so baleful to the general weal? Nay, the rebels themselves are compelled in self-preservation to discard it in their own practice, and thus admit in effect that, on the principle underlying this rebellion, their own Confederacy would soon melt away like dew before a summer sun.

But the cause of free government has still more at stake on the results of this contest, It is indeed a question of life or death to all its hopes. The rebels claim the right of secession or rebellion, synonymous terms, as one of its elementary, essential principles Government, they say, rests solely on the consent of the governed and when any portion of a people, more or less, refuse, at any time, or for any reasons, their consent to the government jointly established over them, they are at once released from all obligations to support or obey it, and have thenceforth a perfect right to resist its authority, to violate its laws, and seek its overthrow, all with entire impunity! Such is the democracy proclaimed to the world by our rebels. Thus understood, how long before it would be deservedly driven in scorn or terror from the earth? Is it for such a spawn of barbarism, anarchy and blood, that the oppressed millions of Europe have been so long sighing and struggling? Have they no alternative but this or despotism? Surely, then, our struggle is likely to decide the fate of popular government for ages to come, if not for all future time. It is now on its great trial before the world, and if it be what the theory and practice of our rebels would make it, the sooner it perishes. forever, the better for all concerned. Universal and everlasting despotism would be far preferable.

But this rebellion, if triumphant, will in time inaugurate here the worst despotism the world has ever seen. It may perhaps retain awhile, from necessity or policy, the forms of democracy, just as it has done thus far; but in spirit, principle and actual operation, it will be intensely despotic, the few for their own selfish ends ruling the million with a rod of iron. It will be, whatever its form, an oligarchy resting on slavery as its basis, and will, if tolerated for any length of time, fortify, strengthen and extend itself until it may come to rule this entire continent, and become a terror to the world. Only men ignorant of slavery, as a political power, will call this in question for a moment.

Thus nearly all the great interests of our race are largely involved in the issue of this struggle with our slaveholding rebels-the only true theory of democracy or self-government, the powers essential indeed to all government, the extinction of slavery, the abolition of the slave-trade, the progress of Christian civilization, the rights of free thought and free speech, a free press and a free pulpit, not a few of the world's dearest hopes.

But more especially would we beg the friends of God and man to consider well its bearings upon the cause of Peace. If our rebels gain their object, there can be small hope of any steady, reliable peace in this country, or upon this continent. Any settlement that shall leave them an independent power here, will entail upon ourselves, if not upon other nations, a sure legacy of fierce, interminable wars. A man who can doubt this, must be strangely ignorant alike of our geography, and of the spirit and genius of slavery. Rest ng solely on might as the arbiter of right, they would cultivate war as their great business, and become in time the most terrible war-power in all Christendom. They would be the Turks and Tartars of this western world. Farewell then, for long ages, to nearly all hope of either freedom or peace in America.

Do the men who plead for peace at any price, take such results as these fully into account? Most devoutly do we pray for peace; but not for a peace that would men endless war. We sigh more and more for peace, and shudder at the thought of the evils inseparable from the continuance of a contest so inexcusable and atrocious; but, if both parties persist, as they certainly will with their present habits, in accepting the sword as the arbiter of their disputes, we see not what good can in the end be gained, while a great deal would be lost, by any settlement that shall not break forever that slave-power which is in truth the only bone of contention. Till this is done, there can be little more hope of peace here than there could have been in heaven with Satan attempting to reign there. This dispute, bear in mind, is to be decided by men who do not accept our principles; and the only practical question is how such men can best settle it on theirs. on theirs. We abhor, as unchristian, the war-method of gaining even a good object; but, if our people still cling to it, and will use no other, it would be better, on their principles, to fight any length of time, at any cost of treasure and blood, until the whole controversy shall be settled aright, and the hydra is crushed beyond the power of resurrection.

THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAW NOT WAR.

One of our greatest difficulties as peace reformers has ever been to disentangle the subject from its supposed connection with kindred but distinct questions. The most prominent of these is the Government Question. Nearly all the objections of any real force against either our object or our logic, may be resolved into its alleged incompatibility

with the legitimate powers of civil government. We are told, as we readily admit, that government is an ordinance of God for the benefit of mankind, and indispensable to the well-being, if not to the very existence of society. But can a government exist without the war-principle, or the right to use all the force necessary for the support of its authority, and the enforcement of its laws? Does not this principle pervade or underlie all its operations? Is not the central idea of peace-its forgiveness of injuries, its return of only good for evil-clearly incompatible with the use of brute force in restraining and punishing wrongdoers? Thus understood, strict non-resistance of evil by any other means than moral influence, must contradict all government. If wrong may not in any case be met by penalty or coercion, there can be no government either by man or by God himself.

