there is not a place in the universe which is out of the presence of an omnipresent God; therefore, to put a sinner from the presence of the Lord, he must be put out of the universe. But what means

the text? says the reader; answer, that divine light and heat, which destroys moral darkness, and purges man from all sin is from the presence of the Lord as a production of the divine presence, as it is written concerning the man of sin, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of his coming. If God were not able to punish the sinner, in the manner described in the text, I should despair of his salvation; but blessed be that divine spirit of light and love; it truly takes such vengeance on the sinner as is worthy of a God. It makes him hate sin, brings down the high mountains of his pride, takes away the fig-leaf garment, and clothes the man in his right mind.

There is a passage in the 12th of Matthew, the 31st and 32d verses, which has been contended for as an unanswerable objection to universal salvation. The text reads thus, "Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come." The common idea of this world and the world to come, is the present life of man on earth, and that state in which man exists hereafter. Could it be proved, that this was the right meaning of the word, world, there would be somethnig more in the text than I can now see. Some, who

have ably defended the doctrine of universal salvation, have admitted the common idea of the passage, so far as it goes to prove future misery, yet, have abundantly proved, that it would come to an end: But if the word world, have the signification of age, or dispensation, as will not be disputed, it will be impossible to prove, that any thing, beyond what may be experienced by men, in this mortal state, was intended, in this text. We are informed, that Christ came once in the end of the world, to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself. The world, in the end of which Christ came, was undoubtedly the dispensation of the legal priesthood; according to which idea, the world, which was then to come, is the dispensation of gospel light which rose on the Gentile world, for the purpose of bringing them to the knowledge and worship of the true God; which dispensation ends with the conversion of the fulness of the Gentiles, and will be succeeded by that in which Israel will be visited by the spirit of their Messiah, and shall say, Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord.

What I have written on this subject will show the reader the propriety of supposing, that the sin, which the pharisees committed, in blaspheming the Holy Spirit, by which Christ wrought miracles, has been visited upon their descendants even to this day, and will continue upon them, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. But I see no need of carrying the meaning of these words to an endless eternity, or even beyond the experience of man in this natural life. Therefore, admitting the doctrine of future punishment true, I cannot see it proved, from these words.

Could it be proved, that eternal or endless mis

ery was a natural production of the divine nature, there being an unchangeable principle to support such misery; the argument, on my part, must be given up. If sin be, in a moral sense, the cause of misery; should sin ever be brought to an end, its consequences, which are misery, would also come to an end. If my opponent can tell me how Jesus will finish sin, and make an end of transgression, and yet sin and transgression continue as long as God exists, he will puzzle me more than all his objections have been able to do.

Having answered, as I hope, to the reader's satisfaction, some of the most important objections against God's universal goodness to his creatures, I shall now turn on the other hand, and give the reader some of my evidences for believing in the so much despised doctrine of universal holiness and happiness. First, I reason from the nature of divine goodness, in which all pretend to believe, and none dare, in a direct sense, to deny, that God could not, consistent with himself, create a being that would experience more misery than happiness. Secondly, if God be infinitely good, his goodness is commensurate with his power and knowledge; then, all beings whom his power produced, are the objects of his goodness; and to prove, that any being was destitute of it, would prove, that Deity's knowledge did not comprehend such being. Thirdly, there is as much propriety, in say ing, that God is infinite in power, but that he did not create all things; as there is, in saying, though God be infinite in goodness, yet, part of his creatures will never be the partakers of it. It might as well be said, that God is infinite in knowledge, and yet ignorant of the most part of events which are daily and hourly taking place; as to say, that

he is infinitely good, and yet only a few of his creatures were designed for happiness. Fourthly, if the Almighty, as we believe him to be, did not possess power sufficient to make all his creatures happy, it was not an act of goodness in him to create them. If he have that power, but possess no will for it, it makes a bad matter as much worse as is possible. I then reduce my opponent to the necessity of telling me, if those, whom he believes will be endlessly lost, be those whom God could save, but would not! or those whom he would save, but could not! if it be granted, that God has both power and will to save all men, it is granting all I want, for a foundation of my faith.

I would further argue, that, as man is constituted to enjoy happiness, on moral principles, (to the knowledge of which principles we come by degrees) it is as reasonable to believe that all men were intended to obtain a consummate knowledge of the moral principles of their nature, as that any of Adam's race were. There is not an individual of the whole family of man, who is perfectly satisfied with those enjoyments which earth and time afford him; the soul is constituted for nobler pleasures, which, to me, is an evidence that God has provided, for all men, some better things than can be found in earthly enjoyments, where we find but little except vanity and disappointment. There is an immortal desire, in every soul, for future existence and happiness: For the truth of this assertion I appeal to the consciences of my readers. Why should the Almighty implant this desire in us, if he never intended to satisfy it? Supposing a mother has the power of modifying the desires and appetite of her child, would she cause it to want that which she could not get for

1

it? Would she take pleasure in seeing her child pine for fruits which did not grow in the country where she lived, and which she could not get? Or, would she prefer the anguish of the child, to its happiness, when it was in her power to grant all it wanted? If such a mother were to be found, who would call her a godly woman? Could her child, thus tormented, rise up and call her blessed? No, surely, it could not.

I further argue, that, all wise, good, and examplary men, wish for the truth of the doctrine for which I contend; they earnestly pray for the salvation of all men, and do all in their power, by the grace of God, to dissuade men from sin, to the obedience of the gospel; they enlist willingly into the service of virtue, to endeavor to win proselytes to holiness; their object is the destruction of sin, and the advancement of righteousness; and they believe, and I think justly, that God will bless their labors.

None, but wicked men, would wish for the endless duration of sin; were it letf to the carnal mind, it would wish for nothing but the privilege of drinking in iniquity forever. But those, who truly love God and holiness, desire, night and day, to overcome the vile propensities, of their own deceitful hearts, and pray for the reconciliation of others to holiness and happiness. Now, why should we suppose that God is more of the mind of the wicked, than of the righteous? If it be God's spirit in us, which causes us to pray for the destruction of sin, is it reasonable, to say, that this same spirit has determined that sin shall always exist? Are we not right, in judging of the nature and character of God, from the dictates of his spirit in us? If so, does this spirit teach us the