 The Chairman: I desire very briefly in the moment allotted 
 to me to endeavor to summarize and to re-sound a few of the signal 
 notes of encouragement that have been struck during the interest- 
 ing sessions of the conference. 
 
 Doubtless many of us already find ourselves thinking of the 
 time, near at hand, when, this notable occasion concluded, we shall 
 undergo individual questionings as to its results. Whither do we 
 seem to be tending? Are we looking forward or backward; 
 towards a higher evolution of industrial civilization, or towards a 
 revival of " reactionary militarism " in our social and political 
 life? 
 
 Personally, I rejoice to believe that all who go forth to continue 
 their labors in the cause of peace will have found fresh courage, 
 increased breadth and enlightenment, and a renewed faith in pacific 
 infiuences and conditions which have here been so intelligently pre- 
 sented. 
 
 I think it has been clearly shown that the tendencies of civiliza- 
 tion are towards peace; that science, religion, commerce, facility of 
 intercourse, almost a common literature, common friendships and 
 common interests are overcoming the antipathies of nations, whose 
 interdependence grows constantly more marked, and whose solidar- 
 ity in great emergencies has noticeably increased. 
 
 It has been demonstrated, also, that under modern political, 
 social and economic conditions the growing difficulties from the 
 very developments that have taken place in the mechanism of war, 
 and the unmanageability of immense masses of men mobilized at 
 the outbreak of war, are some of the outward and visible signs of its 
 growing impracticability. 
 
 The deepening sentiments of human brotherhood and the prev- 
 alence of the conviction that upon the welfare of the individual de- 
 pends the elevation and the happiness of the whole, coupled with 
 the fact that the tribunal of public opinion is more and more ex- 
 acting and more and more deferred to, luive been dwelt upon. 
 
 But if it is true, as our most ethical economists show, that the 
 elements contending in the wars of the future will be all the moral 
 and intellectual forces of nations, all the modern civilization, all 
 
194 
 
 technical improvements, feelings, characters, minds, and wills — the 
 combined fruit of the culture of the civilized world — is not this 
 the brightest promise of the future, the most practical argument of 
 all against a continuance of wars? 
 
 It is not a dream, not an ideal only, but the result of surely de- 
 veloping conditions, a stage in evolution which all the spiritual 
 God-given forces of man should contribute to hasten. 
 
 ". . . . There is a story told 
 In eastern tents, when autumn nights grow cold, 
 And round the fire the Mongol shepherds sit 
 With grave responses listening unto it : 
 Once on the errands of his mercy bent, 
 Buddha, the holy and benevolent, 
 Met a fell monster, huge and fierce of look, 
 Whose awful voice the hOls and forests shook. 
 ' Oh, Son of Peace ! ' the giant cried, ' Thy fate 
 Is sealed at last, and love shall yield to hate.' 
 The unarmed Buddha looking, with no trace 
 Of fear or anger, in the monster's face, 
 In pity said : ' Poor fiend, even thee 1 love.' 
 Lo, as he spake, the sky-tall terror sank 
 To hand-breadth size ; the huge abhorrence shrank 
 Into the form and fashion of a dove ; 
 And where the thunder of its rage was heard, 
 Circling above him sweetly sang the bird ; 
 ' Hate hath no harm for love,' so ran the song, 
 ' And peace, unweaponed, conquers every wrong.' " 
 
 The Chairman: The first paper of the afternoon is on " The 
 Eelation of Quaker Women to Peace," by Emilie TJ. Burgess, of 
 Highland, N". Y. 
 
 ! THE RELATION OF QUAKER WOMEN TO PEACE. 
 
 [ BY EMILIE U. BURGESS, HIGHLAND, N. Y. 
 
 There is a marked impracticability in my subject. Quaker 
 women are less distinct from the Church than the women of any 
 •other religious organization. They are a part of the legislative 
 body of the Church, and of its controlling force. There is none 
 the less a peculiar fitness in the subject, for woman is the shaper 
 of destiny — an appropriateness in the thought of the relation of 
 Quaker women to peace, for woman sets the moral standards, and 
 is always found in the reformers' camp, even if it be in the foulest 
 prisons, l^lizabeth Fry was told that the women of Newgate would 
 attack her, and a cannon was loaded and ready at the gate as she 
 entered, but she declined all protection and appeared before those 
 miserable creatures like a vision from a fairer world. 
 
 Christian people are grouped into organizations according to 
 their principles and preferences. The carrying out of our prin- 
 ciples thus expressed naturally leads to an attainable ideal of broth- 
 
195 
 
 erhood and mutual helpfulness. Representing the Society of 
 PMends, I am to touch briefly upon the relation which we bear to 
 the whole Christian Church in common. Friends have never pro- 
 fessed any separate theological or historical creed. There are cer- 
 tain points of Christian practice upon which we have been accus- 
 tomed to lay stress. Certain "■ testimonies," conscientiously 
 adopted, have been handed down among us from generation to gen- 
 eration with jealous care. 
 
 One of the most important and best known of our special testi- 
 monies is that which has been steadily borne by our organization 
 against all war. Friends have ever maintained and acted upon the 
 belief that war and strife of all kinds are opposed to the spirit and 
 teaching of Christ, and have felt as his disciples precluded from 
 participating in them. They have steadfastly refused to take up 
 arms at the bidding of human authority. That course has brought 
 them at times into collision with the civil authorities. To main- 
 tain this ideal has tested our strength. So long as our country is so 
 imperfectly Christianized we recognize that conflict may at any 
 time arise between the demands of our loyalty to the spirit of Christ 
 and our obedience to law. 
 
 We are confronted, of course, with this question: Is the view of 
 one's duty as held by a religious body higher than that of the nation 
 at large? To abstain from participation in warfare is quite differ- 
 ent from laying down any general theory as to the unlawfulness of 
 war. We do not blame those who are acting in obedience to their 
 own views of duty, however much they may differ from ours. To 
 many people war is justifiable. A fully Christian nation has never 
 yet been seen. 
 
 The question upon which we Friends differ from other Chris- 
 tians is not whether peace be desirable, whether it be the goal of 
 political effort, but what are the means by which it is to be at- 
 tained. Other Christians agree with us that quarreling is contrary 
 to the spirit of Christ; but we regard the opposing of violence by 
 violence as a hopeless method of procedure. Many others do not. 
 Our place is surely to teach, not to govern, the world. The world, 
 through Christianization and enlightenment, must become the 
 kingdom of the Lord and his Christ, before wars and fightings will 
 cease from among men. 
 
 In the beginning of Christianity it was felt by most believers 
 to be as clear as daylight that " Christians cannot fight." So now, 
 not only among Friends, but in many another Christian body, the 
 same spirit is working, and consciences are awakening to the utter 
 incompatibility of strife and retaliation and reckless self-aggrand- 
 izement with the spirit of brotherhood which lies at the very 
 foundation of Christianity. Frances E. Willard said: " We all be- 
 lieve that one of the choicest fruits of Christianity will be the 
 growth of a bond of brotherhood so close, among all nations, races 
 and peoples, that we shall become truly kindred each to the other, 
 
196 
 
 and that the great word humanity, like a rolling wave of the ocean 
 of God's love, shall wash out from the sands of time the words caste, 
 creed, sex, and even that good word patriotism, because we shall 
 feel that the whole world is our country and all men are our kin." 
 Every utterance of appreciation, atlection and friendship — every 
 act of co-operation, every stroke of honest, hard work undertaken 
 by the side of another, helps forward this beautiful day that we call 
 the " coming of the kingdom of Christ." 
 
 The year 1898 was momentous in events and experiences. Beat- 
 ing drums and booming cannon marked an occasion which was 
 termed " love of liberty/' as our country tried to break the shackles 
 of oppression from a neighboring people. The same year a great 
 conference was called by the Czar of all the Russias to discuss and 
 decide upon some practical means of lessening the burdens and 
 miseries of war. It was a wonderful scene in the House-in-the- 
 Wood at The Hague, when this body of representative men, states- 
 men and diplomats, gathered under the cupola of one of the most 
 artistically decorated halls in the world, to perform a task which, 
 if carried to its logical conclusion, will win for them the blessings 
 of untold generations. 
 
 The nursing of this new institution, the Permanent Interna- 
 tional Court of Arbitration, and the bringing of it into operation, 
 is our present duty. Just now various influences are working 
 against it. Cannot our Quaker women do something in this im- 
 portant issue? Baron de Staal, in his farewell address, said of this 
 conference, which had provided for this court, that " the work 
 done, while not as complete as might be desired, was sincere, wise 
 and practical." He affirmed that "in time to come institutions which 
 had their origin in the need of concord would be the dominating 
 influence, and that thus the work of the conference was truly meri- 
 torious." At the same meeting Dr. Beaufort said that " if the con- 
 ference had not realized Utopian dreams, nevertheless it had dis- 
 proved pessimistic forebodings, and the moral effect would more 
 and more influence public opinion and governments to solve the 
 question of the limitation of armaments, which still remains a 
 source of grave consideration for statesmen of all countries." 
 
 We all lament that in the closing years of the last century there 
 should have been war and famine, massacre and pestilence; still we 
 believe that the nineteenth century was the best the world has ever 
 known. In previous centuries there were continuous wars, duels, 
 private wars. The latter have now been abolished altogether, and 
 scores of cases of differences between nations have been settled by 
 arbitration. We may confidently believe that we are already far on 
 the way toward the general use of the International Court of Arbi- 
 tration, now set up. 
 
 If wars are allowed to continue in the future the heaviest part 
 of the burden will have to be borne by women, as in the past. They 
 suffer most, because they are robbed by war of companionship and 
 
197 
 
 support. We Quaker women, as part of the jjreat human sister- 
 hood, are vitally concerned in this matter. Our profession lays 
 upon us a very great duty. We think it is hite in the day to begin 
 arming and drilling boys in our public schools. The arbitrament 
 of reason instead of passion ought to be a part of our inextinguish- 
 able purpose, in order that the good of life may be realized by 
 all. Mothers prefer that their sons should not bleed their lives 
 out on the battlefield, but should live to enjoy the kindly fruits of 
 the earth and to help to make it the garden of the Lord. 
 
 The voice of the people in this age in all great nations is what 
 directs the governments. The people are learning slowly that the 
 " True Grandeur of Nations " consists in dealing fairly and patient- 
 ly, and maintaining long periods of peaceful years. The closing 
 words of President McKinley's address at Buffalo make doubly dear 
 to many the great subject of peace. He said: " Our interest is in 
 concord, not conflict, and our real eminence rests in the victories 
 of peace, not those of war." The words of President Grant to an 
 Eastern prince on the subject of arbitration are entirely in harmony 
 with the teachings of the Society of Friends: "Arbitration between 
 nations may not satisfy everybody at the time, but it satisfies the 
 conscience of mankind, and must commend itself more and more 
 as a means of adjusting disputes." We women must use our ut- 
 most influence in the spheres in which we move to bring all the 
 people to believe this, and to insist that the government shall be- 
 lieve it. 
 
 Higher in importance than our Houses of Congress, our public 
 institutions, our armies or navies, are the homes of the nation. The 
 home is a republic within a republic, a church within a church, a 
 world within a world. Study the history of the past, and you will 
 find that no nation has risen any higher than the general level of 
 its home life, and no nation has fallen below that level. Lord 
 Shaftesbury, the greatest philanthropist of his time, declared that 
 '' the direction of his character and his life was fixed by his nurse, 
 a devoted Christian woman, before he was seven years old." Abra- 
 ham Lincoln loved his mother so well that, lonesome little fellow 
 that he was, he walked a long distance to bring a preacher who 
 would pray at the grave, after her body had been buried a year. 
 How revered and cherished is a hallowed motherhood! Around 
 this are clustered the holiest scenes the heart can know. In the 
 reign of England's gracious Queen we see combined the wise ruler 
 of monarchy and the priestess of the home. The mother-heart of 
 this Queen shaped the destiny and controlled the policy of the 
 woman sovereign. 
 
 Where is the emphasis of Christian duty placed to-day in 
 Christian homes? Where does your life and mine put its true em- 
 phasis? Is it for making the world better? Is it for training the 
 boys of the nation to love, and self-sacrifice, and peace, instead of 
 strife, and selfishness, and unholy ambition, and disregard of oth- 
 
198 
 
 ers? With the heritage of our Quaker testimonies, with our ardent 
 confidence in divine guidance, shall we not recognize the wholt 
 world as our country, every family as our interest, and help thus to 
 establish that golden era of brotherhood, which will be the intro- 
 duction of His kingdom, for which we pray? 
 
 The Chairman : The second paper on the program is " War 
 
 Inconsistent With the Genins of Quakerism." by President Charles 
 E. Tebbetts, of Whittier College, California. The paper, in the ab- 
 sence of President Tebbetts. will be read by President Unthank, 
 of Wilmington College, Ohio. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood: Before President Unthank reads 
 I think I ought to say just a word about the absence of President 
 Tebbetts. He has been extremely interested in the Conference and 
 would have liked very much to be here; but he found his work 
 pressing, and he felt that it was too much to have the committee pay 
 his traveling expenses for such a long journey. He thought his paper 
 would do as well without him. I assure you that he is not away 
 from any lack of interest. He is one of our most faithful and ca- 
 pable peace workers on the Pacific Coast. 
 
 WAE INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENIUS OF 
 QUAKEEISM. 
 
 BY PRESIDENT CHARLES E. TEBBETTS, WHITTIER COLLEGE, CAL. 
 
 In a leading editorial of one of our most prominent journals * 
 occurs the following: 
 
 " Did General Funston do right? Was he justified in deceiving 
 Aguinaldo and capturing him by this deception? The answer is 
 simply the answer of war. It is wrong to lie, and wrong to steal, 
 and wrong to kill. But in war men must lie and steal and kill. 
 Then war is wrong? Certainly — wrong for somebody — for the 
 party that is in the wrong, and whose act involves both parties in 
 all these wrong acts. War is an accursed thing: ' War is hell ' ; 
 but all is fair in war and hell. There was no violation of the laws 
 of war in General Funston's conduct." 
 
