pire," extracted from chapter 15, cause 4. I take only one sentence chosen for its brevity. "While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil or military defence of the empire." Now could any thing be more pointed or more pertinent? Would a man who spent his whole life to build up his reputation on a single work, hazard it all by repeated and deliberate assertions of falsehood? This subject has been lately agitated in the Christian Mirror, and the very able and learned writer, who agrees with you in this thing, and perhaps is you yourself, has not yet seen fit to deny, that Celsus, who flourished near the close of the second century, did publicly attack the Christians, and asserted that "they refused in his times, to bear arms for the emperor, even in case of necessity, and when their services would have been accepted;" and this heathen writer brought the same arguments against the Christians in the second century, which you bring against the peace society in the nineteenth century, namely, a fear of the consequences. Nor does the writer in the Christian Mirror deny, that Origen, who answered Celsus in the third century, acknowledges the truth of the charge, but excuses the Christians for acting in conformity with their religion. All your arguments under this head would justify, not only defensive, but offensive war, when expedient!

Your third objection to our principles is founded on our supposed misinterpretation of the peaceable and benevolent precepts of our holy religion. It appears that you favor those precepts, if so interpreted as to suit your own feelings, but think that we carry them too far; and in order to make out your case, you gratuitously charge us with disaffection to the civil authority. This is a great mistake of yours; for there is nothing in our constitution, or official documents, which would lead any one, who chose to examine before he condemned, to suppose that we objected to the use of the sword of the magistrate in punishing crimes. We say, in the Advocate of Peace for June last, page 10, "We seek to effect such a change in public opinion, as shall secure a right and universal application of the gospel to the intercourse of Christian nations. This is all we shall ever attempt." Again, pages 15 and 16 are entirely taken up with an article complaining of this mistake, and rectifying it; expressly stating, that "this cause contemplates only the intercourse of nations, and does not involve the right of nations to punish their own subjects, or put down mobs and insurrections by the sword." Again, in our last annual report, page 27 of the Advocate, we say, "Our object is to prevent war, and we do not feel ourselves, as a society, required, or permitted, to agitate the much vexed question, whether civil government has ever the right to take the life of its own subjects." The same sentiments, a hundred times repeated, are scattered through all our publications. Frequent meetings of the friends of peace were held, the winter before last, in Boston, in which this subject was discussed, and it was almost unanimously agreed, that the peace society should not interfere with the sword of the magistrate. Sir, you have taken a great deal of pains to demolish a phantom of your imagination.

Under the same head, in order to prove that we are wrong in saying that all war is contrary to the spirit of the gospel, you bring the letter of it. To please you, we will give up the letter. But our Sav

iour's precepts mean something. I beg you would not so explain them away, as to leave us neither the letter nor the spirit.

With your dispute with Dr. Paley we have nothing to do. He is on your side, and if he falls into inconsistencies, it is no more than what happens to every writer, who attempts to reconcile any war with the spirit of the gospel. I take this opportunity to remark, that it is strange that you should give your sanction as a text book, in the institution over which you preside, to an author whom you find so inconsistent as Paley, while you reject Wayland on the same subject, who has at least the merit of being consistent with himself.

We have as little to do with your dispute with Rev. H. C. Wright. If he broached such sentiments as you accuse him of, during the short time he was our agent, he did it without our knowledge, and on his own responsibility; and nearly one half of your letter should have been addressed to him, and not to us.

Throughout your whole letter, you identify the friends of peace with the opposers of capital punishment. Of this we have great reason to complain. The States of Maine and New Hampshire have, virtually, abolished capital punishment, while not a tenth part of the advocates of the measure are any more friendly to our princiciples than yourself. It is hard, indeed, to make us responsible for the errors of our enemies as well as of our friends. A great part of your letter is taken up in proving things which we do not deny; and this gives it the appearance of having the substance of a refutation of our supposed errors, while it has only the shadow.

Another argument which you bring against us, under your fourth head, is, that there is not found, in the gospel, the short sentence, "All wars are unlawful." Are then all sins allowed which are not expressly named in the gospel? Apply the same rule to slavery, suicide, polygamy, duelling, gambling, and a thousand other sins. The whole argument, in this paragraph, referring to Cornelius, the centurion, and the Roman soldiers, would justify offensive as well as defensive war. When you can prove that Roman soldiers, converted to Christianity, continued in the practice of any war, this argument will have some weight in justifying all war. Until then, it has only the merit of plausibility.

