Of the numerous wars recorded in history, how few have been commenced upon justifiable principles. An invincible lust of avarice, joined to a tyrannizing and despotic ambition, has plunged the nations of the earth in unreasonable animosities, and deluged the world with the innocent blood of millions. By what rule of reason, by what precept of the gospel, do we Christians set up the banners of defiance, and sharpen the sword for each other's destruction? --

Followers of a meek and lowly master, professors of a religion which breathes no other spirit than that of universal forbearance and universal goodwill, is it a part of your creed to murder a fellow creature who has never done you any injury, and against whom you have not the slightest personal ill will? Of all the various combinations of folly and wickedness, surely this is at once the most diabolical and most ridiculous! - The conviction that it is for the interest and happiness of all parties to be at peace with each other, forces itself upon the mind too strongly to be dispelled by any wretched motives of expediency or policy. Peace has uniformly profited all nations; war has uniforinly depopulated and impoverished them. I solemnly believe and hope that there is not at this moment a country under the face of heaven, the great mass of whose inhabitants does not, with heart and soul, wish for wars to cease in all the world. Ask the husbandman what is his opinion; he will tell you, he should be glad to hear that they had beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks.

と

Put the same question to the tradesinan, to the merchant, to the manufacturer, to the day labourer, and to the poor at large; and they will all answer, with one voice, We abhor, we detest war; it takes from us the hard-earned fruits of our labour, and gives us nothing but poverty and misery in return.

If we attend to the consequences of war, what a wide field it opens to our view of misery and distress; here the picture of desolation is completed, and we view this abominable scourge of mankind as it appears when divested of its extraneous embellishments, and arrayed in the dismal garb of truth. At the final issue of an obstinate contest, there must necesarily be many lives lost on both sides; Destruction has then done her worst, and selected the objects of her fury: the grave, that tells no tales, silently receives her myriads of murdered souls, and ungrateful ambition, forgetting the blood with which victory was purchased, dwells only with rapture on the glory of her conquest.

Oh that the great ones of the earth, were but a little more inclined to the reflection! What conquest was ever worth the useful lives lost to accomplish it? What battle was ever fought that did not hurry thousands of trembling and unprepared souls into the presence of their offended redeemer? O God! when thou makest inquisition for blood, upon whom wilt thou lay the guilt of those torrents that have been shed for no earthly purpose whatever, but to gratify the detestable and insolent ambition of a few poor puny creatures like ourselves.

At the conclusion of a spirited and long contested war, there is scarcely a cottage to be met with that does not bear visible marks of its fruits: in one miserable hut you may behold, seated at their scanty meal,

4

a mother and her tribe of half starved children; but father you will find none: death met him in the field of battle, and in a moment made his children fatherless, and his wife a widow. Here you view an aged couple, bent double with infirmities and years, and God knows, but little capable to sustain a protracted journey through the winter of ife; yet hoping to see better days when the war is ended, and their children have returned. Time, that at length brings all things to bear, finishes the war; but time does not bring back their children.

To the artificial advantages of war, I oppose, with confidence, the

real losses of mankind.

To the pomp and splendour of martial heroism, I oppose the orphan's tears and the widows cry; and to the vain and idle boast of the victor, the sad and untimely fate of the vanquished.

When the glories of battle are the theme of conversation, how seldom are those remembered who fought and who fell in it! Twenty thousand, of what are called common soldiers, might perish, and no one concern himself to enquire how they died, or were they where buried, but let inhuman pride be told, that every one of those poor men who thus fell neglected and forgotten, were as faithful to their country, had dispositions as good, had hearts as brave and honest, and souls as dear, as the noblest and greatest warrior among them.

How often are the common soldiers doomed to beg bitter bread through realins their valour saved! while too many who are conversant only in the knavery of war, and without virtue, labour, or hazard, are growing rich as their country is impoverishing; and their infamies rewarded at length by equipages that shine like meteors, and palaces that rise like exhalations!