 The amazing logic of this quotation, which would make it right 
 for a Christian to violate all the laws of God because some other 
 party is in the wrong, is altogether too prevalent among Christian 
 people, even in this enlightened twentieth century. 
 
 The above statement suggests a fact most serious in its conse- 
 quences, which I will state in a proposition, thus: To become a sol- 
 dier in a modern army requires the individual to surrender his 
 conscience into the control of his superior ofl&cer. 
 
 * " New York Independent," April 4th, 1901. 
 
199 
 
 This fact is specially true under the discipline of modern times. 
 In ancient warfare an Achilles mifjht retire to his tent and refuse 
 to take part in the conflict if it did not suit him; but in these days 
 a soldier is made a part of a vast machine, under the absolute con- 
 trol of his connnandino; ofTicer. I am aware that there have ])een 
 noble instances of the exercise of conscience in minor matters, as 
 in the case of some young men who declined to go on duty as bar- 
 tenders for the army canteen, and were excused by a lenient officer 
 because of conscientious convictions. Yet it is true that in all 
 things essential to the successful carrying on of war, the conscience 
 must be surrendered; for '" in war men must lie and steal and kill,'' 
 and destroy property and burn homes and violate the Sabbath day, 
 and subject women and children to disease and death, and what- 
 ever else of cruelty the commanding general may regard as essen- 
 tial to final victory. 
 
 Another proposition equally serious with the above is this: To 
 become a soldier requires the abrogation of the human reason in 
 all matters pertaining to the issues of the conflict. A soldier might 
 become convinced that the right in the contention was with the 
 enemy, and that he was fighting with a side wholly in the wrong; 
 and yet there is no honorable way to escape the dilemma. To state 
 his convictions would lead to suspicion; to desert the army means 
 dishonor and death. Rather would he be likely to yield to a senti- 
 ment altogether too common, '" My coimtry, may she be always 
 right; but my country always, right or wrong." 
 
 What can possibly be more disastrous than this dethronement of 
 conscience and reason? The suffering incident to death upon the 
 battlefield or disease in camp is usually soon ended. The heart- 
 pangs caused by broken home ties and loss of loved ones will heal. 
 Entire lives subject to the loss of limb and weakened physical ener- 
 gies have their compensation in human thought in the honors and 
 glory consequent thereto. But what compensation is there for the 
 moral degeneration, the debased manhood, the lowering of con- 
 science, the impairing of reason that follows in the train of the 
 conflict of war. and is entailed by the laws of heredity upon future 
 generations? 
 
 Nor does the soldier alone suffer in the cessation of reason and 
 conscience. From the beginning of the war until its end every 
 voice of argument or of protest that does not harmonize with the 
 attitude of the government must be hushed, or taint of treason 
 rests upon one who lets that voice be heard. Even the preacher 
 of the word, who ought to stand unflinchingly for righteousness 
 and the inviolability of the law of God, becomes too often an apolo- 
 gist for the barbarism of war, or even an enthusiastic instigator 
 thereto. 
 
 Does it need any argument to show that this enslavement of 
 conscience and reason is inconsistent with the genius of Quaker- 
 ism? Can we bv anv stretch of the imaffination think of Fox and 
 
200 
 
 his associates as submitting themselves to the mechanical move- 
 ments of a modem drill-master, and degrading manhood to the 
 level of an inanimate machine? Their conception of the dignity 
 of the individual man was so high that they would pay homage only 
 to God himself, and carried it to the very extreme in their refusal to 
 remove the hat, or use the plural pronoun when addressing an in- 
 dividual. No man could ever stand between them and God, or dic- 
 tate to them the lines of duty. God's law was supreme, and no 
 human plan was allowed to interfere with their obedience to the 
 divine voice. The conscience must ever be kept tender to the least 
 intimation of duty. No command of God was trivial; no human 
 authority could for one moment abrogate the divine command. 
 What others regarded lightly was to them a solemn obligation. 
 They spent months and sometimes years in foul dungeons, rather 
 than take an oath. For them to have submitted their conscience 
 or reason to the will of another would have been to sell the very 
 birthright of their manhood. 
 
 Three things, at least, were fundamental to early Quakerism: 
 the supremacy of the divine law over every human authority, the 
 freedom of the individual conscience from all dictation of men, and 
 the right of every man to discover for himself the righteousness of 
 every cause involving human conduct, and when discovered, the 
 obligation fearlessly to espouse the side of right. These principles 
 have made the Friend the uncompromising foe of all oppression 
 and the pioneer in every right reform. 
 
 It is no idle boasting to claim for our forefathers their full 
 share of credit for the victories of civil and religious liberty. If 
 they were right in the m^aintenance of these principles, the obliga- 
 tion rests no less heavily upon us, their children, to condemn war 
 as being always utterly antagonistic to the laws of God. 
 
 But were they right? Were they correct exponents of the 
 teachings of Christ and his apostles? Only a few days ago I heard 
 the assertion, in a most excellent Thanksgiving address, that a 
 Christian was bound to obey every command of his government. 
 This was based upon Paul's words in Eom. 13, " Let every soul be 
 in subjection to the higher powers. . . . He that resisteth the 
 power resisteth the ordinance of God "; and also upon Peter's in- 
 junction, '" Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's 
 sake." Did they mean that a man could shift responsibility from 
 his own conscience for any act, however foolish or wrong, because 
 of the command of those in authority? Daniel and his companions 
 certainly did not so understand God's law; and Peter is his own best 
 interpreter, when in answer to the command of the authorities 
 " not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus," he replied, 
 " Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rath- 
 er than unto God, judge ye." 
 
 We may then not shrink from the assertion that we cannot be- 
 come soldiers and recognize God's supreme authority over con- 
 
201 
 
 science and reason. May it not be ours to so persistently enforce 
 this truth, that all Christians shall come to see that war is incon- 
 sistent with Christianity? This time will come; and when it comes 
 Mar will have become a barbarism of the past. 
 
 The Ch^mrman: The next paper, "Constancy in our Peace 
 Sentiment and Effort," is by President Edwin McGrew, of Pacific 
 College, Ore. 
 
 CONSTANCY IN OUE PEACE SENTIMENT AND EFFORT. 
 
 BY PRESIDENT EDWIN m'GREW, PACIFIC COLLEGE, OREGON. 
 
 In every movement of reform there are periods of greater or 
 less hopefulness and periods of greater or less discouragement. 
 There are times when the sunlight of possible success seems ready 
 to burst forth to ripen faith into sight and hope into possession, and 
 again the unbroken cloud of despair seems to shut us from the pos- 
 sible realization of the thing hoped for. The crowds depend upon 
 conditions, but the heart of the true reformer is moved by a more 
 constant power. We sit in a peace conference and follow some one 
 in a well-prepared paper that outlines a hopeful view; we watch the 
 development of the national peace idea from its germination, until, 
 cultivated and nourished, it comes to mature fruitage in a powerful 
 peace congress, and we are all men and women of peace. 
 
 But we go from these great meetings, and in the mighty on- 
 ward progress of the nations of the world there comes a clash — a 
 battleship is sunk, the flag is insulted, what then? Oh, the mighty 
 provocation is a suiftcient cause for war — we are people of peace, 
 but for all that shall we not defend our flag? Certainly, as we re- 
 spect and love our flag we must defend it, and demand that other 
 nations respect it; but shall it be by way of the bloody and dead- 
 strewn field of carnage, contrary to the teaching of the Christ 
 whom we profess to love above father and mother, houses and 
 lands, nation and national emblem? 
 
 As Christian men and women, rich in inheritance from a devout 
 peace-loving ancestry, rich as subjects of the Prince of Peace, there 
 is but one position for us to take, and that is — war is, first of all, 
 morally wrong, regardless of conditions. A second proposition, 
 which I will consider only briefly, but one worthy of careful con- 
 sideration, is that from a social and economic standpoint war is 
 not a satisfactory means toward the end desired. The moral ques- 
 tion has been discussed until perhaps the discussions have well- 
 nigh lost their power to move the hearts of men. Yet in the open- 
 ing days of this great new century, under the steady glow of the 
 light of our boasted civilization, touched by the radiance of the 
 cross of Jesus Christ, which must soften hatred into love, and bal- 
 ance justice with mercy, it is not difficult to find men of high 
 
202 
 
 Christian profession and church standing ready to favor the use of 
 armies and navies, and to advocate government legislation for their 
 support. 
 
 In a most peculiar way has the " right " of the matter been pre- 
 sented, and a " righteous and Christian " war has been entered into 
 for the " sake of humanity '' and those oppressed by tyranny. It 
 has been urged that the position one may take concerning this 
 question measures unerringly his loyalty to his country and his 
 love for the flag. It has been with some effort that some of us who 
 represent the West have urged that it is as much a mark of pa- 
 triotism to pay taxes as it is to fight, and with great difl&culty have 
 we restrained some of our earnest young men from enlisting. May 
 the church of Jesus Christ remember the lesson from her earlier 
 history and never attempt military engagement with the cross at 
 the columns' front. A fatal day was that to the Christian Church. 
 Unwonted results will follow the propagation of the Christ-spirit 
 by Satan's methods. Let the tempting one still be rebuked with 
 scripture message, while we catch the words from the lips of the 
 Nazarene — the Son of God — my kingdom is of another character. 
 " Put up thy sword." 
 
 The Society of Friends has ever been recognized as an uncom- 
 promising champion of the cause of peace. Much of our litera- 
 ture is upon this subject; with no uncertain sound we have cried out 
 against war. We have advocated the doctrine that peace is a fun- 
 damental principle of Christianity. I say, we have done this if 
 we have been true representative Friends, for we meet on com- 
 mon ground these days of blessed and helpful intercourse, because 
 this doctrine of peace is one of the great distinguishing features 
 of Quakerism. 
 
 Just here, by her permission, I incorporate in my paper some 
 lines written by our friend, Elizabeth B. Miles, who is the most 
 zealous advocate of peace in Oregon Yearly Meeting: 
 
 " The consideration of the great principle of peace is the vital 
 question of Christianity, embracing as it does the mission of Christ 
 upon earth as expressed by the prophet, ' For unto us a child is 
 born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his 
 shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The 
 mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace,' and as 
 announced by the angels at his birth, ' Glory to God in the highest, 
 on earth peace and goodwill to men.' It permeates every fibre of 
 our being and enters into every action in every relation in life; into 
 every moment in every period of life; in our walk among men, in 
 our homes, in our neighborhoods, in Church, in State, in nation. 
 Every friction that gives pain to another is a violation of this prin- 
 ciple. Christ will manifest peace, promote harmony, heal every 
 offence. As it regulates the hearts of men it gives living force to 
 the powers of influence permeating communities and becomes iden- 
 tified with the angels' anthem, ' Peace on earth, goodwill to men.' 
 
203 
 
 "This liviii^i'. Christ-heorottcn princij^le will eradicate evil and 
 is the only remedy to cause conflict and wars to cease. I believe 
 this gieat emancipation is increasing in the earth. The Captain of 
 the Lord of Hosts is pressing on to victory." 
 
 May such holy sentiment control our great Christian nation. 
 All strife that would work ill to our neighbors — neighbors in the 
 narrow Pharisaic sense and neighbors in the liroad Christian idea — 
 all words that tend to stir up hatred, all, all, are out of harmony 
 with the Christ we serve. How inconsistent with our conception of 
 his true, generous, loving spirit, how revolting to our thought that 
 he whose message was and is peace, and whose touch was the touch 
 of healing — should lead an army of carnal warfare. Then how can 
 his followers? 
 
 Some one has said it was an awful thing for Abel to be killed; 
 but that " it wns lots worse for Cain to kill him." Two little pic- 
 tures have found their way to our home on the Pacific slope; one 
 is a scene in South Africa. The landscape is rough, rocky and 
 broken — only here and there are bunches of low underbrush, while 
 away in the background rise the higher and more rugged cliffs. 
 It is evening time, and, as the sun sinks behind the mountain, a 
 sulphurous cloud of battle smoke hangs around the hill-tops. In 
 the foreground lies the body of a Boer soldier, one of many who fell 
 that day before the awful fire of British guns. He had fallen with 
 deadly wounds, and while the hot sun poured burning heat upon 
 him he writhed in death agony upon his bed of rock and sand. As 
 the day grew cooler, he became insensible to suffering and lay quiet- 
 ly dreaming of the little home away across the valley, where wife and 
 children, with generous love, petition God to provide and care for 
 one who has gone to fight and die for them. He dreams, too, of 
 the morrow and of those who will gather at the church to pray for 
 the cause for which he is dying. Well, right or wrong, we find 
 ourselves saying, it is too bad that a soldier must suffer and die 
 on the battle field away from his home. Yes, but I have thought 
 it was worse for England, civilized England, enlightened England, 
 Christian England, praying England, to kill him. Add to this 
 scene multitudes of like scenes, scenes a thousand fold woree than 
 this, scenes of foulest, blackest crime, and we say they are bad — 
 but 0! worse, worse, when laid at the door of a Christian nation. 
 
 The second picture is not unlike the first. The scenery is richer, 
 for it is an island of tropical verdure. The sun that seemed to 
 rise out of the deep blue waters to the eastward has gone beyond 
 the palm grove and seems ready to drop into the restless waves of 
 the western sea. American soldiers are reviewing the work of the 
 day. Here a company of Red Cross men are tenderly caring for 
 a wounded Filipino, and here another company of soldiers are look- 
 ing upon a little lad who has been a victim of one of their shots. 
 One soldier reniarks, " He couldn't outrun our bullets "; and again 
 
204 
 
 we are ready to say. Too bad he was killed. Yes, but it was worse 
 for Christian America to kill him. 
 