The argument, under your fifth head, which you draw from the wars of the Jews, is worth all the others. But you will please, Sir, to remember, that these were wars of invasion and conquest, destroying men, women and children. Every argument taken from the wars of the Jews which you have made use of, would justify of fensive, as well as defensive war. Indeed, there is not, nor ever has been, any practical difference between them. All modern conquerors have declared their wars to be defensive. Bonaparte invaded Egypt to defend himself against British aggression. Britain bombarded Copenhagen, to defend herself against French invasion. We invaded Canada, to protect "free trade and sailor's rights;" and our present war with the Seminoles is called defensive, as well as the others; and yet you deny that all war is contrary to the spirit of the gospel!

Sir, I heartily thank you for your "unfeigned grief," over what you are pleased to call our "blighted prospects." You never expressed so much sympathy for us before, though all the communications with which, in former times, you have favored us, except a

short poetic effusion, and which we were so good-natured as to publish, have been attacks upon us. I hope your grief is not ominous of this last being the most fatal of them all. Had not your communications, entitled, "Defensive War Vindicated," been published in the Calumet, there would, probably, have been no occasion for amending the constitution. Had you used your fine talents in exposing the evils and sins attendant on all wars, as devotedly as you have in advocating the lawfulness of defensive war, the cause of peace, might, ere now, have been as forward as other benevolent causes. You will agree with me, in saying, that it is our friends that ruin us; but, perhaps, we shall not agree in the personal application of the assertion. I really believe, that no benevolent society had ever more reason to pray to be delivered from their friends. As much "unfeigned grief" has been expended over the "blighted prospects" of the American Temperance Society, occasioned, likewise, by their "radicalism;" but the tears shed over it, though precious, were thrown away; for the American Temperance Society has sustained the shock, and is now under full sail on the flood tide of successful experiment. I trust, that it will be the same with the American Peace Society, and the increased zeal and sacrifices of those who remain, will more than make amends for the loss of those who desert us.

You esteem our remaining friends but lightly; "the small ecclesiastical body away in Michigan" "the Quaker principle;" "Methodists or Baptists, I know not which." You seem, Sir, to make the same inquiry, which was made by the Jews of old; "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" any of "the statesmen who govern the world?" Sir, please to remember, that the whole church of Christ has been convened in an upper chamber, and "despise not the day of small things."

I have now, Sir, gone over your letter, and answered section by section, and will here sum up the points on which we differ. You adopt the principle of expediency with Paley. We reject it with Wayland. You bring down the word of God to the standard of your own reason. We think a Christian ought to receive the word of God, "as a little child."

The spirit of the gospel is manifested in the following passages. "Blessed are the poor in spirit" "the meek;" "the merciful;" "the peace-makers" "Resist not evil;" "Love your enemies;" "Bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you;" "Recompense to no man evil for evil;" "Avenge not yourselves;" "If thine enemy hunger, feed him;" "Overcome evil with good;" and a hundred other passages in the gospel of a like nature. These precepts were exemplified in the life and death of the Prince of peace. He died, that his enemies might live; and his last prayer was, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." This is the spirit of the gospel.

The spirit of all war is proud, ferocious, unmerciful, the opposite of peace-making, resisting evil, doing hurt to those who hate us, rendering evil for evil, and cursing for cursing, overcoming evil with evil, &c. These sinful qualities have been exemplified in all wars not expressly commanded by God and, sanctioned by miracles; and this is the essence and spirit of all war.

Now we say, that these things are contrary one to the other; or

in other words, that all war is contrary to the spirit of the gospel. You deny it; let the Christian public judge between us.

I allow, that in the transition state of society from war to peace, there are difficulties to be encountered similar to those which attend the change from drunkenness to temperance; but these difficulties grow out of the previous habits of intemperance and war, and will vanish away, just as fast as Christians adopt the pure principles of the gospel. Like the lions which Pilgrim encountered on the hill of Difficulty, they will be found, on a near approach, to be chained and harmless; and none but a timorous man, who lacks faith, will be frightened at them, or be prevented from walking in the path of duty, though it may be difficult, or even dangerous.

