'/- 
 
 \ 
 
 V 
 
 y 
 
 / 
 
THE 
 
 SALVATION OF ALL MEN 
 
 STRICTLY EXAMINED; 
 AND T H E 
 
 ENDLESS PUNISHME NT 
 Of those who die impenitent, argued and defend- 
 
 ED AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS AND REASONINGS OF 
 THE LATE 
 
 Rev. doctor CHAUNCY, of Boston, 
 
 IN HIS BOOK ENTITLED 
 
 *' The Salvation of All Men," &c. 
 
 By Jonathan Edwards, D. D. 
 
 Pastor of a Church inNew-Haven. 
 
 ^^ Cojne now and let us rsafon together ^ faith the Lord.^' 
 
 Ifai. I. i8. 
 
 ^^ Is not my way equal? Are not your ways unequal P^^ 
 
 Ezek. XVIII. 25. 
 
 N E W . H A V E N : 
 Printed by A. MORS E> 
 
 M,DCC,XC, 
 
•^ )r*^ )tCl^ 'fC^ 'fiCl!\ 'fC^ 
 
 4* k.-^ Vi.3^ k,3»( k.j»( k.y. 
 PREFACE. 
 
 IT is to be hoped, that no man, who believes a future 
 ftate of exifteiice, will grudge the time and pains which 
 are neceflary to obtain fatisfadory evidence concerning the 
 nature of that ftate. A miftake here may be fatal. If 
 the dodrine advanced in the following pages be true^ it is 
 a moft important, a moft interefting doctrine. PJov/cver 
 contrary to the wifhes of any, however mortifying to their 
 feelings, however dreadful, it is by all means necefTary to 
 be known. Surely no man would wifli ^^ to flatter himfelf 
 '' in his own eyes, till his iniquity be found to be hateful." 
 To a rational and fcriptural view of the truth in this cafe, 
 and to a fatisfaflory folution of the difficulties which have 
 been objected to it, great attention and clofe examination 
 are neceflary. And whether both our duty and intereft 
 require us to fubje6l ourfelves to the labour of this atten- 
 tion and examination, rather than to fit down eafy in the 
 expectation ^* of peace and fafety, till fudden deftruclion 
 *^ come upon us ;'' no rational man can heiitate. 
 
 If any object to the fize of my book, my apologies are, 
 the fize of that to which it is intended as an anfwer, and 
 the extent and iaiportance of the fubje6t. 
 
 Doctor. Chaiincy's book is indeed anonymous. Yet, 
 as I aia informed, that he and his moft intimate friends 
 have made no fecret of the author's name; I prefume I 
 need not apologize for ufing the fame nam.e. 
 
 I AM fenHble of the prejudice of many againft contro- 
 verTy on religious fubjects. But is it poiuble in all cafes to 
 avoid it r Whai is controverfy properly managed, but ra- 
 tional or argumentative difcuilion ? And is there to be no 
 
 rational difculiicn of the iubjedts of religion ? Heat and 
 
 perfonal inventive in fuch dirquifttions are both impertinent 
 and hurtful. But a cool difculfion ©f the doctrines of reli- 
 gion; 
 
iV 
 
 P R E F A C E. 
 
 gion, on the ground of reafon and revelation, is undoubt- 
 edly, one of the beil means of invefrigatJng truth, of dif- 
 fufing the knowledge of it, and of obtaining and giving fa- 
 tisfattion with regard to the difficulties which attend many- 
 moral and religious fubjecls. This is the mode of difcuf- 
 iion, which I have endeavoured to obferve in the follow- 
 ing pages. To point out the inconilflence and abfurdity of 
 an erroneous fyftem, and even to fet them in the moft gla- 
 rino- licrht : is not at all inconfiftent with this mode of dif- 
 cuilion. If in any inftances I have deviated from this 
 mode, and inftead of adhering clofely to the argument, 
 have defcended to perfonalities, and have endeavoured to 
 bear hard on Dr. Chauncy, otherwife than by fliowing the 
 weaknefs and inconilflence of his arguments ; for every 
 fach inllance I a{I<: pardon of the reader, and al- 
 low it is of ilo advantage to the caufe v.hich I efpoufe. 
 That caufe niuft be a bad one indeed, which (Cannot be 
 fupported without the aid of perfonal reflections. 
 
 New-Haven, June 29- A. D. 17B9. 
 
^ . CONTENTS. f. 
 
 CHAP. I. In -which the fundamental p' maples of Do^or 
 Chaancy^sfyftemj concerning future punlfjmentj are 
 pointed out and compared with each other* Page i. 
 
 .-/ 
 
 Chap. 11. Whether the damned deferve any other punifh^ 
 ment, than that "Uihich is conducive to their perfonal good, 
 
 Page 23. 
 
 Chap. III. Whether the damned will in faSf fiiffer any 0- 
 ther punifjment , than that which is conducive to their perfoju 
 al good* Page 48. 
 
 Chap. IV. Containing an examination of Dr. Cs arguments 
 io prove endkfs punijhment inconffient with juftice. i^age 80. 
 
 Chap. V. Is annihilation the punijhment of the damned > 
 
 Page 102. 
 
 Chap. VI. Theju/iice of endkfs punifhment conffiir^ in 
 . mifery. Page 117, 
 
 Chap. VTI. Contai?ting another view of the que ft ion con-* 
 cerning the jufHce of endlefs punifrment , Page 130. 
 
 Chap. VIII. In which it is inquired, whether endlefs pU' 
 nifhment he confijtent with the divine goodnefs. Page 132. 
 
 Chap. KC. In which is confulered Dr, Cs argument from 
 Rom. /. 12, 6-c. ' " ' Page 159. 
 
 Chap^ X. In which is confidered Dr. C^s argument from. 
 Romans VIII. 19 24. Page 178. 
 
 Chap, XI. Containing remarks on Dr. C s arguments from 
 Col. I. 19, 20. Eph.I. lO; and I Tim. II. 4. Page 201. 
 
 Chap. XII. Do^or Cs arguments from Pfal. VIII. 5, 6. 
 Ueh. II. 6—9. Phil. II. 9, 10, II. I Cor. XV. 24--29, 
 and Rev. V. 13; confidered. Page 216. 
 
 Chap. XIII. In which Dr. C^s fcheme is confidered, with 
 •* a reference to his ideas of human liberty and moral agency. 
 
 Page 240. 
 
 Chap. 
 
.^ 
 
 contents; 
 
 Chap. XIV. A reply to Dr, C'san/wers io the argument} 
 in favour of endlefs puntjhment ^ drawn from thofe texts which 
 declare the punlfhrnent of the damned to be tverlafting^ forever ^ 
 forever and ever , andthefire of hell to be unquenchable. P. 1^6^ 
 
 Chap. XV. In whhh are conjidered Dr, Cs anfwers to 
 the arguments drawn fr%m what is faii concerning Judas, 
 Mark XIV, 21 ; — from the unpardonable fn ; — and from the 
 tendency of the doelrine of univerfal falvation to licentioufnefs ^ 
 
 Page 277* 
 
 Chap. XVI. In which fome dire 61 arguments are pr^^pofed^ 
 to prove the endlefs punijhment of the wicked^ P^ge 282'. 
 
 CONCLUSION, Page 295. 
 
 Appendix f containing L Remarks on Bi/hop Newton, P . 298* 
 
 //. Remarks on Relly. P. 305, 
 
 III, Remarks on Pctitpierre, P. 303. 
 
UNIVERSAL SALVATION EXAMINED, k( 
 
 CHAP. L 
 
 Th which the fundamental principles of Dr. ChauN€Y'x J}>/^ 
 tern concerning future punifhment are pointed out and 
 co7nparedivith each other. 
 
 Section t . 
 
 In "which the fundamental principles ^c, are pointed out 6'C* 
 
 BEFORE we enter into the confideratlon of the par- 
 ticular arguments of Dr. Chaunq^ it may be pro- 
 per to give feme account of the fundamental principles of 
 his fyftem. 
 
 Bjside the dodrine of the falvation of all men, to 
 eftablifii which is the defign of his whole book ; there 
 are feveral other do6l:rines, which may be coniidered as fun* 
 dame>tal to his fyftem. He does not deny all future pun- 
 ifhment of the wicked ; but allows that they will be pun- 
 iflied according to their demerits, or according to ftricl 
 jufticc. Thus he allows that ^' many men will be mif- 
 ^* erable' in the next ftate of exiftence, in proportion to 
 ^^ the moral depravity they have contraded in this* 
 *^ There is -no room for debate here*.'' *^ They muft 
 ^'' be u-navoidably miferable in proportion to the number 
 '^ and greatnefs of their vicesf .'* ^^ For the wages of 
 *• (in is death ; but the gift of God is eternal life through 
 '- Jesus Christ our Lord : i. e. if men continue the 
 '' lervants of fin, the wages they ihall receive, before 
 ^' the gift through Christ is conferred on them, wili 
 *^ be the fecond death:|:." If fome men fufFer that pun- 
 ifhment which is the wages of hn, they doubtlel's fuifer all 
 which they deferve. No man deierves more than his ivtigef^ 
 ^- In the collective fenfe, they will be fomented for ages 
 '^ of ages; though fome of them only fliould be tormented 
 '^ through the whole of that period; the reft vsriouHy as 
 
 *' XX} 
 * -^^^' 9- t ^- lo- ± P. 90. 
 
2 The fundamental principles 
 
 *' to time, in proportion to their deferts\\.^* " There 
 *' ihall be a diiTerence in the puniniment of wicked meo, 
 *^ according to the difference there has been in the nature 
 *^ and number of their evil deeds^,^' He fpeaks of the wic- 
 ked as liable *^ to pofitive torments awfully great in de- 
 it gree, and long in continuance, in proportion to the num* 
 *^ her and greatfiefs of their crimes^. '^ ^' The pardona- 
 *' blenefs of ail other lins and blafphemies,*' [except that 
 againft the Holy Ghost], ^' hes in this, its being pof- 
 '* fible for men, to efcape the torments of hell, though 
 
 '' they fhould have been guilty of thofe lins. Accord- 
 
 *^ ingly the unpardonablenefs of the blafphemy againft 
 " the Holy Ghost, muft confifl in the reverfe of the 
 *' pardonablenefs of other fms — in the impoiiibiiity of 
 their efcaping the torments of hell, who are charge- 
 able with this Ihi. This now being the meaning of 
 
 the unpardonabnefs of blafphemy againft the HoLY 
 Ghost, it is cjuite eafy to perceive, that even thefc 
 blafphemers, notwithftanding the unpardonablenefs of 
 the fm they have committed, may finally be faved 
 — For if they are not faved till after they have palTed 
 *^ through thefe torments, they have never been forgiven*^ 
 *^ The divine la^jj has taken its courfe ; nor has any inter- 
 *^ vening pardon prevented the full execution of the threat - 
 
 "^ ened penalty on them. Forgivenefs ftriclly and lit- 
 
 *' erally fpeaking has not been granted themf." 
 *^ This kind of hnners being abfolutely excluded from the 
 *' privilege of forgivenefs, mull, as has been faid, fuffer 
 '* the torments of another world, before they can be fav- 
 *' ed;,'^ 
 
 In thefe paffages concerning the blafphemers of' 
 the Holy Ghost, the author plainly fuppofes, that 
 not only thofe of that charafter, but all who fuffer the 
 torments of hell are finally f ived without forgivenefs, ha- 
 ving fatisfied by their own fufferings the utmofl demands 
 of ftricl juftice. He ^vho is delivered from further pun- 
 ifhment in confequcnce of having fuffered a puni/hment 
 however great in degree and long in duration, but not 
 equal to that, to wh[ch he is Hable by llricT; jultice, is th-e 
 fubject of forgivenefs. Jufl i'o much punifhment is for- 
 given him, as is lacking to make the punifhmcnt, which 
 
 he 
 ? ^. 307. § Page 32c. * P, T^KOy- 351. t ^' V^S>^^^' 
 t^. 340 
 
 iC 
 
Gf Dr, Chauncy. 2_' 
 
 he hath fuffered, equal to that, to which he is liable by 
 flrid: juflice. Now our author, in the pafTagesjuft quot- 
 ed, fuppofes that both theblafphcmers of the Holy Ghoft and 
 all others who pafs through the torments of hell, are finally 
 delivered^ not in confequence of a punifhment inferiorin de- 
 gree or duration, to that which maybe inflicted on them, 
 according to ftrict juftice ; as in that cafe they would be 
 the fubjedlsof forgivenefs : but in confequence of that pun- 
 ifliment, which is according to ftrict juftice, and therefore 
 they are delivered without forgivenefs. He fays, ^' The 
 pardonablenefs of all other fms, lies in the poffibility, that 
 thofe who have been guilty of them, fliould efcape the tor- 
 ments of heil/^ Thofe therefore who aftually pals through 
 the torments of hell receive no forgivenefs; but are liber- 
 ated on the footing of ftri^t juftice. If pardonablenefs, 
 or which is the fame, a poiTibility of pardon confift in a 
 polhbility of efcaping the torments of hell ; then a^lual par- 
 don confifts in an r.ftual efcape from thofe torments'. Of 
 courfe they who do not efcape them, but pafs through 
 them, receive no pardon. 
 
 Aga.in: the only obfervation made by Dr. C. to fliov/, 
 that the blafphemers of the Holy Ghcft are not forgiven; 
 or the only refpect in which he afferts, that they are 
 not forgiven, is, that they pafs through the torments 
 of hell. But as this holds good with regard to all 
 the damned, it equally proves, that none of them are 
 forgiven; and that the divdne law takes its courfe on them 
 all ; and that no intervening pardon will ever prevent 
 the full execution of the threatened penalty on them . — 
 Now if the divine law take its courfe on the damned , and 
 the penalty threatened in the law , be fully executed on 
 them ; they are undoubtedly punifhed according to "their 
 demerits, or according to ftricl juftice; and if after all, 
 they be liberated from puniflmient , they are liberated not 
 in the way of forgivenefs , nor on the footing of grace or 
 favour ; but on the footing of ftrict juftice . 
 
 But if this conclufion concernirig all the damned be de- 
 nied ; yet as the blafphemers of the Holy Ghoft are fome 
 of mankind , fome of mankind at leaft , if not ail the dam 
 ned , Vv'ill be faved on the footing of fti'id: juftice , and 
 without forgivenefs . 
 
 The fame obfervations for fubftance , may be made on. 
 the other quotations above. If the davnned fuifer'* a mi- 
 
 ferv 
 
i| The fundamental Principles 
 
 '* fery 111 proportion to the number and greatnefs oi* 
 *' their vices ;'Mf ^^they receive the wages of fin ;*' if they 
 be "tormented varioufly as to time , in proportion to 
 '' their deferts ;" and ' 'according to the difference there 
 ** has been in the nature and number of their evil deeds"; 
 if they fufFer "pofitive torments awfully great in degree 
 *^ and long in continuance , in proportion to the number 
 *'and greatnefs of their crimes" ; they are puniflied to the 
 utmoil extent of juflice . To punifli them any further 
 would be exceflive, injurious and opprelTive . To exempt 
 them from punifhment , is lb far from an act of grace or 
 favour , that it is an acfl called for by the moil rigorous 
 juftice . 
 
