just, and holy, and good Being, when man fhould be no more, that He was before man exifted? Is He any more obliged to give us exiftence to eternity, than He was to give us exiftence from eternity? And what obligation is He under to renew His mercies to thofe in another world who only abuse them in this ? It is fo far, then, from being certain from the Perfections of God that the wicked will be reftored and put in poffeffion of eternal happiness, that it cannot be proved from thefe perfections that they will furvive the prefent ftate of exiftence, or that even the righteous will live for ever. But tho' it cannot be proved by unaffifted reafon, that immor. tality belongs to man, we muft not forget that this is brought to light by the gospel. : If fin be punished at all, the punishment must be in proportion to the magnitude of the offence it is therefore impoffible to conclude any thing about the duration of punishment, till we have afcertained the exceeding finfulness of fin, which certainly cannot be ascertained by the light of nature. Our reafon. ings on the Divine perfections would not have led us to conclude that the ground is curfed on account of fin: we could not have perceived fo clofe a connection between the moral and natural world, as to perceive that a diforder in the one would fo materi ally affect the other. Much lefs could we have seen that the fin of man is the caufe of the mifery of the brute creation. For who can perceive any neceffary connection between the fin of a man, and the fuffering of a beaft? Yet our fenfes convince us that the earth is under a curfe, and that the whole animal creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain; and Revelation informs us of the caufe. Ilad we other fenfes, we might perhaps trace the effects of fin much farther. It is allowed that the government of God is infinite, and that fome connection runs thro the whole; and it is no more improbable that the whole univerfe might, in fome way or other, be affected affected by the fin of man, than that it fhould contaminate, our elements, and make the world groan with the miferies of its inhabitants. It must be obferved too, that the laws of God have infinite authority ftamped upon them, and that God has laid us under infinite obligations to obey them. When we put all these things together;-when we confider that fin may perhaps be infinite in its effects, that it is committed against an infinite Being, and that it is a violation of infinite obligations, it will be difficult, if not impoffible to prove, that fin is not an infinite evil : and if it be an infinite evil, it muft merit infinite or eternal punishment. As lame an argument as Mr. Winchefter affects to call this, he has made but a very lame reply to it. 1. If fin be infinite, then we muft afcribe to it one of the Perfections of the Deity, which ftrikes me as abfurd.” * Is it abfurd to fay that space is infinite? Is it abfurd to fay fome creatures will exift through infinite duration ? Muft infinity be ascribed to nothing but God? 2. "Actions must take their denomination from the actors, and not. from the objects."+ In eftimating the magnitude of fin, the objects and the effects of it muft be taken into the account, as well as the actors. It is certainly a much greater fin in a man to murder a friend who has a large family, and who has loaded him with favours, than to murder a perfon who ftands in no fuch relation to him, and who has no family connections, though the murderous difpofition may poffibly be the fame in both cafes. We muft confider the objects: the conmon fenfe of mankind agrees that it is much more criminal to kill a friend, who has laid the murderer under great obligations, than to kill an indifferent perfon. We must confider the effects: if an unconnected perfon be Dialogues on the Reftoration, p. 195. + Ibid. in, flain, the evil goes no further; but if the head of a family be taken away by the dagger of the affaffin, his widow and children, who were dependent upon him for fupport, are reduced to beggary and want : and will any man fay this is no aggravation of the crime? 3. Infinite actions, or actions of infinite magnitude, require infinite power to perform them."* Mr. Winchefter allows that God will reward the righteous actions of his people with glory infinite in duration. Their righteous actions then are infinite in their effects, though not performed by infinite power. 4. All fins are offences againft God, and if every offence against God is of infinite magnitude, how can any be greater? And thus all diftinétion between leffer and greater fins is entirely deftroyed, and all fins will be efteemed equal, contrary to the whole tenor of the Scriptures."