Finally, the question seems to be, not so much whether all war be inconsistent with the gospel, as whether it be not expedient sometimes to bend the gospel to our circumstances, when our own safety and that of our wives, children, and country require it? We say NO. You have smitten us on one cheek; we turn the other. You have taken from us the letter of the gospel precepts; and we beseech you, leave us the spirit. You have taken away our coat, and we have given it up without murmuring; leave us our cloak. We would fain give you that also, but it is not ours to give; it is our Master's; and we shall "contend earnestly" for it. But "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal;" we shall use only the "sword of the Spirit," and look to God for help; and if we get the victory, give Him all the glory.

In view of the whole subject, we do not see why any one, who sincerely wishes to see the prophecies fulfilled, and wars and fightings cease, should withdraw his support and influence from the peace society, only because the leading men in it have expressed their belief in the abstract proposition, that all war is contrary to the spirit of the gospel. Our tracts, our lectures, and our measures will not be changed by this avowal. We shall still strive for a congress of nations, and we shall solicit the prayers and alms of Christians, as much as ever. We do not think there is any danger of making the world too peaceable. If any should think we go too far, that is not a sufficient reason why he should not go at all, or weaken our hands by encouraging any war. There are friends of war enough for that. If those who tolerate defensive war will not help us forward, they have no good reason for pulling us back.

Nevertheless, I am sorry to see an intimation, that this is the last I am to hear from you. I should be glad to continue the discussion; for I have been obliged to omit half my facts and arguments for want of room; fearing that, if I should be more prolix, I should be rejected by the editors, or at least, mutilated. Let us take up one topic at a time, and amicably and candidly discuss it; and particularly, let us no! waste our time on subjects on which you do not know that we differ.

In conclusion, Sir, I beg you to accept the assurance of my high consideration and respect for your virtues, your talents, your acquire ments and your station in society. Ever since our first acquaintance, I have always been your personal friend, and I hope I shall always remain, Yours in the bonds of peace, WM. LADD.

Minot, Me., Sept. 12, 1837.

Mr. L. was obliged to be so brief on the most important point, that we shall

take it up in a future number.-ED.

ARTICLE V.

TWENTY-FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF THE LONDON PEACE

SOCIETY.

I. ABSTRACT OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT FOR 1837.

1. Home operations. New editions of some of the Society's octavo and duodecimo tracts have been published; making altogether 39,000 copies within the year, and a total of 782,000 since the establishment of the Society.

The Committee have much pleasure in acknowledging the gift of 1,000 copies of a pamphlet, entitled "The Cause of the Heavy Burdens of Great Britain" (the expense of printing which was mainly borne by two zealous Friends), and 300 Charts of the Wars of the British Empire, by John Allen, of Liskeard.* They have purchased 2,500 copies of the Newcastle Prize Essay, and 500 copies of an Invitation to join the Peace Society. The sales and distributions this year have been upwards of 36,000. Tracts have been forwarded for distribution among the Primitive Wesleyan Methodist ministers, at their Conference at Lynn; and for the ministers of the Wesleyan New Connection, in Conference at Liverpool and Birmingham; and by, the prompt exertions of Joseph Christy, Esq. a copy of the Society's Tract, No. 4, Extracts from Erasmus, has been addressed to each member of the House of Cominons. Your Committee have availed themselves of opportunities afforded by the kind agency of missionaries, and others, to forward tracts to Australia, India, Canada, the West India islands, and France.

Contributions to the society from all sources amounted during the year to £842. 14s. 3d. nearly $4,000;—a small sum, yet more than twice as much as the friends of peace in this country have ever contributed in any one year before the last.

The Report, after mentioning the voluntary labors of the Society's secretaries as lecturers, the distribution of its tracts, the formation of a Ladies' Association at Penrith, the condition of its auxiliaries, and some changes in its officers on account of death and disease, details a movement of the friends of peace which might be generally followed with the prospect of as good success as attended similar efforts on the subjects of the slave trade and slavery.

Petitions on Peace. Petitions to both Houses of Parliament have been received from Southampton; that to the Lords, was confided

*This compendium of important statistical facts, connected with war, is entitled, “A Chronological Chart of the Wars of Britain, from the Revolution in 1688-9 to 1835, with a view of some of their chief causes, actors, and consequences."