 I need not recount the oft-repeated, but seldom exaggerated hor- 
 rors of war. The Lord preserve us from allowing our feelings to 
 become deadened until we fail to recognize that war at its very best 
 is crime. 
 
 Since I represent so distant a section of the work of Friends, 
 it may be interesting to some to know that we are doing something 
 in the line of peace education. Last spring the debating team of 
 the Pacifie College won, by the unanimous decision of the judges, in 
 a debate with a team from one of our State institutions, our team 
 taking the peace side of the discussion concerning the Transvaal 
 situation; and at our commencement two orations were given on 
 the subject of peace and arbitration, neither speaker being a mem- 
 ber of the Society of Friends. I have been asked if our college 
 is Pacific with reference to size. It is not, but it is none the less 
 Pacific. 
 
 A little careful consideration, which time does not admit of 
 in this paper, would be convincing that war, from both the social 
 and the economic standpoint, is a curse to any people. No war can 
 make a wrong right, nor can it be a satisfactory arbiter of justice. 
 In our demands for peace we must not overlook the fact that there 
 will often arise questions demanding justice in settlement, con- 
 stant wrongs that must be righted. The x^merican people will 
 never respond to a cry for peace that demands a softening of patri- 
 otic sentiment. We love a liberty that has in it no loose license, a 
 liberty not of mere beautiful sentiments, but a liberty " established 
 in permanent institutions under the sway of law." The peace 
 which we desire is not such as will make us willing to see our flag 
 insulted and our rights infringed upon, nor such as will sap our 
 patriotism, but a peace that demands justice by wise and righteous 
 methods. I love my country, and, as I walk over these old battle 
 grounds which are so familiar to some of you, they seem like hal- 
 lowed spots to me, not because I approve of the methods whereby 
 our freedom was purchased, but because I recognize with sorrow 
 the great travail that brought forth this new nation. These old 
 historic buildings are sacred, and I thank God for all that has been 
 done for me. As I ride from ocean to ocean, through rich valleys 
 and over mighty mountain ranges full of unmeasured wealth — 
 over the vast plains where range-cattle graze, and across the great 
 farms of the Middle States, where the granaries are overflowing 
 with their store, over the hills and valleys of Eastern States, with 
 prosperous towns and thriving commercial cities, I am convinced 
 that this flag of freedom and justice and purity waves over the 
 grandest nation that God ever gave man to rule, and I pray it may 
 never again be compelled to wave in sulphurous smoke above the 
 confused noise of battle. 
 
 But I am not a prophet to say our nation will or will not ever 
 
205 
 
 again engage in carnal warfare. We hope for a better future, but 
 there may yet be wars and rumors of wars. Most hopeful senti- 
 ments have been read in our hearing. Some have declared we are 
 near the last days of carnal warfare. Let us hope as much. Some- 
 times, indeed, it seems we are nearing the fulfillment of the pro- 
 phecies of universal peace. And so we pray that " come it may," 
 and hope that 
 
 " Come it will for a' that, 
 When man to man, the warld o'er, 
 Shall brothers he for a' that." 
 
 Again we shout with confidence that the implements of war- 
 fare are soon to be hammered and beaten into instruments of peace, 
 and the " war drums shall throb no longer," and the great world 
 federation shall be realized, when the ivy shall twine about the 
 half-buried cannon to hold it forever in its place, while the chil- 
 dren of peace will fill its silent mouth with roses. I hope with you 
 that the time is near at hand, and I believe that this great and most 
 inspiring conference is to be a help in that direction. But such con- 
 vention is not enough. Every life from this time forth must be a 
 potent and aggressive force for peace. The Master in his an- 
 nouncement that his kingdom is not of such character as to de- 
 mand his followers to fight, did not indicate that they need not 
 work. On the contrary, his coming to the world was the birth of a 
 new force, and his every step and word was in service. To his dis- 
 ciples he gave the matchless commission for labor, " Go and herald 
 my gospel." In obedience to his commandment are the greatest 
 possibilities of dif.seminating our peace doctrine. With all the many 
 things and conditions that make for peace, many of which have 
 been so beautifully set forth, nothing has resulted or can result 
 in so much as the wise, prayerful, vigorous sacrificing efforts of 
 true missionaries and evangelists of the cross, under the leader- 
 ship of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The great apostle indicated a mighty truth in his rich testi- 
 mony that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus made him 
 free from another law. The broad truth indicated is simply this: 
 the only thing that can overcome law is law. 
 
 After we meet in one more session of this great and good con- 
 ference, I think we must return to our respective places of ser- 
 vice — in the household, in business life, in educational effort — 
 in this lovely and hospitable city, in the north land, in the south 
 land, on the plains of the West or beyond its rugged mountain 
 ranges, truer exponents of the " law of the spirit of life," which 
 will make the individual and the world " free from the law of sin 
 and death." 
 
 The Chairman: There is important business to come before 
 this afternoon's session, and it has been thought by the Business 
 
2U() 
 
 Committee that it had better come at this time and the discussion 
 of the papers be left imtil later. First is the report of the Commit- 
 tee on the subject of an Address to the President, which will be pre- 
 sented by Dr. Trueblood. 
 
 BENJAiiiN F. Trueblood: The Business Committee have no- 
 ticed during the sessions the expression a number of times of the 
 hope that this Conference would send either a deputation or a 
 message to the President of the United States expressing sympathy 
 with him in his great responsibilities, appreciation of his integrity 
 and high sense of honor, and also encouragement to him to do all 
 that is within his power as the Chief Executive of the nation to fur- 
 ther the cause of permanent international peace. The committee 
 have had the matter under careful consideration; and it has seemed 
 to them best on the whole to name a committee of five persons to 
 draft and send to the President a message on behalf of the Con- 
 ference. It has been impossible in the press of business and other 
 engagements connected with the Conference, for us to have time 
 to draft such a message as we thought would be worthy to be sent. 
 We propose, therefore, that a committee of five, consisting of Presi- 
 dent Sharpless^ of Haverford College; President Birdsall, of 
 Swarthmore College; Philip C. Garrett, Howard M. Jenkins and 
 Eufus M. Jones, be appointed to prepare as early as possible and 
 to send to the President on behalf of this Conference such a message 
 as in their judgment it may seem wise to send to him. 
 
 After some discussion, the names of Susan W. Janney and Pres- 
 ident M. Carey Thomas were added to the list of persons proposed 
 for the committee, and the proposition was adopted. 
 
 The Chaieman: The second matter of business is that of the 
 printing the report of the Conference, which will be introduced by 
 Howard M. Jenkins. 
 
 HowAED M. Jenkins: By direction of the Business Commit- 
 tee, I propose that the proceedings of the Conference be printed; 
 not less than 5,000 copies, and as many more as the funds, in the 
 opinion of the committee, may warrant. 
 
 Joshua L. Bailt: I want to second that proposition, Init to 
 make a little addition. It is very proper that the proceedings as a 
 whole be published, and I hope the edition will be large 
 enough to place a copy in every public library through- 
 out the country. Some of the papers which have been 
 read have a special fitness at this time. I should like 
 to have the committee left at liberty to pul)lish these in separate 
 form for a wider circulation than will be obtained by the pro- 
 ceeedings as a whole. I should like to see some of them printed 
 
207 
 
 by the tens of thousands. We Friends who feel interested in the 
 circnLation of these papers on^ht to send contributions at once to 
 the Finance Committee. A thousand dollars has been raised to 
 pay the necess;ary expenses of the Conference. I think at least 
 another thousand dollars can be usefully employed in the publica- 
 tion and distribution of the papers. 
 
 Philip C. Garrett: T think, probably, some of the peace so- 
 cieties of the country would be very glad to take advantage of the 
 opportunity to purchase a considerable number of copies of the 
 report or of certain of the papers, such as will be of special value 
 to them. I hope that the other suggestion with regard to the pub- 
 lic libraries will take hold of Friends generally. Bound copies of 
 the proceedings might well be placed in the Library of Congress, in 
 the libraries of the Legislatures of all of the States, and in many 
 other public libraries. A fund, it seems to me, could easily be 
 made up for that purpose. 
 
 The proposition of Howard M. Jenkins was then adopted. 
 
 The Chairman: Philip C. Garrett has a further matter of 
 business to introduce. 
 
 Philip C. Garrett: It is manifest that between the reading 
 of the papers and their publication there is a large amount of work 
 to be done by some one. It will be necessary to assign the editing 
 of them to somebody. My motion is that a committee of three, 
 with power to add to their numbers, be appointed, who shall take 
 the papers and edit them, and do whatever is necessary in the way 
 of deciding the number to be issued and every other question relat- 
 ing to publication. I would propose that Dr. Benjamin F. True- 
 blood, Howard M. Jenkins and Rufus M. Jones be the committee 
 of three, with power to add to their number. 
 
 The proposition of Philip C. Garrett was approved and the com- 
 mittee appointed. 
 
 The Chairman: There is a further report from the Business 
 Committee, which Dr. Trueblood will present. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood: One of the subjects assigned to the 
 Business Committee at the opening of the Conference was the con- 
 sideration of resolutions that might be offered and the preparation 
 of such a declaration as we might think it wise that the Conference 
 should issue. The committee have had these matters under care- 
 ful consideration and have decided that, in addition to sending a 
 message to the President of the United States, it is wise to issue 
 
208 
 
 a short declaration, setting forth the convictions of the Friends 
 here gathered on the important suhject for the promotion of which 
 the Conference was called. 
 
 In preparing this declaration Ave have had several things in 
 mind. In the first place. Ave felt that it must be brief, for now-a- 
 days people will not read anything that is very long. In the sec- 
 ond place, it seemed to iis clear that the document should be funda- 
 mentally a restatement of the views the Friends have always held in 
 regard to war. The committee believed, further, that our utter- 
 ance should contain a positive statement of the power and efficiency 
 of the moral forces which create peace in the world. The commit- 
 tee also thought that it was not wise to let this occasion pass with- 
 out expressing an appreciation of the remarkable gain which the 
 cause of peace has made in recent times. It also felt that it was the 
 duty of the Conference at least to utter its serious regret at the 
 wars which have recently been going on in the world and in some 
 measure still continue; and, lastly, that an appeal should be made 
 to Christians of all names in our country to be more faithful and 
 zealous in setting forth and maintaining the great principles of 
 peace which lie at the very heart of our Christianity. On behalf of 
 the committee, I submit for your consideration the following, and 
 move its adoption: 
 
 DECLARATION OF THE AMERICAN FRIENDS' PEACE CONFERENCE, 
 HELD IN PHILADELPHIA, THE 12TH, 13TH AND 14TH OF 
 TWELFTH MONTH, 190L 
 
 1. This Conference of members of the different bodies of Friends in 
 America is convinced that lapse of time has not made necessary any 
 change in the position which the Friends have always taken on the subject 
 of war. Rather have reasons accumulated, with the passing generations, 
 for believing that war in all its forms is not only irreconcilable \A'ith the 
 precepts, example and spirit of the Founder of Christianity, but that it 
 is likewise out of harmony with the common principles of reason and 
 morality, whose foundations are laid in the essential constitution of 
 humanity. War, in its spirit, its deeds, the persistent animosities Avhich 
 it generates, the individual and social degeneration produced by it, is the 
 antithesis of Christianity and the negation, for the time being, of the 
 moral order of the world. 
 
 2. We believe that love, goodwill, self-sacrificing service, the faithful 
 and courageous inculcation, by teaching and example, of truth and right- 
 eousness, are the divinely-ordained means for the promotion of justice and 
 right, for the eradication of error and iniquity, for the creation and 
 maintenance of social and political order, and that the efficiency of these 
 is not promoted but impaired by the instruments and methods of war. 
 
 3. We recognize Avith profound gi-atitude the progi'ess toward the 
 peace of the world that has been made in recent generations, in the elim- 
 ination of certain forms of Avar, in the establishment of peace over Avide 
 areas of territory within the nations themselves, in the supplanting of 
 brute violence by Law, and in the progressive substitution of arbitration 
 for war in tlie settlement of international controversies. 
 
 4. The establishment by the civilized powers of the Permanent Inter- 
 national Court of Arbitration Ave gratefvilly recognize to be one of the 
 
209 
 
 ereatest events in the history of human society. The setting up of this 
 institution is the practical adoption by the nations of the principles and 
 methods of Fettling controversies which have always been advocated by 
 the Friends. The existence of this Court makes it practicable and there- 
 fore morally obligatory hereafter to adjust in a pacific way all interna- 
 tional controversies that may arise, and therefore takes away every ground 
 that has been urged for considering war a necessity. 
 
 5. We deplore the fact that nations making high profession of Chris- 
 tian civilization are at present engaged in war with less civilized and 
 enlightened peoples, and we believe that the time has fully come when 
 the voice of enlightened humanity should make itself heard, calling for 
 an adjustment of the matters at issue by the Christian methods which 
 have in numerous instances of successfxil operation proved themselves aa 
 practical as they are reasonable and humane. 
 
 In the spirit of our Master, the Prince of Peace, we call upon Chris- 
 tians of whatever name prayerfully to consider whether they are faith- 
 fully holding and advocating, as fully as their profession demands, the 
 great principles of love, brotherhood and peace, which lie at the very 
 heart of our common Christianity, and the faithful maintenance 
 and propagation of which by all who call themselves Christians would, 
 we firmly believe, speedily make all war impossible and bring in the 
 reign of permanent and universal peace. 
 
 The Chaiemak: We shall be glad to hear the expression of 
 the Conference on the subject of this declaration. 
 
