spend a hundred and twenty millions for the assassination of our beloved brethren—avowedly for that purpose? It is needless to object to the word assassination,—wholesale murder by armies is substantially the same thing as separate murders by each individual of the army.

But, it is urged, we are in danger of invasion, and the bombardment of our cities. Does any one seriously believe that a powerful nation intent on peace—the strongest power in the world, the friend of all mankind, ready to submit any international question to arbitration—would be in danger of an unjust, lawless, causeless assault from the Christian nations of Europe, who have so much to lose and nothing to gain by war, and who have already, in their groaning, tax-burdened people, a sufficient reminder of the folly and criminality of war? They have not money for another war, which would bring on the dangers of bankruptcy and the revolt of the oppressed masses.

It must be that this is seriously apprehended, or else that it is feared that the arrogant and bullying temper of our own people or our politicians may originate and exasperate international irritation to the insane extreme of war.

What a horrible theory is this! Is all the civilization, statesmanship, and Christianity of the leading nations of the earth incapable of withholding them from such gigantic crimes? Is Christendom the only dangerous portion of the world, where an honorable and peaceful nation cannot exist in safety?

The heathen nations are not a source of danger. If Christendom were annihilated to-morrow, there would be no occasion to speak of defending our coasts or building up a powerful navy. It is apparent, then—it is confessed—that it is very dangerous to live among these Christian nations, or in other words, it is very dangerous to live among Christians, as they are called! But do our statesmen or our clergy suggest this view? Do they recoil from war or inspire the people with thoughts of peace? Never! One of the conspicuous clergymen of England was the fiercest advocate of war with Russia. The fundamental principle of the Christianity of Jesus is dead in the so-called Christian church, except in that little fragment, the church of the Quakers, who, for their fidelity to the fundamental principle, were scourged and hanged in Boston by the pious predecessors of our present churches, until they were forbidden by the unsanctified monarch, Charles II. Has the old spirit died out? Look at the hostility to Theodore Parker—to spiritual investigation, even. See the scornful and hostile attitude of the descendant of Cotton Mather, Col. Higginson.

It may be a shocking proposition to say that it is dangerous to live among Christians, but it is a sober reality, to which I invite the attention of clergymen and moralists who wish to live up to their profession, and who have enough of the ethical faculty to realize the central principle of true Christianity.

If our statesmanship, religion, and education cannot protect us against such horrors, may we not justly say it is a false statesmanship, a false religion, and a false education? Indeed, our whole fabric of opinion and morals is fundamentally false, and the Journal of Man goes to record as an indictment at the bar of heaven against the polished barbarism of modern society, against which we hear only a feeble and almost inaudible protest.

Boston has a highly respectable and immensely perfunctory Peace Society, amply endowed with names and numbers, of which our late postmaster was the president, and whose presidency was vastly more inefficient than his postmastership.

A peace society might possibly be established in Boston, if its best people could be roused, but the society that we have is little better than a piece of ornamental nomenclature. When there is anything to be done it understands how not to do it. When Mr. Gladstone had performed the most glorious act of his life in the preservation of the peace of Europe against the fierce opposition of the turbulent element in England, an act which will make the brightest jewel in his crown of honor, there was an opportunity of sustaining him by American sympathy. The voice of Americans, if they cared aught for peace, should have been heard in Europe in commanding tones,—the voice of the people, the voice of Legislatures, the voice of the Federal government. An effort was made by half a dozen or less of enlightened gentlemen in Boston to have a fitting response emanate from this city. Dr. Miner and Hon. Stephen M. Allen realized its importance when I first suggested it, but on that occasion the Peace Society was a lifeless corpse. The society might have been waked up if Mr. Lowell, then returning from England, could have been induced to co-operate. He was approached on the subject, but would not respond,—he only said that he desired rest! Alas for the hollowness of American religion and philanthropy!

There is a nobler religion than that of American churches, a nobler statesmanship than that of Mr. Tilden (which is a good specimen of the popular sort), a nobler education than that of our American schools and colleges—an education, a statesmanship, and a religion which will wash the blood from the sword, bury the sword in the earth, and proclaim the fraternity of man in all the nations of the earth.

Ah! when shall the demand for the supremacy of the moral law be anything more than “the voice of one crying in the wilderness”? Is it not possible to have a protest against the barbarism of war from men of influence, who have sufficient mental power and strength of character to command the attention of the nation? When Elihu Burritt and Robert Dale Owen were alive I thought it might be possible, but it was not attempted. Is it possible now? Is all the genius and energy of the American people bound in fidelity to the Moloch of war? I do not believe it, and would invite correspondence from those who share this belief and wish to co-operate in such a movement.

We have to-day a practical subject of discussion: Shall we, the people of the United States, tax ourselves $120,000,000 at once and an unknown amount hereafter, to place ourselves upon a par with the homicidal nations of Europe, and sanction by our example the infernalism in which they have lived from Cæsar to the Napoleonic period, or shall we endeavor to introduce a true civilization, lay aside the weapons of homicide, and urge by our powerful mediation the disarmament of Europe, relieving the oppressed millions from accumulating war debts, and from that infernalism of the soul which makes the duel still an established institution in France and even in German universities? Shall we move onward toward humane civilization, or cling to a surviving barbarism?

The measure now proposed is an abandonment of Divine law, and a practical pledge of this country to the infernalism of war. It is a declaration that we do not believe peace attainable at all, and that we indorse and seek to renew forever the blood-stained history of the past.

Is there not among our politicians who sustained the Blair Education bill some one whose voice may be heard in behalf of peace? Is Col. Ingersoll too much of a pessimist to believe that American moral power will be sufficient in time to calm the world’s agitation? Let him espouse this cause, and he will find it more practical by far than riding down the ghosts of an effete theology. Let Henry George turn his attention to this question, and he will find in it even more than in the question of sovereignty over the land; for every acre on the globe, if confiscated to-day, would pay but a portion of the boundless cost of war. The blood alone that has incarnadined all lands is worth vastly more than the dead soil into which it has been poured. Let Dr. McGlynn, who has already entered on the