culars. If they say that God did not will that Adam should stand or his children obey, I should like to hear how they would account for the justice of God in punishing them for disobedience.

Whatever God absolutely wills or purposes to be done, will undoubtedly, be accomplished: but God does not absolutely will the salvation of any man, independent of moral principles.God absolutely wills the salvation of the righteous, while he as absolutely wills the condemnation of the wicked.

Thus we see God's will, pleasure, and purposes are absolute as respects the destiny of a wicked or righteous character: but, when we view man, as a subject of God's moral government, we view him, in relation to that government, not as a necessary agent, but free to obey or disobey; and although God wills that man should obey him, that will is not absolute; for if it is how comes man to disobey? It is obvious that the accomplishment of God's will and purposes, in relation to man, as a moral agent, while in a state of trial, is not absolute, but suspended on something the creature has to do. This is a truth that cannot be contradicted. Was it not the will of God that Adam should obey him? If you say yes, then God's will is not absolute; otherwise you admit that Adam frustrated the absolute will of God. If you say it was not the will of God that Adam should obey you charge God with hypocrisy, for holding it out to Adam as his will when it was not so, and make him an unjust tyrant, in punishing him when he had not gone contrary to his Maker's will.

Thus we discover the endless difficulties and absurdities that universalians run into by understanding 1st Timothy, ii, 4, in an absolute sense.

I have been astonished, when looking at the context, in which the controverted passage stands, that any man should ever have thought that this passage of scripture supported the doctrine of unconditional salvation for all men. Paul commences this chapter by exhorting Timothy to pray for all classes of mankind, whether high or low. "For this," says he,

"is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." What truth? Why, that there was one God and one mediator between God and man-the man Christ Jesus, who " gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, whereunto (or for which purpose) I am ordained a preacher and an apostle." For what purpose? That through Paul's preaching, as a means, all mankind should unconditionally be saved! What unconditionally saved, through means? If God intended to save men unconditionally why resort to means, when it was his intention to save whether the means succeeded or not? No, sirs, the whole scope of the context goes to show, that it was the will of God, that all men, high and low, should obtain a knowledge of redemption through a mediator. For this Paul preached (whereunto he was ordained a preacher) for this he exhorted Timothy to pray. But will any man undertake to say, that all men come to a knowledge of this interesting truth? How many in the apostles' time spurned it from them? How many since? Nay, the apostle Paul tells us elsewhere, that notwithstanding it was the will of God, that all men should be saved, and come to a knowledge of this interesting plan for the recovery of a lost world, yet that very gospel that he was ordained to preach was the power of God, to the salvation of those only who believe.

That God wills the salvation of all men, upon gospel principles, will not be denied: but what are those principles?— that whether a man lives righteously or wickedly, he shall be saved? Not so. Paul says, 2d Thessalonians, ch. i. "When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."

Let us, now examine some of the arguments predicated on the power of God, and, in so doing, take the universalian on his own ground. He says God is able to accomplish whatever

he wills: God wills the salvation of all men; therefore, all men will be saved.

To show the fallacy of this reasoning, a few parallel cases are presented:

God is able to accomplish whatever he wills; but he wills all men to obey the gospel; do all men obey the gospel?

Again: God is able to accomplish whatever he wills; but God once willed that Adam should not eat of the forbidden fruit; did Adam abstain from eating the forbidden fruit?

Once more: God is able to accomplish whatever he wills; but God wills that all men shall come to a knowledge of the truth; do all men attain this knowledge?

Thus is exposed the fallacy of the argument that because God wills the salvation of all men, and is in possession of unlimited power, therefore all men must be saved.

The truth is, God's will and power are never exercised but in harmony with his other attributes. If his wisdom has executed a plan of government by which his own glory shall be displayed and the good of his creatures promoted and regulated, we may rest assured that he will not exert his power to overthrow that plan.

Having said thus much on the will of God, I will offer a few reflections on the pleasure and purpose of God. And first the pleasure of the Lord.

The prophet, speaking from the mouth of the Lord, says, "I will do all my pleasure." And again, "As I live," saith the Lord, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked."

From scriptures of the foregoing import universalians have drawn the triumphant conclusion, that as the Almighty has declared, that he will do all his pleasure, and that he has no pleasure in the death of any, therefore all men will unquestionably be saved!

Answer: we have no hesitancy in acknowledging our firm persuasion that God swore to the truth, when he said, as I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked. But what puz zles us is, that the Almighty should have appeared so anxious

to have the Israelites turn, when he intended to save them, whether they turned or not.

We are now ready for the question, Is God's pleasure always accomplished?

Answer: whenever God's pleasure is absolute, it is always accomplished. It was once the pleasure of God to place man in a state of holiness and happiness. This he accomplished. Again it was the pleasure of God that man should remain holy and happy. Did he do so? Thus we see those terms must be understood sometimes in an absolute sense and at other times not, according as the subject may require, where the term is used. It is by confounding the different uses of those terms that universalians endeavour to carry out conclusions in favour of their system.

Just so in respect to God's purposes. All his absolute purposes he invariably accomplishes. He purposed, before the foundation of the world to make man and to govern him on moral principles. This purpose was absolute. It has never been frustrated, nor ever will be. He made man a free agent, subject to change, with a fixed purpose to deal with him according to his changes. Had man continued upright he would have continued happy. As he did not continue upright, and still re fuses to avail himself of the only provision that infinite wisdom and goodness could devise, consistently with his own glory and the interest of man, he has no right to claim the privilege of entering into judgment with his Maker.

D 2

ESSAY II.

The Right of private Judgment considered, with miscellaneous Arguments on the Punishment of the Wicked.

"Hearken to me: I also will show mine opinion.-Job, Chap. 32 v. 10.

We commence this Essay with a few remarks on the right of private judgment.

The right to think for ourselves, and the privilege of forming our opinions, according to the best light we have, and the best evidence we can obtain on the interesting truths essential to our present and future happiness, has been guarantied to us by no less an authority than that of the Great Being: nevertheless we find that, in every age of the world, there have been men who have usurped the authority of the Most High, and have claimed the right of controlling the belief and overruling the opinions of their fellow men. This has been a prolific source of both religious and political persecution. It is true, that the political and civil institutions of our highly favoured country have secured to us the sacred right to think for ourselves; yet various methods, even in this boasted land of freedom, are resorted to by one portion of the community to hinder another from thinking for themselves. Oh, how my soul does long for the time to come when mankind will grow wise enough to know, that truth, omnipotent truth, is fully able to stand alone, without the aid of human artifice! Nothing but error needs the aid of fire and faggot, racks and gibbets. The secret, that lies at the bottom of all this kind of opposition, is that there is something in our own views that will not bear the test of close examination. Hence the anxiety to keep down inquiry, as if truth dreaded the light. Nay, if we wish to see truth in her native loveliness, we must bring her out into