them from his vifible church, and introduced the Gentiles.

What shall we fay of Mr. S. as an expofitor of fcripture ? I have taken pains, kind reader, for your fake, not my own, to examine every verse of these three chapters. I was as well fatisfied before this la bor, as I am now, I knew there was not a fingle word in them that so much as hinted at eternal mifery. But as Mr. S. had affirmed that they contained a weight of evidence of eternal mifery, I thought it beft, on the reader's account, to examine them. Mr. S. may rely upon it, that Univerfalifts will not accept, upon truft, his expofitions of fcrip ture. Can it be, that Mr. S. fhould seriously think, that the three chapters we have reviewed, contained a weight of evidence of eternal misery ?I will not judge my brother. If he did, it is not a greater miftake than he was guilty of, when he affirmed that fin and mifery were the necessary means of producing the greatest glory and bleffedness of God, and of bis bo ly, intelligent kingdom, and a hundred) others in his doctrine of the divine benevolence.

I am abfolutely weary of following Mr. S. in his interpretations of fcripture. They are fo crude and indigefted, that I am heart fick of attending to them.

Before I proceed any farther, I will repeat an ob-. fervation, which I have already often made, that we have no controverfy with those who affert future punishment; and that it will be great, and of long con

sinuancę s

tinuance, with many, no doubt, it will continue for ages of ages. In all inftances, it will be great and durable, in proportion to the guilt and obduracy of finners, who are punished. That future punish ment, or mifery, will be eternal, and abfolutely without end, is the grand point we conteft. And we suppose that fuch mifery is far from being countenanced, either by reafon or fcripture. To underftand clearly and eafly the meaning of the phrases, and manner of diction ufed by the facred writers, we ought to confider that they were Jews, and as dopted the Jewish idiom and phrafeology. And the Jews often spoke of things as everlasting, and eternal, when a long continuance only was really intended. The covenant of circumcifion, the ordi mance of the paffover, the priesthood of Aaron, the hills and mountains were all everlasting, and eternal, according to the Jewifh, full fwelling, exaggerated manner of expreffion. And yet no more was intended, than a temporary, though long continuance. For many of these things have ceased.

When there things are duly confidered, together With the abundant pofitive proof from fcripture, which we have produced, that all men will be faved; it will not be difficult to understand the full and Swelling language of the New Teftament. Efpeci ally when it is farther confidered, that there is not one fingle expreffion in all the New Teftament, to fet over against thefe plain unfigured declarations, that God is not willing that any fhould perish, büt

that

that all should come to repentancé ;➡That God our Så→ viour will have all men to be faved that Chrift die ed for the world that be tafted death for every man: All the evidence from fcriptúre, that can be opposed to thefe pofitive declarations, is mere inference and deduction, or the fwelling figurative language of the Jewish manner of diction.

With these observations in mind, we will endeavor to exercise so much patience, as to accompany Mr. S. a little farther in his expofitions of fcrip

ture.

Leaving the 5th chap. of Romans, to be confidered in the 3d part, he proposes to proceed to St. Paul's other epiftles. But here we fhall a little invert his order, and call into present view the5th chap. of the epiftle to the Romans.

Following Mr. S. to his 3d. part, we find him in troducing his expofition of the 5th. chap. of Ro mans, thus, p. 232. "Dr. H. and thote who are with him in opinion, place great dependance on Rom. v. as evidence in their favor." Perhaps Mr. S. will not permit me to meddle with Rom. v. ; for I folemnly declare that I am not with Dr. H.'s book in opinion. It may be, that the author of that book and I now think alike finte he ន may have given up some of his errors, in the clear light of heaven and eternity.

However, I will risk a few brief obfervations on the 5th. of Rom. after I have taken notice of Mr. $'s partial manner of treating the scripture. Mr. S

fays

fays p. 232, "The paffage is from the 15th to the 18th verfe." Did Mr. S. never fee more verfes of that chapter quoted by Univerfalifts, than thofe he has enumerated ? or was he loth they fhould have any more to confider? Pray, my brother, what is it you and I contend for? is it truth, or the mastery? If for truth, why do we not deal fairly, take the whole paffage, or chapter, or, at least, as great a portion of any chapter, or book, as fpeaks of the fame matter?

With the liberty of my brother S. I will confider the 12th. verfe and all the reft in that chap

ter.

Rom. v. 12. "Wherefore, as by one man fin entered into the world, and death by fin; and fo death paffed upon all men, for that all have finned."

For this reason, that as fin entered into the world by one man, and death as its confequence; and in this way death hath paffed upon all men, upon which all have finned.

13. For until the law fin was in the world: but fin is not imputed when there is no law."

Forever after Adam's fin, through all fubfequent ages, down to the giving of the law by Mofes, fin was in the world but it is unreasonable to fuppose that death came in confequence of any of those fins, which were committed in the world between Adam and Mofes, as there was no law in being with the penalty of death annexed to fin,

14.

"Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Mofes, even over them that had not finned after the fimilitude of Adam's tranfgreffion, who is the figure of him that was to come."

Yet death reigned from Adam to Mofes, over all his children, who did not fin as he did, fo as that death should be the confequence of their fin; for Adam, in introducing fin and death, was the figure of him that was to come, who fhould introduce righteousness and life.

15. "But not as the offence, fo alfo 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, Jefus Chrift, hath abounded unto many."

But the parallel is not exact between the offence and the free gift. For if through the offence of one man, Adam, all men die; much more the grace of God, and the gracious gift through one man, Jefus Chrift, hath abounded unto all men.

16. "And not as it was by one that finned, fo is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto juftification."

And further, the damage by Adam's offence is not perfectly like the gift through Chrift; for judgment to condemnation proceeded from one offence ofoneman, but the free gift proceeds to the forgivenefs of all offences, and the juftification of all offend

ers.