It is granted they do not experience that feverity of punishment which is referved for them; but it is certain their mifery is great. According to the conftitution of nature, there is no peace to the wicked; they are like the troubled fea; the diforder of their minds muft render them wretched; and, in addition to this, they are reprefented as being confined in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day. If Mr. W. were confined in a dark dungeon, laden with irons, oppreffed with guilty fears, tormented with unholy paffions and appetites, and look. ing forward to the aflizes under the affurance of being then punished in the moft fevere and exemplary manner, I dare fay he would feel himself to be extremely miferable. And if the fallen angels may be very wretched for thousands of years without being in the leaft reformed, I think we are warranted in faxing, that God does not endeavour continually to make them juft by their fufferings; or elfe, that he endeavours to do it in vain: either of which is inconfiftent with the doctrine of their restoration.*

Mr. Wright offers fome remarks upon the nature "of divine juftice. I do not," fays he, 66 conceive "the juftice of God to confift in inexorable feverity of conduct, in his taking all poffible advantages "of the errors and follies of mortals."+ And pray fir, who have fuch conceptions? What neceffity

was there for this remark? But wherein does it confift?

*It is rather furprifing that the Univerfalifts have not adopted Dr. Priestley's fentiment, to get rid of this difficulty. The Doctor roundly afferts, "That there is fuch a perfon as "the Devil, is no part of my faith, nor that of many other "chriftians; nor am I fure that it was the belief of any of the "chriftian writers. Neither do I believe the doctrine of dæmo"niacal poffeffions, whether it was believed by the facred writers 66 or not; and yet my unbelief in these articles does not affect my "faith in the great facts of which the Evangelifts were eye and "ear witneffes. They might not be competent judges in the one "cafe, though perfectly fo with refpect to the other," Mofes and the Hindoos compared, p. 341.

+ Examination of Ryland's Sermon, p. 84.

1

confift? "In the undeviating rectitude of his nature "and conduct, in his rendering to every creature "that which is moft confiftent with his own perfec "tions, in his doing, in every cafe, that which is "moft right to be done by infinite wifdom, power, "and goodness, for the prefervation of eternal order "throughout the univerfe."*. I fhall fhew presently that this definition and endless punishment are per fectly reconcilable; in the mean time I will proceed to another of Mr. W.'s remarks. "I remark that

Dr. Ryland's conclufion, If the reftitution take "place on the foundation of grace, and through the "mediation of Chrift, then the juftice of eternal "punishment is admitted, evidently implies that grace

cannot operate without arrefting the arm of justice, "and that what Chrift effects, through his media ❝tion, ftops the courfe of juftice." The doctor's conclufion implies that there may be juftice without grace, but not that there cannot be grace without injuftice; the proof, therefore, "that God, in dif"penfing his favours, acts with the ftricteft juftice," was unneceffary.

Mr. W. goes on, "I think Dr. R.'s miftake arifes "from his fuppofing that the juftice of God confifts "in his giving to every one of those who die in their "fins, according to the ftrict demerit of their con"duct; this is not to be concluded from the decla "ration, who will render to every one according to "their deeds." If it cannot be concluded from this text, it may from the following: Matt. v. 26.xviii. 23, 35. Luke xii. 10, 58, 59. Heb. x. 2629. James ii. 13. If finners may be caft into the prifon of hell, in the Almighty's debt, to remain there till they pay all that is due unto him, to th uttermoft furthing and the very laft mite, altho' they have not to pay with; if they may fo blafpheme, the Holy Ghoft, that they shall not be forgiven; if they

may

* Examination, p. 34. † Ibid. p. 35. Ibid. p. 37.

may commit fin of fuch magnitude that the facrifice of Chrift remains no more for them, and that their certain portion will be fiery indignation; and if they will have judgment without mercy; then I think it is fufficiently evident, that they will receive according to the ftrict demerit of their crimes, and that the demerit thereof is eternal damnation.