 By thefe quotations , and by the obfervations on 
 them , it appears , that our author holds , that the dam- 
 ned fuffer a punilliment properly and ftridly vindictive , 
 and vindidlive to the highell degree , and to the utmoft 
 extent to which vengeance in any juft government can pro- 
 ceed . Indeed fpeaking of the dellrudion of Sodom and 
 Gomorrah , he plainly alTerts a vindictive punifhment both 
 of thofe cities , and of the damned ; he fays ,{ that ** the 
 deflrudion of thofe cities '" was, ''for a public example of 
 tlie divine vengeance to after ages . And the fire of hell 
 is doubtlefs called everlafting for the like reafon ;" i. e, be- 
 caafe it will lafl, till it fliallhave accompliflied the defign 
 of heaven in the deflruction of the damned , for a public 
 example of the divine vengeance. In his Five Dijfertations 
 p. I lo, he fpeaksof the labour, forrow and death which men 
 fufFer in this world, as " teftimonies of God's vengeance, 
 *' — as judgments on his part, and real evils on theirs;" 
 By vindictive punifliment is meant , that which is fufficient 
 to fupport and vindicate the authority of the divine law, or 
 which is fufHcient to fatisfy the jufHce of God . But no advo- 
 cate for vindictive punilhnient ever fiippofed, that to vindi- 
 cate the authority of the law and to fatisfy the juflice of God, 
 a greater punifliment is neceiTary , than is according to ju- 
 ftice or according; to the defert , or the nature and number 
 of the 1ms, the vices, the crimes of the perfcn puniihed ; 
 or that to thofe ends, a greater punifhment is neceflbr}", 
 than is iiiflicled, when" the divine law takes its courfe ;'' or 
 than is implied "in the full execution of the threatened pe- 
 nalty.'* A punifhment greater than that which anfwers 
 
 thofe 
 
 t P' 274* 
 
of Dr. Chaunct. ^ 
 
 ihofe defcriptions, would be fo far from fatisfying juftice, 
 that it would be politively iinjiift : it w^ould be fo far from 
 fupporting the authority of the divine law, that it 
 would bring it into contempt by violating it . If that 
 politive torment, whlcli in degree and continuance is ac* 
 cording to the deien: and the nature and number of 
 the evil deeds of the linner, be not fuificient to fa- 
 tisfy the juilice of God, I wiih to be informed what 
 would fatisfy it . -— But Dr . C . himfelf holds, thai 
 the punifhment which latisfies the juftice of God, ij 
 vindictive and oppcfed to that which is difcipiinary and 
 medicinal ; *'If the next ftate is a ftate of punifhment 
 '^ not intended for the cure of the patients themfelves, 
 *'but to fatisfy the juilice of God, and give warn- 
 *' ing to others; it is impcfiible all men (liould be final- 
 *' ly faved f .'^ So that I am perfectly agreed with Dr. C. 
 in his idea of a vindictive punifhment, and whether he do 
 not hold fuch punifliment in the utmoft extent, I appeal to 
 every candid reader, who ihall have perufed the forecited 
 quotations, or the pages from which they are taken. 
 
 Yet Dr. C. is a great enemy to vindictive punifhment, 
 and it is a fundamental principle of his book, that the fu- 
 ture punifhment of the wicked is difcipiinary and intended 
 for the good, the repentance and reformation of the pa- 
 tients, and not to fatisfy the juftice of God. This appears 
 from the quotation juft now made from page nth ; and 
 by innumerable other paffages, fome of which I fli all now re- 
 cite. '^ The wicked Oiall be fent to a place of w^eeping, and 
 ^^ wailing, and gnalliing of teeth ; not to continue there al- 
 *' ways,but till the rebellion of their hearts is fubdued, and 
 ^ ' they are wrought upon to become the willing and obedient 
 '^ fubjects ofGod''*." Forages of ages, the wicked fliallbe 
 
 miferable as a mean to deftroy the enmity of their 
 
 hearts and make them God's willing and obedient peoplef.'* 
 *^ ^^ The rcit ^Tthe wicked]" ihall have their portion in the 
 '^ place of blacknefs of darknefs, as a fuitable and neceiTa- 
 ^'^ ry difciphne, in order to their being reduced under mo- 
 ** ral fubjeclion to ChristJ.'' '^ The other ''[the wick- 
 ed]'' ihall be banifhed to dwell in unfpeakable torment, 
 ^' till they repent of their folly, and yield themfelves up 
 '■'■ to God, as his obedient fervanis||.'' He confider* 
 ^' the many difpenfations,'' through which he fuppofes 
 
 the 
 
 t P. ir. * P. 220. t^-22I. i P. 221. P. |i224. 
 
.£ Tie fumifimcntal pr'mctplcs 
 
 the wicked will pafs, ''ns varicufly adapted for the diicipllne 
 offtubborn and rebellious creature s*'."^^ Is it not far more 
 ^* reafoiiable to fuppofe, that the miferies of the other 
 '^ world are a proper' ififcipUne, in order to accomplifh the 
 *^ end'' of the recovery of the damned, ^' than that they 
 ^' fhould be final and vindidtive only 4- r" '^ The confid- 
 *' eration of hell, as a purging fire, h that only, which 
 ^^ can make the matter fit eafy on one-s mind**.'' With 
 approbation he quotes from Mr. Hartley thefe words; 
 ^'\ the doftrine of purgatory, as now taught by the Pap- 
 *^ ifts, feems to be a corruption of a genuine dod:rine held 
 ^* by the antient futhersj concerning a purifyiner firef .'* 
 He confiders the mifery of hell as *^ intended for the good 
 *' of the patients themfelvest ;"-^:-for ^^ their benefit || ;" 
 as ** a difcipline by which is to be etfefted the /jf/yo;?^// 
 *^''\^(3o^ of wicked menj.'* He fays, ^' The reafon why 
 *^ the wicked fuffer the torments of the next ftate_, is that 
 '^ they might be made the willing people of GoD.f 
 Ag this is his idea of the nature and end of the future pun- 
 iihment of the w;cked, he often rejects with abhorrence 
 the idea, that they are to be punifhed for any other end 
 exclufive of their own perfonal good. What he fays in 
 P' 3-5> implies, that unlefs v.e believe, that the 
 future punifiiment of the wicked is intended for 
 their perfonal good, -we muft believe, that *' the cha- 
 *^ racier of God, as the Father of mercies, and the God 
 '^ of pity, is limited to this world only;" and that he is 
 not the * ^ fame o;ood beino; in the other world, that he 
 
 <^ is in this;"« That on that fuppoiition, *f we fhall 
 
 *^ fay that of our father in heaven, which we cannot fup- 
 ^' pole of any father on earth, till we have firil divefted 
 *^ him of the heart of a father^.'' And in page nth, 
 before quoted, he abfoiotely rejects all puniihment v/hich 
 is not difciplinary. 
 
 But how thefe two fundamental parts of Dr. C's fyf- 
 tem can be confiftent with each other, is difficult to be 
 conceived. Is that punifliment which is according to the 
 deferts of the finner ; that which in dv^gree and coiitinu- 
 gnce is according to the natm-e and number of his evil 
 deeds ; in which the divine lav/ takes its courfe upon him, . 
 *?;nci in which the penalty threatened in the \d.\v is fully ex- 
 ecuted 
 ='P. 309. -I- P. 322* *P. S24- t^- 324- t P' 325- 
 }!P,;:^26. i^'. 328, ^ P. 343- i ^"'- 3-7- 
 
of Dr. Chauncy; f 
 
 ecuted : is this pmiifliment no more than a iuitable and 
 hecefTary difciphne to the fmner ; necelTary '" to reduce him 
 to a moral fubjeclion to Christ ;'^ necelTary *^to his per- 
 '^ fonalgood/' '^ his benefit/' &c? If fo, then that puniih- 
 ment which is according to ftri^t jultice and "^ latislies the 
 ^^ juflice of God/' and that vvhich is a mere merciful 
 and beneficial difcipline, are one and the fame. The 
 damned flnner fulFers no more puniihment, than is ne* 
 teflary for his good^ nor can without injury and opprssili' 
 on be made to fufter more : and all ground of dlltinction 
 between vindictive and difciplinary punifhnient entirety 
 vanifhes. But if any man fhould avow this fentiment, that 
 fuch punifhnient Oxily, as is n-eceil'ary and conducive tn» 
 the fmner's perfonal good, can coniiitently with juftice 
 be inflicted ; I beg leave to refer him to the next chap- 
 ter, in which the fubject is conlidered at large. 
 
 In the mean time, it may be proper to obferve, that 
 Dr. C. could not coniiflently adopt the fentiment jull men- 
 tioned; becaufe he in page nth before quoted, diilin- 
 guiihes exprefly between that punifhnient, which is in- 
 tended for the cure of the patients, and that which is in- 
 tended to fatisfy the juflice of God ; and afferts that the 
 latter is inconfiftent with the falvation of all men. Hi-s 
 words are, ^^ If the next (late is a (late of punifhm.ent, 
 '^ not intended for the cure of the patients themfelves, 
 
 *' but to fatisfy the juftice of God 'tis impofTible all 
 
 *^ men fhould be finally faved." On this notable pafTage, I 
 obferve, i. That Dr. C. here, as every where elfe through 
 his book, diftinguifhes between a vind'idive and difciplina- 
 ry punifhipent ; or between that punifhment which is con—' 
 ducive to the finner's good, and that which fiitisfics divine 
 juftice. It cannot therefore be faid, that according to Dr. 
 C. a punifhment conducive to the fmner's good, is ail th«.t 
 
 can in itrid juftice be inflifted on him, 2. He afferts^ 
 
 that if future punifhment be intended to fatisfy divine juft-^ 
 ice, it is impoflibie all men fhould be faved. Yet he 
 himfelf in holding, that the wricked will be puni/hed ac- 
 cording to their deferts, and in degree and continuance ac- 
 cording to the nature and number of their liris, crimed 
 and evil deeds ; and that the divine law will take its 
 eourfe on them, the whole threatened penalty be mKiCted^ 
 and they never be forgiven ; holds that puniihment, which 
 entirely fatisiies the juftice ©f GoD. Therefore, as he 
 
 holds 
 
S The fundamental Principles 
 
 alfo holds that fuch future punifliment as fatlsfies the 
 jullice of God, is inconfiftent with the falvation of all men ; 
 to be confiftent, he muft give up the doctrine of the falva- 
 tion of all men, to prove which, he wrote his whole book. 
 
 Another fundamental principle of Dr. C's book, is, 
 that all men, both thofe who drc laved immediately from 
 this life, and thofe who are faved after they have fufFered 
 the pains of hell ; are faved by the mere mercy ^ compajfpon, 
 
 grace ot favour of God, through Cmrist. He allows*, 
 
 that the Apoftle's Doctrine of juflification ftands ^' upon 
 " the foot of grace through Christ," and ^' that man- 
 '^ kind have univerfally fmned and confequently cannot 
 
 <"' be juftified upon any claim founded on mere la-w.^' 
 
 " The gift by Christ takes rife from the many offences, 
 *^ which mankind commit in their own perions, and fin-* 
 '■^ ally terminates in oppofition to the power and demerit 
 *' of them all, in their being refliored, not limply to life, 
 '^ but to reign in it forever f." ^' As mankind univerfal- 
 *' ly are fubjected to damage through the lapfe of Adam ; 
 *' fo they fhall as univerfally be delivered from Ity through 
 <^ the gift by Christ J." '*■ The gift on CHRisT^spart^— < 
 "^ ought to be taken in its abounding fenfe||.'' *^ The 
 '' plain truth is, final everlafcing falvaticn is abfolutely 
 ^^ the free gift of God to ^//men, through Jesus Christ 
 *^ — he has abfolutely and unconditionally determined, of 
 '' his rich mercy y through the intervening mediation of 
 *' his fon Jesus Christ ; that all men, the whole race of 
 *' lapfed Adam ihall reign in life ^." He fpeaks of God 
 23 exercifmg fity, tender compajfon 7\Xid>. grace, towards 
 the damned ; and fpeaking of the difciplinary punifliment of 
 the damned, he fays, " that God, in the other world as 
 *' well as this, muft be difpofed to make it evident, that h^ 
 *' is a being oi boundlefs andinexhauflihle goodnefs.^^^ He 
 *' fpeaks of the doctrine of univer fallal vation, asthegofpel 
 *' plan of mercy extenfively benevolent ; and a wonderful defigu 
 *'of mercy**'' as '* the fcripture fcheme of mercy,'' and of 
 the vileft of the human race as '^ the obje-flsof wfrry§§." 
 He quotes! with approbation, from Mr. Whifton, ''That 
 ** there may be in the utmoft bozucls of the divine com^ 
 ** paffion, another time of trial allotted" to the damned. 
 '* in which many or all of them may be ur/cd, by the irf- 
 " nite indulgence and kve of their Creator." Our 
 
 * P^^^ 43. t P. S^' t P' 62. II P. 75- ^ -•'- ^"^f^- 
 ^^326. ** 360. §§ 365. i 405. 
 
efDr, Chaungy ^ 
 
 Our author abundantly declares alfo, that this rich 
 mercy J this free gift y this tender compaffion and grace, this 
 infinite indulgence and love of their Creator, this bomidlefs 
 and inexhatiftihle goodnefs^ in the falvation of all men, is 
 exercifed through Christ only, and /or his fake. *' Je- 
 *^ sus Christ is the perfon through whom and upon ivhofe 
 *^ account y happinefs is attainable by any of the human 
 *^ race^i.'' ^^ The obedience of Christ, and eminent— 
 *' \y his obedience unto death , is the ground or reafon, up-- 
 '^ on which it hath pleafed GoD to make happinefs at- 
 tainable by any of the human race*/' *^ It was with a 
 *^ view to the obedience and death of Christ, upon this 
 *' account, upon this ground, for this reafon, that God was 
 '^ pleafed to make the gofpel promife of a glorious im- 
 ^' mortality to the fons ofmenf.'* ** Christ died not 
 *^ for a feled; number of men only, but for mankind uni^ 
 *^ verfiilly and without exception or limitationt." 
 
