at Corinth, to them that are fanctified," or feparated, devoted to the chriftian profeffion, as it follows,

called to be faints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jefus Chrift, our Lord, both theirs and ours." Here the apoftle, in a manner, plain enough to be understood by any common capacity, explains the term called; and fhows us that he applies the term to all the profeffors of Chrif tianity at Corinth and elfewhere, who were obliged, by their profeffion, to be faints.

ས

If we fuppofe, as Mr. S. does, that the term called means effectual calling, by fan&tification of the boly Spirit, we fhall presently make very wild work. Let us, with Mr. S.'s hypothefis in mind, look a little forward, and fee how thefe effectually called conducted themselves. We fhall foon find that one of these effect ually called, by the fanctification of the boly Spirit, according to Mr. S. married his father's wife, and that the church in general conducted very indecently on the occafion. Chapter v. 1-5. "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and fuch fornication as is not fo much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as abfent in body, but prefent in fpirit, have judged already, as though I were prefent, concerning him that hath so done this deed: In the name of our Lord, Jefus Chrift, when ye are gathered

together,

together, and my fpirit, with the power of our Lord Jefus Chrift, to deliver fuch a one to Satan, for the deftruction of the flesh, that the fpirit may be faved in the day of the Lord Jefus." It is not much in favor of Mr. S.'s notion of the term called, that one, of the called should be guilty of fuch fornication as was totally unknown in the Gentile world, and, for it, be folemnly delivered over to the devil; and that the whole church should rather favor the guilty wretch. Nor was it any more in character for that church that they afterwards turned the holy communion of the fupper of our Lord, into a glut tonous drunken feaft.

T

It will not help the argument of Mr. S. if he should say, that it is not fuppofed that every individual member of the church at Corinth was fan&tified by the holy fpirit: and that this inceftuous brother was unfanctified, a reprobate, and therefore will be eternally miferable. It happens that we have St, Paul's exprefs teftimony in favor of the incestuous perfon's future happiness, He was to be delivered to fatan for the deftruction of the flesh, that the fpirit might be faved in the day of the Lord Jefus. So that, if Mr. S. can prove, that it will fare as well with the reft of that church, in the day of the Lord Jefus, as we have reason to think it will with their incestuous brother, we may be quite certain of the falvation of the whole church of Corinth.

How indigefted and incorrect appears Mr. S.'s expofition of this paffage of fcripture ! As imperfect

have been his obfervations, in general, on our Saviour's and St. Paul's writings, fo far as we have gone. He brings no exprefs fcripture in favor of eternal mifery, or that affords any material objection against universal falvation. And as for his interpretations of scripture, they uniformly appear to have been hafty, unftudied; and are, generally, as we have seen, either converted against himself, or reduced to abfurdity.

Never was there a book printed in America, fo favorable to the cause of Univerfalism, as this of Mr. S. except that of Dr. Edwards; which we fhall prefently have under examination.

Dr. Chauncy did well, according to his ability. But his ability to fupport univerfalism, in a direct way, was not equal to that of Mr. S. or Dr. Edwards, when exerted in the indirect way; that of attempting to prove the doctrine of eternal mifery. Mr. S. and Dr. Edwards are preachers of Chriftianity. Both gentlemen of learning; of maturity of reading, reflection, and judgment; and both cordially engaged in the cause of eternal mifery. If they fail, or do much worse than fail, as is ftrongly fufpected they muft; all the writers in favor of Univerfalifm, in this country, never rendered the cause fuch effential fervice, as they will. Great is the truth, and it will prevail !

Mr. S.'s next paffage is, 1 Cor. ix, 24-27. Know ye not that they, who run in a race, run all, but one receiveth the prize? fo run that ye may ob

tain. And every man that ftriveth for the mafter is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. Therefore fo run, not as uncertainly; fo fight I, not as one that beateth the air but I keep under my body, and bring it into fubjection; left that by any means, when I have preached unto others, I myfelf fhould be a caftaway."

Mr. S.'s immediate obfervation is this, " None will dispute, that eternal happiness and life are the gofpel prize; and could fuch an exhortation as this have been proper, if all men are abfolutely to obtain it ? Why not? If chriftians do not conduct so as to obtain the prize in this ftate of existence, the next will unavoidably be miferable. Hell, the lake of fire, will convince chriftians, who shall be caft into it, that there was an infinite propriety in this exhor tation of the apoftle, and others of the like kind in the fcriptures; even though they knew that they should finally emerge out of the place of mifery. We have no very pofitive affurance, that any will rife from the fecond death, to happy life, till the expiration of the Millennium. And is there no propriety in exhorting chriftians to conduct in fuch manner, in this life, as to avoid being caft into the lake of fire for a thousand years? No chriftian ever seriously believed that there will be no future mifery; or that none will be fentenced, hereafter, by the eternal judge, to depart into outer darkness, w hero will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. I am, fometimes,

times, at a lofs to understand Mr. S. I am fure he might have delivered himself with more diftin&tness and perfpicuity. Future punishment, and eternal punishment, are two very different things, with those whom he calls Univerfalifts. He ought to have made, and maintained, through his whole piece, a clear diftinction between these two kinds of punishment. He has produced a number of scriptures which speak plainly enough of future punishment; but not one paffage, as I think, that speaks of eternal never ending punishment.

"For

The next paffage is, 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16. we are unto God a fweet favor of Chrift, in them that are faved, and in them that perifh: to the one we are the favor of death unto death; and to the other the favor of life unto life." By perishing, Mr. S. does not suppose that extinction of being is intended; but eternal mifery. I wonder the abfurdity of fuch a fuppofition did not. ftrike his mind, Eternal death, eternal deftruction, an eternal perifhing, are all contradictions, and abfurdities.

Mr. S. has the fame obfervation over again, that he formerly applied to the antediluvians.

Page 61. "If they be loft, a favor of death unte death, that is, their rejection of the gofpel will increase their fin and mifery, and make their eternal wretchedness more awful, than it would have been without gospel light." Here is a moft fhocking representation of the divine character. I will try to refcue

Bb