pital fentence with fuch amazing ambiguity, as that it might be feventeen hundred years before any one would understand and be able to fix the fenfe of it. It is infinitely unworthy of the great prophet, light and judge of the world to do it. We know, therefore, previous to critical examination, that all their learn ed labour to render this fentence fceptical and ambiguous, together with their conftruction itself, muft be abfolutely wrong; whether we can difcover the error and fophiftry of it or not. We know, from the nature of the fubject, the fentence is given without ambiguity, in fuch decifive words and manner, as was taly and certain to be understood in that day. And it would have remained without ambiguity to this day, but for the illjudged and ill-concerted labours of fome learned men. Certainly, I can no more believe in a conftruction which destroys the character of our Saviour, as a prophet and judge, than I can in infidelity or atheifin itself. This is a rule of judging of doctrines that is felf-evidently right. And it ought to be the ftrong hold of common chriftians, who are unable to fee thro fubtle, fophiftical reasonings in fupport of doctrines obviously deftructive of the character of God, and of our Saviour, and of the divine government, and fubverfive of "the faith once delivered to the faints." But it is the bufinefs of thofe who are fet for the defence of the gofpel" to endeavour to detect the error of their criticisms, and of their rules of conftruction, with the fallacy of their reafonings: and bring to view fuch plain decifive rules of true construction, as to fix and fettle us firmly " in the faith once delivered to the faints." This is attempted in the following work, with what fuccefs is left with the reader to judge.

In fine, I have nothing more at heart, than that both readers and writers may be thoroughly led into the truth as it is in Chrift, and may, by the grace of God, be formed to a prefent choice of that good part in Chrift which will never be taken away: that we perish not in the perdition of the ungodly in the great day; but may then, with the redeemed and fanctified of this world, inherit that kingdom prepared for them before the foundation of the world. July 9, 1785.

The

The everlasting Punishment of the Ungodly, illuftrated, &c.

PART I.

NSINUATING arguments are apt to captivate and infnare eafy, unthinking minds, by their plauI fibility, without examination, which renders it A needful to pay fome attention to them. The de༧* fign of this part is to confider and refute the most plausible upon this fubject.

The first foothing, infinuating argument to induce credit to the doctrine of the falvation of ALL MEN, is the antiquity of it. It is faid to be no novel doctrine, but was received by two men of note, Origen and Clemens, of Alexandria, in the latter end of the fecond century.* Not to controvert the truth of the fact, which however is difputed, I obferve upon this ftating, it hath clearly no claim to our belief as a fcripture doctrine taught and received by the church of God from the apostles; because it is a century too late; after the apoftles were all dead. In this ftating, it is conceded, the prophets and Jewish church, the apostles and the chriftian church, knew nothing of this doctrine as of God; it made its first appearance in the world under that pretence with these two men; which is the truth of fact: wherefore, it ought to be rejected by us as a fpurious in

B

• See preface to the pamphlet, Salvation for all Men.

novation

novation and corruption, brought forth in a degenerate age like ours. This argument, inftead of force to induce our belief, carries a refutation and condemnation of the doctrine in it. In our turn, we give one stating of the antiquity of it more decifive. We aver it the first and most ruinous error ever broached in the world, and reft the proof on Gen. 3. 1 to the 6. "And the ferpent faid unto the woman, ye fhall not furely die; for God doth know, that in the day that ye eat thereof, then your eyes fhall be opened; and ye fhall be as Gods knowing good and evil." v. 4 and 5. The doctrine is obviously the fame in both parts of it, viz. a full denial that mankind should fuffer the death in the threatning---the full wages of fin--ye fhall not furely die"---with as full a promife and affuring declaration (difobedience notwithstanding) they fhould be tranfcendently happy, "as Gods, knowing good and evil.” The fame fubtil infinuation of incredibility, as well as full denial of the truth and threatning of God, is used to introduce both schemes into the world. The old ferpent well knew the firm belief of the threatning must first be fubverted before he could bring on feduction and difobedience. He first addres ses the strong infinuation of incredibility, to unhinge the mind and fhake the foundation of faith; then follows it with a full audacious denial to overthrow it: "And he faid unto the woman, yea, hath God faid, ye fhall not eat of every tree of the garden?" v. 1. A ftartling question. Can fuch a prohibition come from a God all goodness? and inforced too with such an awful penalty as death, an eternal exclufion from life and bleffedness? It exceeds all belief. Infinuation having done its work, gained attention: he follows it with a full denial; "Ye fhall not furely die." In this we have the strength of the whole cause, in both schemes. For this infinuation and argument of incredibility, may alike be inforced with the very fame arguments and way of arguing, in both schemes. The fame objections of incredibility are as full against the first threatning as the reft, in the book of God. It may be faid and argued, that fuch a tremendous threatning as death fhould ever be executed" exceeds all belief;" because man, a finite creature, cannot commit a sin of such infinite ill demerit, as to de