 Now, how can this part of Dr. C's fyftem be recon- 
 ciled with that part, in which lie holds, that all the damned 
 will be punifned according to their deferts ? Can thofe who 
 are punifhed according to their deferts, after that be faved 
 on the foot of grace through Christ I Can thofe who are 
 punifhed according to the nature and num.ber of their evil 
 deeds ; in degree and continuance, in proportion to the 
 number and greatnefs of their crimes ; in whole punifli- 
 ment the divine law takes its courfe, and the threatened 
 penalty is fully executed : can thefe perfons be faved by agift P 
 by a gift taken in the abounding fenfe > by the free gift o/cod 
 through Chrif} > by rich mercy ? hy pity, tender cotnpaj/ion and 
 grace? by mercy extenfroely benevolent ? by a wotiderful de- 
 fign o^ mercy Phy boundlefs and inexhaujiible goodnefs P by thff 
 utmoft bowels'of the divine cornpaffion? by the infinite induU 
 gence and love of their Creator ? Is the man who by his 
 crimes has, according to law, expofedhimfelf to the pillory, or 
 tobecropt and branded, and on whom the law has tak- 
 en its courfe, andthe threatened penalty has been fully exe*- 
 cuted ; is he after all delivered from further fuffering by 
 grace, hy pity, by tender compaffion, by indulgence and love ^ 
 by the utmoft bowels of compaffion ? — No ; he has a right 
 on the foot oi mere law, and of ^/;.? mnft rigorous jujtice, to 
 fubfequent impunity, with refpect to the crime or crimeii, 
 for which he has been thus punlflied ; and to tell liim after 
 
 h- 
 
 •■ P. 17, * P. 19. f P. 10, % P. 2®. 
 
 C 
 
to The fundamental Principles 
 
 }\Q is thus puniflied, that he is now releafed by gracc^ 
 ^yy pity, by utinoft compaffion, by indulgence and love, 
 vvould be the grolTeft infult. 
 
 Again ; how can thofe who have been puniflied accor-* 
 ding to their dei'erts, be faved //;roz/^/; Christ, oy on his 
 account P How can the obedience and death of Christ be 
 the ground or reajhn of their falvation ? Having fuffered the 
 full penalty threatened in the lav/, they have a right to 
 demand future impunity, on account of their ovv^i fulFer- 
 :ngs. What need then have they of Christ, of his obe- 
 dience and death, or of his mediatory intervention, to be 
 brought into the account? Dr. C. fpeaks of the " de— 
 ^' liverance" or ^'the redemption which Christ has pur* 
 chafed" for all men;^. But what need is there, that 
 Christ iliouid purchafe deliverance for thofe, who puf- 
 chafe it for thenifclves, by their own perfcnal fufferings ? 
 Nay, what juftice would there be in refuiing deliverance 
 10 a man, unlcfs it be purchafedfor him by another, when 
 he hath liilly purchafed it for himfelf ? What if the per- 
 Ton before delcribed to have fuuered fome corporal pun- 
 ^ihment according to the fb'idnefs of law, fliould be 
 told at his releafe, that he is delivered from further pun-« 
 ilhment, not on account of his own fufferings ; but on ac- 
 count of fom.e other perfon ? on the ground^ and for the 
 reafon of the obedience or merit of that other perfon? 
 Alight he not with jufl: indignation reply ; Wherein hath 
 tiiat other perfon afforded nie any relief? I have fuff-« 
 ered all that could be inflicled on me confidently with 
 1/iw and jufhice ;. and let the merit of that' other perfon be 
 what it may, I thank him for nothing : his merit hath 
 benefited me nothing. As little benefit from ChrisT 
 does he derive towards his deliverance, who fuffers ac^ 
 cording to his deferts • and with as little propriety can it 
 be faid, that he is redeemed or delivered through Christ 
 or on his account. 
 
 On the whole, Dr. C's fcheme comes to this; That 
 not bare goodnefs, but that 8;oodnefs, which is boundlefs 
 and inexhauitible ; not bare compafhon but the utmoft 
 bowels of the divine ccmpailion ; not bare indulgence 
 and love, but the infinite indulc-ence and love of our ere- 
 ator; will grant to his creatures of mankind, juft fo much 
 relief from mjfery, as they are entitled to, by the molt 
 rigorous jullice . Nox 
 
 * ^- ISI^ 154- : 
 
<y/Z)r. Chauncv. II 
 
 Nor did Dr. C. fall into thefe inconfiilences^ by mere 
 inattention ; he was driven to them by dire neceihty, pro- 
 vided it was neceiTary for him, to adopt his favorite doc • 
 trine of the falvation of all men . Every one of the fore- 
 mentioned principles is eifential to his fyftem, and can 
 by no means be fpared . 
 
 I . Tpiat the damned are punifhed according to tKeir 
 deferts, is manifeflly elTential to his fyftem . For if in 
 ages of ages they do not fuffer a pmiiihment which is ac- 
 cording to their deferfs, they do not fuller that which 
 might julHy be inflicled upon them; or, which is the 
 fame thing, that pnniihment vvdiich is denounced in the di- 
 vine law : and according both to juftice and the divine law, 
 the damned might be made to funer a greater punilhment, 
 than that v.hich is for ages of ages ; or than the longeP: 
 punilhment, which any of them vvili in fact fuffer. But a^, 
 no body pretends there is any gre',iter punifnment threat- 
 ened in the law, or in any part of fcripture, than thai 
 which in fcriptural language is faid to be for ever and ever, 
 which D , C , fuppofes to be for ages of ages only, and to bt- 
 actually fuffered by fome men at leait ; he was neceifitateci 
 to hold, that fome fuffer the utmoft punifnment threaten- 
 ed in the law ,and of courfe the utmolt which they deferve. 
 
 Beside; if he had allowed, that the damned do no^ 
 fuffer fo long a punilhment, as they deferve, or as is threat 
 ened in the lav,^ ; he might have been aiked, how much 
 longer tliat punilhment is, which is threatened in the law, 
 than that which they av5tuaily fufter . And the anfwer 
 mult have been, either that it is a longer temporary 
 punilhment ; or that it is an endlefs punifliment. Bu-: 
 which ever anfwer ffiouid have been given, inexplicable 
 difljculties would have followed . If he fliould have an- 
 fwered; that the puniltmient threatened in the lavv^, 
 and which the finner juftly deferves, is a longer tem- 
 porary punilhment, than that which the damned actually 
 fuffer, he might have been challenged, to point it out, 
 as contained in the law, or in any part of Icriptnre : 
 and it is prefumed, that he would not have been able 
 to do it . 
 
 But if he fnould have anfwered, that the punifb- 
 ment threatened in the law, and v. hich the finner juftly 
 deferves, is an endlefs punilhment, he muft at once have 
 given up all arguments in favour of univerfal falvatio:-", 
 
 an.i 
 
it The fundamental Pvinples 
 
 and againft endlefs puniHiment, drawn from the jufltce 
 of God . Surely the jultice of God does not oppofe that 
 -w^hich is juft, and which the fmner deferves; or that 
 which the juft law of God threatens . He muft alfo have 
 acknowledged the infinite evil of fin, which feems to 
 have been a mofl grievous eye-fore to him . For no-, 
 thing more is meant by the infinite evil of fin, than that 
 on the account of lin, the fmner deferves an endlefs 
 punifiiment . 
 
 Again; Dr . C . could not alTert, that the damned do 
 not fufFer all the puniihment, which they defer ve,, without 
 contradidling apparently at leaft, many clear and pofi- 
 tive declarations of fcripture: fuch as, That god will 
 rerider to every man according to his deeds, and ac- 
 cording as his work Ihall be; That every one fliall 
 receive according to the things done in the body; That 
 the wicked fhall not come out of the place of punilh- 
 pent, till they fliall have paid the uttermoft farthing, and 
 the very laft mite; That he fhall have judgment with- 
 out mercy, that fhewed no mercy, &c . &c . 
 
 2 . It was equally nec^lTary, that he fliould hold that the 
 punifhm<?nt of the damned is a difcipline, neceflary and 
 liappily conducive to lead them to repentance, and to 
 
 promote th^ir good . Other wife he mufl have holden, 
 
 that future punifliment is vindi6tive and intended 
 to fatisfy the juftice. of goD; which kind of pu- 
 nifliment is, according to his own account, inconfiftent with 
 the falvation of all menf . And other wife he mufl have 
 given up all his arguments from the divine goodnefs, 
 mercy, compafTion and grace, which are the chief argu- 
 ments, on which he' himfelf depended mofl, for the fupport 
 of his caufe, and which are the mofl popular, and the mofl 
 perfuafive to the majority of his readers . Otherwife too, 
 he could not have pretended, thAt his fcheme of uni- 
 verfal ialvation is a fcheme of fuch benevolence, of fuch 
 boundlefs and ihexhauflible goodnefs, of fuch tender com- 
 palfion and grace, of fuch infinite indulgence and love : 
 and mtifi; have given up all the principal texts of fcrip- 
 ture, from which he argues univerfal falv^ation; as they 
 are inconfiflent with the idea, that the damned will be 
 finally admitted to happinefs, having preyioufly fuffered 
 
ObjeSIions .coy^fidered, , 13 
 
 the whole punifliment, which they deferve . 
 
 -^ . Nor could he make out his fcheine of univerfal 
 falvation, unlels he held, that all men are faved in the 
 way of mere grace and favour through Christ. If he 
 had not holden this, what I obferved under the lafl 
 article, would be obfervable under this too, that he muft 
 have given up all arguments drawn from the divine 
 goodnefs ; and alio all arguments dravv-n from what ths 
 icriptures fay of the extent of Christ's redemption; 
 particularly thofe texts from which D . C . chiefly ar- 
 gues in fupport of his fcheme . Every one of thofe texts 
 holds forth that all who are faved, are laved by grace, 
 ■ihj'ough Christ . He muft alfo have given up all argu- 
 ments from fcripture . The fcripture knows of no fal- 
 vation, but that which is founded on the mere favour of 
 God forgiving the fms of men, according to the richer 
 of his grace, and juftifying them freely by his grace, 
 through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. 
 
 Thus Dr. C. was compelled by necellity to alTociate 
 in his fcheme, principles which will wage eternal war 
 with each other . 
 
 Section ii . 
 
 In which obj colons to the frecedhig reafon'ing are cor:- 
 fidered, 
 
 I. IF to fome part of the preceding reafoning, it 
 fhould be objefted, that though the fmner, having 
 fuffered a puniiliment according to his deferts, has a 
 right oru the footing of juftice to fubfequent impunity, 
 and therefore cannot be delivered from further pun'tfh- 
 merit by grace, or through Christ; yet, as he has no 
 right pn the footing of juftice, to the pofitive happinefs 
 of heaven, he may be admitted to this, entirely by 
 grace, and through Christ: This would by no means 
 be fufficient to reconcile the forementioned inconfiften- 
 ces ; as may appear by the following obfervations . 
 
 I. That Dr. C. afTerts, not only that all men will 
 be admitted to the pofitive happincfs of heaven, by free 
 grace ; but that they will in the fame way he delivered 
 from the pains of hell: As in thefe inftances;* '^T'-^^* 
 
 f P. 25, 26. 
 
14 Chje^hns confider^d. 
 
 S'Jfl through the one w.'?«. Jesus Chr7$T, takes rife 
 i'rcm the many fms which men commit, in the courfe 
 «5f their lives, and proceeds in oppoiition to the power 
 ami demerit of them all, fo as finally to terminate in 
 jtiftificaticn, juftificaticn including in it deliverance ffom 
 Jiti, as well 2.s front death ; their being made righteous, as 
 %-en as reigning in life,'^ ^^JBy the righteoufnefs of 
 the one man Jesus Christ the oppofite advantageous 
 gift is come upon all men, which delivers thern from 
 d^athy to reign in lifie for ever /^'^**rt feeme.d agreeable 
 to the infinite wifdom and grace of God, that this da^ 
 mage JJjould he repaired^ and mankind refcued from the 
 Jlctte "yf (in and death ^- • - by the obedience of one man.'' 
 *^ * Salvation from ivrath is one thing effentially 
 Inclndfid in that jultification which is the rcfuk of true 
 faith /' He fperiks 'to the fame effect in many other plac- 
 es , Indeed b!e never gives the leaffc hint implying, that 
 he imagined, that the introdu(5lion of the finner to 
 the "jiofitive happinefs 't>i heaven is more an aft of grace , 
 thr'n his deliverance from 'the pains of hell : but all that 
 he f^ys on the lubject, implies the contrary. Nor do I 
 ilate this objeclion, becaufe I find it in his book; but left 
 fome of his admirers fiiould flart it , and fiiould fuppofe , 
 t-*Kit -it -relieves the difficulties before prelTed upon hhn , 
 
 As Dr. C. allows, that the deliverance offmners from 
 ihe pains of hell., in all inftances , is as really an aft of 
 ^rjice, and as really through Christ , as their admifiion 
 to the jo3^s of heaven; fo the fcriptnres are very clear 
 ^as 'to the fame matter. Gal. III. 13. ^^^Christ hath 
 *^ j*cdeemed us from the curfe of the law, being made a 
 
 curfe for us.'' Rom. V. 9. " We lliall be faved/;*07;2 
 th through him.'' i Thef. I. 10. ^' Jesus 
 
 f< <? 
 
 wrai 
 
 ** which delivered lit from the wrath to come.^^ And par-* 
 fen dj- forgivexiefs, which is a difcharge from deferved 
 ptinifliTnent, is, in its very nature, an aft of grace, and is, 
 ?.h 'fcripture, ahvays fpoken of as fuch, and as difpenfed 
 through ChTRi ST only. Nor is any thing more clear from 
 the fcriptnres, than that every perfon, who is faved, is 
 fuved in the way oi forgivencfs. 
 
 2. There would be no propriety in faying, that a 
 
 perfon who hasfuftered all the punifhment which he. juflly 
 
 tiefervcs, who is on the. footing of law and juftice releafed 
 
 from all further puniihment, and is placed in a liate of medi- 
 
 % P, 27. ** P. 30. * P- 37 ocrity 
 
OhjeSflons Conjldersi %g- 
 
 ccrlty, in which he is the fabjecl of no mifeiy ; is admit-* 
 ted to the pofitive happinefs of heaven, by rnercyy by fity 
 or coinpaffion : much lefs by ^* tender corapaflion" and 
 *^ loonderful mercy," and by the ^' utmojl bowels of the 
 '* divine compailion." A being who has by his perfonal 
 fiifFerings, fatisfied the law, ftands as right with refpeft ts 
 that law, as if he had never tranfgrefTed it : or as another 
 perfon, who retains his original innocence. Now, do'es 
 any man fuppofe, that Gabriel was admitted to celeilial 
 happinefs, in the way of mercy, J>iiy, or tender coinpaff.'-^ 
 
 on F' ''That he was admitted to it in the exercife of o-ooc-> 
 
 nefs, is granted. The fame may be faidof his creation^ 
 and of the creation of every being rational and ariimaL 
 But no being is created ozit of crmipajjlon. With no incre 
 propriety can it be faid, that an innocent being, cr, which 
 is the fame as to the prefent purpofe, that a being v/li?? 
 has indeed tranfgrelfeci, but has in his ovv'n perfon mad^ 
 fatisfaftion for his tranfgrelfion, and on that footing is de-* 
 iivered from all puniihment and mifery, is admitted to 
 high pofitive happinefs, by mercy, pity or compafTion^ 
 And how much mere im.properly are the ftrong epithets 
 . ufed by Dr. C. applied in tiiis cafe ? Is it an inftance 'of 
 tender pity, o^ wonderful vA^tcy, of the utmofi bowels of the 
 DIVINE compaifio;!, to admit to the happinefs of heaven.^ 
 an innocent creature, or one who, in his own perfon.^ 
 ftands perfectly right with re fpe 61 to the .divine law, and is 
 net the fubjeclof any mifery ? 
 
