Where shall we find the mercy of God, according to this merciless doctrine? It is said that "mercy is his darling attribute, and that judgment is his strange work." But according to this scheme, we must reverse this sentence, and say that "_judgment_, or rather everlasting destruction, is his darling attribute; and that mercy is his strange work." It is said, that "his tender mercies are over all his works." This must mean over such as have sinned; for such as have not sinned, do not stand in need of mercy. But this narrow limited doctrine does not make his mercy extend to a tenth part of his works. If I see a multitude of poor wretches hanging over a dreadful fiery furnace, and can extend my help to them all as easily as to one, but will not, this speaks but little for my mercy; and as little does this doctrine speak for the unbounded mercy of God.[3] VII. It contradicts common sense.--There is something of a light in the breast of every one, which the Author of our being has planted, and which we call "the understanding." By this we are enabled to see things in common life which are consistent or inconsistent; so even in religious matters there may be asserted some things so shockingly inconsistent as may affront even what we call common sense, and perhaps may be a stumbling-block in the way of many. Should the legislative power of England give out laws or acts of parliament to be obeyed, and rewards promised to the obedient, and punishments denounced to the disobedient; but at the same time, by some secret springs of management, should so order it, that a certain number should be constrained to obey, in some particular time, called a day of power; and the remaining part should be under an unavoidable necessity of disobeying, either by being constrained to disobedience, or for want of that ability to obey which the government could only give, but it was denied them: now must it not shock all common sense, and all degrees of truth and justice, to find these poor impotent wretches brought to the stake to be burnt alive, because they could not do impossibilities? And does not every one see the case is parallel, when the great Judge shalt pass the sentence of condemnation at the last day, "Go, ye cursed, into everlasting fire?"--"Why, what for? Because I have decreed it shall be so?" No: "I was hungry, but ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, but ye gave me no drink." We do not find them objecting any such decree being made against them; if there had, how could they have been furnished with a better plea? They might have said, "Lord, thou knowest we could not reverse thy decree, nor avoid our impending doom. Didst thou not ordain that we should just do as we have done, seeing thou hast fore-ordained from eternity whatsoever should come to pass in time? So that we have just fulfilled thy counsel, and done all thy pleasure." Here it seems pretty plain that such a scheme must fill the prisoner's mouth with undeniable arguments,