 Philip C. Garrett: I am glad to second the motion which 
 has been made for the adoption of this paper. One feature of it, 
 which strikes me very pleasantly, is the tactful way in which the 
 committee has touched the question of existing wars. No nation is 
 named, but the condemnation of the wars that are existing is direct 
 and emphatic, and will be understood as well at the seat of govern- 
 ment of our own country as at the court of St. James. 
 
 Charles H. Penxyp acker: I should like to suggest a thought 
 that occurs to me relative to the fourth section of this Declaration 
 of Principles. It is all right as far as it goes; but does it go far 
 enough? The fourth section commends the establishment of a 
 court of arbitration. Would it not be wise to deplore the fact that 
 the English nation refuses to accept any arbitration of its difficul- 
 ties with the Boer Eepublics? While we commend the establish- 
 ment of the court of arbitration, should we not express our great 
 disappointment at the refusal of the leading Christian nation of 
 modern times to agree that its difficulties with those republics shall 
 be submitted to that court? 
 
 George A. Barton: I feel very thankful that the delibera- 
 tions of this Conference have, through the medium of the Business 
 Committee, taken form in a set of resolutions so brief, so pointed, 
 so thoughtful as those to which we have just listened, and I heart- 
 ily approve, personally, of their adoption by this Conference. 
 
210 
 
 Hbney W. Wilbur: The resolutions seem to be adequate to 
 the case. I think sometimes that teachers and preachers make a 
 mistake in presuming that they must tell all they know in a single 
 sermon. The philanthropist has fulfilled his function when he 
 has cut and made the coat. It is no part of his business to put it 
 on the man that it fits. I believe that we can send out these reso- 
 lutions safely. Eest assured that the common wit of a common 
 race will make the application where it is needed. 
 
 John H. Dillingham: I think we have passed the four reso- 
 lutions and that virtually in them we have adopted the fifth. I 
 think that there is no need for raising special feeling over special 
 wars. We ought to say all that we have said about the general 
 system of war. I think this will go forth before the country better 
 on its own merits if we do not seem^ to reflect on the policy of any 
 special v/ar. We all have our private feelings about those two 
 wars; but I fear the expression of opinion upon them will frus- 
 trate the reception of about all that we have said about war as a 
 system. 
 
 ( 
 
 General expressions of approval of the Declaration were given 
 from many parts of the house. 
 
 The Chairman: After the general expression which has been 
 given in favor of accepting the Declaration as presented by the 
 Committee, we will consider it adopted as it stands. 
 
 Benjamin F. Teueblood: We had a friend in the house this 
 morning whom we are not likely to have again. He rose a time or 
 two to speak and was not noticed. If he is here this afternoon, I 
 should like to ask that we give him two or three minutes before we 
 close. I refer to Willis R. Hotchkiss, of the Friends' African In- 
 dustrial Mission. 
 
 Willis E. Hotchkiss: I appreciate the courtesy which has 
 given me this opportunity. Certain considerations would impel me 
 to remain silent during this Conference; yet there is one feature of 
 the subject that perhaps has not been dwelt upon with the force 
 that it might call for. There is no doubt that ihe language of 
 peace is greatly needed in this land, as well as in those lands where 
 none of the restraints of civilization are thrown about men; for if 
 in this country, where the restraints of civilization and Christian- 
 ity are thrown about men to keep them from evil, we yet read such 
 shocking details of crime and debauchery, what shall we expect 
 in a land where none of these restraints are felt, where men are 
 left to pursue the evil Ijent of their natures to the last limit, where 
 
211 
 
 the brute in man sIiom-^ liis teeth in tlie brntalizcd countenance and 
 vicious life? 
 
 I bring to you the question of peace from the savage standpoint 
 and from the missionary standpoint. Some words have been 
 spoken during the Conference with respect to this side of the ques- 
 tion. But it has not been dwelt upon as it ought, perhaps, to have 
 been. It seems to me that in these strenuous days the most signal 
 testimony to the efl'ectiveness and the practicability of peace prin- 
 ciples has been given in the lives and conduct of those who are out 
 upon the frontier of civilization, amid the conditions that are so 
 strictly against these very principles. Against the dark back- 
 ground of recent events in China there has been painted a story of 
 fidelity and of sacred adherence to these very principles, not on the 
 part of l-'riends alone, but on the part of those of every denomina- 
 tion, which might well inspire us to renewed effort and renewed 
 diligence. Great numbers of missionaries, rather than strike a 
 blow in their own defence, have peaceably bowed their head to the 
 Boxer's sword. These examples ought to inspire us to a new and 
 fresh heroism in the work that we have been considering here. 
 
 Again, the fling has been thrown out against the native Chris- 
 tians, many a time, that they were " Eice Christians"; in other 
 words, that they were in it for what they could get out of it in a 
 material way. But that fling may never be thrown at them again 
 in the face of the magnificent heroism of these last days, when 
 multitudes of them have laid down their lives in defence of the 
 principle of non-resistance which they have received through the 
 Gospel that has been home to them, not by Friends' missionaries 
 alone, but by other missionaries. 1 myself in Africa have seen the 
 missionaries of other denominations, of the Church of England, 
 refuse utterly to take up arms when their institutions were at- 
 tacked by Arabs and by hostile natives; I myself passed through 
 four years in the most savage part of Central Africa, and was am- 
 bushed numbers of times by savage natives. I have faced their 
 spears and their arrows, their bows and drawn bowstrings; and 
 yet I never raised a weapon in my own defence. It is still true that 
 the Golden Eule and the Sermon on the Mount are effective in a 
 remarkable way. They are not things of centuries ago, but they 
 are very practical to-day. 
 
 Another thing or two: What is the difference between the in- 
 fluence of David Livingstone and that of Stanley? Why is it 
 that the one is spoken of and remembered with affection through- 
 out the length of the Dark Continent wherever he traveled, while 
 the other is forgotten, or, if remembered at all, is remembered with 
 dislike because of his deeds of blood? Because the one played the 
 part of the strenuous, worldly man who goes through at any cost, 
 trampling up the rights of his fellow-man, and the other that of the 
 loving man of God, who recognizes that beneath even a black skin 
 there is a soul that lives throughout eternity; that, though he dwell 
 
21g 
 
 in the rude hut of a savage, and though he be so bestial that he 
 bow before a stone and call it God, 
 
 " A man's a man, for a' that," 
 
 and has inalienable rights, rights which every man must respect^ 
 every man, at least, who has a spark of manhood about him. 
 
 One incident and I close: A lew years ago two young women 
 sisters, were sent by their mother from Australia to Central China. 
 Some time after this one of those numerous outbreaks which have 
 sent a shudder of horror throughout the civilized world occurred, 
 and these two sisters were murdered, with the others at that station 
 at Cochin, in China. Did that mother, away in Australia, bear a 
 spirit of revenge toward the murderers of her lovely daughters? 
 No; but Mrs. Saunders, for that was her name, immediately sold out 
 her possessions, and to-day she is in Cochin in her daughters' place, 
 proclaiming to their murderers the principles of the Prince of 
 Peace. We are finding out that the principles that we Friends 
 stand for are practicable to the very extreme. 
 
 After a few moments of waiting up God, during which prayer 
 and thanksgiving were vocally offered by Mary Chawner Woody, 
 the Conference adjourned till 8 p.m. 
 
IRintb Session, 
 
 Seventh-DAT Evening, Twelfth Month 14th. 
 
 The ninth and last session of the Conference met in the Twelfth 
 Street Meeting-house, under the presidency of Dr. Isaac Sharpless, 
 at 8 p.m. 
 
 A period of silent devotion was observed at the opening of the 
 session. 
 
 The Chairman: The first paper on the program this evening 
 is by Josiah W. Leeds: " Eemedies for the Prevailing Militarism/* 
 to be read by his daughter, Lucy Leeds. 
 
 REMEDIES FOR THE PREVAILING MILITARISM. 
 
 BY JOSIAH W. LEEDS, WEST CHESTER, PA. 
 
 It is one of those propositions which " goes without saying," 
 that when seeldng to apply the remedy to any disorder, we need to 
 have clear knowledge of the complaint, its symptoms and features, 
 in order to a discovery of the root of the trouble. We know for a 
 certainty what are the characteristics of war. All the adjectives of 
 woe might be exhausted in truthfully portraying it, while we need 
 scarcely cast about for better authority upon the generation of 
 the wretched brood than that of the Apostle James. He tells us, 
 in asking, " Whence come wars and fightings ? " " Come they not 
 hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust and 
 have not; ye kill and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and 
 war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not," or ask, only to " consume 
 it upon your lusts "; and so he goes on to declare, in pointing to- 
 wards the remedy, how that " the friendship of the world is enmity 
 with God," that it is " a spirit that lusteth to envy," and is only to 
 be effectually met by that grace of God which will potentially " re- 
 sist the devil," and, inferentially, the devil's work of war. 
 
 So here is a disease affecting the whole system, whether we con- 
 sider it as of the body individually or the body nationally, and the 
 correction, to be effective and lasting, must run all the way 
 through; nay, it will not suffice to "have healed the hurt of the 
 daughter of my people slightly, saying, peace, peace, when there is 
 no peace." 
 
 A most singular suggestion for bringing within bounds 
 the war spirit and the spirit of anarchy, a suggestion which was 
 seriously broached, perhaps, only the present year, is found in the 
 
214 
 
 proposal to bring' about a general softening of people's hearts and 
 sweetening of their tempers through a great development of music. 
 How ill-supported must be such an expectation! Consider that thr 
 Athenians of old, who developed plenty of the war fever, were 
 a music-loving people; and in our own time, none more so than the 
 Italians, yet we hardly look upon them as a nation ardently anx- 
 ious for peace. Reading, years ago, a series of brief biographies 
 of noted musical composers, I remember to have been struck with 
 the fact that; despite the atmosphere of constructive harmony in 
 which they lived, the inspiration of dulcet symphonies did not 
 suffice (with many of them at least) to subdue the tempest in the 
 human breast. Indeed, the quality of irascibility seemed to be 
 quite pronounced. Clearly we cannot look for the panacea here. 
 A well-intentioned Chinese writer, in a lately-contributed mag- 
 azine article, quotes a saying of Confucius that " Peace is a condi- 
 tion that must be born of war." Applying the maxim to this coun- 
 try, he recommends that we provide ourselves with an unsur- 
 passably powerful navy to police and protect our coasts, and to 
 thence dictate peace to all the world. But ruined Phcenicia, that 
 once great maritime power, essayed this role of supremacy many 
 centuries ago, and its splendid sea port of Tyre — well, we only 
 know the sunken site of it as nnder the sea which it sought to rule. 
 
 A recent letter received from one who had had long experience 
 of literary and political life, gives expression to a quite popular 
 belief, that the intensification of ivar enginery, together with the ex- 
 ceeding expensireness of its production, must ere long operate to 
 bring to an end the fighting habit of the nations. '" The taste for 
 war," he says, " is being gradually cured by its indulgence. The 
 cost of the destructive agencies of war has tseen so enormously in- 
 creased that I think the experience of nations during the last three 
 years will have demonstrated that there is nothing to be gained 
 hy an offensive war that will not cost more than it can possibly be 
 worth; and that diplomacy will be substituted for guns and powder 
 "before the world is many centuries older." 
 
 Well, the economic argument ought to help along the remedy, 
 and it certainly has influenced many advocates, as publicists, parlia- 
 mentarians, Socialists, and even Anarchists; for it must be kept in 
 view, now that the cure of anarchy is being diligently sought after, 
 that there are those among the ultra-agitators, who, driven to 
 frenzy by brooding over the insatiable demands of the war mon- 
 ster ever crying. Give I Give! have brought themselves to believe 
 that the extinction of the rulers will by-and-by abolish conscrip- 
 tion, minimize taxes, and bring release of the proletariat from mili- 
 tary service, — a good sequence, but an impossible way to attain it. 
 
 There are those among the wise ones of the world who may 
 have a persuasion that the stimulation of learning, public improve- 
 ments and utilities generally will effect much in overcoming the war 
 spirit; l)ut the great and now fallen empires of the past had their 
 
»15 
 
 libraries, gymnasia, public baths, and — when Rome came to rep- 
 resent almost the then known world — their famous stoned high- 
 ways that ran to all parts of the vast domain. We may have all 
 these useful public possessions in greatest abundance, but, lacking 
 the underlying principle founded on the love of God and man, 
 they will not avail as nny fii a 1 remedy for war and assurance of 
 peace. 
 
 Nevertheless, as the Law was a schoolmaster in bringing to 
 Christ, the spread of the humanitarian motive, with its leavening of 
 Christianity, will serve as a handmaid in hastening the advent of 
 the reign of peace. But the one essential remedy which I believe 
 Ave need above all others to look to is this: " The gospel of Christ 
 [which is] the power of God unto salvation." Not simply the Glad 
 Tidings of the letter, be it said, for well we know it has been 
 charged upon the greatest of the nations claiming this knowledge — 
 " See what fighters these Christians be! " So that, notwithstand- 
 ing the Glad Tidings was proclaimed nearly two millenniums ago, 
 do v>-e not in this day, this very year, witness the fulfillment of what 
 Paul testified in his epistle to the Eomans, that " the name of God 
 is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written '" ? 
 For thus it had been written by Israel's seer, in telling how those 
 who made claim to be " the people of God, and are gone forth out 
 of his land," that his holy name '"was profaned among the 
 heathen, whither they went." Oh, what a change is wrought with 
 the power, " the power of God unto salvation," which brings only 
 blessing and not blasphemy! 
 
 This effectual remedy, as said before, must run through the life 
 — whether it be of the individual or the nation. The w^ord which 
 came to Jeremiah when judgment upon the favored nation hung 
 in the balance, was " Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Is- 
 rael, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to 
 dwell in this place," repeating to them the promise that this should 
 be so: " If ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, if ye 
 thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor "; 
 saying further they must cease from oppression and come away 
 from idolatry, — in other words, out of the lust of those forbidden 
 things which are the roots of war. 
 