 3 . To grant that thofe who fhall ha«ve fuffered a pun«* 
 ilhment accordino; to their deferts, will on the footino- of 
 juftice, be delivered from further wrath or puniihment^ 
 and yet to infift that their admilfion to high pofitive hap-« 
 pinefs, is truly and properly an ad of grace; would b^ 
 only to' raife a difpute ccncerning the proper meaning 
 of the word grace, and at the fame time to grant, that the 
 deUverance of the hnner from wrath, is no fruit of for*- 
 givenefs, or q{ grace, even in the very fenfe in which the 
 objector ufes the v/ord grace. It is no ad of favour, x^ 
 ofgoodnejs, as diftinguifhed from ju/fice, to deUver a pef- 
 Ton from wrath, who is innocent, or vv'ho in his own per- 
 fon has fatisfied the jaw, and therefore now ftands right 
 with refped to it. Eat the idea of delivering a fmner 
 from v/rath, without forgivenefs, and without grace, i.s 
 as foreign from the fcripture.s, us that of the admilfion oi 
 
 Si iiimer 
 
l6 Qhjc&hns Confidcrcd. 
 
 d finner, without grace, to the pofitive joys of heaveii. 
 
 11. Perhaps it may be objeded to part of the pre -> 
 ceding feclion, that by punifliment '^ in proportion to their 
 *' deferts,'^ and *' according to their evil deeds/' &:c. 
 Dr. C. meant not a puniihment e^«^/ to ftridl juftice, or 
 fatisfaflory to the juflice of God ; but one in which a due pro- 
 portion to the deferts of the various perfons, with relpe6t 
 to one another, who are the fubjecls of the punifhment, isob- 
 ferved. — But to this it may be anfwered, Dr. C. doubtlefs 
 Tiieant to ufe the exprelhons, ^' in proportion to their de- 
 '^ ferts," " according to their evil deeds," &:c. in the 
 fame fenfe in v/hich the fcriptures fay,'* according to their 
 '' works'' ; '^ according to the fruit of their doings,'' he. 
 This is manifett not only by the fnnilarity of the expref-* 
 fions, but by his own reference to thofe phrafes in fcrip— 
 tnre, as in the following pail'ages, "•'* Which is plainly in- 
 ** confiftent with that difFerence the fcripture often declares 
 **^ there fhall be, in the puniiliment of wicked men, ac— 
 ^* cording to the difference there has been in the nature 
 *' and number of their evil deeds*." " Under the prof-" 
 *^ pedl of being condemned by the righteous Judge of all 
 *' the earth — to poiitive torments awfully great in degree, 
 *' and long in continuance, in proportion to the number 
 ^' andgreatnefs of their crimesf ." Here he undoubtedly 
 refers to thofe palTages in which the fcriptures aflure us, 
 that the judge ** will render to every man according to 
 '' his deeds ;" *' according as his work fliall be," &c. 
 Now thefe phrafes of fcripture are clearly explained to us, 
 by thofe reprefentations, in which the punifliment of the 
 wicked is illuftrated by the imprifonment of a debtor, till 
 he fhall have paid the uttermoft farthing, the very laft mite, 
 ^'c. and by the pailages, in which it is declared, that the 
 wicked fliall have judgr.ient '-^vithout mercy ; that God will 
 not pity, nor/par^ ihem Szc. Whereas, if they fuffer lefs 
 than they deferve according to flridt juftice ; fo far they 
 are the objects of mercy and pity ; fo far G'^d does (pare 
 them; fo far they have mercy mixed with jndgmeni. Nor 
 fen it be faid, that they pay the uttermoji farthing of the 
 debt. 
 
 Again; Dr. C. allows, that the v/i eked will in the' 
 fecond death receive the wages of fin. But the wao-esof 
 :i man are not merely a part, or a certain pro|5ortion of 
 what he deferves, or has earned, but the v/hole. N» 
 "P. ilo . +P . 350. niaii 
 
tilyjeclicns Conjidered, if 
 
 man who has faithfully done the work, which he contra^ed 
 to do for ten pounds, will allow, that five pounds are his 
 wages for that w^ork. 
 
 III. It may alfo be objecled to a part of the former fedtion, 
 that though ^^ the law ihall have its courfe" on fome 
 men, and *^ the full penalty threatened in the lav/, be ex- 
 ecuted on them V'* ftill this does not imply a punishment 
 equal or fatisfadtd^y to flricl juftice ; as the divine law 
 itfelf does not, ftjr ever did tlu-eaten all that punifhment, 
 which is deferved according to ftrift juflice : and therefore 
 though the damned fhall fuifer all which is threatened in 
 the law, yet they will not fuffer a vindictive punifliment, a 
 puni/liment \vhich ihall *' fatisfy the juftice of GoD." — Con.- 
 cerning this objection it may be obferved ; 
 
 1. That by the law is meant, to ufe Dr. C's own 
 words, '^ the moral la^w," ^^ the law of nature, the law 
 '^ oireafor., which is the law of God :" and to fay, that 
 this law does not threaten a penalty adequate to the de- 
 mands of juftice, is to fay, that it does not threaten a pen- 
 alty, adequate to the demands of reafon. If fo, it is not 
 the law of reafon ; which is contrary to the fuppofition. 
 Therefore to fay, that the law of reafon does not threaten 
 a penalty adequate to the demands of juftice, is a real con- 
 tradiction . 
 
 2. That Dr. C. neither does nor could confiftently 
 make this objedion ; becaufe if the objedion were juft, men 
 might be juftified, '^ on a claim founded on mere law.^* 
 On the principle of the objection, the law threatens a pun— 
 ilhment far lefs than we deferve ; and a man having fuf-^ 
 fered this punilhment, may be juftified on the fonndatioit- 
 of mere law : the lav/ would be fatisfied, and the man 
 would ftand right with refped to it, nor would it have any 
 further -claim on him, in the way of punilhment, more 
 than on a perfon who had never tranfgrelTed. Therefore 
 lie thenceforward obeying the lav/, might as truly be jufti-^ 
 fied on the foot of mere law, as if he had rendered the fame 
 obedience, without ever tranrgreiung. 
 
 But Dr. C. holds, ^^ that mankind unlverfally have 
 ^' fmned, and confequently cannot be juftifieJ upon a 
 '* claim founded on mere laiv* ,^^ And f that ^' the whole 
 ^^ v/orld had become guilty before God, and were there- 
 '* fere incapable of being juftified upon the foot of mere! 
 
 D 
 
1% ObjeSilons Confiderett 
 
 law." That all men are | ^^ incapable of juftification up> 
 '^ on the foot of mere law, as having become guilty before 
 '^ God." To the fame efFecl in various other paflages. 
 So that according to Dr. C. if future punijQiment be in- 
 tended to fatisfy the lawy it is equally impoffible, that all 
 men fliould be faved, as it is on the fuppolition, that fu- 
 ture punifhment is intended to {"ztisfyju/Ilce* 
 
 3. Dr. C. ALLOWS, that a man having fufFered the 
 penalty of the law, is not, and cannot be, the objed of for- 
 givenefs. '' || If they are tiot faved, till after they have 
 ^' pafTed through thefe torments, they have never been 
 
 ^^ forgiven The divine law has taken its courfe ; nor 
 
 ^' has any intervening pardon prevented the full execu- 
 ^' tion of the threatened penalty on them.. Forgivenelg 
 *' ftridly and literally fpeaking, has not been granted to 
 '^ them." But if thofe who fuiFer the penalty of the law^ 
 are not, in their fubfequent exemption from pvmifhment, 
 the objecls of forgivenefa, they fuffer all they deferve. So 
 far as they are exempted from deferved punifhment, thty 
 are forgiven : forgivenefs means nothing elfe than an ex- 
 emption from deferved punifhment. 
 
 4. Dr. C. fays, that Adam (and for the fame reafoa 
 doubtlefs men in general) ^' mufl have rendered himfelf 
 *' obnoxious to the righteous refentment of his God and 
 ^^ King, had he expreffed a difregard to any command*" 
 of the moral law, the law of which the Doctor is fpeaking 
 in that pafTage. But the righteous refentment of God for 
 tranfgrellion is a jufl punifhment of tranfgreffion ; and a 
 juft punifhment is any puniOiment, which is not unjuft. 
 And it is impolfible that Adam fhould be obnoxious to fuch 
 a punifhment, if the law, the moil: ftri6l rule of God's 
 proceedings with his creatures, had not threatened it.— 
 Thus Dr. C. himfelf grants, that the punifhment threat- 
 ened in the law is the fame which is deferved according to 
 ftridt juftice. 
 
 The Doftor every where holds, that '^ the law of God 
 is a perfe(ft: rule of righteoufnefsf ." But if the law do not 
 threaten all the punifhment vdiich isjuftlv deferved by fin^ 
 it is no more truly a perfect rule of righteoufnefs, than the 
 
 gofpelis. Again; *' Is the law that rule of right, 
 
 ** which God knows to be the meafure of men^s duty to 
 
 him 
 % P, 36. y P' 336. *5 DiJ/l'rtathaf P. ^^, 
 $ Particularly 12 Senmns P. 36. 
 
Obje^iofiS Coujiderei. ip 
 
 *' him, and of what is fit he fhould do for, or inflift upon 
 *' them, as they are either obedient, or difobedient? 
 *' There is, without all doubt, fuch a rule of men's duty 
 *^ towards God, and of God's conduct towards men, in 
 '^ a way of reward or puniiiiment, according to their 
 *^ works. 4; "There could fcarcely be a more explicit con- 
 cefhon, that the divine law threatens all that punifhment, 
 which is acording to juflice. It is declared to be, not 
 only the rule of right, but the meafure of what is fit in pu- 
 nifhment , as well as of duty. Indeed Dr. C. never once, 
 fo far as I have noticed, fuggefts the idea, that the di- 
 vine law does not threaten ail that punifhment, which is 
 defer ved by fm. 
 
 5. According to this objecHon, the moral law is a 
 difpenfation of grace , as truly as the gofpel . But how 
 does this accord with the fcripture ? That declares , that 
 ^*the lain) was given by Moles, but grace and truth,'' 
 or the gracious truth, "came by Jesus Christ ;'' 
 Joh. I. 17. — "If they which are of the law be heirs, 
 faith is made void , and the promife made of none efFed. 
 
 Becaufe the law worketh wrath. Therefore it is of 
 
 faith, that it might be by ^r^<r^ ;" Rom. IV. 14. — 
 **The fbing of death is fm, and the ftrength of fm is the 
 
 law; ''iCor. XV. 56. As in the objection now 
 
 "under confideration , the law is fuppofed to be as really 
 a difpenfation of grace, as the gofpel; we may fay. 
 The ftrength of fin is the go/pel, as truly as, The ftrength 
 of lin is the law . Befide ; if the law be a difpenfa- 
 tion of grace, how can it be faid to be the ftrength of 
 fin? It threatens apart only of the puniihrnent deferved 
 by fin ; and therefore it neither points out, how ftrong 
 fin is, to bring into condemnation, nor does it give to fin 
 its proper force to terrify and torment the finner, by 
 exhibiting the whole punifhment deferved by fin . On 
 the ground of this objection, the ftrength of fin con- 
 fifts in the rule of ftri6l juftice, not in the law . 
 
 6. The apcftle tells us, that "by the law is the know- 
 ledge of fin .'' But the knovv ledge of the evil or de- 
 merit of fin is obtained by the knowledge of the 
 threatening of the law only . If the law do not threaten 
 all that punifhment, which fin deferves, we know not 
 
 by the law, what lin deferves, or how evil it is.-^ 
 
 And if we know not this by the law, neither do we 
 
 ktievr 
 Ibid, P. 39* 
 
ao ChjeiUflons Conjidered* 
 
 Jcnow it by any other part of fcripture, nor by any other 
 means whatever . Nor do we know our own demerit, nor our 
 own proper characters as fmners ; nor are we in any 
 capacity to judge concerning our obhgation to gratitude 
 for the redemption of Christ, or for falvation through 
 him; nor have we the the proper motive to repentance 
 fet before us, in all the fcriptures . The proper mo-« 
 
 tive to repentance is the evil of fm . And if we 
 
 have not the knowledge of the evil of lln^ it is impoffible 
 we ihould know the grace of pardon, or of falvation 
 from that punilhment which is juill}'" deferved by fm . 
 
 7. The apoftle declares, as we have feen, that *• by the 
 law is the knowledge of //V;,'' and that ''the law 
 worketh lurath .'^ But on the principle of this objection, 
 by the law is the knowledge of gracc^ and the law 
 worketh ^r^cf : and God without any atonement did 
 grant to fmners fome remiflion or mitigation of deferv- 
 ed punifhment. Why then could not complete remiih-^ 
 on or pardon have been granted in the fame way? 
 What need was there of Christ and his death? Yet 
 Dr . C . holds , that it was with a view to the obedience 
 and death of Christ, upon this account ^ upon this ground, 
 for this reafon, that cod was pleafed to make the gofpel pro- 
 mife of a glorious immortality to the miferable fons of men ." 
 
 8 . IF the full punifhment to which the linner juilly 
 cxpofes himfelf by {in, be not pointed out in the law; 
 it is not a good law, as it does not teach the fub- 
 jecT: of the law the truth in this matter ; but it is a 
 deceitful law, or is direcfcly calculated to deceive. It threat- 
 ens a punifhment, which the fubjed would naturally 
 believe to be the whole punifhment to \a hich he is 
 expofed by tranfgrefTion, or which can be juftly inflifted 
 
 on him. But this, if the obiedion be -well p-rounded, 
 
 IS by no means the cafe . Thus the lav/ would naturally 
 tend to deceive fatally all its fubjecls. 
 
 9 . From what is granted by Dr . C , it certainly fol- 
 lows, that the threatening of the law is all that can be 
 inflicted conlii'bently v/itii juftice, and that the punifh- 
 ment threatened in the, law, and that v/hich is allowed by 
 ftrict juftice, is one and the fame. He fays, *' Whatever 
 fm may in its own nature, be fuppofed to deferve ; it is 
 Xiot reafonabls to fnppofe, that it ihould be univerfally 
 
 reckoned 
 
 \ 
 
Cbje^ions Cojijidered. 21 
 
 reckoned to death;, when no law is in being that makes 
 
 death the Ipecial penalty of tranlgreiiion /** ^'Sin 
 
 is not reckoned, brought to account, ought not to be 
 looked upon as being taxed with the forfeiture of life, 
 when there is no law in being, with death as its af-i 
 ffixed fanction.":]: Therefore whatever iin may be fup- 
 poled to deferve, it is not rea/'mablcy that it ihould be 
 reckoned, it ought not to be reckoned, or which is the 
 fame thing, it is not juj}, that it Ihould be reckoned lo 
 any puniihment whatever, when there is no law in being, 
 whjch makes that puniUmient the fpecial penalty of 
 tranfgrellion . Therefore, as I faid, the puniHiment 
 threatened in the law, is all which can be inflicted coi>^ 
 ilftently with juftice ; and the punifnment threatened in 
 the la"^, and that which is allowed by fti'icl jultice, are 
 one and the fame . 
 