But if Divine Juftice required that finners fhould "receive according to their demerits, it could not "be an act of juftice to pardon the guilty. It can "not well be denied, either, that divine juftice does "not require the endless punishment of finners, or

Now

that God will, in divers inftances, fail to do what "his juftice requires."* This is fuch childish quib. bling, that one would wonder a man of fenfe fhould have recourfe to it. Mr. W. knows that believers only are pardoned; he ought therefore to have ftated it thus: "If Divine Juftice required that thofe who die in unbelief should receive according to their demerits, it could not be an act of juftice to pardon those who are obedient to the faith." who does not perceive the futility of this reafoning? According to Mr. W.'s logic, it is eafy to fee that he himself is under a mistake if he suppose that Divine Juftice requires any future punishment. For, "if Divine Juftice required that finners fhould receive any future punishment, it could not be an act of juftice to pardon the guilty in this life. It cannot well be denied, either, that Divine Juftice does not require any future punishment, or that God will, in divers inftances, fail to do what his juftice requires." How well qualified is Mr. W. to point out the miftakes of others! I believe neither he, nor any other man will undertake to prove, that it would be unjust in God to punish thofe who die in fin according to the ftrict demerit of their conduct.

* Examination, p. 37, 38,

66 I will

"I will enquire," fays Mr. W., "if we have any proof that eternal punishment would be juft? "If it would be juft, I know of but three ways "in which the juftice of it can be difcoverable ❝ by us:

"1. From its being perceivable, by reafon, that "the demerit of fin is unbounded; and, confe"quently, that it is reafonable to conclude, that "the finner ought, in juftice, to be punished with

inexpreffible torments to all eternity; but to affert "this, would be to contradict the most evident facts, "the cleareft perceptions of the human mind, that 66 man is a creature whofe powers are limited, confe"quently, whofe virtues and vices must be limited; "that there are degrees in fin, and ought, in "juftice, to be degrees in punishment. The reason

which God hath given us must revolt at the idea of "the crimes of a few years, perhaps of a few days, "being punished with the moft exquifite mifery, fo "long as God himself exifts. Such a doctrine butrages all our feelings."*

I will not undertake to prove merely by unaffifted reason that punishment must be eternal, fince the queftion involves in it the confideration of a variety of fubjects too deep for the moft penetrating human mind to develope, without the aid of Divine Revelation: it will be quite fufficient to fhew that punishment may be eternal. But, it feems, the moft evident facts, and the cleareft perceptions of the human mind" are against its poffibility. We may enquire however, what thofe facts and perceptions are? Why, one is, "The powers of man are limited." Very well; and what then? "Confequently his virtues and vices must be limited." This is not fo clear a perception as the former. A man may injure his body to fuch a degree, by cutting off an arm or plucking out an eye, that nothing in the material

*Examination, p. 31, 32.

material world can make it perfect again; and fince Mr. W. will allow that the foul may be injured, he cannot be fure that the injury may not be fo great, in fome cafes, that nothing in the fpiritual world can reftore it to its former ftáte. So that if man's powers be limited, yet the effects of his vices may be infinite. As to man's virtues, I think even the Universalifts will allow that they are not limited in their effects. It will not be pretended to be contrary either to Reafon or Revelation, that a man who has lived vir tuously in this world fhould be happy for ever hereafter; and Mr. W., I dare fay, thinks it is not contrary to reafon, that the restored fhould have a degree of blifs inferior to that of the faved.* It cannot therefore be denied that the virtues performed by our limited powers in this life, are the cause of our enjoying a degree of happiness for ever, which, without thofe virtues, we should be deprived of. And if the effects of virtue may be happiness infinite in duration, then, for any thing which our reafon can percieve to the contrary, the effects of vice may be mifery infinite in duration alfo.

But, there are degrees in fin, and ought, in "juftice, to be degrees in punishment. Reafon "revolts at the idea of the crimes of a few years, "perhaps of a few days, being punished for ever." Mr. W. here pleads for two rules of proportion, firft,between the degrees of fin and the degrees of punish ment; fecond, between the time of finning, and the time of fuffering. To the firft I have no objection; for it is as easy to fuppofe the degree of punishment in hell to be proportioned to the degree of moral pravity in finners, though the duration of punish. ment be endless, as it is to fuppofe the degree of glory in heaven to be proportioned to the degree of moral virtue in the faints, whofe happiness, Mr. W. believes will be eternal. Now before I proceed to

* Examination, p. 44.

the