5. We can know and enjoy God, as he is revealed to us in Scripture, only as we view him and enjoy him in the person of Jefus Chrift.

The Scriptures afford us no manifeftation of God, no revelation of his will, but what is in and through Jefus Chrift: he is spoken of as the only way of communication between the Father and his creatures; and he is perfectly adapted to fill the relation in which he ftands to creatures, and in which he stands to the Father. Chrift is truly man, and stands on the part of men, as man, to God; he is entered into heaven itself to appear in the prefence of God for us. As man he is a fuitable medium for every divine excellence, perfection, and glory to be revealed in, to fuch creatures as we are: for we can approach him, hold intercourfe with him, and his terror not make us afraid, nor his band be heavy upon us. As man he was a fuitable perfon to die for us, to appear in the prefence of God for us, and to act in the capacity of mediator between God and men. If God did not dwell in the human nature in the perfon of Chrift, how could we contemplate and enjoy him in that medium? But fince we are exprefsly told, that the word was God, and that the fame word which was God, and without which was not any thing made, was made flesh and dwelt among us---that the holy spirit was not given by measure unto Chrift---that the Father dwelt in him---that in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily---that his name is Emanuel, God with us---that he is the image or vifible delineation of the invifible God, we may expect to find, contemplate, and enjoy in the perfon of Chrift, all that can be known of the invifible God. He is God to us---God manifefted and revealed in all his truth and grace, even in the brightness of his glory. Hence divine names and titles, rights, prerogatives, and honours, muft belong to Jefus Chrift; and where fuch things are expreffed in Scripture we may fafely admit them, according to the most plain and obvious fenfe of fuch words.

6. There are hidden wonders and unknown glories in the perfon of Chrift, which we shall never be able fully to comprehend in the prefent ftate.

His name is wonderful---" He had a name written, that no man knew but himfelf.----The love of Chrift paffeth knowledge.----No man knoweth the fon (perfectly) but the Father.' Yet enough is made known to answer every valuable purpose. We know that there is one God, who is a being of abfolute infinite perfections, and that the perfections of this one God are rendered vifible and manifested to us in and by the man.

Chrift Jefus---that Chrift is Lord of all---that all divine au thority rests in his hands---that all divine works are performed by him---that he will carry all the defigns of God into effect, and make the whole creation pure and happy--that he hath every bleffing to beftow that creatures are capable of enjoying

that he is able to do all things for us---and that we owe him unlimited fubjection and obedience. Is it not enough for fuch worms as we are to know these things?

SIR,

A

THOUGHTS ON GOD.

To the Editor of the UNIVERSALIST'S MISCELLANY.

S the doctrine of endless mifery is much agitated in the prefent day, and is a subject of the utmost importance to man, I think it should be fully investigated; for if it is a truth, awful muft be the cafe of those that become the fubjects of fuch a state; and if a falfehood, ought it not to be detected and exposed? But though I thus fpeak, I have not the vanity to suppose myself adequate to the task of proving the fallacy of a doctrine that is generally believed to be fanctioned by a divine revelation, and which is maintained or believed by great and good men, with whom I prefume not the leaft comparison; nevertheless, I do not, nay, I cannot believe it, without doing violence to the ideas I have of reafon, juftice, mercy, and goodnefs and my mind having lately been exercifed with a few thoughts upon the subject, I have fent them for your perusal; and if you think them worthy of a place in your Mifcellany, they are at your service.

Your readers will eafily perceive this piece is not the production of human learning: but I think it ought not to be rejected on that account, if it is not repugnant to rationality and common fenfe but perhaps your readers may fuppofe that I write under the prejudices of a party fpirit, and am determined, like many others, to maintain my religious fyftem against all evidence and conviction. In anfwer to this I beg leave to fay, that I belong to no party whatever, and have no received particular fyftem of divinity, but wifh to keep my mind open and free to conviction and impreffion of truth, when attended with proper or credible evidence, without which I do not conceive myfelf bound to believe what any man fays, however great and refpectable.

Not

Not long fince I was reading 1 John, iv. 7th and following verfes--- Beloved, let us love each other, for love is from God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God; he that doth not love hath not known God, for God IS LOVE." When I came to the last sentence,, "God is love," I began to meditate seriously upon the character of Jehovah, and my mind was carried back into eternity, under the idea that if God is love in the very abstract, then love must be his nature; and that he must bear the fame characteristic before any creature, rational or irrational, was made; that whatever he did make must be the production of love: and when I con fidered his infinity of wifdom and almightinels of power, I concluded he could not be mistaken in his plan, nor defeated in his defign, (which defign must be founded in love) confequently, could never after repent of or hate any thing that he first had made; nay, that there could not be the leaft diminution in his love by any after act towards any of the creatures that he had made, for this would be to impeach his foreknowledge as well as his love and the common idea of juftice forbids me to fuppofe that God---particularly a God of love---would decree the endless mifery of any part (and, according to fome, by far the greatest part) of his rational creatures, I fay, juftice forbids it, and love would prevent it,

