God which bringeth falvation to all men," that we muft "deny ungodliness and worldly lufts, and live foberly, and righteoufly, and godly in the world;"' fo that no man has the leaft right to expect to be happy, before he is virtuous and holy; but must be miferable, fo long as he is vicious.

If we cannot confider God as dealing perfectly right, and with kindness and mercy towards all his creatures; we cannot love him and if we cannot love him we shall not fo fear him, as to be induced to obey him. If fo, diffolutenefs of manners, diforder, and every species of vice will presently prevail.

A reflection Mr. S. made, in the 2d part of his book, whilft treating on the divine benevolence, concerning a loose sense of that word benevolence, was then referred to this part of my examination, to be confidered as an objection againft univerfal falvation. The reflection was this, "This loose sense of the word will be very agreeable to finful minds, and hath a fatal tendency to fix them in the fecurity of death."

Mr. S. lets us know what he means by this looje fenfe of the word benevolence, p. 114. "Benevo lence applied to the divine character, in the loofe fenfe that many ufe the word, means the fame as that all creatures will be made happy." This is the loose sense of the word benevolence, when it is fo explained, as to fignify that God is fo benevolent as to will and intend the falvation of all men. This is the compofition of the word which is very agreeable

to

1

to wicked minds, and bath a fatal tendency to fix them in the fecurity of death.

If any doctrine really tends to licentioufnefs, it is an objection against it. But those who use the word benevolence, in what Mr. S. is pleafed to call the loose sense of it, are far from allowing that their fense of the word tends to licentiousness.

The reader, undoubtedly, recollects that, in the firft part of this work, I prefented him with two fchemes of creation and moral government of men. The first of thofe fchemes is that which Mr. S. ef. pouses. The other, that which we confider to be the true one. I could almost be willing to refer the two schemes, without any comment, to the judgment of the reader; to determine which of them has the evil tendency. And, were I fatisfied of the good judgment and impartiality of the reader, I fhould have no hesitation at fubmitting them as they are. But as it would be a great stretch of charity, to fuppofe that every reader is both judicious and impartial, I am free to make a few obfervations on the bad tendency which is fuggefted. And here, Mr. S., I hope, will permit me to take into confid eration the tendency of his fcheme of divine benevolence, as well as the other.

The first inquiry, concerning any system of doctrine, ought to be, is it true? If it be true, we need not give ourselves great anxiety about its tendency, or confequences, as no truth has, in its nature, a bad tendency. Evil minds may pervert and abuse truths,

even the most facred. But the tendency of truth, and the tendency of the perverfion of truth, are very different things.

That God, of his infinite mercy, through our Lord Jefus Chrift, hath made ample provision for the reftoration of all men to virtue and happiness; and that, in the result of the divine mediatorial plan, all men will, in fact, be made virtuous and happy; this is the divine benevolence, according to the loose sense of the word, as Mr. S. is pleased to call it.

That God, of his infinite mercy, through our Lord Jefus Chrift, hath made fufficient provifion for the virtue and happiness of all men; but, as he never defigned the virtue and happiness of all, fo, in the refult of the divine mediatorial plan, a part only will be made virtuous and happy, and the reft will be left to spend a finful and miferable eternity in hell. This is the divine benevolence in the restrained fense of the word; which Mr. S. thinks is the true fense.

According to the loose fenfe of benevolence, God is good unto all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, in the moral and spiritual, as well as natural meaning. According to the ftrict and reftrained sense of benevolence, though God causes the fun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust; yet he entertains no defign that the evil and the unjuft fhall ever be

made good and juft, or ever fhare in the fpiritual and eternal bleffing of the gofpel kingdom.

In one fenfe of the word benevolence, God is the Father and the friend of all men, confiders and treats the whole race of Adam as his children; defigns to make them all virtuous and holy, and finally to collect them all together, in one harmonious and happy fociety. In the other fenfe of the word benevolence, God is the Father and friend of the elect only; and thefe he defigns to make virtuous and holy, and finally to collect them together in heaven, where they will be happy for ever leaving the reft deftitute of efficacious grace, to perish in their fins to all eternity.

In one fenfe of the word, the virtue, poliness, and happiness of the whole human race will redound to the highest declarative glory of God, and the fupreme happiness of his intellectual and moral kingdom. In the other sense of the word, the eternal fin and mifery of millions of millions of mankind, produce, as neceffary means, the greatest glory and bleffedness of God, and of his holy intelligent kingdom.

I need to proceed no farther, in contrafting the two very different meanings of the word benevolence. The difference is infinitely great. Our bulinefs is to inquire which of these fenfes of the word benevolence has the evil tendency.

Here, my kind reader, I will appeal, not to your paffions, but to your reafon. According to one sense

of

of the word benevolence, God is represented as having made, and originally intended, you for virtue, holinefs, and happinefs. In the other, God is reprefented as having made, and originally intended, you for eternal fin and mifery.. Which reprefentation appears to be the mot juft? In which does God appear to be the most juft, and good, and glorious? Does it appear to you to be juft, that God fhould have called you from an eternal fleep in nonentity, where you lay, innocent as himself, and, by an irrefiftable act of omnipotence, impofe exiflence upon you, that you might fin and fuffer to all eternity ? Is this reconcilable with your best ideas of the infinitely perfect re&itude of God,

Satan tempts men to in, and, in this way, occafions their fuffering, But Satan never made any man to be finful and miferable. Whereas, accord

ing to one sense of the word benevolence, God made millions of millions of human creatures with exprcfs defign that they fhould be eternally finful and miferable; that he might be glorified, and his holy intelligent kingdom made happy.

Does it give you a moft noble and fublime idea of the wisdom, power, and goodness of God, that he hath fo conftructed the natural and moral fyftem of the univerfe, that he could not enjoy the higheft glory, nor his,virtuous Intellectual creatures fupreme happiness; unless a great part of his intellectual creatures fhould be eternally finful and miferable? does this give you an idea of a moff a

amiable