 Now, this necessary amendment in order for the remedy, — must 
 it not begin with the child? With the twig that will bend? In 
 large showcases in the basement of a great department store in this 
 city may be seen military playthings for the juveniles, some of them 
 elegant and costly, representing platoons of mimic soldiers of the 
 infantry, and gaily-caparisoned cavalry, lumbering artillery, brist- 
 ling ramparts, and all the scenic make-up of actual warfare. We 
 shall not be likely to see these things in the playrooms of the chil- 
 dren of Friends, yet they are common in the commi lity, and as 
 educators their influence must be pronomiced. 
 
 It is an easy step from playing soldier in the nv ry to march- 
 
216 
 
 ing 171 irigade along the streets^ with real undersized guns, and fife 
 and drum, and the contented thought that if we may do this as 
 pupils in the Sabbath School to the chant of " Onward, Christian 
 Soldiers ! " we are in the right road to the overturning of the bul- 
 warks of Satan. The remedy applicable here is a closer teaching of 
 the truth that the Christian warfare is not carnal, but spiritual, to 
 the overturning of the strongholds of evil; so, if the active brigade 
 be wanted for the boys, let it be with other implements, as for the 
 saving of life — a substitute which has been adopted in various di- 
 rections. The amended drill may also properly be with the Indian 
 clubs, affording excellent exercise, whether for boys or for girls, 
 in the line of calisthenics. 
 
 In field athletics, the intense rivalry, tending to many serious 
 abuses, as jealousies, recriminations, love of publicity, stimulation 
 of the betting habit, and fierce contests marked by maimings, and, 
 at times, loss of life, betoken the cultivation of a lust for acquisi- 
 tions which are not happily educational. A remedy here, recom- 
 mended, but far too infrequently put in practice, is the discontinu- 
 ance of the publicly -lier aided match games of the colleges and other 
 scholastic institutions. This would easily deduct a tenth horn, the 
 reading matter of the daily papers, but it would be a needed step 
 backward in the direction of peace. 
 
 In the schools, lust of fame, glory, empire, and the uplifting of 
 a patriotism wrenched out of place, is very much fostered through 
 the teaching of war in the text-books of history. Not so much in the 
 salient facts concerning any particular war, especially its causes and 
 effects, but through the manner in which the mere fighting details 
 are exaggerated, so that the battle-loss of our so-called enemies be- 
 comes a thing to exult over. I know this well from my youthful 
 experience. As to the battle pictures, while the frightfully realistic 
 canvas of a Verestschagin may partly lift the illusion of glory by 
 a glance at the hideousness of the field of carnage, the popular 
 class-book of history sufficiently drapes the repulsive part, and the 
 young mind is left to its visions of the special prowess, triumph 
 and renown of the heroes of battle. However, I believe there has 
 been an amending in this particular. The Sumner bequest to Har- 
 vard, creating a prize for approved theses on the settlement of dis- 
 putes without resort to war, was a valuable educational precedent. 
 Similarly commendable was the effort of Lafayette College, some 
 years ago, to substitute for one of the courses in pagan classics, with 
 its pro-war and often immoral ideals, one in which the classical 
 exponents came closer to the Christian standard. (A failure of the 
 specially-contributed fund, I believe, was the cause of the dropping 
 of this rarely-tried course.) 
 
 As our student reaches manhood, and embarks, mayhap, in 
 commerce or manufactures, and perchance finds his country en- 
 gaged in war I here may open a choice of courses in which he will 
 need to reckc closely with his conscience. If he has rightly ap- 
 
217 
 
 propriated the lessons or influences conducive to peace which have 
 heretofore been laid in his way, he will not make gain through 
 furnishing goods or material to be used in carrying on war. To 
 instance but a few: The Rotch family, of Nantucket, with their 
 neutral shipping and whale oil commerce during the Revolutionary 
 and later wars; an Allen, of England, who, as manufacturer of 
 chemical products, declined a very lucrative contract for certain 
 goods to be used in the war in which his country was engaged; a 
 Cadbury, who, a little while ago, though willing to supply, at cost, 
 the Queen's special gift of chocolate for her soldiers in South 
 Africa, refused thereafter to furnish supplies upon regular con- 
 tracts of profit; the Hustons, iron manufacturers, who could not 
 be persuaded to furnish armor-plate to the government during the 
 Civil War, even though such action may have been looked upon as 
 unpatriotic, as well as unnecessarily self-denying. 
 
 Further, our fair-minded citizen who would wish practically to 
 apply the Scripture obligation to love our neighbor as ourselves, 
 would welcome such harmonious commercial relatio7is with other na- 
 tions as would be of reciprocal benefit, and not be heavily weighted 
 with the selfish maxim of take all and give nothing. Of such wisely- 
 adjusted international traffic, which must prove a great conservator 
 of peace, it was happily remarked by Elihu Burritt: " Commerce 
 has no coimtry but the world, no patriotism but an earnest interest 
 in the well-being of all the nations. Its genius in this respect runs 
 parallel with the genius of Christianity, though in a lower course — 
 just as subterranean rivers run parallel with those that show their 
 silver currents to the sun. Commerce repudiates tvar as an outrage 
 ^upon its domain. It will not obey the laws of war, nor recognize 
 any nation as an enemy with which it has or may have intercourse." 
 The benevolent thought of Burritt in this direction is suggestively 
 indicated by the caption of some of his cogent essays, as that on 
 " The Waste of War and the Winnings of Industry "; another, on 
 " Cotton, Commerce and Civilization "; a third, " Wardrobe, Webs 
 and Table-Ties of Brotherhood." "V\1iat a bulwark, what a remedy 
 ^ould be found here, could we apply the touchstone of Christ's 
 commandment to this which is destined to be an uppermost topic of 
 general discussion, and most urgent subject for diplomacy and leg- 
 islation! And so likewise in the matter of oppressive trade com- 
 binations, the fertile source of endless angry contentions. 
 
 In conscientiously manifesting his Christian citizenship, the cit- 
 izen and voter will thereby directly provide, and speedily so, a fore- 
 most remedy against the outburst of war. The rule of political 
 action recommended may be concisely expressed by that vigorous 
 Anglo-Saxon word, straightforwardness; for, as Secretary of State 
 Hay tersely stated it the other day, in speaking of the better di- 
 plomacy, " There is nothing like straightforwardness to beget its 
 like." " We believe," was the conviction hereupon adopted by the 
 National Woman's Christian Temperance Union last month, at Fort 
 
218 
 
 Worth, " ^ye believe that in a right apprehension of the ideals and 
 demands of Christian citizenship lies the hope of the nation; that 
 no citizenship is worthy the name of Christ which is not founded 
 upon divine ideals of righteousness." 
 
 Thus, I conclude, applied Christianity is the only assured rem- 
 edy for war, because it alone has its foundation on the immovable 
 Eock. There have been formed for the arrest of war — beneficially 
 operative after their measure — arbitral councils, and treaties, and 
 truces in the old time, in the middle ages, in our own day especially 
 — even up to the hopeful Pacific Tribunal at The Hague. But 
 there have never been, as there are now, and as many observers are 
 remarking, such legions of men in camps or in reserve in readiness 
 for the fray, or such vast treasure applied on account of wars pres- 
 ent or that threaten to come, or as interest and pensions due to 
 those that are past. Nevertheless, solemn pacts will be made to be 
 broken or evaded, while men remain largely unsubjected to the 
 limitations of the cross. John, the disciple, was still unescaped 
 from the law, when he plead that the Lord Jesus should smite with 
 his wonderful power the offending village of a people who had no 
 dealings with the Jews. In the same mood was Peter, when, with 
 his sword, he cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. Later 
 along in life, better instructed of the Spirit, we behold John breath- 
 ing only love, and the naturally-impetuous Peter discoursing how 
 to " be pitiful, be courteous." Ezra, the scribe, and his company, 
 in carrying unguarded over the desert the temple treasures, and 
 Penn and his people in founding a State without one weapon of 
 defence while surrounded by those accounted as hostiles, found 
 equally the remedy against fighting to be in him of whom it was 
 declared, " The government shall be upon his shoulder, and his 
 name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The 
 everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." While faithfully laying 
 hold of every proper aid, let us especially exalt the effective, divine- 
 ly-appointed remedy, " The Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of 
 God unto salvation." 
 
 The Chaiem^x: "The Influence of Quaker Peace Ideals in 
 Our National Life," is the title of the next paper, by Dr. 0. IMward 
 Janney, Baltimore, Md. 
 
 THE INFLUENCE OF QUAKER PEACE IDEALS ON OUR 
 NATIONAL LIFE. 
 
 BY 0. EDWAED JANNEY, M.D., BALTIMOEE, MD. 
 
 The Quaker ideal of peace is well expressed iu the prophetic 
 words, " They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their 
 spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against 
 nation, neither shall they learn war any more." '" They shall not 
 hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be 
 full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." 
 
219 
 
 Acknowledging, with other men, the necessity for government 
 in order that there may he an enjoyment of life, liberty and the pur- 
 suit of happiness, and acknowledging further that orderly govern- 
 ment requires an organized civil force to control the unruly, 
 Friends have always maintained a consistent opposition to warfare 
 and warlike preparations. 
 
 To what extent has this ideal of peace influenced our national 
 life and affected our every-day affairs? 
 
 MII.it A RY SEEVICE. 
 
 The Friends who founded Pennsylvania and those who con- 
 trolled its affairs for seventy-four years bore a strong testimony 
 against conscription and the organization of a militia, although fre- 
 quently urged thereto by the English government, by their succes- 
 sive governors and by the clamor of the militant majority of their 
 own community. 
 
 Although wars raged about them and invasions threatened, and 
 although the colonies to the north and to the south suffered from 
 the horrors of warfare, Pennsylvania refused to authorize move- 
 ments of aggression and found little necessity for measures of de- 
 fence. At last, w^hen unjust encroachments on the rights and prop- 
 erty of the Indians had roused them to reluctant revenge, and 
 popular clamor among the colonists demanded war. Friends volun- 
 tarily relinquished the government to their opponents rather than 
 prove false to their peace principles. " When the crucial nature of 
 the question became clear, and either place or principle had to be 
 sacrificed, their decision was in favor of the sanctity of principle. 
 . . . The Yearly Meeting never gave any uncertain sound." 
 (Sharpless.) 
 
 Thenceforward, although Friends did not take part in the ad- 
 ministration of the Colonial or State government, yet the principles 
 in which they trusted continued in force to a considerable extent, 
 and do so yet. This influence is shown to be greater when it is 
 made clear that the Frame of Government wrought out by William 
 Penn and his counsellors, " though changed in form many times, 
 shaped all future constitutions of Pennsylvania, of other States, 
 and of the Federal Union." (Sharpless.) To the Friends of Penn's 
 colony, therefore, the people of the United States are indebted, in 
 great degree, for their present form of government, and some of the 
 principles which underlie good government. 
 
 It would not seem to be taking too much for granted, therefore, 
 to ascribe to this Friendly element, thus introduced, some of the 
 beneficent traits of the American people. Among these are oppo- 
 sition to a large standing army, to compulsory military service in 
 time of peace, and exemption from such service in time of war. To 
 this influence, also, may perhaps be traced in part the generally 
 peaceable character of the American people, who liave never entered 
 into war except when reluctantly forced into it by the pressure of 
 
220 
 
 circumstances, and then always in opposition to a strenuous protest 
 from a large number of our citizens. The attitude of our nation 
 towards others, with rare exceptions, has been one of peace, jus- 
 tice and good feeling. 
 
 When we compare the happy condition of our citizens, as to 
 compulsory military service, with those of France and Germany, 
 where the military spirit is rife, it must be admitted that an in- 
 fluence has been at work among us that has not been felt on the 
 continent, and some of this has been exerted by Friends. 
 
 THE INDIANS. 
 
 The just and peaceable relations with the Indians established 
 by the Quaker colonists produced and ensured harmony so long 
 at it was continued, and trouble with the red man arose only when 
 unjust and warlike encroachments were permitted. 
 
 Although an unrighteous Indian policy has been continued for 
 150 years, with its inevitable evil consequences, yet the Quaker ideal 
 has been kept ever before the American people, and slowly, slowly 
 our government has advanced toward it, until in President Grant 
 and some of our recent administrators the friendly method of deal- 
 ing with the Indians has been approached, with much success and 
 with great hope for the future. 
 
 COUETS OF AEBITRATION. 
 
 For the prevention of disputes and as a substitute for armed 
 conflicts Friends have offered arbitration between individuals and 
 between nations as the ideal as well as practical Christian method. 
 
 Here again mankind is slowly emerging from darkness into 
 light, leaving behind the trial by duel and, we believe, the trial 
 by warfare, and advancing towards the frame of mind that is will- 
 ing to accept arbitration as a just and proper method of deciding 
 contests. 
 
 In the history of our nation many international disagreements 
 have been st) decided, some of them involving millions of money 
 and preceded by heated arguments and antagonistic opinions that 
 would ordinarily have led to bloodshed. 
 
 Numberless disputes between individuals are now settled by 
 arbitration and lawsuits are thus often avoided. The court of ar- 
 bitration is gaining popularity, and, being of equal standing with 
 the law courts, is being appealed to more and more. In Baltimore, 
 for instance, the Board of Trade, proceeding under an act of Legis- 
 lature, has established such a court, whose decisions are as binding 
 as though made by the courts of law. Indeed, it is not unusual for 
 disputants to agree to abide by the legal opinion of a judge or em- 
 inent counsel, thus adopting the principle of arbitration. There is 
 also constant demand for the settlement of all disagreements be- 
 tween employers and their employees by this method, of the appli- 
 cation of which there have been some recent instances. 
 
221 
 
 In all of this advance towards the peaceful settlement of disputes 
 Friends can certainly claim that their unswerving testimony in 
 favor of arbitration has had influence. 
 