 10 . If the law do not threaten all that punifhmerjt, 
 which isjuft, we cannot polTibly tell what is a juit pu-« 
 nilhment, or what juflice threatens or admits with re<-« 
 gard to puniihment, and Vv'hat it does not admit. If once 
 we give up the law and tlie teftimony, we are left to our 
 own im.aginations . Dr . C . holds, tliat the wages of fin 
 are the fecond death, and that this death is a punifhm.enc 
 which fliall laft, according to the language of fcriptm^e, 
 for ever and ever . Aj-e thefe wages, and this puniih- 
 ment which ihall continue for ever and ever, adequate to 
 the demand of juflice or not? If they are, then the law 
 
 threatens ail which juflice requires. If they are not; 
 
 then the^ v/ages of im, and the punifhment forever and 
 ever, are a gracious puniihment, and finners deferve a 
 longer puniihment. But how do wx know, that fmners 
 deferve a longer punifliment, than this? No longer pu— 
 nilhmeht is threatened in the law, or in any part of fcrip-« 
 ture . 
 
 11. IF fin deferve a longer puniihment, than that 
 which is threatened in the law, it deferves either an end^ 
 lefs punifhment, or a temporary punifhment longer than 
 that v/hich is threatened in the law . Btit if fin deferve 
 an endlefs punifhment, it is an infnlte evil . — If it deferve 
 a temporary punifhment though longer than that v. hich is 
 threatened in the law, all men may finally be favcd, even 
 though the ftate of future punifhment be intended to fa- 
 tisfy the divine juflice : the contrary of v/hich hovv-ever is 
 aiTerted by Dr. C. i2. IF 
 
 * P. 23. t 47. 
 
,%% OhjeSiions Gonjidcred, 
 
 j2. IF the damned, though they fliall bepimifhed ac- 
 cording to law, will not be punifhed as much as they de— 
 ferve ; what fhall we make of the fcriptures, which de-^ 
 clare, that they fhall have judgment without mercy ; 
 that God will not fpare, nor pity them; that wrath iha^ll 
 be poured upon them without mixture ? &:c . 
 
 I NOW appeal to the reader, whether, notwithftand-^ 
 2ng this objetflion, the damned, in fufFering the wdiole 
 penalty thretened in the divine law, do not fuffer as much 
 as they deferve according to ftrift juftice, and therefore 
 fufFer a penalty to the higheft degree \andictive . 
 
 IV . IF it ihould be further objefted, that there is no 
 inconnftency in reprefenting future punilhment to be fully 
 adequate to the demerit of lin ; and yet to reprefent it as 
 difciplinary, and adapted to the repentance and perfonal 
 good of the patient : as both the ends of the perfonal good 
 of the patient, and of the fatisfaction of juflice^ are an-* 
 fwered by it: it is to he noticed, 
 
 1. If this objection mean, that the punifhment which 
 is merely adapted to the perfonal good of the patient, be 
 all which is deferved by lln ; I beg leave tp refer the ob- 
 jedor to the next chapter. 
 
 2. If it mean, that though fm do deferve, and the 
 damned will fufter, more punifhment, than that which is 
 conducive to the perfonal good of the patient ; even all 
 that punifhment which is according to fir ict juftice ; yet 
 all will be laved finally : then it will follow that an 
 cndlefs punifhment is not deferved by fin. In this cafe, 
 I beg leave to refer the objeftor to chapter VI. 
 
 3. Still on the foundation of this objediion, the damn- 
 ed, as they Vvdll have previoufly fuffered all that they de- 
 serve, Vvdll finally be delivered from further fufFering of 
 wrath, not by forgivenefs, not by grace, nor through 
 Christ; but entirely on the footing of ftrid juftice, as 
 having fufi^'ered the full penalty of the law. 
 
 4. Dr. C. COULD not confiilently make this objedlion. 
 The objedtion holds, that the damned do fufFer a punifh- 
 ment entirely fatisfadory to jufhice : and Dr. C. allows, 
 that if the punifnment of the wicked be intended to " fatis- 
 " fy the juffice cf God, and give warning to otliers, 
 ^' tis impciilble all men fnould be faved*." 
 
 Having in this firft chspter^ (o far attended to Dr. C's 
 
 fvftem 
 * P. ii. 
 
Mire than Di/cipRne 33 
 
 fyftem concerning future puniihment, as to find, that 
 it appears to be a combination of the moft jarring princi- 
 ples ; and having particularly pointed out the mutual 
 difcordance of thofe principles ; I might fparc myfelf the 
 labour of a further examination of his book ; until at leaft 
 it fhould be made to appear, that thofe principles do in 
 
 reality harmonize with each other . But as fomc 
 
 may entertain the opinion, that though there be incon- 
 iiftences in the Book, yet the general dodrine of uni— 
 verfal faivation is true, and is defenfible, if not on all 
 the grounds, on which Dr . C . has undertaken the 
 defence of it, yet on fome of them at leaft; therefore 
 I have determined to proceed to a more particular ex- 
 amination of this doctrine, and of the arguments brought 
 by Dr. C. in fupport of it. 
 
 CHAP. 11. 
 
 Whether the damned defervc any other punipomenty than that 
 which is conducive to their perfonal good, 
 
 ON the fuppofition, that future punifhment is a mere 
 difcipline neceiTary and happily conducive to the re- 
 pentance and good of the damned ; it may be afked, 
 whether fuch difcipline be all v/hich they deferve, and 
 which can conl?.ftently with ftrift juftice be inflicted ; or 
 whether they do indeed deferve a greater degree or du- 
 ration of'punifnment, than that which is fuiFicient to lead 
 them to repentance, and that additional puniihment be by 
 grace remitted to them. Let us confider both thefe hy- 
 pothefe^. 
 
 The firjiis, that the wicked deferve, according toftrift 
 juftice, no more puniihment^ than is neceiTary to lead them 
 to repentance, and to prepare them for happinefs. 
 That this is not a mere hypothefis made by an opponent 
 of Dr. C. but is a doctrine implied at leafb, if not expreff- 
 ly alTerted in his book, may appear by the following quo- 
 tations. *^ * Is it not far more reafonable to fuppofe, that 
 *^ the miferies of the other world are a proper difcipline m 
 •' order to accompliih this end'' [the recovery of fumersji 
 
 than 
 * P. 1^l, 322. 
 
$4 More than Difdplin& 
 
 ^^ than tlint they fliould be final and vindictive only V* 
 If a final and vindictive pnnifliment be entirely juft, what 
 kas r.eafon to objeft to the infli^^ion of it, in fome inftances 
 at lealt? — * **The confideraticn of hell as a purging fire^ 
 '* is that only which can make the matter fit eafy on one's 
 *' mind.'' But if hell, though net merely a purging fire, 
 be juilly defer ved, why does not the thought of it fit eafy 
 on one's mind ? So that it is m.anifeflly implied in thia 
 reafoninp- of Dr. C. that no other punifhment of the wick- 
 cd can be reconciled witii jullice, than that which i$ 
 adapted to their perfonal good . 
 
 Thf, fame is implicitly ailerted by other v*Titers on the 
 fame fide of the queflion concerning future paniihrnent. 
 Bifhop Neivton^ in his Differtation on the final ft ate of man- 
 kind, \ f^^ySj ^' It IS jiAft and wife and good, and even mer- 
 '^ ciful, to correft a finner as long as he clef ewes correct- 
 *^^ ion ; to whip and fcourge him, as I ma}'- fay, out of his 
 '^ faults.'* Therefore all the punilhment of the finner, 
 which is juft y and which he deferves^ is cbrreclion, or td 
 be fcourged out of his faults. The Chevalier Ramfay 
 tells us, that ^^ Juftice is that perfection in God, by 
 '' which he endeavours to make all intelligences juflj.'* 
 '^ Vindictive juftice, is that attribute in God, by which he 
 ** purfues vice with all forts of torments, till it be totally 
 *' extirpated, deftroyed and annihilated j|." Therefore 
 if God intlift any punifnment with any other defign, than 
 to make the fubjed of that punifhment jufl, and to extirpate 
 vice from him, he violates even wwrt'/i^ii'fjuftice. M. Pet- 
 itpierre in a tradl lately publifhed in England, and highly 
 applauded by fome, declares, that " repentance appeafes 
 '* divine anger, and difarms its jufiice ; becaufe it ac- 
 *' complifhes the end infinite goodnefs has in view, even 
 " when arrayed in the awful majefly of avenging ju— 
 " ftice ; which was fevere, becaufe the moral Itate of. 
 '^ the finner required fuch difcipline ; and which when 
 *^ that flate is reverfed, by converfion and holinefs, will 
 *' have nothing to bellow fuitable to it, but the delight- 
 ful manifefrations of mercy and forgivenefs ."*"' 
 The honour , of the divine law is fufiiciently guard- 
 ed by the puniiliment of the finner as long as he re- 
 mains impenitent, and by the faithful and obedient 
 *' adherence of the penitent oiFender . Divine jufiice is 
 
 * P. 324. always 
 
 f As tranfcf'lbed In the Ahnthly Revieiv for Mtirch 1783. 
 :|: Principles of Nat. ^ Rt-u^ d Religion y Vol.1, P. 432, 
 \ Ibid. P, j\2^» ^^ Thoughts on the Divine goodnrfs. P.iio, 
 
deferved by the Wicked, %^ 
 
 *' always fatisfied when it attains its end; and this 
 " end is always attained, whenever the fmner is brought 
 *^ to repentance.'*** So that it is evident, that all thefe 
 writers implicitly held the propofition now under conli- 
 deration, which is, that the wicked deferve according to 
 ftrid juflice, no more puniihment than is neceifary to lead 
 them to repentance, and prepare them for happinels. 
 This is not only a real tenet of thofe writers, but is moit 
 eiTential and important to their fyftem ; for if the con- 
 trary can be eflablifned, confequences will follow, which 
 will greatly embarrafs, if not entirely overthrow that fy- 
 frem. I therefore beg the patience of the reader, while I 
 particularly examine that tenet: Concerning it the fol-* 
 lowing obfer'^Mtions may be made, 
 
 I. It implies that the puniihment which is necefTary to 
 lead the wicked to repentance is the curfe of the divine 
 lav,^ Without doubt that puniihment which amounts to 
 the utmoil, v/hich ftrict juftice admits, includes the pe- 
 nalty or curfe of the divine law . The latter does not 
 exceed the former ; becaufe the divine law is founded in 
 perfe6l jufi:ice, and whatever is inconufl;6nt with jullice, 
 is equally inconfiilent Vvith the divine law. If therefore 
 the linner deferve, according to ftricl juflice, precifely 
 fo much punifnment as is neceifary to lead him to re- 
 pentance and no more, then this is the true and utmoft 
 
 curfe of the divine law. Yet fuch a punifhment as 
 
 this, is really on the whole no evil, and therefore no 
 curfe even to the fubje6t ; becaufe by the fuppolition it 
 is neceifary to lead him to repentance, and prepai*e him 
 for the everlafting joys and glory of heaven. 
 
 Dr. C. has given us his idea of a curfe, in his Five 
 Diifertatjons,* in the following words, ^^Ateilimony of the 
 divine difpleafure againfl man's offence" : ^^A teftimony 
 of the vengeance of god, which is 2l judg7neyit on his part 
 and a real evil on man's part." In the fame book,;!: he 
 ftates his idea of a bleiTmg to a man, to be, *^That which 
 is greatly to his advantage." But the pains of hell, if 
 they be abfolutely neceflary, and moft happily conducive 
 to the repentance and endlefs happinefs of the damned, 
 are lio reel evil on their part, nor any judgment or teili- 
 mony o^ vengeance on god's part: and therefore are no 
 < iirfe at all; but are accordino- to the Doftor's own definition 
 
 E a real 
 
 ■''* Ibid. 112. * P. IC9 no. X P. 112. 
 
z6 31: n th^n DiA:lj:ib:e 
 
 s. re^J bleff^r:g, and a resJ tefomoiiy of the tftsevaUnce of 
 GOD to the damned. Surelv a metllcine of difaoreeable 
 taile, bur abt'cluiely neceiii-rv to preier^^ the K:e, or re- 
 ftore the health or a man, and admiiiiiicreG with coniiinniiate 
 iad^ment, is no evil or curfe to the ULan to v/hom it k 
 adiniiiiit:ered : bur is a deiirable good, or a : to him ; 
 
 ajid the adminiltratioii of it, is a full proot ^: Li^ benevo- 
 lence of the phj.liciantohis pirenr. AyTOOi equ2lly de- 
 monftratiTe of the divine benevcicace to the diiiniied, is 
 the whole of their puaiihment in heU, if it be defigned 
 merely talead them to repentance and to prepare them 
 for happinefi : and this iruit of the diTine benevolence 
 can. according to Dr. C^s o*^.ti definition of a curie, be 
 Eo curfe. 
 
 It is gr^mred by Dr C. and in general by ether ad- 
 vocates for univerial falvatioa, that the tcrments of hell 
 are not only wifely adapted, bar that they are ah: :- 
 latelv neceiTz—r to lead the damned to repentance ; il~a: 
 no more gcnde means v ould io well aniv. er the pro- 
 pofed end : that therefore the divine goo-dnefs and viii- 
 dom have chcffn and ' z thofe torments, as the 
 
 means of e'3od to the da:. But certain!" that which 
 
 is en the v. hole nzceiTarv for a cerlon's own ^ood, is to 
 him, on the whole, no real evil, and therefore no curfe ; 
 \ ody a bieiliiig; a wife man v.culd chcofe it for 
 
 i_ _ . as it is, in its ccnnecdon, really and prcperly 
 
 elieible or defirable. If the torments of hell taken in 
 connedion 'with repenrance and enoleis hippinefs be 
 a Clin e, then repentance and endlefs happineis taken in 
 connection with the torments of heU, are a curfe too. If 
 fome bitter pill, coafiJered as connefred with life^ be a 
 curfe : than life cennccred v^-irh that pill, is a curfe too. 
 Th2i and that only is a curfe to a perfon, which taken 
 in its proper connefnons and dependences, renders him 
 mcffe miierable, than he v- ould be without it. On the con- 
 trarv, that is a bleiSng : :-fon, v.Lidi ttiken in its 
 
 proper ccnnecaons and ^ enccs, renders him mere 
 
 happy than he would be wiihoat it. It is juil as great a 
 bicinng and juit as great a privilege, as happinefs itleh". 
 And with whit j^^prier "' c:Ln be called a t-tr/>, I 
 appeal to every man a: ^ _. v.-idi prvispnciy of lan- 
 
 guage to determine. To call thii a tune is to coof&jiid 
 
 a curie 
 
icfervzd H th^ Wicked. 
 
