damnation. When finners are punished in confe. quence of having neglected their day of vifitation, God does not intend their reformation and happinefs, because they will then call upon him in vain. Prov. i. 24-28. Matt. xxv. 10-12. Luke xiii. 24, 28.

It has fometimes been afferted, that the confideration of limited punishment is quite fufficient to determine every reafonable being on the fide of virtue. The above contains a fufficient reply to this affertion; but it may not be amifs to remark further, that the happinefs arifing from the practice of virtue, both in this life and that which is to come, ought to determine the choice of every reasonable and accountable being, though there were no future punishment at all. Shall we then infer that warnings are unneceffury? This would be to reflect on the wisdom of God in employing them. We must therefore infer what is true in fact, that men do not always follow the dictates of reafon, that they are carried away by the violence of corrupt paffions and appetites. And we cannot be fure that the threatening of endlefs punishment is not neceffary to counteract the influence of our depravity. Certainly when we confider the powerful influence of finful habits and examples, we cannot poffibly fuppofe, that they are likely to be counteracted by the threatening, or rather promife of punishment, which is corrective in its nature, moderate in its quantity, limited in its dura. tion, and glorious in its end.

"3. If the juftice of eternal punishment be dif"coverable by us, it must be from God's having "pointed it out as the wages of fin, and threatened

finners with it in the Scriptures. The Scriptures "declare the wages of fin to be death, not an endlefs life of torment: that the foul that finneth shall "die, not live in mifery to all eternity.” *

* Examination, p. 33.

3

An

An advocate for Annihilation might have made thefe reflections without exciting much furprize, but for fuch a comment to come from the pen of an Univerfalift is truly wonderful; for if the death threatened be oppofed to exiftence, it is as true that there will be no restoration, as that punishment will not be eternal. Death is not always oppofed to esiftence, because fome are dead while they live, 1 Tim. v. 6. Mr. W. muft believe that the death threatened is a life of torment, or he muft retract what he has written about "hell being inexpreffibly 86 more dreadful than the most racking pains human "nature is capable of bearing in the prefent state; "* and fince there is no promife, of deliverance from the torment, annexed to the threatening, there is no ground for hope that the punishment will have an end. And here I will take occafion to remark, that in the reprefentations which the Scriptures give of the decifion of the laft day, not a fingle hint is dropped about limited and corrective punishment; yet no feafon could be fo proper for that purpose. We might have expected that the judge would exhort them to profit fpeedily by thefe neceffary and wholefome correctives, that they might the fooner be reftored to that happiness which he was fo anxious they fhould enjoy. Divine judgments in this life, when defigned to be corrective, have usually been accompanied with exhortations, promifes, &c. But not a word of this fort is found in the final fentence of the fupreme Judge. It is rather remarkable that Mr. W. has not examined any more of the threatenings: perhaps he did not think it safe to venture far upon this dangerous ground. The threatenings

which point out eternal punishment as the wages of fin, are brought forward, and defended, by Mr. Fuller in his letters to Mr. Vidler, to which I refer the reader.

* Examination, p. 16,

We

We have juft caufe of complaint againft the Univerfalifts for reprefenting us as imputing to the Almighty, a bofom enflamed with rage and boiling with vengeance when he executes judgment on impenitent finners. He affures us that he taketh no pleasure in the death of a finner. It is no unufual fight to fee an earthly judge, with tears in his eyes, pronouncing upon the criminal the fentence of condemnation. And if the human mind may be entirely free from rage and vengeance on fuch an occafion why should we afcribe thefe wicked paffions to the Deity? But fuch a reprefentation ferves their purpose.

SECTION IV.

On the Love of GOD.

As God is love," fays Mr. Wright," he never

can act towards any creature at any time, but from a principle of love. If it be admitted that God once loved all his creatures, how can it be "proved that he will ever ceafe to love them? If

his love be himfelf, if he be incorruptible, un"changeable, without variablenefs, or fhadow of "turning, how can he ever ceafe to love thofe "whom he once loved? To fuppofe the love of

God to any of his creatures may become extinct, ❝ is, in effect, to fuppofe that fo much of himself 66 may become extinct, for he is love; that he may "fo far vary and change; which is impoffible. The fins of men cannot deftroy the love of God to them, for the reafons already alleged. Notwith"ftanding all their fins, he hath given the fulleft "demonftration of the continuance of his love to

them

"them, in giving his well-beloved Son to die for 66 them, as finners. If God will never cease to "love all his creatures, it follows, that he will never cease to defire their happiness. And if "what his foul defireth, fhould never take place, "would it not prove either a deficiency in his wisdom "or in his power?" +

The above reafoning will apply against the introduction of mifery with exactly the fame force as against its endless continuance. For if God never can act towards any creature, at any time, but from a principle of love; if this be accompanied with defires for their happiness; and if his wifdom and his power are engaged to fulfil his defires; then it muft neceffarily follow, that it is impoffible for any creature, at any time, to be unhappy. As this conclufion cannot be admitted, the premifes muft be given up.

as

I do not very well understand what Mr. W. means by the phrafe, if his love be him felf. Does he fuppofe that love is not merely an attribute of God, but the Divine fubftance, effence, or nature, fome German enthufiafts have wildly imagined? From fome parts of the preceding paragraph one would think he has entertained fuch an idea. It is not countenanced, however, by the phrafe, God is love; for it is alfo written, God is a Spirit, God is light, &c. Now if we may fay with propriety, Love is God, we may likewife affirm, Spirit is God, Light is God, &c. By this method of interpreting Scripture, we may foon have as many Gods as the heathens had, and with natures as oppofite to each other.

Mr. W. urges the immutability of the Divine nature as a proof that the love of God to his creatures cannot become extinct; for fays he, to fuppofe

Hints on the Reftoration, p. 4-5.

66

the

'the love of God to any of his creatures may become extinct, is, in effect, to fuppofe that fo much of himfelf may become extinct, for he is love; that he may, fo far, vary and change; which is impoffible.” According to this logic, we may prove, not only -that the love of God to his creatures cannot become extinct, but also that it cannot vary: for "to fuppofe a diminution of the love of God to any of his creatures, is to fuppofe a diminution of himfelf, for he is love; that he may fo far vary and chauge; which is impofiible." And again "to fuppofe an increase of the love of God to any of his creatures, is to fuppofe an increase of himfelf, for he is love; that he may, fo far, vary and change; which is impoffible." From hence it follows, that the love of God to his creatures has no relation to their moral characters, but that he loves the devils as much now, as he did when they were angels of light doing his pleafure; and that he has the fame love to a murderer while he is imbruing his hands in the blood of the innocent, as he has to a faint while zealously employed in the practice of piety and virtue.

The love of God is difplayed in concert with his other perfections, and is never indulged to an extent that would hinder their harmonious operation. God is light, or holinefs, as well as love; his love, therefore, cannot be inconfiftent with his holinefs. Mr. W. will allow that God loved the angels with delight before they finned; but to fay that his love to them was the fame after they finned, is, in other words, to fay, that he taketh pleasure in unrighteoufnefs, which is inconfiftent with his holiness, and which is the damning fin of men. 2 Theff. ii. 12. It muft therefore, be granted that God's love of complacence towards his creatures becomes extinct with the extinction of virtue in them, and this fpoils Mr. W's argument."+

Mr.

"God loves his creatures beyond the love of the ten

"dereft