War, being thus a national misfortune, and of benefit to those only who of all others least deserve to be benefited, can never be looked upon with complacency, in the erroneous light of a necessary evil: arguments are not wanted to prove that men were never created to be a scourge and nuisance to one another. We have but to reflect upon the nature of life, and all animosities must instantly vanish. Fellow travellers through a vale of sorows, fellow sufferers in a world of wretchedness, all setting out from the same spot, all bound to the same place, all encountering the same enemy-death, all exploring the same unknown region-the grave, all sleeping silent in the dust and forgotten, all rising from the dead, when every man shall receive his own reward!

When we consider life in this awful point of view, it is astonishing how Christian nations can make war upon each other, or forbear to live together in unity like brethren.

REMARKS

ON

MR. ROWLES'S PAMPHLET AGAINST THE RESTORATION.

SIR,

A CALVINIST friend informed me the other day of a small pamphlet

recently published against the doctrine of the restoration; perhaps supposing, from my known sentiments, that I ought to read it. I accordingly begged of him to procure me one: it is entitled→→→→→→ "Thoughts on Universal Restitution, in a Letter to a Friend, by S, Rowles." The epistle begins thus—

"Dear Sir, I send you my thoughts on universal restitution. It is supposed that there will obtain a period when fallen angels and the whole race of Adam, without exception, will be perfectly happy in the presence of God for ever. I never heard nor read much on the subject, and therefore am not competent to a discussion of it in the various views which may be laid before you by those who espouse it, but cheerfully pen my mind upon it. I will lay down three propositions—

“I.That the will of God is the source of every good the creature enjoys, in time or eternity. Jamės, i. 17.

“II. That whatever good is willed for the creature, it is sure to be enjoyed. Isaiah, xliii. 13. xlvi. 10. lv. 3. Eph. i. 11. "And,

III. That there is no blessing willed but the word reveals it.Thy word is truth." John xvii. 17, &c.

“If the restitutionist will not allow ine the above propositions, little good can arise from reasoning with him."

Lagree with Mr. Rowles in believing that little good can arise from reasoning on the subject but in conformity to the rules he has laid down for that purpose. Persons of the same sentiment with our author have talked largely of the secret will of God. Now though I cannot close in with such an absurd and unscriptural notion, yet in the text connected with that referred to in connection with that referred in confirmation of the first proposition, I see something that intimates his (God's) will in the accomplishment of an universal restoration; or else, what propriety is there in the apostle's phraseology, “That we might be a kind of FIRST-fruits of his creatures.

"andly. Whatever good is willed for the creature is sure to be enjoyed;" I add, ultimately so; "for God is not willing that any should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance." 2 Pet. iii. 9. With this is connected salvation, see 2 Cor. vii. 10. and is farther corroborated. by Paul, 1 Tim. ii. 4, 5, 6. “Who, (says he) will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time.” 3dly. All this we see the word reveals.

Mr. R. says, "The love of God is a pleasing theme; but it is not to be estimated by the passion of human nature." How far this assertion is right, will be seen by referring to John, i. 4-7, where what is here termed the passion of human nature is considered in itself of a divine origin.

"The apostle's apothegm (we are told) contains a delightful truth, GOD IS LOVE; but love in God is one of his perfections, or God himself loving, and cannot be detached from his nature or essence, and in its exercise it must be absolutely free; that is, there can be no previous qualification in its object to deserve it, now can any after compensation be made to him by the objects of it. His design is to glorify himself in glorifying the objects of his love." But who are they? Mr. R. believes a certain determinate number, whom God has made choice of, and that especially share in his affection. I do not dispute that God loves some especially, but not exclusively; yet, viewing mankind simply as his creatures, one may join issue with Peter, saying, "Of a truth, God is no respecter of persons." Psalın cxlv. 9. John, iii, 16. Heb. ii. 9. As to the concluding part of the quotation, “ His design is to be glorified himself in glorifying the objects of his love;" let Paul answer-"Every tongue shall confess, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, that Jesus Christ is Lord (of all— who gave himself a ransom for all) to the glory of God the Father." See Phil. ii. 10, 11, Rev. v 13.

