that Peter was sent to preach the gospel to a devout soldier, to Cornelius, first of all the Gentiles. Is it not remarkable, that Christ should commend the faith of the centurion, or captain of a hundred men? Is it not remarkable, that when soldiers came to John, and asked him, "What shall we do?" he did not command them to throw down their arms, instead of requiring them to be "content with their wages?" If all wars are utterly irreconcilable with the spirit of the gospel, why, in an affair of such immense importance to the welfare of the whole family of mankind, was the great Teacher of men entirely silent?

5. I dissent from your principle, because God has authorized and approved of wars, and commanded them. All war is not therefore in itself immoral.

Sometimes the Jewish law is represented as instituting a religion of severity and cruelty, and the gospel as restoring the long-lost sway of mercy and love; as though God was not in ancient times the same God that he is now, the same moral governor of the world, the same unchanging enemy of immorality and iniquity. God commanded the wars of Canaan. And before the Jewish law, when Abraham heard that Lot was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, and rushed to the rescue, and smote and dispersed the enemy; and in return from this self-moved war, he was met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, the great type of Christ, the priest of the Most High God, who blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abraham of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the Most High God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand."

If all wars are contrary to the spirit of the gospel, I do not believe that the priest of the Most High God, the type of Christ (if not, as many think, Christ himself), would have commended Abraham for this warlike exploit, and given God thanks for its result. On the contrary, he would have denounced upon the patriarch the anger of God, and bid him go and repent in dust and ashes. Jehovah, in the principles of his moral government, changeth not. He has approved of just wars; he approves of them now; and he will approve of them to the end of the world. Even after the thousand years of peace which the gospel will produce by its universal influence, Satan (we are informed, Rev. 20) will go out to deceive the nations and to gather them together to battle; "they will compass the camp of the saints and the holy city." But that will be the final battle of the earth; and the Almighty himself will wage it in his justice. He will not require his saints to go out in Sabbath school procession to melt the hearts of Satan's adherents; but he himself, in his avenging wrath, by fire from heaven will destroy them.

. I have already said, my dear Sir, that I deplore the change of your constitution, because I foresee, in consequence of it, the destruction of the usefulness of the American Peace Society.

I doubt not, that in these days of extremes you may obtain some converts to your new principles. Indeed, one of your associates suggested to me the necessity of falling in with the spirit of the times. Yet you ought to look to others besides men of warm passions and headlong zeal. For the success of your society among the Christian churches, I suppose you must look to the great body of experienced ministers and reflecting Christians who are not borne away by an impracticable radicalism, but who have good sense,

strong judgments, sound wisdom. Can they be made to understand the gospel as you understand it? Must they not see, that your construction of the precepts of Christ goes to the abolition of all punishment in families and in society, and to the annihilation of all government?

For success also, I suppose, you must look to the great body of the citizens; for your whole hope is to operate by public opinion. And now it appears to me that you have a more difficult work before you, to bring public opinion to fall in with your views, than ever before was undertaken by a man of your experience and acquaintance with the world. Though you may admit, inconsistently with your construction of the precepts of Christ, the right of imprisonment, which is doing evil to the wicked, instead of forgiving them, yet others, more consistent, deny the right of punishment altogether. The plain, common sense people, whom you wish to convert to your faith, will, I am afraid, be disposed to ask you if you will punish at all. "How, Sir, if you may not use a deadly instrument, will you be able to catch the murderer, who has a sword in his hand? Will you noose him with a lasso, as the South American catches a wild bull? Can you even do this, for may he not carry a pistol or a rifle? May he not thus set at defiance all the authorities of the country, if they may not use against him a weapon of death? And should you get him into prison, how, without such a weapon, can you allow him even to take the air of the yard? And will you cruelly keep him shut up always in his cell? Is this to love and forgive him? Was it a crime in our fathers to resist the invading armies of Great Britain? Is it a crime in our southern and western brethren to defend themselves at any time against the tomahawk of the savage, or the assaults of ruffians and pirates?" Can you persuade the people to abandon all preparation for defence, and to give up their firesides and families to every invader? You go even further than Robert Barclay, the Quaker, by speaking for the present magistrates of the Christian world, who have not "ome up to the pure dispensation." These are his words: "And therefore, while they are in that condition, we shall not say, that war, undertaken upon a just occasion, is altogether unlawful to them."

