which Mr. S. hath produced from St. Paul's writings.

What I affirm is this, that but one fingle word can be found, in all the paffages which Mr. S. cites from St. Paul's writings, that speaks of the continuance of future punishment. And what does not fpeak of the continuance, certainly does not speak of the eternity, of future punishment. That one word which I refer to, is in a passage cited from Thef. i. 6-10. "Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompenfe tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled reft with us, when the Lord Jefus fhall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jefus Chrift: Who shall be punished with everlasting deftruction, olethron aioonion, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." The reader hath atready seen the reasons why the word aioonion cannot be admitted to fignify perpetuity without end, unless the nature and circumstances of the fubje& require it; which is not the present cafe.

Scriptures, if there were future punishment will be

fuch, as only imply that

without end, cannot be faid to affert it in the most exprefs terms. Mr. S. was a little too eager, too full of the idea of eternal mifery. He did not mean to write falsehood. He faw feveral texts that fpoke of future punishment, and he instantly added the epithet eternal, in his own

mind,

I am per

mind, and finally put it down on paper. fuaded this is the way in which his unlucky affertion

came abroad.

Another observation of Mr. S. is, p. 234, "IE we were reduced to the alternative, either of faying this paffage means univerfal falvation or of faying, we know nothing of its meaning, the last must be chosen to preserve any confiftency in the writings of this apoftle." What if I fhould propose fome alternatives refpecting St. Paul's writings? Either St. Paul means univerfal falvation in this 5th chapter to the Romans or he means that which is directly contrary to what he affirmed, when he faid, for be muft reign, till be bath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. Contrary alfo to what he affirmed, when he said, AND so all Ifrael fhall be faved; as it is written, There fhall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and fhall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my covenant unto them, when I fhall take away their fins-Contrary alfo to his own molt express affertion, when he faid, For it pleafed the Father that in him should all fulness dwell. And (baving made peace through the blood of his cross) by him to recončile all things to himself, by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.-Contrary to his own affertion, when he faid, And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body, by the cross, hav. ing flain the enmity thereby.-Contrary to what he affirmed, when he faid, having made known unto us

the mystery of bis will, according unto his good pleafure, which be bath purposed in himself, that, in the dif fenfation of the fulness of times, be might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in bim.-Contrary also to what he affirmed in his folemn apoftolical directions to Timothy, in these words, I exhort, therefore, that, firft of all, fupplications, prayers, interceffions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and bonefly. For this is good and acceptable in the fight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be faved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Chrift Jefus; who gave himself a ranfom for all, to be teftified in due times-I am pofitive, we had much better own that St. Paul means univerfal falvation, in this 5th chapter to the Romans, than to present him to the world as the most inconfiftent and selfcontradictious writer that ever drew a pen.

For there is one

We will now return from the third to the first part of Mr. S.'s book, and purfue his fcripture proofs of eternal mifery. I am thus patient and punctual in the examination of Mr. S.'s proof from fcripture of eternal mifery, because I view the paffages of fcripture which he adduces in fupport of his own scheme, as fcripture objections against univerfal falvation + though nothing but Mr. S.'s ufe of them would ev er have fuggefted to my mind that they were fo.

1

Mr.

Mr. S. proceeds next to St. Paul's epiftles to the Corinthians. And his firft extract is from the it chapter of the ft epiftle, verfes 18, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28. "For the preaching of the crofs is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are faved it is the power of God. But we preach Chrift crucified, to the Jews a ftumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called both Jews and Greeks, Chrift the power of God, and the wisdom of God.: For ye fee your calling, brethren, how that not many wife men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called ; but God hath chofen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wife; and God hath chofen the weak things of the world to confound those which are mighty and bafe things of the world, and things which are defpifed, hath God chofen, yea; and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are."

21

Ye fee your calling, brethren, how that not many wise, mighty or noble are called, &c. Upon this Mr. S. makes the following observation, p. 57. "What is meant by calling in this place? It is conceived, that it means effectual calling to eternal life, by sanctification of the holy fpirit." From this idea of calling Mr. S. would infer, that all the inhabitants of Corinth, who were not called, were eternally milerable; as we see he does, p. 59. place means effectual calling, and I

If calling in this

do not know how

we can put any other construction upon the word,

confiftent with what is fact; then the apoftle's description is proof enough, that fome men will not be faved; for those cannot be faved, who are not effectually called." Even on Mr. S.'s hypothesis, that calling in this place means effectual calling. Mr. S. is taking for granted the very thing in dispute, that the punishment of those, who neglect the call of the Gospel, in this life, will be without end. That it will be endless, is the matter of controversy, and ought not to be affumed in the argument. If eternal misery be to be proved by fuch a circuitous and uncertain method, and Mr. S. be the man who is finally to convince the Univerfalifts, he will need to protract his life, to the longeft period which any antediluvian ever reached. The Univerfalifts have fo many plain, exprefs, indubitable paffages, both of Old and New Teftament fcriptures, in their favor; that it will require a long time to convince them that they are in an error, by inferences and deductions from equivocal paffages, aided by dubious reasonings.

But, though it be not pertinent to the prefent fubject, we will, for a minute examine Mr. S.'s idea of the called, as used by St. Paul in this epiftle. as good a method as any we can adopt, is to permit the apoftle to explain his own term.

And

In the 2d verse of this firft chapter of St. Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth, the apostle explains the term called, and the general character of that church. "Unto the church of God which is

at