A kind and generous address to the clergy and people of the

My

United States.

Y brethren and fellow citizens, you are fenfible that religion confifts of two parts, theory, and practice. The theory of religion refpects the knowledge of God and of ourselves. The knowledge of God comprehends the information he has been pleased to give us of his exiftence, attributes, and the moral government of mankind. And this moral government which God exercises over mankind, contains that wonderful difpenfation of providence, the gofpel, or good wrong definitions of the divine fome corruptions of the gofpel make up the principal corruptions which obtain in the theory of religion. The gospel, you are fenfible, is confidered by many, as a dispensation of grace and mercy defigned to effect the holiness and happiness of a part of mankind only, leaving the reft in a state of fin and fuffering, which will never know an end. Others suppose that the gofpel is a dispensation of grace

news. Some attributes, and

and

and mercy defigned to effect the holiness and happiness of every fon and daughter of Adam. Those who limit the benevolent defign of the gofpel difpenfation, fo define the attributes of God, as, in their view, to reconcile them to fuch limited defign of the gospel difpenfation. Those who extend the benevolent defign of the gospel, fo as to make it good news unto all people, think they cannot fo define the divine attributes, in any confiftency with truth, as to reconcile them with a lefs extenfive defign of the gofpel. Those also, who limit the defign of the gospel, think they find fufficient warrant for this limitation, in the declarations of the gospel itself. On the other hand, those who extend the defign of the gospel, think they find the most ample evidence of this extent, in the declarations of the gospel itself. This is the true and undisguised state of facts, so far as I understand the fubject.

I frankly declare to you, my fathers and brethren, and my fellow citizens, that I feel myself difpofed to extend the divinely benevolent defign of gospel grace and mercy, in fuch manner, as to include all the children of Adam. Nor can I poffibly underftand any definitions of the divine attributes, or interpretations of the declarations of the gospel itself, upon any other fuppofition of the extent of gospel grace and mercy. For this theory of the divine attributes and moral government, and extent of gaspel grace and mercy, I am willing to write, to preach, and to converfe, fo long as I live, and fhall

be

be able to use my pen and tongue.

At the fame time, I moft cordially wifh, fo far to participate that divinely benevolent fpirit, which gave birth to the gofpel difpenfation, as to exercise patience and charity towards all my brethren and fellow citizens, who may differ from me.

In my obfervations on Dr. Edwards's publication, I fhall take up the fubje&t on a much larger fcale, than I have now done, and give it a full difcuffion. Mr. S.'s theory of the divine benevolence, and fcripture proof of eternal mifery, I have endeavored to refute. How far I have fucceeded, the public will judge. I freely acknowledge, that the inconfiftencies and absurdities of Mr. S.'s theory of the divine benevolence, and eternal misery, appeared to me so many and fo flagrant, that I may have expreffed my felf, fometimes, a little too liberally about them. But this I fay, that I give the reader liberty to confider as expunged, every fentence in my book, that candor and chriftian charity may juftly interpret as too unkind and severe. For I pofitively declare, that I have a high veneration for the character of brother Strong, and really fuppofe that he thinks he is doing God fervice. The light in which our Maker views us, and our present and future desti nation under his government, comprehend that knowledge of ourselves, which the theory of religion conveys. According to the doctrine of eternal mifery, God views a great, if not the greatest, part of the human race as now plunged into a state

my

of

of fin and mifery, from which no difpenfation of his government is defigned to deliver them. This part of the human race is now in a ftate of fin and mifery; and their deftination is, eternally to remain in that ftate. Many of you, whom I now addrefs, both minifters and people, undoubtedly hold this to be the true theory of religion. Will you be kind enough, my Fathers, Brethren, and fellow-citizens, to help me over fome difficulties, answer me fome questions, and trace with me fome confequences de ducible from fuch a theory of religion..

f 2

Merely for the fake of concifenefs, we will call those who are deftined to be delivered from a finful and miferable state, and made happy to all eternity, the elect; and all the reft, reprobates. My difficulties, questions, and confequences are so numerous that I fhall not, in this place, pretend to arrange them in any critical method, but beg leave to mention things as they occur to my mind.

On the theory of eternal mifery, is creation a real benefit to the reprobate ? I allow he has finned, and that he ought to fuffer; I do not fay, eternally. But if the reprobate have finned, and ought to fuffer; this does not alter the nature of my queftion. The question is this, whether creation be a real benefit to the reprobate? I prefume, there is not a perfon in America, who is capable of understanding the queftion, that will anfwer it in the affirmative. No one will, or can, fuppofe, that an endless exiftence in fin and mifery is a real benefit. Any man would

do u.

would prefer inftant annihilation, to a ftate of endlefs mifery. But this is the awful ftate to which numberless millions are deftined, according to the prefent theory. If exiftence be not a real benefit to the reprobate, I would ask again, whether any thing the reprobate experiences, under the divinė government, be a real benefit to him? By a real benefit, I mean fomething whereby the reprobate may meliorate his condition, fo as to render his exiftence better than non-existence. To allow this, would be a contradiction in terms. It would be to affert that the reprobate was, and was not, a reprobate, in the fame fentence. So that it is a living, eternal truth, that the reprobaté, neither by his exiftence, nor by any thing he experiences under the divine government, receives any benefit from his Creator. This granted, or proved, I afk again, what obligations the reprobate is under to his Creafor? He has plainly received no benefit from him. Obligation originates from fome benefit, or favor, received. But the reprobate has received no benefit, no favor, from the hands of his Creator. He is, then, absolutely under no obligations to him. Thus a great part of mankind, upon the present theory, are entirely discharged from all obligations to God. This granted, or proved, I ask again, whether the reprobate be capable of committing fin against his Creator? As fin is a tranfgreffion of the law; and the law is an obligation to duty; and the reprobate is under no obligation; the reprobate

cannot