the foolish presumptions of sinners in venturing upon them, notwithstanding such plain and terrible threatenings." I trust that these quotations will be deemed sufficient to prove, that Archbishop Tillotson was not a writer in favor of the restoration, but an opposer, of it, and consequently, he ought not to be reckoned among the writers on that subject. Permit me, Sir, to notice another error in the introduction to this quotation in the 106. page of the first volume of the Miscellany. It is there stated, that "He (Archbishop Tillotson) did not seem to think that the perpetual preaching of endless damnation was the happiest, or most likely method of reclaiming sinners." This assertion is contradicted by the very first words of the sermon in question, which are as follows," Among all the arguments to repentance and a good life, those have the greatest force and power upon the minds of men, which are fetched from another world; and from the final state of good and bad men after this life." And one of the reasons which he gives for engaging in the subject is, because he considers" the belief of the threatenings of God in their utmost extent, to be of so great moment to a good life and so great a discouragement to sin." He adds, "If men were once set free from the fear and belief of eternal punishment, the most powerful restraint from sin would be taken away." There are many more passages of the like nature in the course of his sermons, but these may serve to prove, that he not only believed the eternity of hell torments; but also that he considered that doctrine as the greatest barrier against sin: and the greatest stimulus to holiness and virtue.. Hoping that you will insert this in the Miscellany, for the information of our readers, IN reading the above piece I was pleased with the candour and openness of your correspondent, and think, from the spirit which seems to flow through the same, he is not hostile to any branch of truth that can be supported by arguments adapted to reason, and will stand the test of rational investigation. I should not have come forward at this time, had I not thought of proposing some questions on the above subject (though in a different way) previous to my reading the above questions. Your correspondent introduces his questions by expressing hisi non-intention to engage in the "cause of future punishment, whether endless or limited," and assigns as his reason, his "not feeling any desire to be punished;" which mode of expression implies his disbelief thereof for the same reason. But might not the first Christians have declared the same respecting the predicted overthrow of Jerusalem? For they had no desire to participate of that awful destruction with which that guilty nation was threatened; but, in that case, they might have tarried regardless of Christ's admonition, and perished among their countrymen. He saith, he supposes all will agree with him that punishment in a future state will not exceed the rules of strict justice; and that the person punished must of necessity be conscious he justly deserves it." I admit, the rules of justice will not be violated in the punishment of the sinner; but think it doubtful whether " He must of necessity be conscious he justly deserves it ;" and unless it can be proved, either by Scripture, or by that consciousness manifested by the punished in the present life, the above doubt will remain. Have we, when under affliction, always been conscious of deserving it? Have we not rather murmured, thinking ourselves severely dealt with? Are children, when corrected, convinced of the justice of such correction? Were the Jewish Nation conscious thereof? Or is the whore of Babylon conscious she justly deserves to suffer those calamities which begin to come upon her for shedding the blood of martyrs, &c.? We read of some, who would even curse their God for their afflictions. Whether or not the person punished “Will think himself a martyr to caprice and despotism," is not in point; for men in the present life do not entertain the most favourable' ideas of God, although he has blest them with prosperity; and we are informed, that when sentence shall be passed on the wicked, and their crimes repeated to them, instead of acknowledging the justice of their sentence, they will call it in question, Matt. xxv. 44. I know the sinner will, in the end, be brought to own the justice of his suffering; but then the punishment will begin to answer its intended end. That the sinner will be punished on the ground of free agency," I readily admit; for upon what other ground can God judge the world? And that "Christ died for all men," must be acknowledged, or how can any one be punished for rejecting a salvation founded on his death? Your correspondent, after a few more observations and interrogations, comes to the point he had in view, and which his other arguments serve to introduce (viz.) "if their is no other way to avoid being punished but through the death of Christ, and that he died for all, upon what ground is any man punished?” It may appear strange to some, that Christ should suffer for the sins of the world, and yet the sinner be punished for his own transgressions; but be it remembered, that Christ was our representative, with respect to temporal death, as well as any thing else. He stood in our place: he was a man of sorrows; for our sakes he became poor; for us he was subject to mortal infirmities; gave up his life; sunk