But if it should be faid, that Jehovah made his creatures pure, but they have made themfelves impure, or, in other words, he made them finless, but they have made themselves finners, and therefore rendered themselves liable to, or brought themselves into a ftate of endlefs mifery---I anfwer, Would not Jehovah's foreknowledge inform him that this would happen? and if he is love in the abftract, would not his love have prevented it? a love which the Scriptures inform us is ftrong as death---witnefs the death of Chrift, a love that many waters cannot quench, nor the floods drown it--witness the fufferings of Chrift, Pfalm xlii. 7. "Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water-fpouts; all thy waves and thy billows are gone over me.” A love, that if man was to attempt to purchase it, would be utterly contemned, (Cant. viii. 7.)---witness the free love of God in Chrift, if our good works will not merit it, fhall our evil works prevent it? For if I may be allowed to judge by a parity of reafoning, I conclude, that if our evil works would prevent the love of God, then our good works, if we had any, would also merit it, as its natural oppofite confequence. I fay, if he is love in the abstract, can we fuppofe that love would fuffer fuch an awful state to depend

upon

upon any contingent circumftances, while his power was fufficient to prevent it. You know, Sir, that the Calvinian system informs us, that his love does forbid it, and his power has prevented it for a part of the human race; but if for only a part, then he could have no love for the other part; and how then can he be love in his nature and effence? Again, "love worketh no ill to his neighbour; it fuffereth long, is kind, it envieth not;" furely, then, fin can never provoke it to endless wrath! "It feeketh not her own;" Can endless mifery be any advantage to God or man? "Love beareth all things;" If it bear with one finner, will it not bear all? "It endureth

all things;" If it hath endured the contradiction of foe finners against itself, till those finners were fubdued to submit to love divine, will it not endure till the whole are brought into fubjection to the fame love? "Love never faileth;" If it never fail towards fome men, will it ever fail towards any man?

But fome will fay, this is no defcription of the love of God, but of the creature. I am not certain of that; but be it fo; if this is a description of the streams, what muft we think of the fountain head? And as a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, fo neither can a good tree bring forth corrupt fruit; which maxim is not true, if God poffefs a compofition of good and evil, or, which is the fame thing, love and hatred; and I have been taught to believe that hatred was an evil when applied to perfons; for though I ought to hate evil, yet I am not authorised to hate the man that poffeffes that evil; and if we ought to make that distinction, furely God will do it, especially when he can destroy the one and preferve the other. I therefore concluded that endless mifery ftood in direct oppofition to the love and goodness of God, and, confequently, cannot be a truth, unless it can be reconciled therewith.

If it be objected, that though my mode of reasoning is just, yet it amounts to nothing, feeing that the Scriptures pofitively prove the doctrine of endlefs mifery---I answer, that I am not convinced that they do; when I am, I muft either believe the doctrine, or disbelieve thofe paffages of Scripture to be of Divine authority. But are there not a number of paflages that as pofitively speak an oppofite language? And dare we admit that the Scriptures (under the idea that they are infpired) contradict themfelves? Or, rather, fhall we not fay, that men are miftaken in their interpretation of thefe feeming oppofite paffages, on one fide or the other? And fhall we adhere to that interpretation that stands opposed to every perfection of the

Deity, and find out another explanation for thofe paffages that are in unifon with all the perfections of Deity?

Thefe, Sir, were the thoughts that paffed in my mind on the beforementioned paffage of Scripture. I have no ambition or interest in their reception with the public; for as my hope is founded on God, through Chrift Jefus, man's good will can make no addition to it, or his ill will any diminution. I shall conclude with a remark or two.

1. Some people have asked me the question, "If Univerfal Restoration be a truth, what good can the preaching of it do?" I could anfwer this question by my own experience, by the good effect which the knowledge of it has had upon myself; butat, perhaps, is no rule for another to judge by; I'fhall therefore answer it by asking another. What good has been or can be done by preaching Endless Mifery? Has it ever influenced for good the conduct of thofe that believe it? Let every man answer the question for himself. Does man ftand in need of any thing frightful or awful to ftimulate him to love and ferve God? If he does, is it not dishonourable to truth to call on falfehood to aid and affift in fuch ftimulation? And can truth ftand in need of untruth to embellish it?

2. I read in our Lord's commiffion, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the GOSPEL to every creature." The learned inform me, that the word gospel fignifies good news: now I can by no means believe that endless mifery is good news; therefore I conclude that endless mifery is not included in the commiffion, and therefore no one has authority to preach it. But whether the doctrine is true or false, I am determined not to be angry with any perfon for rejecting my views of the fubject, but endeavour to cultivate in myself a spirit of univer fal philanthropy,

And remain, dear Sir,

Yours, &c.

A CHRISTIAN.

SIR,

IT

To the Editor of the UNIVERSALIST'S MISCELLANY.

T is a queftion often proposed by way of oppofition to the doctrine which gives title to your Mifcellany, "If the Univerfal Reftoration be so plain as fome pretend, why are not the focieties of its profeffors more encreased?" We may, in VOL. III.

Ff

fome