It is with unfeigned grief, that I am thus constrained to dwell upon what, in my view, are the blighted prospects of your society. You have done much for its interests; you have not withheld your money nor your labors in the cause of peace. The friends of the Peace Society were increasing. It was strong in argument and reason; and reasonable men could be addressed without blushing. By patience, you might have lived to see the fruit of your toils. But the age of radicalism had arrived. You saw the effects of flaming zeal, and you wished to enlist the energies of religious enthusiasm in the cause of your society, that it might thrive and grow rapidly, like some other institutions. The simplicity of the principle-the gospel forbids all war-which Mr. Grimké had advocated, struck you as admirable and efficient. A small ecclesiastical body far away in Michigan espoused the Quaker principle; and I think it has been stated, that a few other ecclesiastical bodies, whether Methodist or Baptist I know not, have followed in the same path. And now, at the late ninth annual meeting, the Peace Society, by a vote of the members present, have incorporated that principle into the consti

tution.

I most sincerely deplore the course which has been adopted; for I cannot resist the persuasion, that your society, in its present form, is to all important purposes and results dead. I have loved the American Peace Society; I have hoped for its success; but now I am not sure but many of its friends will be led to inquire, whether they have not mistaken the way of promoting peace?-whether the spread of the gospel is not a better way than laboring to propagate even the correct principles of peace abstractedly and separately?— whether it is possible to change the face of the world in regard to peace, except by the power on the human heart of the gospel of peace, preached by the intelligent, devoted ministers of Jesus Christ? As I may never have occasion to address you again on the subject of peace, permit me to say, that I truly honor you for your past efforts in what I deem an excellent cause. Even in your toils to promote your new Quaker principle, I could wish you success, provided your first converts,-the first to be persuaded to abandon the "law of violence," or the use of the sword,-shall be the men on whose eye the gleam of the sword of justice is terrifying, the robber, the pirate, the murderer, the men of crime and blood. But I trust, my dear Sir, that after a few years' experience of your present plan, --for I hope you will yet live many years,-you will abandon it, and return to labors which promise a harvest, not of disappointment, but of great and permanent good. WILLIAM Allen.

Brunswick, Me., August 4, 1837.

II. MR. LADD'S ANSWER TO DR. ALLEN'S LETTER.

DEAR SIR, I received a copy of the Recorder, containing your letter to me, a fortnight after the date of the paper. Previous engagements have prevented me from answering it sooner, especially as the great importance of the subject of your letter, and the high respect I have always entertained for you, require that I should give every objection which you urge against the recent amendment of the constitution of the American Peace Society a due proportion of serious and prayerful consideration.

Having repeatedly perused your very able and ingenious letter, I sit down to answer it. I am fully sensible of the advantage you have over me in talents, acquirements, and station; yet, relying on the force of truth, and the assistance of the great Prince of peace in his own cause, I venture on the conflict in the same faith with which David met the champion of Israel's enemies. Nor is it alone your talents, learning, station, and influence, which make up the fearful odds against me; you have on your side all the inclinations of depraved nature, the prejudices of education, and popular inclination, to all of which you make a very powerful appeal.

With this introduction, I take up your letter, and answer it article by article; but limited as I necessarily must be to a small space, I shall not be able to give your several objections all the attention they demand. It is always more easy to raise objections than to answer them. An infidel can raise more objections to Christianity in an hour, than a doctor of divinity can answer in a week.

It was intended, that a circular letter should have been sent to every officer of the society, soliciting his acceptance of his appointment, before publishing the annual report. Why this was not done

I cannot tell; but probably it was for want of time, and a sufficient number of assistants. The only remaining remedy is, if you request it, to erase your name from our list of officers, however reluctant we should be to lose its influence.

Your objections to the principle of total abstinence from all war, except the second, are old acquaintances, and for several years after I had devoted my life to the holy cause of peace, I entertained them in my own bosom; and it was not until I had been brought to view the whole subject by the clear light of the gospel, unobscured by the doctrine of expediency, and the darkness of frail human reason, and in view of the unspeakable, perhaps I should say infinite, value of the immortal soul, that I was brought, very reluctantly, to part with them.

In saying this, I do not mean to claim any superior discernment or devotion to the cause of truth; but I have read almost every thing which has been written since the Reformation on both sides; and more than that, I am free from disadvantages under which you labor, viz., your near relation to the heroes of the Revolution and of the last war, and your long and intimate acquaintance with heathen authors, both of which have probably, in some degree, unperceived by you, biassed your judgment.

