From the account which Luke gives us, it appears, that when one inquired of Christ, Whether there were few to be saved? he declined giving a direct answer, by saying, "Strive to enter in at the ftrait gate: "for many, I fay unto you, will seek to "enter in, and shall not be able." Nevertheless, we learn from Matthew, that he taught thus: "Enter ye in at the ftrait

cr

gate; for wide is the gate and broad is "the way that leadeth to deftruction, and

many there be which go in thereat: be

"caufe ftrait is the gate and narrow is "the way which leadeth unto life, and few "there be that find it." Let us now turn to that remarkable prayer of Chrift, which we find in the 17th chapter of John, and in which are the following expreffions: "The men which thou gaveft me out of "the world-I pray for them: I pray not "for the world." Agreeably to this dif tinction, John fays, near the conclufion of his first epistle, "We know that we are of

"God,

"God, and the whole world lieth in wicked"ness." And, in perfect harmony with John, Paul fays to the Corinthians, "We << are chaftened of the Lord, that we should "not be condemned with the world *."

I might have added more quotations to the fame effect: but I think it is fufficiently evident what is the destination of mankind according to the account given in the New Teftament: and it feems a very natural reflection, that, if this be the true account, what was affirmed of Judas Iscariot might, with as much reafon, be predicated of all men (the little flock of true chriftians excepted), viz. It were good for them not to have been, or not to be, born. Indeed I fufpect that the best and most intelligent christians have attended to this subject very reluctantly. Some have taken great pains to aggravate what are called the demerits of men, in order to vindicate the

* 1 Cor. xi. 32.

ways

ways of God; and others, being unable to endure the thought of eternal punishment, have (with the best intentions, and because their intentions were fo good) cheated themselves into the belief that the future punishments of the christian religion were only temporary. However, if we should fuppofe the human race to be deftined by their Maker to exist in a state of misery during a term of a hundred thousand years, and, at the end of that term, that both their mifery and their existence fhould cease: although the fate of mankind would then indeed be infinitely lefs dreadful, the difficulty would not be removed.

There is, I imagine, in this country, at prefent, a very confiderable number of ferious and reflecting chriftians, who have embraced the philofophical doctrine of neceffity. And (as what we wish to be true, we are more or less prepared to admit upon infufficient evidence) these per

fons,

fons, seeing the very happy and defirable confequences refulting from that doctrine in conjunction with the belief of a perfect Deity, because they wished it, feem to have perfuaded themselves that they have actually found their philofophical doctrine in the books of fcripture. Or elfe, perhaps, they have conceived that, by applying the philofophical theory, they can folve difficulties, which occur in those books, not folvable by any other procefs. The miffortune is, the theory will not apply.

The fcriptural doctrines of the divine fore-knowledge, and of a fcheme of providence, which, while comprehending the general affairs of the world, is represented as extending likewife to the concerns of each individual, coincide very well with the philofophical doctrine of neceffity. But nothing can be more repugnant to it than what the fcriptures teach us concerning punishments, especially never-ending punish

ments, and the demerits of all mankind (except the few who enter in at the ftrait gate), which, according to the fcriptures, render those punishments proper, and, as it fhould feem, even neceffary, to be inflicted on them by a juft and righteous God.

It seems natural enough for a benevolent neceffarian to confider those paffages of fcripture, where the benevolence of the Deity is mentioned, as perfectly confonant with his philofophy. They are so in reality. But this will never fhew that the happy refults of his philofophy have the fcriptural fanction. On the other hand, thofe explicit declarations of Chrift, relative to future punishment, together with the other paffages equally explicit, above cited, are totally adverse and irreconcileable. And, in my apprehenfion, they are no more capable of being reconciled to that character of benevolence which every christian, whether a neceffarian or no, afcribes to God.

There