Young, in his poem on the Laft Day, goes into the common opinion, refpecting the eternity of future mifery, and admits fome of the popular crrors on that fubject, yet he puts fuch arguments and pleas in the mouth of a condemned finner, that you would think he meant to satirize the received doctrine, and argue against it. Of this complexion are the following lines.

"And fhall my voice, ordain'd on hymns to dwell,
Corrupt to groans, and blow the fires of hell?
Oh! muft I look with terror on my gain,
And with existence only measure pain?
Ah! mercy! mercy! art thou dead above?
Is love extinguish'd in the fource of love?

Juft is my lot-But, Oh! muft it transcend
The reach of time, despair a distant end?
With dreadful growth look forward and arife,
Where thought can't follow, and bold fancy dies.
My plunge but still begun-And this for fin.
Could I offend, if I had never been?

Father of mercies! why from filent earth

Didft thou awake, and curfo me into birth?

Kufh into being a reverse of thee,

And animate a clod with misery?

And can't thou then look down from perfect bliss,

And see me plunging in the dark abyss,

Calling thec Father in a sea of fire,

Or pouring blafphemies at thy defire ?

With mortals anguish wilt thou raise thy name,
And by my pangs Omnipotence proclaim?
Thou art all love, all mercy, all divine,
And shall I make those glories cease to shine?
Shall finful man grow great by his offence,
And from its course turn back omnipotence?
Forbid it! and Oh! grant, great God at least
This one, this flender, almost no request ;
When I have wept a thousand lives away,
When torment is grown weary of its prey,
When I have rav'd ten thousand years in fire,

Ten thousand thousands, let me then expire."

If the Doctor firmly believed the eternity of future torment, why would he thus furnish weapons to the opponents of that doctrine? While we allow God's threatenings their own place and weight, let us not fo expound and extend them, as to give no room to his promises, and to the exercife of that mercy which is over all his works, and will rejoice over and beyond the reign of judg ment. The fcriptures reprefent that mifery, whether here or hereafter, that is the wages or fruit of fin, by the term death. Why should we make the reign of death endless, feeing the word of truth affures us that death fhall be deftroyed, 28 the last enemy in exiftence-that death shall be no more, nor forrow, nor erying, nor pain; because the former things are paffed away, even fin, and all its bitter fruits; 1 Cor. xv. 26. Rev. xxi. 4.

Dr Young, in another part of hie poem, makes hope to bloffom almoft in the

• Kk

fhades of hell, in the cafe of Judas himself, and gives us an amiable picture of mercy. I'll conclude this poftfcript with the paragraph a little varied, and the addition of four lines.

But Oh! ye fons of men, exalt your voice,
And bid the fou; thro' ali her powers rejoice;
Mercy, his darling, in his bofom found,
Scatters ambrofial odours all around;

Unbends his brow, and mitigates his frown,

And fooths his wrath, and melts his thunder down,
The scene is chang'd; now man exalt thine eye,
In thy dread Judge thy dear Redeemer spy';
Let balmy hope your tortur'd bofoms fwell,
For hope fhall bloffom in the fhades of hell.
A being form'd his Maker to adore,
Will not be left unceafing to deplore;
Is deathless death, and pangs of dread despair,
His fate who was eternal life to share?

APPENDIX.

Good Lord be near to patronize
The truth that hell would criticise,-
That own thy great name to be Love,
In whom paternal bowels move;
Who feeks the happiness of all,

To whom each finner yet shall fall-
Whofe goodness evil shall o'ercome,

And light bring from the darkest gloom.

A SERMON of Jonathan Edwards, on the Eternity of Hell Torments, from Mat. xxv. 46. falling lately into my hands, I weighed his arguments with fome attention, and defire to be set right if I had mifrepresented the subject. I how. ever found nothing in it to shake my belief of the doctrine which I have endeavoured to establish upon the facred oracles. With all due deference to the Prefident's memory, as a man of learning, piety, and great ability, and alfo of great acuteness as a polemic writer; refpect to a higher authority obliges me to diffent from what, with my prefent views, I muft account his mistakes.

In the discourse he difcuffes the four following things: 1. That it is not contrary to the divine perfections, to inflict on wicked men, a punishment that is abfolutely eternal--2. That the eternal death which God threatens, is not annihilation, but an abiding fenfible punishment, or mifery.-3. That this mifery will not only continue for a long time, but will be abfolutely without end.-And 4. That various good ends will be obtained by the eternal punishment of the wicked."-The fecond of thefe points he clearly proves, by fhewing that the punishment threatenened cannot be annihilation, but really confifts in an abiding, fenfible mifery. But he is far from fucceding fo well, in my opinion, in proving the other points propofed. I at the fame time grant, that a number of his arguments will appear conclufive to those who have not coolly examined the arguments on both fides, and carefully attended to the scripture phraseology. The only argument he uses to prove that it is agreeable to the justice of God tɔ in. flict an eternal punishment on the wicked, is, that fin is an infinite evil, and there. fore deferves fuch a punishment. This he attempts to prove by this confideration, that the obligation to love and obey God is infinite, and therefore the vio. lation of it is an infinite evil. I have, in a preceding part of thefe letters, fhewed the fallacy of this mode of reafoning, which equally concludes again the forgivennefs of fin in every cafe. The obligation to love and obey God arife, from his own perfections, which are infinite; but the act of the creature in violating this obligation must be finite, like himself; else every degree of aggravation in fin is at once deftroyed, contrary to feripture and common fenfe; for in

infinity there cannot be greater and lefs. What God daily does in pardoning fin, is a proof of what he may do at pleasure, be the evil of it ever so great. And were the evil of every fin infinite, the atonement of Chrift, which could not be more than infinite in its value, could procure but the pardon of one fin.This paragraph the Prefident concludes, by obferving, "That there is no evading this reasoning, but by denying that God is infinitely glorious;" but this train of reasoning is cafily overturned, and yet God maintained to be infinitely glorious. Does what he has already done in forgiving fin diminith his glory? or can he fuffer in his glory by the exercise of his mercy in future? In the ac. count he gave of himself to Mofes, he fhewed that the exercise of his mercy is his greatest glory, and will perpetuate his name and memorial to all generations.

