fubject, which have been lately advanced,† that may appear to militate against what I have now afferted, I fhall take fome notice of them in the form of objections.

§ 13. 1. "It is evident, from this view of the matter, that the Jews reject Chrift and his reli

gion, upon as good ground, as you reject the uni"verfal restoration, and perhaps better; for you "have nothing to plead against the restoration, but fome threatenings of punishments, which are called ever"lafting, or eternal, in our tranflation; but they

plead express promises of the everlasting continu(6 ance of their church state and worship, in oppo"fition to chriftianity." * Nothing to plead against the restoration but threatenings. Yes; we plead guilt unpardoned, depravity unremoved, the finful impotence of the creature, the inefficacy of all moral means whatever, and the operations of EQUITY. The Jews reject Chrift and his religion upon as good ground

K 4

+ By Mr. ELHANAN WINCHESTER, in his Treatise entitled, The Univerfal Reftoration, Exhibited in Four Dialogues between a Minifter and his Friend. Second Edition, London, 1792.

* The Univer. Reftor. p. 16.

"Were there no promifes or intimations to the contrary in "fcripture, I fhould not require it to be threatened in any fronger "terms than it is; I fhould believe it as a truth, though I might "not be able, at prefent, to fee the propriety and equity thereof; "I thould never fuffer my weak reason to gainfay divine revela"tion: but my difficulty arifes from thefe exprefs promises of "GOD, which compofe fo great a part of that book which is "given us as a rule of faith and practice, and which promises exprefsly affert a future ftate of things, beyond fin, forrow,

pain and death of every kind." The Univer. Reftor. p. 24.

ground, as you reject the universal restoration. Perhaps not; for there was no natural, infallible, and equitable connection between the defign of the jewish churchState and the rejection of the Meffiah; the connection was of their own making, and had no existence but in their mistaken views of Mofes and his law, of Christ and his gofpel. Whereas the connection that fubfifts between the subject of guilt and fuffering is natural, infallible, and equitable; and therefore can be removed only by a fovereign hand in a way which we may denominate miraculous. And confequently, the force of the terms expreffing the duration of both difpenfations being equal, the conclufion must be as unequal as the connections before mentioned.

§14. 2. Your reasoning would be conclufive, "upon the fuppofition that there are two eternal principles, viz. good and evil; if it can be proved, "that evil is coexiftent with goodness, that it hath

always been then, the abfolute eternity of fin "and mifery may be easily inferred. This is the "true foundation of endless mifery, and it came "from the pagan theology." + It feems, then, that evil may coexift with goodness for ages of ages, but may not any longer, without running into Manicheifm. The queftion is not now, What is the fovereign good pleasure of Gon refpecting the termination of evil, but whether it is inconfiftent with the divine perfections to perpetuate the sufferings of the guilty. If not inconfiftent to continue them

+ Ibid. p. 30.

for

*

for a thousand years, by what rule can we draw the line as a boundary? Is it by the rule of exactly proportioning the punishment to the crime? But this affumes what is not granted, that the demerit of fin is to be estimated by the temporary duration of the suffering, as well as the intenfeness of degree. As it is not doubted, for good reasons, that there are numerous degrees on the scale of happiness, for the fame reasons why should it be doubted that there degrees greatly varied on that of fufferings? The variation in degree, therefore, is adequate to preserve an equitable proportion, irrefpective of the continuance. The rights of what attribute would be infringed upon, the glory of what perfection would be eclipfed, by not liberating a guilty prisoner? If continued fufferings be contrary to equity, there lies a ground of claim on deliverance, which the fufferer may plead as his due. But this is too impious to be admitted. If contrary to benevolence,† then for a period called ages of ages, GoD in punishing offenders, or leaving them to themselves, acts in contrariety to his benevolence, which is equally impious to imagine. Is the fuppofition contrary to wisdom? It is fufficient to fay, that we have no

66

data,

* "To fuppofe a poor ignorant heathen, or a child of ten years "old, will remain in mifery as long as the most perfecuting tyrant, or apostate christian, seems to contradict all the ideas we have of "juftice and equity, as well as of goodnefs; for in this case, who "can fuppofe that each one is exactly rewarded according to his "works?" The Univer. Reftor. p. 74.

66

"The univerfal benevolence, or the love of God to his creatures, is one of the firft principles from which the general "reftoration is deduced." Ibid. p. 89.

.

data, in the prefent cafe, to determine what is or is not conformable to wifdom, but what God himself has revealed, which refers to another question. I therefore conclude that the inference in favour of endless mifery is fairly drawn, from the nature of fin and the equity of GOD, without having recourse to the abfurd notion of two eternal principles.

§ 15. 3. "Another great principle, upon which "the restoration depends, is, that Christ died for "all."* If, then, redemption is not universal, there is no inference to be drawn from it in favour of the restoration. But fuppofe the truth of the pofition; how does it imply the inference? His death must be confidered either as making a proper purchafe, or an expedient on the part of GOD on account of which he bestows favours. If the former, why fhould Chrift fuffer the purchafed poffeffion to lie in torments for ages of ages? Does not his blood cleanse from all fin without the feverity of fo long a period of torments? If the latter, why fhould this great expedient in the divine œconomy imply a reftoration any more than other displays of goodnefs and favour rejected and abused? Christ having died for all, therefore, can no more enfure a reftoration than a favour bestowed, but yet abufed, can promote friendship.

§ 16. 4. Another principle upon which the "univerfal doctrine depends, is, the unchangeableness of God: whom he loves once, he always loves;

The Univer. Reftor. p. 91.

"he

*

"he loved his creatures when he made them, as "none can well deny; their fins he never loved, nor ever will; he hath declared, that he loved us "when finners, but never as finners. His eternal "and conftant hatred of all fin, and his unchange"able love of all his creatures, are of the nature of "primary truths; from which the doctrine of the "general restoration may be easily and plainly in"ferred." Here we might afk, If punishment for ages of ages be not inimical to GOD's unchangeable hatred of fin, and love of all his creatures, how can the unchangeableness of Deity prevent the protraction of that punishment? Whom he loves once he ALWAYS loves. Confequently, love is not incompatible with punishment. He loved his creatures when he made them; he loved us WHEN finners, but never AS finners. Therefore, to love as creatures, though not as finners, is perfectly confiftent with a state of punishment. From whence it follows, that the unchangeableness of GOD contributes nothing to the doctrine of restoration.

§ 17. 5." Another of the first principles of the "restoration, is, the immutability of God's counfels, "which he hath confirmed by an oath, That by two "immutable things, (viz. his word and oath) in which "it was impoffible for God to lie, we might have a "ftrong confolation, who have fled for refuge to lay "hold upon the hope fet before the hope fet before us. Heb. vi. 17. 18.” Who have fled for refuge. Is not here an evident implication, that those who have not fled for refuge

The Univer. Reftor. p. 96.

are