 -? 
 
 a curfe and a ' ' " ' This being ihe true idea of 
 
 a ciirle and a bl~- -^, it immediatel ■ fol]o%vs en he luj — 
 position now under confideralion, that the torments of 
 hell are no curie, but a bleHincr to rhofe on whom ther 
 are inilicted ; becaufe toe ver}' iopr-olition is, that they 
 are neceiT. ry to lecure and promore tiielr happinefs and 
 sre inSicred for this end cnlv. 
 
 The ablurdit].- then, to vhich on the v> hole we are 
 reduced is, that thofe means ^ which are the belt that 
 iniiire wi^Jo^ ini'elf could devife - and apply, for 
 the lalratoa of thofe who die in impenitence, are the 
 ciiiie of the -'-- - law; -r - t :'- : rfeateft evil which 
 
 God can cc ily wit! 7 : on the greateft 
 
 and moil obdurate enemy of himjelf, of his Son our glo- 
 rious Saviour, of his law, of his grace, and of mankind, 
 is, to put him under the bell: polUble advantages to fe— 
 cure and promote hi? higheil everlafting happineis : 
 V.'hich is no more nor lefs than to fay. That the great- 
 eii curie which Gc-d can conliitently \^-ith his perfecriocs 
 in£.i:i en the irnner d^incr in imnenitence, is to beilo^v 
 en him the createil bleilino-. vv hich it is m the power ot 
 omnipotence and infinite bount\' to bellow on him, in his 
 prefent temper of mind; that the divine law has 
 no curfe at all annexed to it ; and that the penalty of 
 the law is an ineftimable bleiFrng, the blelling of repen- 
 tance, or of that c ' b is a~ ' * neceiTcr;-, 
 and moft wifely ^_.. .-.. ::, .„id to r^:-. .-i.ce, and to 
 prepare for the greateit happineis. 
 
 If on tlys view of the matter, it faould be faid, that 
 the pur " t of hell is not the greateit blefiln^ which 
 
 God car __.; V on the irnner who dies in imp-enitence ; 
 that it would be a greater bie£Ing, to grant him repen- 
 tance by'immediat? ericacijiis grace, and then receive 
 
 Lin: toheavenlv hawine;s; Concerning this I obler'.'e, 
 
 tii_r it ^ves up the only orcund, en wliich the fuppc£— 
 tion now under ccnfideration relts, and on v. hich alone it 
 can be :' zA, The fuppc.ition i>, -' - punilrr-e-t 
 
 cf helli. --.---:ed -^-ith the fole view c: .--.7,z the lu3*- 
 crers to renentance. and of rromotin^ their q^z-A. But 
 if their 2f^<i6. mi*^ht be as ejecraaliv lecured and rroirir-- 
 ed bv other me 2ns, as is no^w^ alTerted, men the torm nti 
 ef heli are not irnicicd to promote the good or the fJtffer rs. 
 
 So {-as 
 
28 Mori than DtfcipUne 
 
 So far as their good is concerned, tliofe torments arc 
 needlcfs, nay they are a wanton exercife of cruelty. 
 But as cruelty cannot be afcribed to the only vjife Cod, he 
 muft, if this objection be valid, inflicSt the torments of 
 hell, for fome other end, than the final happinefs of thofe 
 who are Cent to that world of mifery. 
 
 Beside; Dr. C. and other oppofers of endlefs punifh— 
 ment, are no friends to the dotlrine of efficacious grace. 
 According to their fyftem, eiFicacious grace deftroys alJ 
 liberty and moral agency, and reduces men to mere ma- 
 chines. Therefore in their view, to be led to repentance 
 by efficacious grace, is not a greater bleflmg, than to be 
 led to repentance by the torments of hell ; becaufe it is 
 not a greater blelling to be a watch or a windmill than to 
 be a rational moral agent. Nay, according to their fyf- 
 tem, there is no poilibility of leading by efficacious grace 
 any man to a repentence which is of a holy or of a moral 
 nature : becaufe according to their fyitem, a neceffary 
 hoiinefs is no holine fs, and a necefTary repentance is no 
 more of a moral nature, than the working of a machine. 
 
 2. If all who are faved, be delivered from wrath on 
 account of the merit of Chrift in any fenfe, then that 
 punilhment, which leads to repentance, is not the curfe 
 of the law, or is not all the punilhment which juflice 
 admits. They who fufter the curfe of the law, fatisfy 
 the law, and therefore ftand in no need of the merit of 
 Chrift to fatitfy the law or to deliver them from the curfe 
 of it. They can no longer confiftently with juil;ice be 
 holden under that curfe. To hold fuch perfons ftill under 
 the curfe of the law, unlefs they can obtain an interef t in 
 the merit ©f Chrift, cm never be reconciled with the 
 moral perfedtion of God. ^ et this is the very fa6t, if 
 that punifnment which leads to repentance be the curfe 
 of the law and at the fame time, as Dr. C. abundantly 
 holds, falvalion in the deliverance from wrath, as well as in 
 the beftowment of poutive happinefs, be granted to no 
 man, but on account of the merit of Chrift. 
 
 3. On this hypotheiis, our Lord Jefus Chrift will not 
 fave all men, nor will all m^en be faved, whether by 
 
 Chrift, or without him. Deliverance from the curfe 
 
 of the law is effential to falvation. But if the curfe of 
 the law bs that pujiirnment, which is neceflary to lead to 
 
 repentance 
 
deferved by the Wicked. 29 
 
 repentance ; and if, as the advocates for univerfal falva- 
 tion bold, a great part of mankind will fufFer this punifh- 
 menr ; it follows^ that a great part of mankind will not 
 be faved. For to be faved, and yet to fufFer the curfe of 
 the law, isadired contradiction. To fuffer the curfe of 
 the law is to be damned, and is all the damnation to 
 which any fmner is expofed, and to which juftice, the 
 mojQ; Ttrid and rigorous jufbice, can doom him. If then any 
 man have fuiFered this dr.mnation, from what is he or 
 can he be faved ? Certainly from nothing, becaufe he is 
 expofed to nothing : unlefs we fay, that by the juft law 
 of the God of perje^i jvftice, he is expofed to ujiiujt pun- 
 iihmcnt. 
 
 If to this argument it be objeded, that though all men 
 are not faved from the curfe of the law, whether by 
 Chrift, or without him ; yet all are finally admitted to 
 happinefs ; thofe who repent in this life, are admitted to 
 happinefs through the merits of Chrift ; thofe who die 
 impenitent, are admitted to the fame, in confequence of 
 enduring in their own perlons, the curfe of the law : and 
 that this is all which is intended by the falvation of all 
 men : with refpecl: to this I obferve. 
 
 ( 1 ) This is no proper falvation^ which in its primary 
 meaning jQgnilies a deliverance from evil. But accord- 
 ing to the cafe now ftated, fome men are not deliv- 
 ered from, any evil, to which they ever were expofed ; 
 but fufFer it all. Therefore they are not faved. 
 
 (2) That this objedion entirely fets afide, with re- 
 gard to \ great part of mankind, falvation in the way 
 of forgivenffs of Fm, and the free grace of God in the 
 pardon of the Fniner> which is contrary to the whole 
 gofpel. * 
 
 But to proceed ; as Chrift, on the prefent hypothefis, 
 doth not in fad fave all men ; fo it would be no favour 
 to them, for him to attempt the falvation of all thofe who 
 die impenitent. An attempt to deliver them from the 
 curfe of the law^ would be an attempt to deprive them 
 of the moft neceiFary, wife, deiirable and merciful 
 means of grace, on which their eternal happinefs de- 
 pends : an attempt not to dchver them from any thing 
 which on the whole is an evil, a difadvantage even to 
 themfeives ; but to deprive them of that on whi«h their 
 
 fupreme 
 
50 ?>^ore than Dlfciplhn' 
 
 fbpremc interefl depends ; of that which is in fa(5l the 
 greateft good, v/hich they, in their prelent temper can 
 enjoy, and the greateft bleflmg v/hich at prefent God 
 
 can poiTibly beftow on them. Now to deprive them of 
 
 this, is certainly no favour, nor any fruit of grace, mer- 
 cy or goodnefs to them perfonaily. Even to take them 
 to heaven, before they have pafled through this difcrp- 
 ]ine v/culd by no means be fo great a favour to them, as 
 to caufe them to pais through this diicipline ; as it would 
 be to take them to heaven before they were prepared for 
 it, or could enjoy happinefs in it. 
 
 Further • if the curfe of the lav/ be that punil'hment, 
 which is neceiTaiy to lead to repentance, then Chrift 
 came not to deliver from the curfe of the law, all who 
 are to be finally happy, but to infiicl that curfe on a part 
 of them. Chrift is exalted to be a prince and a Savi- 
 our to give repentance and forgiven efs of fms. It is 
 apart of his oiKce, to bring men to repentance, by all 
 wife and proper means. Dr. C. and other advocates 
 for univerfal I'alvation, fuppofe, that hell torments are 
 the means, and moft v/ife, proper and necefiary means 
 too, by which Chrift will execute the work of giving re- 
 pentance to all the damned. Therefore his work as a 
 iaviour, fo far as refpecls them^ is, on Dr. C's plan, not 
 to deliver them from the curfe of the law, but to in- 
 Hid that curfe on them. But who is not ftruck with the 
 contrariety of this idea, to the conftant, uniform declara- 
 tions of fcripture, that Chrift came to redeem us from 
 the curfe of the law, to fave us from wrath, to deliver us 
 from the wrath to come, kc. 
 
 WiLi, it be faid in oppofition to the laft obfervation, 
 that thofe who die in impenitence, are not faved in any 
 fenfeby or through Chrift, whether by his, atonement, or 
 by him as God's prime miniftcr, in the fulnefs of times 
 bringing all to repentance ; and that therefore Chrift is 
 not come to infiicl the curfe of the law on any who fhall 
 be finally happy r Then let it never more be pleaded, 
 that Chrift is the faviour of all men ; that he gave himfelf a 
 ranfom for all ; that he tafted death fer every man ; that 
 the grace of God, and the gift by grace, w^ich is by on? 
 man Jefus Chrift, hath abounded unto the ■ many, 
 (meaning all men ) that by the righteoufnefs of one the 
 
 free 
 
dsfervtd by ih: Wicked i jr 
 
 free gift fhall come upon all men to julliiicatlGn of life ; 
 that Chrift muft reign, till he fhall have put all enemies 
 under his feet, in genuine repentance ; that peace be- 
 ing made by the blood of the crofs, it pleafed the father 
 hy Chr'ijt to reconcile all things to himfelf . . For if Chrift 
 ihall not finally have faved all men by his merit, nor ihall 
 have led them to repentance in the execution of the 
 fcheme of providence ; in what fenfe can the falvation of all 
 men be afcribed to Chrifc? In what conceivable fenfe can he 
 
 be called the Saviour of all men? 1 hereforc if any 
 
 adopt th2 idea of the objection jufi flated, let them never 
 more plead in favour of the falvation cf all men, any of 
 thofe paiTages of fcripture referred to above, nor any 
 palTage, v-zhich relates to falvation by Chrift. 
 
 Beside; if the damned be led to repentance by the 
 torments of hell, by whom are thofe torments inflidled ? 
 Not by Chrift it leems, becaufe that would imply, that 
 Chrift came not to deliver all who fhall be finally happy, 
 from the curfe of the law ; but to inflift that curfe on a 
 part of them. By whom then will thofe torments, thofe 
 moft excellent means of grace, be adminiftered ? Is 
 not Chrift- the judge of all men? The father judgeth no 
 man^ but hath committed all judgment to the fon. Wc 
 muft all ftand at his judgment feat and receive according 
 to that which we fhall have done in the body whether good 
 or evil : and he will fay; Depart, -ye curfed, into ever- 
 lafting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 
 
 4. If the penalty of the law confift in that puniihment, 
 which i& neceffary to lead to repentance, then all the 
 damned, if brought to repentance at all, are delivered out 
 of hell, not on the footing of grace and mercy ^ or of fa- 
 vour and goodnefs ; but en the footing of the ftricteft 
 juftice ; not on the footing of thegofpel, but of the rigour 
 
 of law. -By the prefent hypotheiis, the damned all 
 
 iufFer that punifhment^ which is neceiTiiry to lead them to 
 repentance, and therein fufter the curfe of the law, or 
 all that punifiiment which the utmoft rigour of law and 
 juftice denounces or can inflict. If the Deity himfelf were 
 to proceed in puni filing, one ftep beyond this hue, he 
 would exceed the bounds of juftice, v/ould rife in oppofltion 
 to his own perfedions, would deny him.felf ; in fliort, 
 •^Youid no longer be God. Therefore as foon as a iinner 
 
 in hell 
 
^i More than Difctpilns 
 
 in bell is brought to repentance, he miifl: be immediatel/ 
 releafed. Nor is he under obligation to plead for grace 
 or favour ; he may demand releafe on the footing of per- 
 fonal juilice. He is under no necefTity to have recourfe to 
 the gofpel, he may infifl: on his perfonal right, on the foot- 
 ing of the law. He hath fatisfied the law; he hath fatif- 
 fied the juftice of God ; it hath taken its courfe on 
 him ; he hath nothing more to fear from it ; and he mufl ' 
 be dell^^ercd from further punilhment or elfe he is injured, 
 he is opprefled. 
 
 Nay ♦ to plead for mercy or favour in order to his deli- 
 verance, is not merely needlefs ; it is out of character, it 
 is degrading himfclf who flands right \vith refpe61: to the 
 law, to the place of one who is obnoxious to ftili further 
 punilhment. It implies that he is ignorant of his own 
 charader and relation to the Deity and his law. Equally 
 out Oi charafter ^vould he sd:, if on his deliverance, he 
 Hiould render praifc or thanks, either to God the father, 
 or to his fon Jefus Chrift. Surely a man condemned 
 by a civil judge, to receive forty ftripes fave one, after he 
 has recived them, is under no obligation to render praife 
 or thanks for his releafe, either to the judge or to the ex^ 
 ecutive officer. 
 
 But how are thefe things reconcile able with the fcrip— 
 tures? Surely thefe confequences fairly deduciblc from 
 the hypothefis under confideration, are entirely inconfift— 
 ent with the gofpel ; and the hypothefi* itfelf cannot con— 
 liftently be embraced by any believer in the New Tefta- 
 ment. 
 