Mr. R, speaking of the duration of future punishment, concludes, “And everlasting (endless) it must be, because Jesus, the only saviour of sinners, took not on him the nature of angels." This is tacitly allowing, that if Christ took on him the nature of angels, (and here it is to be observed, fallen angels are intended) their restoration must take place in consequence, notwithstanding God's absolute decree of reprobation; how well this agrees with Mr. R 's avowed opinions, I leave you to determine. Besides, this once granted, by the same inode of reasoning we may say, that, as Christ took on him human nature, 50 all men will be saved, which Mr. R. does not believe is plain from his publication. But Mr. R. perhaps may raise a quibble on the term seed of Abraham, the use of which expression of the apostle is easily accounted for when it is remembered of what nation the people were to whom he wrote. See Acts, xvii. 16. 1 Cor. xv. 39. Reading of the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, I associate with it the idea of blood; but could this have been shed by only an immaterial being? Surely not; for that reason Jesus did not take on him the nature of angels. Is Mr.R. though such a metaphysician, able to prove there is any difference between the divine nature of Christ and that of angels, except is degree of perfection? If no more forcible objection can be brought against the doctrine of universal restoration than this, it must certainly remain true.

Mr. R. says, he does not " rejoice in the eternal misery of any creature, considered as such;" why them, (for it seems implied he does from some other consideration) I am inclined to believe it is because, as he elsewhere expresses it, "This awful state of theirs is according to the

appointment and ordination of him whose will is irreversible, and whe sitteth in the throne, judging right, 1 Thes. v. 9. 1 Pet. ii. 9." No part of the word of God can be properly produced that will support the doctrine of absolute personal reprobation, in the Calvinistic sense, nor do those texts in the least contribute to it. I recommend Mr. R. to look again at 1 Pet. ii, 9, and by that to explain the cause of a being appointed to wrath, r Thes. v. 9.

All this, we are informed, is of him who sitteth on the throne judging right. But, according to Mr. R. judgment is out of the question, being superceded by the irreversible will of the Almighty, who yet himself solemnly avers, I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth.

Mr. R. enquires, “Can any one believe that fallen angels and the whole race of mankind are the objects of divine love, or designed for everlasting bliss, unless the Bible reveals the end and the means?" I answer, this restoration is to be effected by means of Christ; for he

hath put all things under his feet: but when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him." (Though we see not as yet all things 'put under him; but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, when he shall put down all rule and all authority, and power, for he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; then cometh the end." See 1 Cor. xv. Heb. ii. After commenting on Mat. xxv. 34. Mr. R. adds, "I have spoken of the end of things, or the final state of men;" I think not, as instanced in the last Scripture; and especially as the earth, in its burning state, after the day of judgment, is to be the place of punishment, is plain from 2 Pet. iii 7., and that the general conflagration is to be succeeded by the new creation, when New Jerusalem shall descend from God out of heaven. Rev. xxi. 1, 2.

"The restitutionist has to prove (says the write) that every individual of the human race is included in the term body, spouse, or church of Christ." It is certain, that this epithet, comprehending the two former, cannot be applied to every individual, in the present state; but yet this does not affect the doctrine here defended. See 1 John, i. 1, 2. I hope I am not harsh (I would not be) in saying the good minister is here dogmatizing, and not arguing. If Mr. R.'s pamphlet was only expected to fall into the hands of men of the same sentiment with himself, he needed not to lay aside his prepossessions to convince the reader. But when it was more than likely to be perused by those of different views, he ought to have endeavoured to prove the doctrine of election, according to his scheme, to be couched under those relative names, and submitted the whole to impartial examination.

Mr. R. goes on If any come into condemnation, and yet be afterwards delivered, such supposed deliverance must be obtained either, first, without an atonement; but this is contrary to Heb. ix. 22. Without shedding of blood there is no remission" or, secondly, by