not an universal judgment to come, but that it is not described either in Matt. xxv. or in those passages, in which the men to be judged are divided into two classes, as John v, 28, 29. 2 Thess. . 6, &c. I answer, 1st. That the scripture makes mention but of one judgment to be held on the last day, and no where teaches us, that a different tribunal is to be erected for those to whom the gospel was not preached, and for those to whom it was. Paul was preaching, Acts xxiv. 35, of the judgment to come, in the singular number; in like manner, Heb. vi. 2.." of eternal judgment." 2dly, The passages al leged, have the marks of universality affixed to them. For, John v. 28. it is said, "all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of man," and v. 29. this universality is not to be divided into those who either by faith received the gospel preached to them, or perversely rejected it; but into those who have done good or evil," without mentioning the gospel in the least. And 2 Thess. i. 6, &c. the punishment of eternal destruction will be inflicted, by the sentence of the judge not only on those who were disobedient to the gos pel, but also on those who knew not God, viz. God the Creator, to the knowledge and worship of whom nature alone might have led men, unless they had extinguished its light through their wickedness, as Curcellæus himself explains it. Sdly. Nor is it any thing singular to distribute the persons to be judged into two classes, but common in every judgment concerning all mankind: of which there are but two dissimu lar bodies, either of those to be acquitted, or those to be con demned. An intermediate state the scripture knows nothing of.

XXI. The only thing specious adduced by Curcellæus, is this, that Christ cannot upbraid those who knew nothing of his will, with these words, I was an hungered, &c. But we answer; 1st, That Christ, in what he here speaks, takes not in the whole process of the judgment, but only mentions this by way of example. For who can doubt that more, things are to be considered in this judgment even with respect to those to whom the gospel was preached, than barely those effects of charity towards the godly when afflicted? 2dly. The scripture declares that all the actions of all persons shall be tried in this judgment, Eccl xii. 14, 2 Cor. v, 10. Rom. ii. 5, 6, &c. Even words, Matt, xi. 37. both the idle and hard, Jude 15. nay, even the secrets of the heart, Rom. ii. 15, 16. 1 Cor. iv. 5. 3dly. It is not our business to determine with what the Judge may justly upbraid the damned. It is plain, he will upbraid them with those things at least, which they shall hear with the most dreadful amazement.

And seeing all the damned have discovered many evidences of an unrelenting, unmerciful, and unbeneficial disposition; who of us shall dare to censure Christ, for interpreting this their conduct, as if they would have shewn himself no kind of compassion, had he come among them in person? 4thly, and lastly Granting that Christ may not upbraid all the wicked with this, yet does it not follow, that they are not to come to judgment; because there are many other things that shall be tried in this judgment, and for which they shall be condemn. ed, which the scripture elsewhere declares, though, in this summary, Christ makes no mention of them. There is nothing to constrain us to believe that every thing relative to this judgment is to be learned from this passage alone: other testimonies of scripture are to be consulted, which treat on the same subject.

XXII. It remains that we enquire whence this Penal Sanction is to be derived; whether from the mere good plea sure of the divine will only, or rather from the natural and immutable justice of God, to which it would be unbecoming to have ordered otherwise. I shall not now repeat what the antagonists of the Socinians have fully and happily illustrated, concerning vindictive justice, as an essential property of God, and the necessity of its exercise, in case of sin. First, I shall only propose some arguments, by which this general proposition may, I think, be most evidently demonstrated, that it is agree ble to God's very nature and immutable right, not to let sin go unpunished; and then more especially inquire into the eternity of punishment, we en

XXIII. And first, let us duly consider the infinite majesty of God, and his supreme authority over all things; which is so illustrious, that it obliges rational creatures capable of knowing it, to obey and serve him, as we proved, chap. ii.§ VIII. As often then as they in the least deprive him of this obedience, they directly incur the guilt of high treason against the divine majesty, and consequently are bound over to a punishment adequate to this crime, for neglect of obedience. For the sinner, as Thomas Aquinas] justly said, as much as in him lies, destroys God and his attributes, slighting that majesty of God to which it is necessary that all things be subject, from the consideration both of fod and the creatures. But it is altogether impossible that God should not love in the tenderest manner, both himself, his majesty, and his glory. Now he cannot but resent an injury done to what he thus loves. And therefore he calls himself, op ba jealous God, and declares that this is his name, Exod. xxxiv.

·2

*

14. But op denotes resentment for the dearest thing: and hence jealousy and great fury are joined together, Zech. viii. 2. But above all things he is jealous for his name, that is, that it be made known to men as it is, Ezek. xxxix. 25. and will be jealous for my holy name. In which name even this is contained, and will by no means clear the guilty, Exod. xxxiv. 7.