+. Mr. W. talks in this random way by fuppofing that fin takes its denomination from the actors only, and not from the objects: but I have fhewn this to be a mistake. Suppose fin againft God to merit endlefs punishment, yet the degree of that punishment may be in proportion to the depravity of the actor; fo that the distinction between leffer and greater fins is as fully preserved upon our scheme, as upon that of our opponents.‡ * Dialogues, p. 185. +Ibid. p. 187. It It is rather fingular that Mr. W. fhould be fo zealous for the diftinction between leffer and greater fins; when, in the very next page, he has deftroyed all juft proportion between fin and punishment. For he obferves upon Jer. xvi 18, and Ifa. xl. 1, 2, "Here a fact is faid to be accomplished, which upon your "fcheme can never be done to all eternity for if every offence "against God is of infinite magnitude, and deferves infinite "punishment, none can ever have received fingle for one of "the fins, tar lefs DOUBLE for ALL." Mr. W. here fuppofes they received double the punishment which their fins deferved. But if God may give finners as much more punishment as they deferve, It is a fundamental principle of the Doctrine of the Reftoration, that punishment is corrective in its nature; but this cannot be inferred from the Perfections of God. According to the regular operation of the laws of nature, fome fins deprive men of the use of reafon; the punishment in cafes of this fort cannot be corrective, because the subjects of it are utterly incapable of moral improvement. Other fins prove deftructive to the animal economy; and reafon cannot perceive how the punishment of death is a correction. And if God has not connected correction with punishment in this world, how can we be certain he will do it in the next? Muft he alter his laws to our advantage as often as we choose to break them? Would not our reafonings on his attributes have led us to the conclufion, that present fufferings, as well as future, muft be corrective, had not fenfe been on the other fide of the question? It appears probable from Reason, and certain from Revelation, that God, in connecting mifery with fin, defigned mifery to operate as a warning; thereby to prevent the commiffion of fin: but there is a vaft difference between punishment being a warning to others, and corrective to individual fufferers. The ends of punishment must be ascertained, before we can conclude any thing pofitively about its duration. I have fhewn that correction is not immediately connected with punishment in the prefent conftitution of nature, and therefore that connection is not necef fary to the difplay of the Divine Perfections. No other end of punishment leads to any favourable conclufion respecting the Doctrine of Reftoration. It cannot be denied that God intended mifery to operate deferve, he may give them a thousand times more than they deferve: here is an end of Divine Juftice. And what have finners to fear from hell, fuppofe they only receive fingle for their fins, if the 70 years captivity of the Jews was double the punishment which their fins merited? I believe the words mean, 'God had given them double the punishment, on that occafion, that he ↑ had given for any former apoftacy.' B operate as a warning, unlefs we will oppofe Reafon to Revelation; and fince warnings may be useful for ever, to fome or other of God's creatures, we cannot be fure that punishment will not be eternal. The ftrength of finful habits is a queftion of confiderable importance in this controverfy. It cannot be proved from the Perfections of God, that finful habits may not become unconquerable. If it be faid that, by an omnipotent act, God may recover the very worft; the answer is, that if it were proper for God to operate in an irresistible manner against fin, he would have either prevented its exiftence, or crushed it at its birth. This conclufion may be denied by thofe who hold that the grace of God works irrefiftibly in fome, and not at all in others; but it cannot be denied by the Univerfalifts, because they do not believe in the partiality of the Divine Goodness in relation to his creatures. We fee then that the conftitution of the Divine government is against this omnipotent act, and we cannot pretend to prove from the Divine Attributes, that God muft alter his laws in favour of the most undeferving of his creatures. On the other hand, facts teftify that fome effectually defeat his gracious defigns concerning them in this world; they die hardened in fin; and if God does not new-model his government in their favour in the other world, there can be no hope of their converfion and restoration. In reasoning on the Divine Perfections, we are fiable to contradict acknowledged facts. Thus Meff. Vidler and Wright argue from the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as though man did not poffefs moral liberty, and as though fin did not, and could not exift, as will be feen at large in the following fections. And if the reader will only be at the trouble to apply all the arguments which they draw from the Perfections of God to these two facts, he |