This difficulty we anticipated from the start, and treated it as not coming properly within our province. When the "Non-Resistance Society" was organized in 1838, we were extensively accused or suspected of the anti-government views charged upon that movement; and justice to ourselves and the community, we said at the time, "would not allow us to do less than disclaim the responsibility thus thrown upon us, and to repeat the exposition, previously stereotyped, of our object, principles and measures. Our sole aim is the abolition of War; and War has hitherto been defined to be a conflict between states or governments by force. Thus does the cause of peace assume the existence of human governments, and seek merely to regulate their intercourse in all cases without the sword; but whether such governments have any right to exist, or, if they have, what laws they may enact, or what penalties inflict, how they shall suppress mobs, and restrain or punish other forms of lawless violence, or to what extent, if any, physical force is allowed by the gospel, it is not for us, as friends of peace, to determine or inquire. Such points belong to our cause no more than they do to that of temperance or missions; and, however important in themselves, it is not for us, as a society, to assume any responsility concerning them. The question of war or no war, is certainly distinct from the question of government or no government; and, if any man will go with us for the entire abolition of war, we shall not stop to wrangle about his views on any other subject." Rep. in 1839.

In thus treating the subject of peace as distinct from that of civil government, but entirely compattible with it, we have never supposed we were compromising our principles as peace-men. In this way the Quakers themselves argue and act. To prevent their views from being

"

confounded with the no-government theory, first broached amongst us in 1838, they issued early in 1840 a document to show the sentiments held by their society from its origin in support of civil government. We do indeed believe," say they, "that war and fighting are contrary to the divine will, and unlawful for us as Christians; but we have ever acknowledged the propriety and necessity of human government. We find in the New Testament clear and undeniable evidence that civil government was fully recognized by Christ himself and his apostles; and we have ever considered it essential to the preservation of good order, and the promotion of the happiness of man; nor have we, as a society, any unity with the views of those who deny the necessity of human government." In confirmation of these positions they quote largely from the Scriptures, and from such standard authors of the society as George Fox and Robert Barclay, Pyott, Burrough and Penn.

Such are the views of the strongest peace-men in favor of civil government as an ordinance of heaven for the benefit of mankind. They recognize its existence, with all its legitimate powers and functions, as compattible with the strict principles of peace. As a Peace Society we do not go so far as the Quakers do on this point; for while they make the support of government an article of their faith, we hold our members to no responsibility on any other question than that of peace, and merely presume them to entertain the common views respecting civil government.

What, then, is such government, what its proper sphere, and what its ligitimate, indispensable powers? It clearly must have the right at discretion to enact, apply and enforce its own laws. It is only the union of these legislative, judicial and executive functions that constitutes civil government. They must all be combined, or there can be no proper, effective government. Its legislature decides what laws shall be passed, its judiciary how they shall be applied, and its executive how they shall be put in force. All these it does at its sovereign discretion. It may, as it often does, sadly abuse this discretion; but such abuse does not forfeit the right so essential to all government. It must have the right, and the requisite amount of power, to maintain its own authority, to execute its laws and inflict its penalties. If it may not or cannot do all this, it is no government in fact, but only in name; vox et praeterea nihil.

Such are the legitimate operations of government; but do any of these deserve to be called war? We may indeed call them such

by a figure of speech, as we may thus call a hundred other things war; but do any of these, or all put together, constitute the precise thing meant by war? Does a government, when enforcing its laws against wrong-doers, make real, literal war upon them? When a magistrate imposes a fine, or the police arrest a burglar, or a court sentences a felon to the prison or the gallows, do they in such acts make war upon the offenders? Even should the military be called out to aid the civil power in suppressing a mob or riot, and bringing its guilty agents to merited punishment, would you call such an enforcement of law and order a deed of war? If not, we see not with what propriety we can denounce as war any legitimate execution of law. It is a wrong, deceptive use of such terms.

Let us now apply these obvious dictates of common sense to the huge and terrible rebellion so long drenching our country in fraternal blood. It is confessedly a vast, gigantic violation of law, a mammoth offence against society, the quintessence and climax of 'nearly all crime. Does not, and must not, every government, as a question of life or death to its own existence, condemn such crimes, and prescribe condign penalties? As the constituted guardian of the public weal, is it not imperatively required to restrain and punish especially such offenders? Would it not be recreant to its high trust, and commit a species of suicide, by refusing to enforce the laws against them? How else can it exist as a government? Is not such enforcement the specific, paramount business of rulers? To such questions but one answer can be given-law must be put in force; but, if rulers are chosen on purpose to enforce the laws, shall we brand such enforcement as war? If it be war in one case, it must be so in every other; and this would just put an end to all government.

This view of the case we have always regarded as conclusive; but some, for whose scruples we entertain the greatest respect, seem to regard all execution of law, that may be accompanied with violence and bloodshed, as the same thing as ordinary war, and equally contrary to the gospel. They deny (Friend, Dec. 27, 1862) "that there is a peculiarity about our civil war, which renders it less opposed to the benign spirit and precepts of the gospel than other wars, so that those who conscientiously believe ordinary warfare to be contrary to the teachings and commands of Christ, may nevertheless consistently sanction the gigantic effort to put down rebellion by armies and fleets, con stantly engaged in the destruction of human life, and the infliction of whatever suffering they may be able to bring on all opposed to them. We venture to say, there can nothing be found in the New Testament