Your objection to the avowal of our sentiments is founded on the doctrine of expediency. You fear that "the statesmen who govern the world must look upon the society as a body of visionaries." Thus did the Roman statesmen look on the primitive church. Sir, we never expect to gain "the statesmen who govern the world," until we have gained the church; and we do not expect to gain the church by the doctrine of expediency, but by the clear exhibition of gospel truth.

I take occasion here to observe, that the obnoxious change in the constitution was not sudden and unpremeditated. The subject had been repeatedly discussed, in public and in private; and in every discussion, the principle of total abstinence from all war gained ground, as the only principle which could secure the peace of the world. Under this impression, a committee was appointed, at the annual meeting of 1836, to revise the constitution. This committee had repeated conferences with the most active and intelligent friends of peace in different sections of the country; and they finally came to the conclusion, honestly to avow the sentiments which a majority of the friends of peace, both in this country and in England, had long entertained; considering that whatever is right, is also, in the long run, expedient. The society, at their annual meeting of 1837, unanimously adopted the amendment recommended by the committee. We knew that the change would be unpopular, and that many would therefore forsake us; but we knew also, that the goodness of a cause does not depend on the number of its supporters, or the amount of its funds. The only question worth inquiry is, what is truth? not, what is popular? The American Temperance Society, by its change from the low to the high principle, has lost many of its friends, but none of its power. A peace society which should allow its members to fight when they thought it necessary, might gain "the statesmen who govern the world," and the army and navy; but it would have no more effect in banishing war from the world, than a temperance society, which should allow its members to drink

rum when they thought it necessary, would have in banishing intemperance. Tamerlane and Napoleon, par nobile fratum, and all the vulgar herd of conquerors, would join such a society, and Satan would laugh at it. My dear Sir, do you think you are advancing the Millennium by advocating such a society, and opposing one four ded on higher principles?

After having attempted to show the inexpediency of the adoption of the principle of total abstinence from all war by the society, you next endeavor to show the inexpediency of its adoption by a Christian community. To show this inexpediency, you conjure up a host of bugbears, not one of them drawn from actual history or matter of fact, but all from your very fruitful imagination; and endeavor to frighten us with the supposed consequences of adopting the pure principles of the gospel. When you can produce a single instance of a community that has adopted the principles of peace to their utmost extent, being invaded, massacred and destroyed, it may be time enough to urge the doctrine of expediency against those principles; but at present, you cannot produce one, while we can produce many, on the other side,-enough, if any were necessary, to confirm us in the belief, that "When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh his enemies to be at peace with him." Prov. 11: 7.

a

You fear that, if the principle of total abstinence from all war "should be fastened upon it," namely, the gospel, this would be " greater obstacle to its success than the resistance and persecutions of kings and emperors." This is what the opponents of orthodoxy say of the doctrine of election, and the eternity of future punishment. They endeavor to bring down the gospel to the standard of their fallible reason, and so do you.

Under your second head, you attempt to prove that the primitive Christians engaged in war. In this you are original. All your other arguments have been a thousand times repeated. In order to prove your assertion, you say that "not a writer among the Christian fathers for a century after the birth of Christ, alludes to the question of the right of war." There was no more call for the fathers of the primitive church to preach against war to their couverts, than for the ministers of New England to preach against duelling. Such preaching would only have subjected themselves to the charge of attempting political changes, without doing any good; for the plain principles of the gospel were sufficient to keep the primitive Christians from war, while the church was pure. A Christian soldier was as rare a creature then, as a Christian duellist is now. You also quote a few words from Tertullian which could be easily accounted for, if I had room; but you say nothing of the copious extracts of a directly contrary character, which Clarkson quotes from the same Tertullian. The fact is, that the primitive Christians, for more than the two first centuries of the Christian era, "when the lamp of Christianity burnt bright," did not fight, even in self-defence, as is abundantly proved by Clarkson, and more recently by Dymond; men who had ability and leisure to devote to such inquiries. But you object to them, that they are "Quakers." I never suspected that Quakers were remarkable for falsehood and misrepresentation. But Gibbon was not a Quaker; nor was he likely to be under Quaker influence, and he is positive on the subject. I wish I had room for a whole paragraph in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Em