ferve

ferve an eternal exclufion from life and bleffedness. That the tranfgreffion of a moment cannot amount to fuch an eternal forfeiture and punishment, That one tranfgreffion," in eating of the forbidden fruit," should incur death upon the first parents, and subject millions of millions of his offspring to fin, and to calamity and death, to reign for ages and to the end of the world, exceeds comprehenfion and belief. It may be objected to be inconfiftent with divine benevoience---a God all goodness---with the end of creation---the happiness of the creature: and it may be as ftrongly urged on the one scheme as the other, that God's plan is an univerfal plan; univerfal good, univerfal happiness, and the rich abounding provision in creation for man and beast, might be adduced as proof of it. Moreover, the argument for the everlafting happiness of all men, in their way of arguing, is alike forcible from "the tree of life" as from the mediator and atonement. God made provifion of eternal life for man, of which he gave an affuring pledge "in the tree of life;" and none can doubt it all-fufficient. The provifion is made for man, (i. e.) as they argue, for "all men" all that come under the denomination of men, stand in the fame near and tender relation, and have interest in God as their common father; fo that all are under an equally gracious council and defign of eternal life. It is then a pledge of eternal life, for man, i. e. all men, the whole world, and will admit of no clippings, diftinctions, or exceptions of elect or non-elect, Jew or Gentile, innocent or disobedient, faint or finner; and the conclufion is clear, if the provision and pledge be for all, all shall eventually enjoy eternal life; for if he hath made fuch provision, he is defirous of their everlasting felicity; and it must follow that they shall attain it. What fhould hinder it? Our wishes may be fruftrated, but God cannot be dif appointed. It is annihilating his omnipotence to fay he cannot effect it, if he defires it. It is inconceivable that any fhould perish everlastingly. "His infinite wisdom, power and goodnefs forbid fuch a difhonourable fuppofition." If he defires it, he wills it; and his will is "efficacious, uncontroulable, and irrififtable," Yea, his will and work is one; it is as al ready * Salvation for all men, p. 6, 7. ibid p. 6. and Divine Glory in the Salvation of all men, p. 7, 8, 9.

B. 2

ready done; and we may anticipate the great event, and congratulate all mankind upon their future profpect---univerfal, everlasting happiness. The argument runs alike easy, smooth, and forcible upon both schemes. And it is of importance to remark, the fame foundation error doth attend both schemes, and ruins all their arguments in fupport of them, viz. That this promife and affurance of life, is held out in both, not only in disconnection with, but in direct oppofition to the terms of life appointed of God to men in this life. The appointed terms of life in this world are excluded and fet afide in both fchemes; whereas, in the constitution of innocency, our first parents could have no hope of this eternal life provided and pledged in the tree of life, but upon their forbearance to eat of the forbidden fruit and finished obedience: confequently, upon tranf greffion, they were (this provifion and pledge notwithstanding) forever cut off from all hope of eternal life by that conftitution 3 and were accordingly drove out of the garden of Eden, and aflaming fword placed to guard against all access to the tree of life. So the conftitution of grace gives no hope to perishing finners, but in compliance with the gospel terms of life in this world: and those who neglect the great falvation, live and die in fin and impenitency, are as effectually cut off all hope of fälvation, by this conftitution (the all-fufficiency of the mediation and atonement of Chrift notwithstanding) as our firft parents were by tranfgreffion under that conftitution. They cannot be faved by this conftitution of grace or any other, because to them" there remains no more facrifice for fins." To fay the condemned in the day of judgment, as workers of iniquity, are yet within the plan of mercy, and fhall finally be faved, is to fet up an abfurd oppofition between the plan of mercy and the revealed conftitution of mercy, in the neceffary and effential terms of it, as published to the world by our Saviour and his apoftles. Which leads to another remark: The fame objections lie against both schemes, with this difference only; they are greater, ftronger, and fome more against that of the univerfalifts. The impoffibility of falvation to the finally difobedient by gofpel conftitution--from the truth and immutability of God---the established terms of life in it---the infallibility of the promises and threatnings-

and