 THE CHURCH. 
 
 It has often been asserted that the principles and testimonies 
 of the Society of Friends have been so generally adopted by relig- 
 ious people everywhere that the need of our continued independent 
 existence has vanished. An answer to this may be found in the atti- 
 tude of the religious world toward war. The ideal of peaceable- 
 ness expressed by the Master in the Sermon on the Mount, and 
 made their own by the Society of Friends, is realized but inade- 
 quately by most Christian denominations, whose leaders are apt to 
 weaken in the face of a strong popular demand for war, and too 
 often give their support to measures of conquest or bloody retalia- 
 tion. Very few churches would discipline a member for engaging 
 in military service; the thought of doing so would hardly occur to 
 them. Strange as it may seem, in the Church, the representative of 
 the Prince of Peace, his message of non-resistance finds but tardy 
 acceptance. 
 
 EDUCATION. 
 
 The well-known testimony of Friends in favor of the guarded 
 education of the young was as far removed as possible from mili- 
 tary training in schools, and in this a consistent course has always 
 been followed. It is not claiming too much to say that their ideas 
 have influenced those who have had charge of- education in this 
 country, especially as there have always been Friends who, as teach- 
 ers and superintendents of instruction, have extended our Friendly 
 thought. 
 
 However this may be, it is evident that the advisability or ne- 
 cessity of military education has never taken hold of the American 
 people. The army has its "West Point, to be sure, and the navy its 
 Annapolis, and so it must be as long as the people allow an army 
 or a navy to exist; but aside from these, it is only here and there, 
 especially in reform schools, that military discipline is enforced, 
 and in these it is the habits of attention, order and obedience and 
 physical development that are sought, rather than the inculcation 
 of a warlike spirit. 
 
 Owing to the accession of military feeling caused by the late war 
 with Spain, a number of attempts have been made recently to in- 
 troduce military training into the public schools; but the senti- 
 ment, as well as the judgment, of the people is opposed to this en- 
 deavor, which is doomed to failure. 
 
 CURRENT LITERATURE. 
 
 It is much to be regretted that the war spirit is so prominent in 
 weekly and monthly journals. Most of this is to be accounted for 
 by our experience of the past four years, as before that period there 
 
222 
 
 was little of it. Especially unfortunate is it that the Juvenile press 
 is so full of war stories and the glorification of warlike deeds. In 
 fact;, the most popular monthly of this class is one of the greatest 
 sinners in this respect. 
 
 When the present attack of temporary insanity has passed and 
 reason has once more regained its throne, our ideal of peace will 
 seem all the more beautiful, and the young will be taught that the 
 victories of civil life often far eclipse those of war, and do not leave 
 behind remorse, nor the scars of conflict, nor the moan of the widow 
 and orphan. 
 
 On the whole, it may be concluded that the Quaker ideal of 
 peace has spread among the American people and deeply influenced 
 our national life. May this high ideal continue to be held aloft 
 until all people shall come within its ennobling influence, and the 
 spirit of peace shall hover over the nations with healing on his 
 wings! 
 
 The Chairman: "Peace as Involved in the Christian 
 Method," by Eufus M. Jones, of Haverford College, is the last 
 paper on the program of the evening and of the Conference. 
 
 PEACE AS INTVOLVED IN THE CHEISTIAN METHOD. 
 
 BY DE. RUFUS M. JOXES, HAVERFORD, PA. 
 
 The scientists of the century have been forcing us to realize 
 that Nature's method is ruthless competition. She gives success to 
 the strong and extermination to the weak. Her realm is an end- 
 less battlefield — a fierce struggle for existence where the weak fat- 
 ten the strong, and the unfit are mercilessly sacrificed to the fit. 
 livery step of the slow advance from the lower forms of life has 
 been marked by the weeding out of the helpless and the survival 
 of the strong and physically fit. " Eed in tooth and claw," Nature 
 proclaims that strength, power, force, might, fitness to survive, are 
 the only qualities for which she cares. Few have any conception 
 of the awful slaughter which goes on day by day beneath the peace- 
 ful waters of the sea. Here everything lives on something else, and 
 in the act of seizing its prey it is dodging its own foe. There is 
 no corner of the ocean which is not a veritable Indian jungle where 
 each lives on the life of another. This law of the jungle, this 
 merciless method of nature, everywhere marks primitive man. An- 
 thropology, archeology, ancient history, all tell the same tale — 
 everywhere tribe at war with tribe, man arming himself against 
 his enemy. The very divisions of the earth among the peoples of 
 it have been made with an eye to protection and defense. But 
 the little new-born child comes with an even surer record of this 
 age-long warfare than any which the monuments of Assyria or the 
 ruins of Karnak p-ive us. His hereditary instincts are the deepest 
 
223 
 
 scars of these centuries of strife and survival of the strong. The 
 primitive instincts are fear and anger; followed by the hardly less 
 primitive instinct — love of power. They are egoistic, self-preserva- 
 tive instincts. They are in the very structure of the race, and they 
 have their roots deep in an immemorial past, when human life 
 meant struggle for existence and survival by the law of might. Na- 
 ture's whole concern has been to produce a physical being with a 
 fitness to survive in a competitive struggle for existence. 
 
 ^ow Christianity reverses this whole ideaj Christ introduces 
 a type of life which advances on precisely the opposite principle. 
 He declares that in the kingdom where he rules a selfish struggle 
 for existence carries with it extinction — ^' He that seeks to save his 
 life shall lose it," — and its very method of advance is by the prop- 
 agation of love which forgets self in the effort to bless others. 
 
 The true way to study the peace idea at the heart of Chris- 
 tianity is not to make a collection of peace-texts, but to develop 
 the Christian view of man and society and to see whether any place 
 is left here for war and strife. Our question therefore must be, 
 What does Christ's conception of man and society involve? What 
 lies prophetic in his revelation of man? 
 
 Xothing is surer than that he thinks of man — any man — as a 
 potential son of God. He puts man on a new level. He sets forth 
 his new conception and calls men to it, in order, he says, " that 
 ye may be the children of your Father in Heaven." His new 
 commandment is, " that you love even as I have loved." His 
 " follow me " is no mere call to walk over the same Syrian roads 
 behind Him, but a call to the same attitude of life and an invita- 
 tion into a brotherhood which has its origin in a Divine Father- 
 hood. The characteristic feature of the Son of Man is his de- 
 votion to the business of saving and perfecting others — his struggle 
 for the life of others. To give, to share, and to transmit what he 
 has received is his unfailing purpose. To win by defeating others 
 is as inconceivable a course for him as it would be for the tiger 
 to win his prey by methods of persuasion. He reverses the whole 
 process of advance. Victories are to be won by the inherent power 
 of light and truth and love, and if they cannot be won that way, 
 then'they are not to be won at all. Men are to be drawn to God on 
 the simple ground alone that He loves them : and then, in their ef- 
 forts to overcome a world organized on the principle of the power 
 of the strongest, they are to make their appeal to the silent but 
 invincible power of love and truth. 
 
 There can be no mistaking the fact that this was his method. 
 There can be as little doubt that he bequeathed this method to his 
 followers. I shall not now ask whether such a method is practica- 
 ble in a world like ours or not, though one can say that so far it 
 has had no adequate trial, and we must expect such transforma- 
 tions to be slow. But I shall consider the question, which is of 
 some interest, namely. Why is the law of competition reversed by 
 
224 
 
 Christianity? Why do we here go over from the law of struggle 
 for existence to the method of love and sacrifice for others? 
 
 The first reason is that humanity found a new goal in Christ 
 M'hich could be attained only by some new method. So long as the 
 goal is the attainment of material goods there must be a sharp 
 competition and an occasion for warfare. The supply of good 
 things is limited, and whatever one gets diminishes what the rest 
 can have. The demand for such things exceeds the supply. The 
 struggle, from the nature of the case, becomes a keen one. The 
 M'hole breed of selfish passions are pushed to the front. It is for 
 the vital interests of the stronger to put down the weak, and, by a 
 certain natural selection, those who can fight best survive and pro- 
 duce a race like themselves. But the moment the goal becomes the 
 attainment of some spiritual possession, the supply of it exceeds the 
 demand! The more of it one gets, the more of it there is for oth- 
 ers. It increases in proportion as it is possessed. Whien one man 
 rises to the height of a new idea, the whole world is richer for it 
 forever, and all souls feel the power of it. When one soul sees 
 some new beauty and learns how to share it, he has made it at once 
 the common possession of the race. Wlien one individual by 
 stricter obedience has caught a new truth and voiced it, all men 
 everywhere feed upon it and add cubits to their stature. When 
 some one person puts his life into an heroic deed, that becomes a 
 universal legacy. If it can be revealed that God is love and that 
 men can partake of his nature, then no amount of sharing can ever 
 exhaust such a possession, and there will be no competitive struggle 
 to win one's own share. 
 
 But the truth is deeper than this and involves more than we 
 have yet touched. For as soon as the human goal is shown to be 
 the possession of a spiritual attainment, it becomes clear that this 
 can be attained only through the method of sharing. The surest 
 way to shrivel and dry up is to live for self-perfection alone. In the 
 spiritual life it is an eternal fact that no high quality can be won 
 if it is directly sought for self. If it is impossible to catch a spin- 
 ning top to see what the motion is like; if it is impossible to turn on 
 the light to see what the darkness is like, it is equally impossible to 
 produce the saintly spirit alon^ any line of self-interest. To gain 
 any pleasure from any action one must forget all thought of pleas- 
 ure and become absorbed in the act. To become spiritual one 
 must throw his life into the work of helping others win their vic- 
 tories, and lo! he finds that nothing he gives is ever given away. 
 By losing his life in the glowing purpose to help men come to the 
 possession of their true selves, he finds his own life enriching and 
 deepening, and he enters upon an ever-heightening life. The loss 
 is gain, the giving makes rich, the sharing increases the possession. 
 This principle lies at the very heart of the Christian religion, and, 
 because it is true, no one who fully enters upon the higher levels 
 
225 
 
 of Christian experience can consent to live by the law of might 
 which breeds war and sets men everywhere against each other. 
 
 The struggle now will be not to see how much one can get, but 
 rather how much one can give, not to see how many men's share 
 one can seize and appropriate, but rather to see how many one can 
 help to enter and sliare the common blessings of the Father's gift. 
 
 But there is still another reason why Christianity supplants war 
 with a method of peace and love. Christ introduces the organic 
 idea of society. We pass at once and forever from the individual 
 as an atom to the individual as a member of the whole. There can 
 be no isolated personal perfection, for our lives are so tightly linked 
 that when one member suffers all suffer, and when one rises all 
 rise. Human destiny is a social affair and no man can live unto 
 himself or die unto himself. There is a gravitation finer and sub- 
 tler than that which holds the worlds in a universe, and this binds 
 the lives of human beings into a society in which each must share 
 the rise and fall of all the members. It is, then, our end not to 
 realize some little goal of personal attainment for which we live, 
 but to raise, be it ever so little, the whole level of human life and to 
 bring into actual existence a kingdom of God — a society of brothers 
 by the divine right of sonship to God. The sublimest outlook of 
 Christianity is its prophecy of a society founded in brotherhood, 
 and deeper still, in the universal Fatherhood of God, and its most 
 sacred message to man is the call, " by the mercies of God," to join 
 in the work of making that prophecy come true. Now the only 
 way such an ideal can be wrought out, the only way such a new 
 Jerusalem can be brought down from God to become a fact before 
 our eyes, is for a man in this present world to go to living as a son 
 of God and treating all other men as possible sons. This is precise- 
 ly Christ's method. The strong are to bear the infirmities of the 
 weak, those who have received are to give, those who have seen are 
 to help others see, and those who have found are to become the 
 seekers after others. That such an idea involves peace and makes 
 war impossible is as plain as the sun at high noon, and this is incon- 
 testably the Christian position. 
 
 But some one says, " This is a remote ideal which will be all 
 right when the heavenly conditions arrive for realizing it, but now 
 we are in a world where men have selfish passions, where the law of 
 competition rules, and where one gets only what he struggles and 
 fights for. No such millennium is in sight. Must we not adjust 
 to the conditions of this present world?" The answer is simple. 
 There never will be any heavenly conditions, there never will be an 
 actual state of brotherhood and love unless those who see the sig- 
 nificance of the new method go to living by it at whatever hazard 
 and cost, and so make this ideal less remote, and bring the millen- 
 nium a jot nearer. The single question to ask is. Which is the 
 true way of life, the law of the jungle, somewhat modified and re- 
 fined perhaps, or the law of love and brotherhood, the organic so- 
 
226 
 
 ciety where each lives for all? If man hecomes himself and shows 
 his real nature only when he makes his life contribute to the whole 
 total of life and happiness, then there can be no question which 
 course a man should take nor which course is the heroic one, for 
 that course is most heroic which makes a man most a man. 
 
 Too long we have allowed the world to think of us merely as 
 non-combatants, as sponsor to the idea of non-resistance, and we 
 have been looked on with pity as a weak and passive folk. This 
 ( 'hristian method here outlined is no more passive than is that of 
 the most strenuous fighter on the world's bead-roll. On the con- 
 trary, it is gloriously positive. It is no withdrawal from danger or 
 suffering, but rather it involves a genuine sharing of the world's 
 burdens and struggles in a patient labor to make righteousness and 
 peace the very conditions of human life. " Put on the whole 
 armor," says the great advocate of the Christian method, writing 
 from Caesar's prison. " I have fought the good fight," is his fare- 
 v,-ell word to his young disciple. " Quit you like men " is his call 
 to those who must take up the banner he is laying down. It is a 
 noble word, but its full power comes out only wlien we see what 
 it means to be a man. " Quit you like men; be strong." These 
 words must be seen in the light of the new revelation of what it 
 means to be a man — a being who realizes his place in the uni- 
 verse of spirit and who sees that he has a contribution to make to 
 this growing kingdom of God. As fast as such men come the possi- 
 bility of war diminishes; as man on the new level enters, man on the 
 old level goes out. 
 
