five foolish virgins in the 25th of Matthew; the converfion of the Gentiles to chriftianity, and their reception into Abraham's faith, &c.

We país to take notice of 2d Theff. i. 7, 8, 9. My opponent depends on the words, "everlasting deftruction," on which to found his argument against the falvation of all men ; but as I have before proved, that the word, everlafting, does not neceffarily mean an endless duration, my opponent would fail in his argument, even if he could fhow, that the word, everlasting, in the text, was applied to the duration of fuffering; but this he cannot do; for the word, everlasting, is not applied to the duration of punishment, but to the deftruction with which the finner is punifhed. That which is deftroyed, I grant, is endlessly deftroyed. But here I call in my key text, to show, that it is the hay, wood and ftubble, which are to be destroyed. This will appear evident, if we observe the nature of the fire mentioned in our text. "And to you who are troubled, reft with us, when the Lord Jefus fhall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance," &c. This fire is that in which Chrift is revealed, and it comes from heaven. Is not this the fire with which he baptizes? Is not the fire revealed, to destroy the hay, the wood, and the ftubble? Undoubtedly; and is the endless mifery of the finner to be proved, from the action of that divine fire which alone is able to effect his falvation? But the objector fays, the text reads for itfelf, "Who fhall be punished with everlasting destruction, from the prefence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" and if the finner be punished from the prefence of the Lord, he cannot be bleffed in it, where there are joys forever more. Answer, there

is not a place in the univerfe which is out of the prefence of an omniprefent God; therefore, to put a finner from the prefence of the Lord, he muft be put out of the univerfe. But what means the text? fays the reader; answer, that divine light and heat, which deftroys moral darkness, and purges man from all fin is from the prefence of the Lord as a production of the divine prefence, as it is written concerning the man of fin, whom the Lord fhall confume with the breath of his mouth, and destroy with the brightnefs of his coming. If God were not able to punish the finner, in the manner described in the text, I should despair of his falvation; but bleffed be that divine fpirit of light and love; it truly takes fuch vengeance on the finner as is worthy of a God. It makes him hate fin, 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 paffage in the 12th of Matthew, the 31ft and 32d verfes, which has been contended for as an unanswerable objection to univerfal falvation. The text reads thus, "Wherefore I fay unto you, all manner of fin and blafphemy fhall be forgiven unto men; but the blafphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whofoever fpeaketh a word against the Son of man, it fhall be forgiven him; but whofoever fpeaketh against the Holy Ghoft, it fhall 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 prefent life of man on earth, and that ftate in which man exifts hereafter. Could it be proved, that this was the right meaning of the word, world, there would be fomething more in the text than I can now fee. Some, who

have ably defended the doctrine of universal falvation, have admitted the common idea of the paffage, fo far as it goes to prove future mifery, yet, have abundantly proved, that it would come to an end: But if the word world, have the fignification of age, or difpenfation, as will not be difputed, it will be impoffible to prove,, that any thing, beyond what may be experienced by men, in this mortal ftate, was intended, in this text. We are informed, that Chrift came once in the end of the world, to put away fin, by the facrifice of himself. The world, in the end of which Christ came, was undoubtedly the difpenfation of the legal priesthood; according to which idea, the world, which was then to come, is the difpenfation of gofpel light which rose on the gentile world, for the purpose of bringing them to the knowledge and worship of the true God; which difpenfation ends with the converfion of the fulness of the Gentiles, and will be fucceeded by that in which Ifrael will be vifited by the spirit of their Meffiah, and fhall fay, Bleffed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord.

What I have written on this fubject will fhow the reader the propriety of fuppofing, that the fin, which the pharifees committed, in blafpheming the Holy Spirit, by which Chrift wrought miracles, has been visited upon their defcendants even to this day, and will continue upon them, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. But I fee 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 fee it proved, from these words.

Could it be proved, that eternal or endless mif cry was a natural production of the divine nature, there being an unchangeable principle to fupport fuch mifery; the argument, on my part, muft be given up. If fin be, in a moral fenfe, the caufe of mitery; fhould fin ever be brought to an end, its confequences, which are mifery, would alfo come to an end. If my opponent can tell me how Jefus will finish fin, and make an end of tranfgreffion, and yet fin and tranfgreffion continue as long as God exifts, he will puzzle me more than all his objec tions have been able to do.

Having answered, as I hope, to the reader's fat. isfaction, fome of the moft important objections againft God's univerfal goodnefs to his creatures, I fhall now turn on the other hand, and give the reader fome of my evidences for believing in the fo much defpifed doctrine of univerfal holiness and happiness. First, I reafon from the nature of divine goodness, in which all pretend to believe, and none dare, in a direct fenfe, to deny, that God could not, confiftent with himself, create a being that would experience more mifery than happiness. Secondly, if God be infinitely good, his goodness is commenfurate 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 deftitute of it, would prove, that Deity's knowledge did not comprehend fuch being. Thirdly, there is as much propriety, in faying, that God is infinite in power, but that he did not create all things; as there is, in saying, though God be infinite in goodnefs, yet, part of his creatures will never be the partakers of it. It might as well be faid, that God is infinite in knowledge, and yet ignorant of the most part of events which

are daily and hourly taking place; as to fay, that he is infinitely good, and yet only a few of his creatures were defigned for happinefs. Fourthly, if the Almighty, as we believe him to be, did not poffefs power fufficient to make all his creatures happy, it was not an act of goodness in him to create them. If he have that power, but poffefs no will for it, it makes a bad matter as much worfe as is poffible. I then reduce my opponent to the neceflity of telling me, if thofe, whom he believes will be endlessly loft, be thofe whom God could fave, but would not or thofe whom he woul! fave, but could not! if it be granted, that God has both power and will to fave all men, it is granting all I want, for a foundation of my faith.

I would further argue, that, as man is conftituted 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 confummate 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 fatisfied with thofe enjoyments which earth and time afford him; the foul is conftituted for nobler pleasures, which, to me, is an evidence that God has provided, for all men, fome better things than can be found in earthly enjoyments, where we find but little except vanity and difappointment. There is an immortal defire, in every foul, for future existence and happiness: For the truth of this affertion I appeal to the confciences of my readers. Why fhould the Almighty implant this defire in us, if he never intended to fatisfy it? Suppofing a mother has the power of modifying the defires and appetite of her child, would fhe cause it to want that which he could