He farther argues the eternity of hell torments, from God's infinite hatred of fin, and enmity to it, as if this could not be manifefted, without permitting its eternal exiftence, and profecuting it with relentless wrath. Whether of the two discovers the greateft hatred of a ferpent, he that kills it outright, or he that permits it to live, and contents himself with tormenting it? Let common fenfe fay, if God does not much more effectually diicover his abhorrence of fin, by devifing a plan that will effect its total and final destruction, and deliver his wretch. ed creatures from its dominion; than by keeping it and them eternally before his eyes, tho' punished with ever fo extreme mifery.-By fuch a train-of reasoning, he comes to the conclufion, “That if it be suitable there should be infinite hatred of fin in God, it must be suitable that he should execute an infinite pu̟aishment on it; and fo the perfections of God require, that he should punish fin with an infinite, or, which is the fame thing, with an eternal punishment."-But to fhew that God is at perfect liberty to forgive fin, when he pleases, thro' the mediation of his Son, and that no perfection of his nature requires it fhould be punished in any cafe, without end, we need only refer, as I have already obferved, to what he has already done in forgiving it, and ftands engaged by premife to do hereafter; fo that fuch reafonings go to limit the Holy One of lf. rael, as if he could not do with his own creatures, and his own grace, whatever feemeth him good.

1 enter not upon his reasoning from the fcripture phrases, everlasting, eternal, for ever, and the like, having, in the course of these letters, fhewn how inconclu five it is in this argument; for they cannot but grant the advocates of the reforation, that thefe terms are applied to things of limited duration, times almost paft number in fcripture. Could they fhew that there is fomething in the very nature of future punishment that muft render it eternal, and oblige to take such terms, when applied to it, always in that unlimited fenfe, the point in difpute would be decided; but to fhew this is impoffible.

Mr Edwards thinks the punishment of the wicked must be eternal, because, according to him, wheu they fhall be adjudged to it, time itself, and all its ages and difpenfations, fhall come to an end. I have already fhewed that time, fo far from terminating before the final fentence of the wicked fhall be executed, fhall endure till the period of punishment fhall come to a clofe, and the reftitution of all things be effected. I might obferve above, that the' the words everlafting,

eternal, &c. when applied to future mifery fhould import never-ending duration, even this would not prove that mifery to be ftrictly eternal. The Prefident la bours to prove that the divine veracity requires it fhould; but I humbly think he fails in proof. What Bishop Tillotfon admits in one of his fermons, which I had in my eye to extract, is certainly, in my opinion, much more to the pur pofe, as agreeing with what we have recorded of the divine procedure. Should the Lord remit the threatened, or terminate the inflicted punishment, who has a right to complain? Those who are thereby relieved are out of the question. Chriftians, however much inclined to complain, have as little right to do it, as Jonah at the mercy extended to the inhabitants of Nineveh, and the elder brother in the parable at the restoration of his young brother. In the cafe of Nineveh the threatening was exprefs, yet the event fhewed that God fufpended the execution of it upon a condition unforeseen by man. Hezekiah was told to fet his houfe in order, for that he muft die and not live; and he understood it to mean immediate death, yet fifteen years were added to his life. Now if the Lord fufpends the execution of a threatening upon a condition foreseen only by himself, and yet not infringe upon his veracity; may he not remove future punishment, when his own grace fhall produce repentance, tho' foreseeing this, the threatening should be expreffed in ever fuch unlimited terms? It is deemed one of the prerogatives of earthly kings, to remit or mitigate punishment, tho' the sentence of the law be express and paffed; and fhall we limit our Maker more than these his subjects?

The good and important ends which will be obtained, according to this venerable author, by the eternal punishment of the wicked, are four :

First, that "hereby God vindicates his injured Majefty," which vindication certainly requires no fuch facrifice. To reprefent God as injured or benefited by the conduct of his creatures, is, in my opinion, repugnant to reafon and fcripture, Job xxxv. 7. xxii. 3. His glorious Majefty cannot be injured, whence the punishment of fin must be afcribed to fome other caufe; and even admitting it could, does the vindication of it require the infliction of torments on the work of his hands, extreme in degree, and endless in duration? Why are we fo often told in fcripture that God is flow to anger, of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil-that he will not contend for ever, nor be always wroth that he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy ; if there be any truth in fuch a view of his administration, as makes the execu. tion of eternal vengeance on the far greater part of his intelligent offspring abfolutely neceffary to the vindication of his injured majefly, and yet what will never appease his wrath? I can scarce conceive any thing that injures God's majefty more in the eye of reafon and truth, than fuch a view of his paternal and mediatorial government; for with regard to him, the groundless dreams, and antichriftian flanders of men, cannot affect him.

A fecond good and important end, to be attained by the eternal punishment of the wicked, is, That "God thereby glorifies his juftice." This I muft deny; for could they once glorify juftice by their fufferings, they could, upon the footing of juftice itfelf, demand their releafe, as a debtor een when the debt for