 " I told them," says Fox, when they were trying to enlist him 
 in the army of the Commonwealth, " that I lived in virtue of that 
 life and power which does away with the occasion for all war." 
 The man who says that has discovered the fundamental idea of 
 manhood. As fast as society becomes composed of such men war 
 vanishes by as certain a law as that which has locked up the ptero- 
 dactyl and megatherium in the iron hills, and swept the earth of 
 the dodo. 
 
 It was on just this sense of the worth of man that our poet 
 Whittier based his opposition to war and his mesage of peace: 
 
 " Give human nature reverence for the sake 
 Of one who bore it ; making it divine 
 With the ineffable tenderness of God. 
 Let common need, the brotherhood of prayer, 
 The heirship of an unknown destiny, 
 The unsolved mystery round about ns, make 
 A man more precious than the gold of Ophir. 
 Sacred, inviolate, unto whom all things 
 Should minister, as outward types and signs 
 Of the eternal beauty which fulfills 
 The one great purpose of creation. Love, 
 The sole necessity of earth and heaven." 
 
227 
 
 The Chairman: The discussion of the papers will be opened 
 l)y Jolm Iv Garrett. 
 
 John B. Gaebett: It seems to nic that discussion implies that 
 there are some tlioiights which are to l)e corrected, or some argu- 
 ments that are faulty, or some opinions expressed with which one 
 must take issue. Xo one of these conditions exists to-night; and 
 I feel, for one, that the time for discussion has passed. You will 
 not be surprised if I say that, holding the position I have in ref- 
 erence to this Conference, I have felt a burden resting upon me 
 throughout the past three days. I will not admit that I have had 
 anxiety, for I think that I have had a faith that has enabled me 
 to live above that condition ; but 1 have had a profound and prayer- 
 ful desire that the best spirit which has pervaded the Conference 
 at any time might live with us to its close. I have certainly de- 
 sired that this Conference might close with a spirit of peace in the 
 heart God-given, and that we might find rest in one another's com- 
 pany, and that the spirit of devotion might hover about us. I 
 therefore feel that it would be a mistake if 1 or any other were 
 at this stage of our proceedings to begin to discuss principles or 
 conclusions, or do aught by utterance that would mar the " weight," 
 as we Friends call it, with which we approach the conclusion of 
 our meeting. 
 
 So, dismissing from my own mind not a few thoughts that I 
 have felt merit some expression, and w-hich I would have been will- 
 ing to utter, were the time opportune, I want to say only this. 
 From the fact that we have been together during these three days 
 and have feasted from a richly-laden table, which, by the provi- 
 dence of God, has been spread before us, we have, every one of us, 
 a new responsibility laid upon us, and new privileges likewise given 
 us. We represent many communities, scattered over this continent 
 far and wide. There are within the hearing of my voice many gifted 
 men and women who are accustomed to being the mouthpieces in 
 those communities, and whose influence is potential over the life of 
 communities, the life of States, the life of churches. My appeal 
 to you, dear friends, to-night is that you carry home with you to 
 your several places of abode and of service all that it is possible for 
 your minds and hearts to carry; and that, when you return to your 
 work, you remember the responsibility which arises from the oppor- 
 tunities which are presented to you. Do not go back to your work 
 in the spirit in which you left it when you came here, but go with 
 the sense of responsibility to share in the richest way possible with 
 those among whom you dwell the spirit of that to which we have 
 been listening. 
 
 I have already accepted an invitation from one community of 
 Friends not far away to speak to them with regard to this Peace 
 Conference. I hope that similar invitations will come to scores of 
 you. Does anyone doul)t that the opportunity which we have en- 
 
228 
 
 joyed was not of man's creating? I do not. I believe that it was 
 in the providence of God that we were called together, and I be- 
 lieve that He who brought us together has condescended to our 
 weakness and to our need, and has manifested himself as a very 
 present God and Saviour in our midst, from hour to hour, and 
 from day to day; and that when we come to part He will dismiss 
 us with His blessing. 
 
 Nearly three-quarters of a century have passed since divisions 
 began in the Society of Friends, attended in the second quarter of 
 the nineteenth century with many an animosity and many a heart- 
 burning. Friends of every connection to whom I speak: I rejoice 
 with thanksgiving that we are not living to-day in that period. I 
 rejoice that out of this Conference shall come blessings that shall 
 tend to peace among ourselves. God has had His holy purposes 
 in bringing us here. If our hearts are open hearts He has begun 
 to f ilfil those purposes. As we live in the spirit of self-sacrifice, 
 of devotion, of love one to another that has been so beautifully 
 portrayed to us to-night as the spirit of the everlasting Gospel of our 
 Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, that work shall go on to perfec- 
 tion, and this occasion, little though it may have seemed to us as 
 we gathered on the morning of day before yesterday, shall bear its 
 rich fruitage in the progress of civilization, and the winning of the 
 world to the kingdom of the Prince of Peace. God grant it: and 
 may everyone of us who is here to-night be the rich and abundant 
 sharer in the blessing which is already dropping from His hand. 
 
 Anna Beatthwaite Thomas: There is one thing that has 
 pressed upon my heart all day, and I want to speak of it; I mean 
 the loud call that, in the providence of God, comes to this country. 
 I do not think that we have a clear idea of what America was — the 
 ideal of America — to the peoples of the world. It has already been 
 brought before us in the words of that Norwegian who said, " Does 
 that great republic still live ? " That ideal has lived in the hearts 
 of the peoples of the world, especially of those under less favorable 
 conditions. It is the ideal of love and of home, of right and of 
 liberty, of refuge for the oppressed and for the downtrodden. That 
 ideal has been rudely broken to a great extent by recent events. 
 
 I have been confronted with the thought recently that the So- 
 ciety of Friends has no special call just now to work for peace. We 
 have not heard that in this Conference; but I know it is the thought 
 of some Friends. But this idea is all wrong. We have a great 
 work before us, and I want to call upon all those who have been 
 members of this Conference to go home and take hold anew of this 
 work. It will require tremendous effort to bring back this country 
 to where it was before it — I was going to say, before it fell — but 
 before the events of the last few years. If we can bring it back it 
 will be a noble work, to say nothing of what we ought to be doing 
 along all the general lines of peace work. 
 
229 
 
 Alfred H. Love: I feel that I must express at the close of this 
 most remarkable Conference my gratitude to the Creator for the 
 privilege of living at a time when there are so many fervent souls 
 dedicated to peace as I have found in these three days. Every 
 word that has been uttered has my commendation. It has been 
 made clear in the Conference that peace is a result, the outcome 
 and recompense of righteousness and well-doing. In order to 
 have peace we must have peace conditions. If we have to-day all 
 the peace that we deserve, let us deserve more by being more fer- 
 vent, more devoted to the principles of the Master, and in that 
 way we shall realize, perhaps, as I feel that I have realized in meas- 
 ure on this occasion, the hope of the twentieth century. It is possi- 
 ble, dear friends, for us to achieve our conceptions and our ideals. 
 Our Heavenly Father would never have given us the conception of 
 a higher and better condition than that which we see about us, 
 and yet have left us without the means of attaining it. " If the 
 people will to have it so, who shall tell the end thereof ? " 
 
 Feankli:n' S. Blair: I have been a silent actor through all 
 these nine sessions. The prayer of my heart has been that every 
 member of this Conference might have his life hid with Christ in 
 God. The last paper brought that beautifully and wonderfully to 
 our minds. I endorse every word which John B. Garrett has said 
 to us with reference to the whole work of these three days. There 
 has been a wonderful providence of God in the conception and 
 carrying out of the Conference. Like the reader of one of the 
 papers, I go to begin anew, with more earnestness, this life hid with 
 Christ in God, and I ask the prayers of this Conference for us in 
 the Southland, where you know we have had more opposition in 
 many ways than almost any other part of our country, those of 
 us, especially, who began our lives before the war and passed 
 through the great struggle a generation ago. It is our wish to co- 
 operate with you in every way possible in the further extension of 
 the work of peace. 
 
 Clement M. Biddle: It is not the custom of the Society of 
 Friends to pass resolutions of thanks, or to be as expressive, prob- 
 abh', as we should be to those who work for us. It was my pleas- 
 ure to be one of the original twenty-six who met at Lake Mohonk, 
 when Benjamin F. Trueblood presented to us the idea of this Con- 
 ference. We were divided — one earnest, faithful man, and twenty- 
 five in doubt — as to whether it was possible to do what has been 
 done. I wish to say that Dr. Trueblood was the originator of it. 
 He has carried the burden of the work; and with no disrespect to 
 those who have nobly assisted him in making it a success, to him 
 belongs the credit of the plan and of inducing the rest of us to 
 carry it to the successful termination. I desire to give him my 
 personal thanks; and I know I speak for all those assembled. 
 
230 
 The Chairman: Dr. Tmeblood, say something! 
 
 Benjamin F. Teueblood: This Conference is one of the best 
 examples I have seen of the good resnlts that come from the prac- 
 tical application of the principle of Divine guidance, one of the 
 fundamental principles of our Quakerism. The Conference grew 
 out of the simple performance of a very simple duty, that of sug- 
 gesting the idea of the holding of such a meeting. So strongly 
 had the thought impressed itself upon me for some months, that 
 when I went to Mohonk last spring I could no longer refrain from 
 " opening " the subject to others. There were, of course, doubts 
 about the matter in the minds of some at the beginning, and have 
 been since; but I wish to say that the clearness of the duty of pro- 
 posing the Conference was m^ade much clearer by the fact that it 
 was approved at once by twenty-five other people Avho entered into 
 it just as if the call had come to them. Clement M. Biddle, in his 
 appreciation of the little service which I have rendered, has been 
 kind enough to magnify, greatly I think, the doubt and hesitancy 
 of others, including himself. I have no more credit in the matter 
 than the other twenty-five have; for they at once entered into the 
 concern, and everyone of them has stood by it with absolute and 
 unwavering faithfulness to the end. 
 
 The outcome so far has been remarkable, and the full outcome 
 is not yet seen. We have had a most interesting and inspiring 
 Conference. A spirit of unity and co-operation has been with us 
 from the first moment to this last. This spirit of unity is one of 
 the growing characteristics of our time; it is spreading everywhere 
 among people who call themselves Christian, and even among 
 others. The era of strife and dogmatic quarreling and division in 
 the Christian church has about gone by. Wliat may come of this 
 Conference other than the moral and spiritual fruit of it, we must 
 leave to the future. 
 
 I deeply appreciate what has been said by my friend, John B. 
 Garrett, who has, with the hearty and intelligent co-operation of 
 many others, taken cheerfully so much of the burden of the pre- 
 paration of the Conference upon himself. What he has said just 
 now is the thing which Ave need most to remember. This is a great 
 and solemn work in which we are engaged. My friends, we have 
 in the task which is before us in this new century — the task of re- 
 deeming the world from hate and war and establishing it per- 
 manently in the ways of love and peace — the most glorious calling 
 that one can possibly conceive. The cause of peace has gained 
 much in the past; the principles for which we have stood have 
 already permeated society more deeply than many suppose. That 
 ought to encourage us to throw ourselves with a supreme devotion 
 into the task that is before us. The work of redeeming the world 
 from strife and bloodshed, from the waste of its intellectual and 
 physical powers in the ways of ruin and destruction, and of turning 
 
231 
 
 all these energies of thought and feeling and material force to con- 
 structive and beneficent ends, is enough^, it seems to me, to inspire 
 any soul with devotion and effort of the highest order. 
 
 There are great destinies before us. This world is not always 
 to be " red in tooth and claw " ; the time is approaching more rap- 
 idly than many suppose when the man shall supplant the brute. 
 Great movements advance slowly, so it is said. But every great 
 movement, as it progresses, accumulates power, until, at the last, 
 according to the divine method, it reaches its end as in the twink- 
 ling of an eye. The times are moving rapidly, and I want us to 
 move with them. The cause which has brought us together is very 
 near the heart of our JEaster. It is His purpose that it shall tri- 
 umph, not in this land only, but in all lands; that America may 
 be saved, and England, and Germany, and Russia, and China, and 
 South Africa, and all the ends of the earth, from the desolations 
 of hate and war, and that the whole world may be brought into har- 
 mony and co-operation. What share shall we have in this great ac- 
 complishment? 
 
 Isaac Sharpless: I think that any one who has attended the 
 meetings of this Conference will come to the conclusion that the 
 Society of Friends of the present day has no disposition to repudi- 
 ate the doctrines of their first predecessors on the subject of peace. 
 The statements unanimously adopted this afternoon are a strong 
 endorsement of the positions taken by George Fox. We are not 
 sorry we have received these doctrines as a heritage from the past. 
 We have no disposition to apologize for them, nor are we at all 
 ashamed to avow that we are peace men. We are thankful, on the 
 contrary, that this precious legacy has come down to us, and that 
 we are able to meet together here, and in such unity continue to 
 bear up the blessed cause. We propose to continue to hold up the 
 same standard and pass it on endorsed and strengthened. 
 
 We regret that we appear to be so nearly alone among Christian 
 professors. So clear does the position seem to us that we are at a 
 loss to perceive how other earnest, honest Christians can differ. 
 We are encouraged when we read the abstract eulogiums on peace; 
 but when war issues come we are surprised and disappointed at the 
 apparent change of ground. We want to keep ourselves open to 
 conviction, and we acknowledge that our lonely position puts upon 
 us a great burden of proof. Can it be that the small minority is 
 right? We have this week asked ourselves this question, and for 
 ourselves we have again soberly answered it in the affirmative, and 
 so we shall continue to answer it always in theory, and in practice 
 just as long as God shall give us strength to be faithful to what we 
 know to be right. 
 