into the arms of death, and, spoiling the same, he rose again a conqueror, But yet we. are subject to sorrow, poverty, sickness, and death. How is it that we are subject to all these, seeing Christ hath suffered them for us? This, I think, is a problem which can be solved but one way, viz. that as it is a fact that men suffer and die notwithstanding the death of Christ, so it is also a fact that through his death, resurrection, and mediatorial reign, they shall be finally delivered from all the remains of death, although at present they are captives to it. Shall we say, because the full effects of the death and resurrection of Christ have not yet taken place, therefore they never will? Or, because the body must remain in a state of death for a time, it is unreasonable to suppose that Christ died to redeem from that enemy of the human race? I think it is more agreeable to reasonand revelation to say, that Christ, having suffered and rose again, became the first fruits of those who slept;" that his resurrection is an earnest of the resurrection of all the dead; which, though not instantly accomplished, yet shall surely take place in due time. It is also reasonable to affirm, that, although Christ hath died for all men, there are many who will be punished in a future state, especially when we consider, such punishment will be a necessary correction, calculated to forward the benevolent designs of his death. "he I am so far from thinking that future punishment will exceed the rules of strict justice, that I think the sinner will not be punished according to the demands thereof, Christ having answered its demands in his own person. There is, then, a great difference between the sufferings of Christ and the punishment of the wicked. Christ, by his death, was made an offering for sin, representing the sinner in his suffering; it was also a necessary qualification to fill the high office of inediator and restorer of all things; but the punishment of the sinner will be only such as will be necessary to reduce him to real obedience; which punishment will be inflicted by Christ in the capacity of mediator, and by none else; for the Father, being well pleased with what he has done, and having committed all things into his hands, hath given him authority to execute judgment: and, according to that wisdom which he possesses, to correct in such a way as he sees proper to accomplish that great end of his office, the subduing and reconciling all things to himself, and, consequently, the happiness of the universe. A parent is the head and representative of his family; he is accountable for what his children do; if they break a window, he pays for it; if they tread down a corn-field, he stands forth to bear the damages ;, or if in tender years they defraud or steal, he willingly makes restoration. But are they to escape correction, because their parent is ready to meet every demand on their account? Surely not; on the contrary, a wise parent will give such correction as he thinks will properly impress their minds with the nature of what they have done, proportioned to their crimes, and such as may remove their propensity to transgress. So Christ, the head, the parent of the universe, having taken the whole load of sin upon his own back, having undergone the punishment which was its due, being exalted a prince and a saviour, wil sway the sceptre in righteousness, and administer such corrective punishment as his wisdom dictates, and his parental goodness sees every way suitable to the nature of crimes, and the depravity of the heart, such as will humble and subdue the will, and finally reduce to obedience; and as a parent does not punish for his own advantage, but for the real advantage and happiness of his children-not from a principle of hatred, but from love-so the Lord Jesus will not punish the disobedient from any selfish disposition, but it will be the effect of that great love which he bears to sinners, and will be attended with the greatest advantage to the sufferer; severity being, perhaps, the only remaining means (consistent with the freedom of the will) that can accomplish the same. These, Sir, are my views on the above subject; glad should I have been to have seen something on the same from some other person. I wonder that a subject of such importance should be passed over by your old correspondentss, and hope, as they desire the spread of truth, they will pay more attention in future to questions of this kind, as it might be of use to many who desire to form proper ideas of God and his government. To your correspondent who proposed the above question, I present my sincere regard; whether the above remarks will satisfy his enquiries or not, it remains for him to declare: if he thinks my views are wrong, or that I misunderstood [him, let him freely declare the same; let him endeavour to convince me of my eiror, and he shall have my thanks, whether he succeed or not. If, Sir, you pay so much regard to a new correspondent as to admit my production, in your next number I may, perhaps, be encouraged to trouble you again with some other remarks. Yours, &c. LIVERPOOL. JOHN WRIGHT. QUESTION ON MATTHEW, XII. 31, 32. DEAR SIR, THE reconciliation of the above passage of Scripture with the doctrine of the Universal Restoration will oblige, MERTON. Yours, &c. A. B POETRY. THE WISH. REAT God, to whom all nature cries, Lest in my heart I thee deny, And say, Who is the Lord on high? J. H. |