 Particularly: This hypothefis precludes all polli- 
 bility of forglvenefs of the damned, even, on the fuppofi-* 
 tion that they are finally to be admitted to heavenly hap- 
 
 pinefs. Forgivnefs implies, that the {inner forgiven 
 
 is not puniiiied in his own perfon, according to law and 
 juffcice. But on the hypothefis under confideration in 
 this chapter, all the dammed, are in their own perfons 
 , punilhed according to law and juilice, in that they fufFer 
 that puniihment, which is necelTary to lead them to re»- 
 pentance. Who would think of telling a man, who has 
 in his own perfon, received the corporal punifliment, to 
 ,.which he had been condemned, that the ci'ime for which 
 he received that punilhment, is fireely forgiven him ? 
 
 Th-s 
 
deferved hy the Wicked, 3 
 
 « 
 
 This would be adding infult to the rigour of juftice. ■■ 
 But according to the fcriptures, it fetms there is no fal* 
 vation on the footing of the law, or without forgivnefs. 
 Therefore either it muft be made to appear, that the 
 fcriptures do admit the idea, that fome men will be receiv- 
 ed to heaven on the footing of law, and without forgiv-* 
 nefs of fins ; or the hypothefis, tliat the puniihment, which 
 is fufficient to lead to repentance, is the curfe of the 
 law, muft be renounced. 
 
 5. All men who are by any means brought to repent- 
 ance, whether by the torment of hell or any other caufe, 
 are on the footing of juftice entitled to perfecl fubfequent 
 impunity. By the fuppofition, the fole juft end of all the 
 puniftiment infiicled by the Deity, is the repentance of the 
 iinner. But this end* i^ already obtained in all who are 
 the fubjecls of repentance. Therefore to punifh them is 
 to inflicl: pain or mifery for no juft end whatever. But 
 that the Deity fliould infii«fl mifery for no juft end, is for 
 him to commit injuftice and wanton cruelty, which is im- 
 poffible. What then is become of the curfe or penalty of 
 the divine law ? The apoftle declares, '^ Curfed is every 
 ' one that continueth not in all things written in the book 
 of the law to do them.'' This feems to import, that eve-^ 
 ry tranfgreflbr is expofed to a curfe. But he who 
 tranfgrelTes in ever fo many inftances, and then whether 
 fooner or later repents, whether his repentance be ef- 
 fefted by mercies, or by judgments, or by any other caufe^ 
 is expofed to no curfe, no puniihment whatever ; nor can 
 without injuftice be made the fubjecl of any. On this 
 fcheme, if there be any curfe in the law, it muft, be re^ 
 pentance itfelf . By the curfe of the law, is doubtlefs 
 meant the ill confequcnce, to which the fmner is by law 
 
 and juftice fubjected, on account of his tranfgreifion. 
 
 But according to the icheme now before us, repent- 
 tance, whenfoever and by what caufe foever it may cxifl 
 in alinner, is all the ill confequcnce (if it may be fo call-* 
 edj to which he is by law and juftice fubjedied on account 
 of any fm or fms. This therefore with rcfped; to him 
 is the whole curfe of the lav/, and can this be true? '^Chrift 
 hath redeemed us from, the curfe of the law, being made 3. 
 curie for us.'' But hath Clirift redeemed us from repent- 
 fincep and did heefFed that redemption, by becoming him'' 
 felf a pejiitent ? ' F " ' 6. Os 
 
 > 
 
34 BUrc than Dlfdflinc 
 
 ^. On the hypothefis^ that no man can be juflly pun- 
 ifhed for any other end, than his own perfonal good ; no 
 man commits any fm or moral evil, by any damage which 
 he does, or can do, to any being befide himfelf ; and the 
 whole evd of fm coniiits in this, that by it a man does more 
 or lefs damage to himfelf; but he never does, nor can 
 ^oiiibly commit fin, by diflionouring or doing damage to 
 any other be^ng created or divine, only fo far as, in the 
 fame acl on, he does damage to himfelf perfonally confi-* 
 
 dered.' If God never do nor can juftly puniih a fmner, 
 
 for any other end, than to lead him to repentance and to 
 promote his good ; and if all juli puniiliment be a mere 
 difciplme neceifary and v holefome to the recipient ; then 
 punifhment inflidied for any other end is nnjuft. It 
 is unjuii" to punifli a linner on account of any contempt of 
 the Deity, any oppofition to his deligns, to his caufe or 
 kingdom in the vv orld, or on account cf any abufes of 
 any man or men, excepting fo far as he damages himfelf 
 at the i'ame time. If it be juft to punifli a funier for any 
 of thofe iins, further, or in any other rcfpeci:, than as he 
 damages himfelf; it is juft to puniih him for other end or 
 ends, than his own perfonal good ; which is contrary to 
 
 the fuppofition. But if it be unjujft to puniih /or adtions 
 
 in any o^ h r refpect than as in thofe a6lions a man damages 
 himfelf or his own intereft ; if muft be becaufe there is 
 no moral evil in thofe aftions, on any other account, or in 
 any other view of them, than that by them lie does a da- 
 mage to himfelf, an J the whole evil of fm muft co (i.tin 
 this, that it is difads^antageous to the linner's own inter- 
 elt or happinefs. The end of all punilhment is the remo-*' 
 val or prevention of evil : and the evil to be removed 
 or prevented by punilhment, and which is the only ground 
 of punifliment, is the only evil of lin. But the hypothecs 
 which we are oppofAig throughout this chapter is, tliat 
 the only juft ends of pun'.ihnent, are the repentance and 
 good of the linner himfelf ; that is, the removal or pre- 
 vention of perfonal evil to the fmner, is the only juft end 
 of puniihing him. Of courfe this perfonal evil to the fin— 
 ner, is the only.juft ground of punilliing him, and is the 
 whole evil of fin. 
 
 Now if this'be the whole evil of fm, and it deferve 
 punilhment on no other account than this; no wonder 
 
 there 
 
defet-ved hy the Wicked. ^ 
 
 there is fuch oppefition made to the doctrine of endlers 
 punifhment. For truly, if the nature and evil of fin be 
 fuch, as hath been juft now ftated, not only the tndUfs * 
 punifliment of it is unjuft, but any punilliment of hov ever, 
 fiiort duration is unjuil ; becaufe fm carries its own full 
 punifhment in itfelf. All that pmiifliment which it de-* 
 ferves, is either contained in iln at the time it is commit- 
 ted, or it follows afterward, as a natural end necelTary 
 conf'equence, without any pain inflicted by the Deity ; and 
 to inflict any the leaft pain on the f inner, as a puniiliment 
 
 of his fin, is manifeftly unjult and abfurd. If a child, 
 
 in confequence of thrufliing its finger into a candle, fliould 
 fufFer great pain, furely it would not, befide that pain, 
 deferve chaftiiement : becaufe all the evil of its iijipru- . 
 dence conlifls in bringing on itfelf that pain, and thatj 
 pain itfelf is the full punifnment of the imprudence. 
 Therefore to inflicl any further punifhment muft be unjuft 
 
 and cruel. —To apply this ; all the moral evil of A\hich 
 
 the finner is puilty, confifls in bringing pain or lofs ox\ 
 Jiimfelf, and to punifh* him for this, is as abfurd, as tq 
 punifli the child juftfuppofed ; or to punifn a man becaufe 
 lie will walk with pebbles in his flioes, will whip him- 
 felf, or will bring on himfelf the pain of hunger, by go-* 
 ing without his ordinary meal. 
 
 7. On this hypothefis, he that rcpcnteth, fhall be 
 faved, from what ? from that v/ife, wholefome and neccf-^ 
 fary difcipline, which cannot be juftly inflicted, after he 
 becomes a penitent ; or in other words, he Ihall be faveci 
 
 from a punifnment w hich is entirely unjufi . 1 herefore 
 
 the promifes of falvation to thofe who repent, amount to 
 nothing more than alTurances, that God will not abufe, 
 injure 'or rob them of tYicir perfo?7aI rights. But do w^ 
 want fo many *^ exceeding great and precious promifes,'^ 
 to aiFure us of this ? Or are thefe promifes fo exceeding 
 great and precious, as it feems they were in the judgment 
 pf an apoitle ? Have we not abundant evidence of the fame 
 truth, from the moral rectitude of the Deity, without the 
 aid of even a fingle promiie ? 
 
 8. If the finner deferve no more puniftim.ent, than is 
 ziecefTary to lead to repentance, then he experiences much 
 
 Juors 
 
3^ Mors than DtfcipUne 
 
 more of the grace and mercy of God, while he is^'zw hdiiL, 
 than he does while he is on earth, or than he does, in 
 his deliverance fro7n hell. In hell he enjoys thofc means 
 of grace which are far better and more wifely and efFedu- 
 ally calculated to fecure his everlafting happinefs, than 
 chofe means which he enjoys on earth. In hell he receives 
 real and demonftrative tokens of the divine grace and mer- 
 cy in that difcipline which is fo necelTary and fo happily 
 conducive to his everlafcing happinefs. But in deliverance 
 from hell on his repentance, he receives no favour ', his. de- 
 liverance is a mere act of juftice which cannot be denied 
 him. ' , ' 
 
 9. On the fame hypothefis^ the curfe of 'the law, and 
 the greateft^ moft necelTary and moit defipable mean of 
 grace with refpect to the impenitent, are one and the fame 
 thing. This is fo plain, that not a v/ord need be faid to 
 elucidate it. Therefore if Chrilt* \vere to fave any man 
 from the curfe of the lav/, he would deprive him of the 
 beft mean of grace, which he does or can enjoy ; and this 
 falvation itfelf, fo far from a bleffing to the finner, would 
 be an infinitely greater curie, then the curfe of the law ; 
 becaufe it* would deprive him of a neceifary and moft ex- 
 cellent mean of grace, the punilhment which is hccelTary 
 to lead him to repentance. IVor would the gift of Chrift 
 liimfelf, his incarnation, fufferings, death, atonement, 
 or any thing which he hath done, or can pofhbly do, to 
 fave us from the curfe of the law, be any favour or blef- 
 fing to the perfon to be faved, but utterly the reverfe. 
 It is evidently no bleffing to any man.perfonally, but the. 
 reverfe, that any meafures Hiould be taken to deprive him 
 of the bell and moll* neceifary mean of grace, without 
 which he would noc be prepared for heaven and could not 
 be admitted to it. 
 
 10. The doctrine, that the finner deferves no more 
 punifhrnent, than is neceflary to lead to repentance, con- 
 futes itfelf in this refpeft ; that v¥-hi]e it holds forth, that 
 no punilhment can jullly be infiicled on the fmner, but that 
 which is merely difciflinary^ at the fame time it fuppofes, 
 that fuch a punifhment is in fa6l inflifted on all the damned, 
 as is tc/the higheft degree vindictive. What is a proper 
 
 Tindidive 
 
defcrved hy the V/icked- ^j 
 
 vindictive punifnTnent, but that which fatisfies the demands 
 of law and jufiice ? But that fuch a punifhment is inflided 
 on all the damned, is fuppolcd by all who efpoufe the 
 principle, which I am nov/ oppofnirr. Therefore in that 
 very doctrine, in which they mean to oppofe all vindicUve 
 punifhment, they in the fuUeft fenfe hold it, by holding 
 that fuch punifhment as is conducive to the good of tha 
 fufFerer, is all which juflice admits. 
 
 If they fliould fay, that the puniihraent of the damned 
 is not merely vindictive ; but at the fam.e time difcipiinar}? 
 too, and therefore jufc : though if it v/ere merely vindic- 
 tive, it would be unjiifi : I anfwer, the prefent queftion 
 entirely refpecls puniHiment which is merely difciplinary. 
 Therefore to allow, that the punifhment of the damned is 
 partly vindictive, is to give up this queftion, and to fub- 
 
 ftitute another. Befide ; if a vindifcive puniflim.ent be 
 
 unjuft,* how can it become juft by being connecled v/ith^a 
 punifhment, which is juft ? To corredt a child, to gratify 
 a mahcious temper, is doubtlefs unjuft. Nov/, if a man 
 correct his child from two motives, partly from malice, 
 and partly from a view to the good of the child ; the juf- 
 tice of his condud, fo far as he is influenced by the latter 
 motive, can never render his condud juft, fo far as it pro- 
 ceeds from the former. 
 
 A vindictive punifhment is that which is inflicted v.ith-a 
 delign to fupport the authority of a broken law, and of a 
 difpifed governmeit : And if the punifhment be jufl, it is 
 at the fame time according to the conduct or demerit of 
 the tranfgrefTor. This is demanded by every law ; and if 
 the law be juft, it is.juftly demanded : Or in other words, 
 fuch a punifhment of the traufgre^fion of a juft law, as is 
 fufHcient to fupport the authority of that law, is a juft pu- 
 niihment. At the fame time it is a punifliment as truly, 
 and to as hio-h a degree wndiclive, as juftice will admit. 
 Now if that punifliment which is necelTary to lead the fm- 
 ner to repentance, be fufficient thus to fupport the autho- 
 rity and dignity of the divine law and government, and 
 be inflided'for this end ; it is to the higheft degree vin-^ 
 dictive, and defignedly vindictive. If it be not fuificient 
 to anfwer thofe ends^ it is not the whole puniflnnent, 
 
 which 
 
jji Mori than Btfclpline 
 
 which the divine law and juflice demand : For as I have 
 t)€fore obferved, every jiift and wife law demands that 
 punilhment which is necefTary to its own fupport or exifL- 
 cnce, and juftice and wifdom enforce this demand. 
 
 Therefore let the advocates for univerfal falvation mak« 
 their choice. If they Ihall choofe to hold agreeably to the 
 prefent fuppoiitiun, that fuch puniinment as is necelTary 
 to lead to repentance, is all that can juftly be inflicted on 
 the {inner, and that therefore it is fufficient to fupport the 
 authority and dignity of the divine law and government ; 
 they fland convided of holding, that the puniihment of 
 the damned is by no means merel)' difciplinary, but to the 
 higheft degree vindicT:ive. If on the ether hand, they 
 choofe to hold, that the puniiliment which is neceffaiy to 
 lead the (inner to repentance, is not adequate to the pur-^ 
 pofes^ before mentioned ; then they muft renounce the 
 principle, which we have been fo long confidering, and 
 allow the divine law does denounce a further punifiiment, 
 than that which is neceflary to lead the linner to repen- 
 tance, and is a mere difcipline. Becaufe the divine law 
 being perfectly jufb, does juftly, and muft necellarily ad-« 
 mit of that puniihment, which is fufficient to its own lup- 
 port or exiflence. — — Thus on either fuppofition, they 
 mull renounce a very favourite tenet. 
 