 Another feature which must have been noticed during the meet- 
 ings has been a prevailing optimism, — not a blind optimism which 
 has faith just because we know the strength of our cause, but an op- 
 
232 
 
 timism based on a knowledge of the advances actually made. The 
 paper of Dr. Trueblood, written on the strength of abundant knowl- 
 edge, shows conclusively the rapid advance — an advance which 
 prepares the way for a still more rapid advance soon to come. Our 
 optimism is based, too, on a knowledge of the number of forces 
 working for us — the growing acquaintance of one nation with an- 
 other, the development of world-wide sympathies, the spirit of com- 
 merce and industr}^, the spread of Christianity, the education of the 
 masses, and the development of private morals. Yes, Friends, we 
 are associated with a winning cause, and we know it, and we have 
 the enthusiasm which comes from knowledge. A few more cam- 
 paigns, a few more martyrs, perhaps, a gi'eat deal more energy and 
 wise enterprise, and the cause is won, and other Christian bodies 
 will come crowding each other to fall into the ranks of the peace 
 men. 
 
 Friends have not been very active propagandists. The very 
 feeling of their own complete Tightness has made many of them slow 
 to take the stump and proclaim the arguments for the good cause. 
 But this is changing. I have been interested in the proposition 
 that a lot of us should go to Congress; that we should get together 
 and say to each other, " Go to, let us enter the Senate." The plan 
 is, unfortunately, not likely to be successful, but I am inclined to 
 believe that for our present purposes it is right in theory, and the 
 way to bring it about is to begin with the humbler politics of the 
 coi;ntry, the lowly but useful offices and the primary meetings of 
 the political parties. But in this greater activity to which we are 
 called, I should be sorry to lose the typical Friend of the past, the 
 man of tender conscience and guarded life, of simple tastes and 
 quiet manners, absolutely truthful and cautious and faithful and 
 sweet in his life, " Who reverenced his king as if it were his con- 
 science, and his conscience as his king " — the man and woman we 
 have all known and loved. Shall we lose this historic character as 
 we part with the aloofness from the world which perhaps produced 
 it, " if he rides abroad redressing human wrong " ? 
 
 Not so, I think, if he comes under the spirit of George Fox; 
 if he is a peace man not because he believes war to be wasteful, and 
 productive of suffering, or contrary to some pet theory of morals, 
 but because down in his heart he feels the warm spirit of divine love 
 and power that takes away the occasion and the desire and the pos- 
 sibility of war and revenge and hatred. Pile up your other argu- 
 ments as you will, such a man can go out doing a strong, active 
 man's full duty to the cause, and not lose one iota of the sweetness 
 and light of our revered Friends of the past. He will be efficient 
 and practical, and at the same time graceful and moderate, generous 
 in his sympathies, and kindly in his criticisms, — an undaimted ad- 
 vocate, a charitable opponent. 
 
233 
 
 The Chairman: I think we shall leave this room to-night pro- 
 foundly thankful, all of us, that we have been here; and with a 
 prayer in our hearts for the blessing of Him without whose help 
 we shall have labored in vain, we will conclude the Conference. 
 
 After a time of waiting before the Lord, during which thanks- 
 giving and prayer were voiced by Joseph Elkinton, Jr., and Benja- 
 min F. Trueblood, the Chairman declared the Conference ad- 
 journed without day. 
 
 Immediately upon the close of the Conference the committee 
 appointed for that purpose (with the exception of President M. 
 Carey Thomas, who found it impossible to serve) prepared and for- 
 warded to the President of the United States the following letter: 
 
 LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 To Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States : 
 Honored and Respected Friend: 
 
 The Friends' Peace Conference, in session at Philadelphia on the 12th, 
 13th, 14th of the present month, composed of members of the several 
 bodies of Friends in America, directed that an address on its behalf be 
 sent to thee, and appointed the undersigned a committee to prepare and 
 forward it. 
 
 The desire of the Conference was, that there should be expressed its 
 deep sympathy with thee in the arduous duties and gi-eat responsibilities 
 which, in so extraordinary a manner, and by so lamentable an event, have 
 devolved upon thee, and its earnest hope that these may be so met and 
 performed as to promote not only the internal concord of the people of 
 this nation, but also good will and consequent peace throughout the world. 
 
 We have observed with encouragement and satisfaction, the passage 
 in thy message to Congress in which the declarations are made that " the 
 true end of every great and free people should be self-respecting peace," 
 that " this nation most earnestly desires sincere and cordial friendship 
 with all others," and that " more and more the civilized peoples are realiz- 
 ing the wicked folly of war, and are attaining that condition of just and 
 intelligent regard for the rights of others which will in the end make 
 world-wide peace possible." We earnestly desire that these sentiments, 
 so true and timely, may grow and prevail, and that during thy administra- 
 tion the public opinion in behalf of rational methods for settling inter- 
 national differences may be fostered, and all possible steps be taken to 
 make such methods practical and effective. We are convinced that the 
 stability and true grandeur of the nation can be promoted only by those 
 means and methods which are inherently right, and are in accord with 
 the teachings of Jesus Christ; in this conviction, we would earnestly en- 
 courage thee in all thy purposes and undertakings which will make for 
 higher ideals of citizenship and will increase the moral power of the re- 
 public. 
 
 As it has been the mission of the nation, during its first century, to ex- 
 hibit and illustrate to the world the principles of true democracy and in- 
 dividual liberty, so may its next contribution to civilization be a demon- 
 stration of the fact that there are tried and approved methods of securing 
 justice which makes war unnecessary and that righteousness of intercourse 
 
334 
 
 between nations, as between men, will always command peace. May it 
 bethy honorable distinction in coming time, to have helped to build these 
 principles securely in the foundation of our national structure. 
 
 Commending thee to the care and guidance of Almighty God, as the 
 source of unfailing Wisdom and Light, we subscribe ourselves, with re- 
 spect, thy friends. 
 
 Signed, 
 
 Isaac Shabplkss, 
 William W. Birdsall, 
 Philip C. Garrett. 
 
 Howard M. Jenkins, 
 RtJFUs M. Jones, 
 Susan W. Janney. 
 
 ^ OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 
F 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Address of Friends to Washington in 
 
 17^9.51- 
 American Ideal, The, 37,228. 
 Arbitration, 45, 155, 158, 160, 208, 
 
 220. 
 Ash, Samuel S., 54. 
 Altitude of Christians toward Peace 
 
 and War, 65. 
 
 Baily, Hannah J., 119. 
 
 Haily, Joshua L., 136, 141., 206. 
 
 Barton, George A., 19, 209. 
 
 Rcuhani, Ida Whipple, 112. 
 
 Bible Schools, Importance of Teach- 
 ing Peace Principles in, S3. 
 
 Biddle, Clement M., 229. 
 
 Birdsall, William W., 34, 78, no, 
 132. 
 
 Blair, Franklin S., 229. 
 
 Bond, Elizabeth Powell, 180. 
 
 Borton, Joel, 162. 
 
 Bright, John, 126, 127, 1S9. 
 
 Burgess, Emilie U., 194. 
 
 Chapman, Mariana W., 45, loi. 
 
 Chawner, John, 33, 106. 
 
 Christian Idea of Force, 70, 105. 
 
 Christianity and Peace, 16, 24,29, 31, 
 32, 33, 41, 49. 54. 55. 59. 65. 67, 80, 
 83. 92, loi, 103, i6j, 172, 183, 190, 
 192, 201, 210, 215, 218, 223. 
 
 Constancy in Peace Effort, 201. 
 
 Cruelty of War, 44, 47, 114, 203. 
 
 Declaration of the Conference, 208. 
 Dennis, William C, 159. 
 Dillingham, John H., 210. 
 Disarmament, 145. 
 Doukhobors, 76, 80. 
 
 Early Christianity and War, 59. 
 Early Friends and Peace, 39. 
 Elkinton. Joseph, 80, 106, 191. 
 Encouragements for Peace, 56, 81, 
 87, no, n3, 162, 193. 
 
 Failure of the Church to Promote 
 
 Peace, 24, 31, 32, 66, 102. 
 Ferris, David, 133. 
 Flitcraft, Allen, 31. 
 Force, Moral, 71, 81, 105. 
 Fox, George, 30, 39, 40, 50, 147. 
 
 Friend? and Peace, 30, 39, 4S, 54, 58, 
 82, 98, 104, 106, 107, 108, 132, 133, 
 146, 163, 164, 166, 188, 191, 198, 202, 
 218, 228, 231. 
 
 Friends in Political Life, 32, 104, 
 108, 189. 
 
 Friends not Anarchists, 58. 
 
 Garrett, John B., n, 13,34, 107,227. 
 Garrett, Philip C. , 146, 207, 209. 
 
 Hague Court, 118, 121, 125, 156, 162, 
 
 196, 208. 
 Hatred of Foreigners, 17, 21, 27. 
 Holmes, Jesse H., 65. 
 Hotchkiss, Willis R., 210. 
 Howard Association, 25. 
 Hubbard, William G., 31, 39. 
 
 Individual Responsibility, 66, 78, 
 
 172. 
 Inflnences for Peace, 81, 87, no, 
 
 n3, 193, 218. 
 Inherent Immorality of War, 45, 49, 
 
 53. 55- 
 Internationalism, 17, 23, no, 117, 
 n9, 124, 131, 134, 152, 160, 193. 
 
 Janney, O. Edward, 218. 
 
 Janney, Susan W., 193. 
 
 Jenkins, Howard M., 34, 37, 56, 162, 
 
 206. 
 Jewish Ideas of Peace, 17, 20. 
 Jones, Augustine, 124. 
 Jones, Rufus M., 29, 104, 222. 
 
 Kimber, Anthony M., 54. 
 
 Leeds, Josiah W., 213. 
 
 Letter to President Roosevelt, 206, 
 
 233. 
 Lloyd, Elizabeth, 105. 
 Looting, 177. 
 Love, Alfred H., 229. 
 
 Magill, Edward H., 53, 130. 
 Makers of Peace, The, 180. 
 McGrew, Edwin, 106, 201. 
 Militarism, Remedies for, 213. 
 Morrow, Dr. James, 103. 
 Neutrality on the Great Lakes, 145. 
 Newport, David, loi. 
 New Testament Grounds of Peace, 
 16, 41, 71. 
 
 235 
 
236 
 
 Nicholson, S. Edgar, 98. 
 Nobel Peace Prizes, 56. 
 
 Old Testament and Peace, 19, 29, 31, 
 32, 33. 78. 
 
 Origiu and Organization of the Con- 
 ference, 3, 12, 229, 230. 
 
 Patriotism, False, 85, 176. 
 Peace and Heroism, 68, 175, 211. 
 Peace as Involved in the Christian 
 
 Method, 222. 
 Peace in the New Testament, 16, 41, 
 
 71- 
 Peace in the Old Testament, 19, 29, 
 
 31. 32, 33. 78. 
 Peace Principles in Political L,ife and 
 
 Institutions, 124. 
 Peace, True Spirit of, 183. 
 Pearson, William L,., 102, 183. 
 Penn's Work for Peace, 132, 146, 161, 
 
 162, 219. 
 Pennypacker, Charles H., 209. 
 Perry, Arthur, 164. 
 Philippine War, 43, 89, 95, 99, 19S, 
 
 203. 
 Poem " Gentle and Mighty," 112. 
 Powell, Joseph, 54. 
 Pretlow, Robert E., 189. 
 Practicability of Peace, 28, 93, 102, 
 
 104, 106, 107, 108, 137, 140, 144, 
 
 158, 164, 167, 213, 219, 232. 
 Price, William L,., 163. 
 Private and Pnblic War, 159. 
 Program of the Conference, 7. 
 Progress of Peace, 56, 87, no, 113, 
 
 119, 136, 152, 159, 162, 193. 
 
 Raidabaugh, P. W., 83. 
 Remedies for Militarism, 213. 
 Reply of W^ashington to Friends' 
 
 Address, 52. 
 Russell, Elbert, 16. 
 
 Sanders, Amos, 188. 
 
 Sharpless, Isaac, 48, 137, 231. 
 
 Shipley, Catharine M., 106. 
 
 Smith, Stephen R., 11, 132. 
 
 Soldier, A, on War, 54. 
 
 South African War, 42, 89, 107. 
 
 Spanish War, 27, 37, 47, 50, 83, 99, 
 
 107, 203. 
 Stanley, Edmund, 87. 
 
 Tebbetts, Charles E., 198. 
 
 Thomiis, Anna Braithwaite, 32, 134, 
 
 228. 
 Thomas, M. Carey, 81, 109. 
 Thomas, Richard H., 55, 70. 
 Trueblood, Bsnjamin F., 12, 36, 56, 
 
 152, 198, 206, 207, 230. 
 
 Unthank, James B., 34, 58, 166. 
 
 War Always Evil, 53, 54. 
 
 War Inconsistent with the Genius of 
 
 Quakerism, 198. 
 Washington, Address of Friends to, 
 
 51 ; Reply of, 52. 
 Wilbur, Henry W., 172, 210. 
 Women and Peace, 82, 93, loi, 102, 
 
 116, 194. 
 Wood, James, 59. 
 Wood, John B., 192. 
 Woodv, Mary Chawner, 24, 102. 
 Wright, Ellen C, 113. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recalL 
 
 3oSep'u^.Y! : 
 
 
 IN STACKS 
 
 
 SEP 161964 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jjyjlT6A=2^M 
 
 
 Due end of SUM^'IF'^ P-.-- 
 
 ^ J/Il o ft'Tf Ik 
 
 eywjecT to lec^il after — 
 
 JUL 2 /I 911 
 
 BEC'D LD JUL 1 
 
 871 -5PM 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■jsi^s^War --£HF"'- 
 
UC BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 iiiiHil 
 
 1 00083