be exempted from punishment; then sin deserves no punishment and is no moral evil.

8. The voice of reason is, that divine goodness, or a regard to the general good requires, that sin be punished according to its demerit, in some instances at least otherwise God would not appear to be what he really is, an enemy to sin, and greatly displeased with it. It is certainly consistent with divine goodness, that sin exists in the world, otherwise it would never have existed. Now since sin is in the world, if God were never to punish it, it would seem, that he is no enemy to it. Or if he punish it in a far less degree than it deserves, still it would seem, that his displeasure at it is far less than it is and ought to be. Nor can mere words or verbal declarations of the Deity sufficiently exhibit his opposition to sin, so long as he uniformly treats the righteous and the wicked in the same manner. His character in view of intelligent creatures will appear to be what it is holden forth to be in his actions, rather than what he in mere words declares it to be. But will any man say, that it is conducive to the good order and happiness of the intellectual system, that God should appear to be no enemy, but rather a friend to sin?

Objection. God would still appear to be an enemy to sin, though he were not to punish it: because he takes the most effectual measures, to extirpate it by leading sinners to repentance.-Answer. The extirpation of sin shows no other hatred of it, than a physician shows to a disease, which he takes the most effectual measures to abolish, by the restoration of health. But these measures of the physician do not show, that he views his patient as blameable. Sickness is no moral evil, and all the pains of the physician to remove sickness, are no testimony of his abhorrence of moral evil. But sin is a moral evil, and it is subservient to the general good,

that the great Governor of the universe should testify his abhorrence of it, as a moral evil, or as justly blameable. To this end he must do something further than is done by the physician, who heals his patient: he must either in the person of the sinner, or in his substitute, punish sin, and that according to its demerit; otherwise he will not show himself displeased at it as a moral evil.

Hatred of sin is as essential to the Deity as love of holiness; and it is as honourable to him and as necessary to the general good, that he express the former as the latter. Indeed the latter is no further expressed, than the former is expressed: and so far as the former is doubtful, the latter is doubtful too. The question then comes to this, whether it be consistent with the general good, that God should in actions, as well as words, express his abhorrence of sin as blameable, or as a moral evil; and express this abhorrence to a just degree. If this be consistent with the general good, it is also consistent with the general good, that sin be punished according to its demerit and if it deserve an endless punishment it is consistent with the general good and with divine goodness, that such a punishment be inflicted.

7. That endless punishment is inconsistent with divine goodness, and that all men are saved by free grace, is a direct contradiction. To be saved is to be delivered from the curse of the law, which we have before endeavoured to show to be an endless punishment. But to be saved, from this by free grace, implies, that the person so saved, deserves endless punishment, and that such punishment is with respect to him just. But whatever punishment is just with respect to any man, provided no atonement be made by a substitute, is necessary to the public good; and unless it be necessary to the public good, it is unjust. If it be necessary to the public good, the public good requires it: and if the public good re

quire it, divine goodness requires it.

Therefore to apply this reasoning to the endless punishment of the sinner: The salvation of the sinner consists in deliverance

from the curse of the law: the curse of the law is endless punishment; and to be delivered from this by free grace, implies, that the endless punishment of the sinner is just. If the endless punishment of the sinner be just, and no atonement be made by a substitute, the public good requires his endless punishment, and the divine goodness of course requires it. So that if the sinner can be saved by free grace only, and no atonement be made by a substitute, the endless punishment of the sinner is not at all inconsistent with divine goodness; and to say that it is inconsistent with the divine goodness, and yet to say that all men are saved by free grace, and can be saved in no other way, implies, as I said, a direct contradiction. It implies, that endless punishment is just, as the deliverance from it is the fruit of grace only: it also implies, that it is not just, as the public good or the divine goodness does not require it, but is inconsistent with it.

CHAPTER IX.

IN WHICH IS CONSIDERED DR. CHAUNCY'S ARGUMENT FROM ROM. V. 12, &c.

HAVING in the preceding chapters considered Dr. C's arguments from reason and from the divine perfections, I proceed now to consider those which are drawn from particular passages of scripture. The first of those passages which demands our attention is Rom. v. 12, &c. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,

and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: For until the law, sin was in the world but sin is not imputed, when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned, after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one, many be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many, And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ: Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. Morever, the law entered, that the offence might abound: But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord."

The Doctor's argument from this passage depends wholly on the supposition, that the apostle considers "Adam and Christ as the respective opposite sources of death and life to mankind universally:" Or that Christ is the source of life and eternal salvation to all men without exception, as Adam was the source of death to all men without exception. The Doctor's reasons to support this proposition are,-(1) That in the 15th verse it is said, "If through the offence of one many be

dead, much more hath the grace of God abounded unto many:" and as by many in the former part of this verse is meant all men, therefore he concludes that the same word is used in the same extensive sense, in the latter part of the verse: "the antithesis," he says, 66 will otherwise be lost."-(2) The word many, woλ206, means all men, because the article is prefixed to it, of 22016(3) That in the 18th verse it is expressly asserted, "As by the offence of one, the judgment came upon all men, εις παντας ανθρωπους, to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, eis Tarlas avepanovs, unto justification of life." Whence the Doctor concludes, that the words all men in both parts of the comparison, are used in the same extent.-(4) That the advantage by Christ exceeds, abounds beyond, the disadvantage by Adam; but this, unless all men be saved, would be so far from the truth, that the former would "sink below the latter."-Let us attend to these distinctly.

1. The word many in the former part of the 15th and 19th verses, means all men: therefore it means the same in the latter part of those verses: the antithesis will otherwise be lost."'* Now how does the truth of this proposition appear? It must certainly be supported by proper proof, to obtain credit. But in the very many instances in which the Doctor is pleased to repeat this proposition, in his long commentary on Rom. v. 12, &c. I do not find one reason offered to prove it, beside that quoted above, "The antithesis will otherwise be lost."* This therefore is now to be considered. In the rebellion in Great Britain, 1745, large numbers of men were engaged in the rebellion, and were led away by the Pretender. After the Pretender was defeated, large numbers, by the influence of some particular person, we will

* Page 32, 60, &c.