XXIV. We may likewise argue from the majesty of God in this manner: It is altogether impossible that God should deny himself, 2 Tim. ii. 13. that is, that he should conceal his own imperfections, or do any thing to make him appear to be what he is not, or that he is not possessed of properties truly divine and that because he himself is the archtype and exemplar of the intelligent creature; to whom he is to discover in his works, his nature, dignity, prerogative, and excellence. He would therefore deny himself, did he conceal his majesty, much more did he suffer man to slight it, which is done by every sin. For the sinner behaves so in his presence as if there was no God to whom he owed obedience: nay, as if himself was God, who had a right to dispose of himself, his faculties, and other things with which he sins, at his own pleasure and without any controul, saying, Who is lord over me? Psal. xii. 5. This is indeed to usurp the majesty of the Supreme Being. But how can God suffer this to go unpunished? Unless we can suppose he can bear any to be equal to him, which would have been an open denial of his supremacy, majesty, and excellency. But he then appears glorious in the eyes of sinners, when he inflicts punishment on those who throw contempt upon his majesty. Thus, Numb. xiv. 20. he swears, that all the earth shall be filled with the glory of God;" namely, by destroying in the wilderness, those who did not believe though they had seen the glory of God and his signs. The glory of God, in this passage, signifies the manifestation of his jealousy against those who despised him, for he will not suffer himself to be mocked. And therefore, as he cannot but seek his own glory, so he cannot suffer any to profane his majesty and go unpunished.

XXV. Secondly. There are also several ways by which this may, as evidently, be made anpear from the holiness of God.

XXVI. 1. God's holiness is such, that he cannot admit a sinner to union and communion with himself without satisfaction first made to his justice. For, Tisyagueron "what fellowship (participation) hath righteousness with unrighteous

ness ?" 2 Cor. vi. 14. Whoever touches what is unclean can have no communion with God, verse 17. Every one whom God unites to himself," he causeth to cleave to himself as a girdle," that he may be unto him "for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory," Jer. xiii. 11. But was he thus to unite the sinner to himself, without a previous satisfaction made for removing the guilt of sin, holiness itself would, in that case, be united to, clothed and attended with sin; which is a plain contradiction. It is indeed true that God had set all these things before sinful Israel; but that was done by virtue of the covenant of grace, which supposes a due satis faction. Nor are we to imagine that this union which God describes in such magnificent language, was the lot of any others, in its full emphasis and spiritual import, but of those who were internally in covenant. Compare Deut. xvi. 19. Should any object, that though, it is really unbecoming the holiness of God to favour the sinner with a communion of friendship, while he continues such; yet he may certainly, out of his goodness, take away sin, and so admit to his fellowship him who was before a sinner: I answer, that without a satisfaction, it is not consistent with the holiness of God, even to sanctify the sinner, and thereby prevent him with that greatest effect of his love. For if the beginning of such a communion of God with the sinner, be not unbe coming his holiness, why do all allow it as to the progress thereof? It is plain, it is not suitable to the holiness of God to cultivate a friendship with the sinner, so long as he continues such. But before sanctification he is nothing but a sinner, nay, he is sin itself. Nor can a greater instance of friendship be given to man than that by which he is sanctified. And therefore it is not consistent with the holiness of God, without any satisfaction, to grant so great a favour to the sinner, who is most worthy of his wrath. If it be still urged, that though God cannot, consistent with his holiness, love the sinner with a love of complacency, yet nothing hinders him from loving him with a love of benevolence, which may so transform him as to render him a fit object of the love of complacency: I answer, that this is spoken at random for those, effects of the love of benevolence, by which we are regenerated, are proposed to us in scripture, as consequences of the engagement and satisfaction of Christ, and of our reconciliation with God, Tit. m. 4, 5, 1 Cor. vi, 11. 1 Pet. i. 3. Faith, without which it is impossible to please God, is freely bestowed on the elect, "through the righteous, ness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, 2 Pet. i. 1..

Whatsoever way you interpret this, it at last appears, that the gift of faith is founded on Christ and his satisfaction. If therefore the satisfaction of Christ was previously requisite to the sinner's being blessed with those effects of the love of benevolence; it is rashly asserted, that it was becoming the holiness of God to bestow them on the sinner without satisfaction. Besides, God must needs punish those to whom he cannot grant union with himself; for the greatest punishment consists in the want of this union. This is that death with which the law threatens the sinner, as we have already made appear.

XXVII. 2. The holiness of God is so unspotted, that he cannot behold evil, and look on iniquity, Hab. i. 13. that is, bear it in his sight. He cannot therefore, "lift up the light of his countenance upon him," Psal. iv. 7. in which the salvation of men consists: but the privation of this is the highest punishment. As long as David refused to admit his son Absalom into his presence, though almost reconciled to him, this appeared to Absalom more intolerable than any death, 2 Sam. xiv. 32. So that in a nature conscious of its unhappiness, a punishment of sense cannot but accompany a punishment of loss.

XXVIII. 8. From the holiness of God flows a mortal and implacable hatred of sin. It is as much the nature of holiness to "hate iniquity, as to love righteousness," Psal. xlv. 8. Sin is "an abomination to his soul," Prov. vi. 16. that is, to his very essence, and essential holiness: and neither sin only, but also the sinner is the object of his hatred. "For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord thy God," Deut. xxv. 16. He therefore separates from himself, and from his chosen people, all whom he cannot make partakers of his favour: and so he cannot but inflict upon them that punishment which is the effect of his hatred. According to Solomon's reasoning, Prov. xvi. 5. “Every one that is proud in heart, is an abomination to the Lord." And the consequence is, He shall not be unpunished. In the same manner David reasons, Psal. v. 4, 5, 6. “Thou art not a God that hast pleasure in wickedness." Thou hatest sin, and the sinner too, because of it. "Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity." And surely the fruit of this must be exceeding bitter: "Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing." And thus from the holiness of God, arises a hatred of sin and the sinner; from hatred, punishment.

XXIX. 4. It is doubtless diametrically opposite to the