ty to reduce him to a flate of formation in fit fh and blood; in which conftitution, the law of sin, which St. Paul faid he found in his members, became the govern ing principle of the whole man. 3d. God has revealed his divine and glorious purpofe of bringing man back from his formed ftate, and from under the law of the earthly Adam, to his original created ftate, forever to be under the governing power of the law of the heavenly conftitution. The objections, of which notice will be taken, ftand oppofed to my third propofition: The firft that I notice, is found in a propofitition frequently flated, by modern divines, thus, God, in the great and infinite plan of moral government, confults the greateft poffible good to the whole fyftem; and in order for the greateft poffible happinefs to be produced, it was neceffary, that fome of God's rational creatures fhould be eternally miferable; Agreeable to which, all men cannot be faved.' This is the only ground, on which an objection can be ftated against univerfal holiness and happiness, while we admit the existence of an Infinite Supreme. I cannot go into an examination of any authorities, on which the above statement is fuppofed to fland; for I know of none: All I can do, is to examine the statement. prop itfelf. It is argued agreeable to this ofition, that the infinite and inoonceivable miseries of the wicked, in the world to come, will enhance the happiness of the glorified in heaven. Against these statements, I argue, if, in order for the greateft poffible happiness to exift, the greatest poffible mifery must, alfo, exift, I wish to reverfe the fubject: Then the propofition would ftand thus, In order for the greateft poffible evil to exift, the greateft poffible good muft exift. Then, if God, in his univerfal plan, has produced as much good as was poffible, he has, alfo, produced as much evil as poffible, which renders the ftatement, that he confulted the greateft poffible evil, as juft, as that he confulted the greatest poffible good. Of courfe, there is no more propriety in calling him good, than there is in calling him bad. If it be faid I carry this evil, or misery, too far, even beyond my opponent's meaning, I will endeavor to fhow him, according to his own flatement, that I do not. He fays, every degree of mifery in hell, will produce many degrees of happiness in heaven; if fo, if the wretched are not made as miferable as poffible, the bleffed cannot be made as happy as poffible; if they are not made as happy as poffible, they must experience fome want; and, of course, fome mifery themselves. On the other hand, if the wretched be not as miserable as poffible, they must have in poffef. fion fome remaining convenience: Then, neither the greatest poffible happiness, nor the greateft poffible mifery, is produced. Almighty God being put to the neceffity of making fome of his rational offfpring eternally miferable, in order to make the reft forever happy, may be reprefented by a parent who has ten children; but only provifions enough to preserve the lives of five, until he could get more. In this awful dilemma, he fits down to confult the greatest possible good; fays to himself, if I divide my provisions equally among my children, all muft furely starve to death; but by neglecting five, I can fave the lives of the other five, which he finally concludes to do. But I ask the rational, I petition the reasonable, I request the impartial, to guess the feelings of the father, on fuch an occafion! Before him, are ten children, all in the image of him-felf he fees his own eyes roll in their heads, hears his own voice voice on their tongues, while his own blood frolics thro' their veins; how could he make the divifion? how could he decide on one, for a victim? Would he not rather give his own flesh to be their meat, and his own blood to be their drink, and fervently pray for plenty! But is the Almighty poor? Has he not enough, and to spare? When the prodigal came home, did the father turn away his brother, fo that he might have a plenty for him? Is there not fullness enough in God, to fatisfy the wants of all his creatures? Why the neceffity, then, of making fome miferable eternally? My opponent will fay, the bleffed are happified, in confequence of the mifery of the wretched: But what reafon can be given, for fuch an idea? How do we look on a perfon, in this world, who manifefts joy and happinefs in the mifery of one of his fellow creatures? Do we fay he manifefts a godlike difpofition? Surely no. From whence came charity; from heaven, or hell? if fouls in heaven poffefs it, they cannot be happy in confequence of the mifery of any rational being; and fhould the divine principle be found in hell, it would banish mifery, and annihilate the place! Again, if a foul in heaven derives happinefs, from feeing, fay one half, or two thirds, of the human race in mifery, would he not yet enjoy more, providing the whole, except himfelf, were in the fame torment? If it be granted that he would, then, in order for a foul to be made as happy as poffible, the whole human race, except that one, must be endlessly as mifer able as poffible! If it be argued, that it is not the number or multitudes of individuals who are made miferable, that thus con. ftitutes or enhances the happiness of the bleffed, but that it is the nature, juftice and intenseness of this mifery, which is neceffary for the above purpofe, it makes it very plain, that the eternal mifery of one would produce as much good, as of ten thousand, or more. our We have now gone fo far, even on opponent's ground, as to fee, that there is no need of more than one foul's being endlessly miferable; and it ftill further appears to me, that the mifery of this one may be difpenfed with, without departing from what my opponent has acknowledg. ed; and that, by letting each individual of the human race, for a moment, or any limited time, experience the nature of the mifery contended for, and then giving them a memory to retain it fresh in mind forever; this muft, of neceffity, produce the effect as well, and without the expenfe of a fingle foul. I do not think it would abfolutely require omnifcient wisdom to concert a better plan than the one I am oppofing. Suppole we alter the circumstance of the father and his ten children: Suppofe the father has provifions enough for the whole, and his object, in the bestowing it upon |