 II. With what propriet)^ can we talk of fatisfying the 
 law by repentance, or by that punifliment, which is necef- 
 fary to lead to repentance; wheii the law fays not a word 
 exprefsly concerning repentance, either in confequence of 
 punifhment, or without it ? By the law is the knowledge 
 of fin ; but by it we know nothing of any gogd, to be 
 obtained by repentance, whether in the way of favour, 
 or in the way of juftice. The doctrine of any advantage 
 to be obtained by repentance, is a doctrine of the gofpel 
 only, not of the law. Yet if it be unjuft to punifli a fm- 
 ner with any other view, than to lead him to repentance, 
 this doctrine would undoubtedly be found in the law. The 
 Voice of the law is, not curfed is every one that tranf-» 
 greffeth, and doth not repent : But curfed is every one 
 that continueth not in all things written in the book of the 
 Uw to do them. 
 
 12. From 
 
drferved by ihe Wicked 4^f- 
 
 %i. From the principle, that fm deferves no other pun- 
 ifhment, than that which is fubfervient to the good of the 
 fmncr, it will follow, that what wx call fin, is no moral 
 evil. 
 
 It feems to be a didate of reafon and tJie common fenfe 
 of mankind, that moral evil fhould be followed, or de- 
 ferves to be followed, with natural evil or with pain and 
 fliame : and that this natural evil be a real evil to the fm- 
 ner, an evil to him on the whole. But tha« evil, which 
 is ncceflary and fubfervient to a man's perfonal good, is to 
 him no real evil ; but on the whole is, even to \(m\ per- 
 fonally, a good, a bl'^iUng, and not a curfe. . Now it is 
 not a dicl:ate of reafon and common fenfe, that moral evil 
 deferves a bleiling. That which deferves a blefling and 
 no curfe, is no m.oral evil. Therefore if fin deferve no 
 other punifliment than that v.hich is fubfervient to the 
 perfonal good of the fmner, it is no m.oral evil. 
 
 If it be faid to be no dilate of common fenfe, that mo-« 
 ral evil fhould be followed v/ith natural evil : it may be 
 anfwered, that furely it is not a dictate of common fenfe, 
 that it be followed, with natural good. This would 
 
 imply, that it deferves a reward. Nor is 
 
 it a dictate of common fenfe, that it be followed 
 with neither natural good nor natural evil. This Vv-ould 
 imply, that it is worthy of neither praife nor blame, 
 reward nor punifnment ; and therefore is neither a mo- 
 ral p-ood nor a moral evil. Both which ccnclulions are 
 
 o 
 
 abfurd. ' Therefore it remains, that it is a dictate of rea- 
 fon and common fenfe, that moral evil be followed with 
 
 natural evil.. Or if it be further urged, that it is <*i 
 
 diftate-of common fenfe, that moral evil confidering:. the 
 infinite goodnej s and mercy of God , ihculd be followed with 
 no natural evil ; it is to be obi'erved, that this is giving up 
 the ground of juflice, a^d going on that of poodnefs and 
 mercy, vv^hich is entirely foreign to the fiibject of this 
 chapter. The inquiry of this chapter is what lin deferves 
 9n the footing of juftice^ not what it will adually fuffer cm 
 the footing the divine innnite goodnefs and mercy, Thi§ 
 latter inquiry fliall be careiully attended to in its place^ 
 ©Jiapter VIII. 
 
 Again l 
 
^6 Mor'/r than DtfdpUnf<, 
 
 Agai-^^ ; Moral evil is in itfclf, or in its own nature, 
 odious and the proper objeCl of dil approbation and abhor- 
 rence. By its own nature I mean its tendency to cvil^ 
 the diihonour of the Deity and the mifery or diminution of 
 the happinefs of the created fyflem. Therefore it is not 
 injurious to the perfon who perpetrates moral evil, to 
 difapprove^ hate and abhor it in itfelf, alide from all con- 
 lideration of the confequences of fuch difapprobation, 
 whether fuch confequences be to the perpetrator perfonal- 
 ly good or bad. Hence it follows, that it is not injuri- 
 ous to the perpetrator of moral evil, to manifeft difapprc— 
 bation of his conduct, fo far as morally evil, whether 
 fuch manifefcation be fubfervient to his good or not. 
 And if y/w be a moral evil, it is not injurious to the fmner, 
 lioth to difapprove, and to manifefl difapprobation of fin, 
 v/hether fuch manifeftation be fubfervient to his good cr 
 
 not. But this diredly contradifts the principle, that 
 
 fm deferves no other punifhment, than that which is fub- 
 fervient to the good of the fmner. For what is puniih- 
 inent, but a manifeftation of difapprobation, which a per- 
 fon vefted with authority has, of the conduct of a fub- 
 ject ? And if it be not injurious to the fmner, to difap- 
 prove his fm, and to manifeft that difapprobation, whe- 
 ther it fubferve his good cr not ; then his fm, or he on 
 account of his fin, deferves both difapprobation, and the 
 manifeftation of difapprobadon, though that manifefta- 
 tion be notfubfervient to his perfonal good ; which is the 
 fame thing as to fay, that the fmner deferves punifhment, 
 whether that punifliment fubferve his own good or not. 
 On the other hand, if it be not juft to manifeft difappro- 
 bation offm, it is not juft to difapprove fin. If it be not 
 juft to difapprove or to hate fm, aiide from the confidera— 
 tion, that the difapprobation is conducive to the perfonal 
 good of the iinner ; then lin is not in itfelf, or in its own 
 ■ nature and tendency, hateful or odious, but becomes odi- 
 ous then only, vvhen the hatred of it conduces to the per- 
 fonal good of the iinner. But if fm be not in itfelf odi- 
 ous, jt is not a moral evil; wiiich was the thing to b? 
 proved. 
 
 TH;:iis feeras to be no way to avoid this confequenco 
 
 • feuc 
 
deferved by the Wicked, ^» 
 
 but by holding, that moral evil is not in itfelf odious and 
 abominable, but that it becomes odious then only, v h^n 
 the difapprobation of it fubferves the perional good of the 
 perpetrator: which is the fame as to hold, that moral e- 
 vil, as luch, is not at all odious, but is odious in this par- 
 ticular cafe only, when the dilapprobation of it iubferves 
 the good of the perpetrator : but in ail other cafes, it is 
 a matter of indifferency at leaft, if not an object of cordial 
 complacency ; and therefore in all other cafes is no mo- 
 ral evil. 
 
 On the fuppofition which I am now oppofmg, when a 
 man fins and immediately repents, he deferves no punifh- 
 ment, becaufe the end of all punifliment is already ob-* 
 tainedby his repentance, and a tendency of punifhment to 
 the repentance of the linner, which is the only circum- 
 ftance, on the prefent hypothefis ^^hich can juftify his 
 punifhm.ent, cannot now be pretended, as a reafon for 
 his puni/hment. Therefore any punifhment after repen- ' 
 tance, muft be undeferved and unjuft. But if lln be a 
 moral evil or a crime, it is in its own nature difpleafing 
 to God, and he may juftly both be difpleafed at it, andl 
 inanifeft his difpleafure ; that is, he may punifli it, whe- 
 ther the fmner repent or not, P^epentance though it is ^ 
 renunciation of fin in future, makes no alteration in the 
 nature of the fm which is paft ; nor is it any fatisfaftion 
 for that fin. If it were, it would be either the curf'^ of tk^ 
 lawy or fuch a meritorius acT; of virtue, as to balance ihi? 
 demerit of fin : Neither of which will be pretended. But 
 if the only reafon why it is, or can be juft for God tO' 
 lliew difpkafure at fin, be, that the Imner may thereby be 
 led to repentance ; then fin itfelf, or the proper nature? 
 of fin, is not a juft reafon, why God Ijiould either be dif- 
 pleafed, or ibow difpleafure at it. Impenitence or the 
 repetition of fin or the continuance of the finnerin >t, h 
 on this luppofition, the only juil rcaibn or ground of ei-» 
 ther difpleafure, or of any manifefetion of difpleafurs 
 at fin. Therefore fin in general, or fin as fuch, deferve? 
 no difpleafure or manifeftation of difpleafure ; but fin in 
 fome particular cafe only, as when it is perfiiled in or re- 
 peated. If we fliould hold, that fins committed in the day 
 time, do not defer ve puniilim^nt ; but that thcfe which 
 are committsd in the night, do defsrve puniihment, \ 
 
 G. thipk 
 
j^2 Mori: thil:? Difclpltn: 
 
 think it r/oiild hz manifeit to every mm, that we deniecl_, 
 that lin as fuch, and by the general nature common to all 
 fins, defer ves punilhment ; and that we confined the defer t 
 of puniihment to fomething which is merely accidental, 
 and not at all ellential to fm. And is it not manifeft, that 
 the defert of puniiliment is as really not extended to the 
 general nature of lin, but is eonlined to fomething merely 
 accidental, when it is afferted, tliat lin deferves nopuniih-* 
 ment, unlefs it be followed with impenitence ? or unlefs it 
 be perfiiled in? or, which is the fame thing, that no pun- 
 ilhment is juft, except that wliich is defigned to lead the 
 fmner to repentance ? 
 
 If fni do not by its general nature defcrve puniiliment, 
 it does not by its general nature deferve the manifeftation 
 of divine difpleafurs ; becaufe all manifeflation of divine dif-- 
 pleafure at iin, is punifnment. — Again, if iln do not by its 
 general nature deferve the manifeitation of divine difplea- 
 fure, it does not by its general nature deferre difpleafure it- 
 felf : and if fo, it is not by its general nature a moral evil. 
 
 It appears then, that on the hypothefis now under 
 conlideration, lin deferves neither punilhment nor hatred, 
 and is no moral evil, unlefs it be followed with impeni- 
 tence ; or unleis it be perfifced in, for at leaft lome 
 time. The nrlt ait of fin is no moral evil. But if the 
 firfl; acl be not a moral evil, why is the fecond, the third, 
 or any fubfequent acl? Impenitence is nothing but a repe^ 
 tition or perfeverance in at^sthe fame cr fmiilar to that 
 of which we do not repent. But if the firfl: act, abitracl- 
 ed from the fubfequent, be not a -moral evil, whatreafon 
 can be alligned, why the lubi'equent HiouM be a moral 
 evil? Thus the principle, that lin deferves puni/hm.ent io 
 far only, as the punillmient of it tends to the repentance 
 and good of the fmner, implies, that there is no moral 
 evil in the univerie, either in the firfl: 'fin, or in any 
 
 which follow ; no:ie even in impenitence itfelf. On the 
 
 other hand, if lin in all inflances be a moral evil, it is 
 juitly to be abhorred by the Deity, vvhether repentance 
 fucceed or not : and if it may juflly be abhorred by the 
 Deity, he may jtilHy manilcil his rrbhorrence of it, v\'hc- 
 ther repentance fucceed or not. Bat to allow this, is to 
 give up the ::r:ncipl.', that fui deferves no other punilh- 
 ment, than that which is fublervient to the repentance 
 and good of the iiirner. 
 
^.^fcTVcd hy ihe IVicked. j^^ 
 
 Punishment is a proper manifeftation of dirpleafiu'e^ 
 made by a per 'on in authority, at fome crime or moral e- 
 vil. If iin, though repented of, be fril a moral evil, 
 and the juft objcLC of the divine difpleafure ; Vvhy is it not 
 juit, that th's difpleauire iliouid be manifeiled ? But the 
 inanifeflation of the divine difpleafure at moral evil, is 
 
 punidiment. ^If on the other hand, it be an injurious 
 
 treatment of a iinner, that the Dcit/ jQiould, after repent- 
 ance, manifeil his difpleafure at him, on account of his 
 Iin ; then doubtlefs it is injurious in the Deity to be dif- 
 pleafed with him on account of his fin, of vliich he has 
 repented. Again ; if it be injurious in the Deity to be dif- 
 pleafed with a man on account of his fin, after he has de- 
 lifted from it in repentance, Vvhy is it not injurious to be 
 difpleafed with him, on account of his paft iin, though 
 he is flill perHfling in fm ? If one a£l of murder be not the 
 proper objed of the abhorrence of all holy intelligence»> 
 creator and creatures why are tv/o or one hundred acts 
 of murder proper objects of abhorrence. Add nought 
 to itfelf as often as you pleafe, you can never make it 
 
 fomething. So that by this principle we feem to be ne- 
 
 cellarily led to this conclufion, that no man on account of 
 any fm v/hatever, Vv^hether repented of or not, can con- 
 fifiently with juilice be made the cbjecl of divine abhor- 
 rence or difpleafure, and confequently that lin in no in-, 
 fiance whatever is a moral evil. 
 
 On the principle which I am now oppodng, whenever a. 
 man commits any fm, for inftance murder, neither God, 
 nor man hath any right to maw f eft difpleafure at his con- 
 dud, or even to be difpleafed v/ith it, till two things are 
 fully knovvm ; {irft v/hether the murderer do or do not 
 repent ; fecondly, whether difpleafure in this cafe, or the 
 manifeflation- of difpleafure, Vv'iil conduce to the happinefs 
 of the murderer. If he do repent, no intelligent being 
 hath a right, on the footing of juflice, to be difpleafed ; 
 nor even if he be impenitent, unlefs it be known for a cer- 
 tainty, that the difpleafure of the perfon, who is inquir- 
 ing vvhether he have a right to be difpleafed or not, will 
 conduce to the rep^intance and good of the murderer. 
 To fay otherwife ; to fay that v/e have a right in juftice 
 to be dilpleafed v/ith the conduce of a murderer, though 
 he docs repent, or though fuch difpleafure does not con- 
 duce 
 
^4 More than DifcipUne, 
 
 duce to his repentance and happinefs, is to give up the 
 principle in queftion. For if we may juftly be difpleafed 
 %vith his conduct, though he is penitent, or though our 
 difpleafure does not conduce to his perfonal happinels ; 
 we may juftly manifeft our difpleafure. But manifefta- 
 tion of dilpleafure, efpeciaily by a ruler, at the mifcon- 
 dudl of a Aibje6t, is punifliment. 
 
 Once more ; on the fuppofition that we have no right 
 to be difpleafed with murder, unlefs our diipleafure con- 
 duce to the good of the murderer; if there be any moral 
 evil or turpitude in murder, it confiils not in the murder 
 itfelf, or in the malicious aftion of murder ; but v.holly- 
 in this circumftance attending it, that difpleafure at it^ 
 -conduces to the perfonal good of the murderer. 
 
 Perhaps it may be obje-fled to, the reafcnmg in the 
 laft argument, that if it prove any thing, it proves too 
 much, and therefore really proves nothing ; that If fm, 
 or any crime, do in all cafes, and on account of its ov/n 
 nature and turpitude, deferve difapprobation ^nd punifh- 
 anent, it will follow, that it deferves the fame, even after 
 it has been puniihed according to ftrift diftributive juflice ; 
 ihat alter fuch puniihment the nature of the crime is the 
 fame which it was before ; that the crime therefore is 
 ftill the proper object of difapprobation, and of the mani- 
 feitation of dii'approbation ; and on the ground of the pre- 
 ceding reafoning; deferves an additional punifjiment, af- 
 ter it has been once puriifhed according to {tri6t diftributive 
 juftice ; which is abfurd. 
 
 To this it may be anfwered, that a crime confidered 
 in connection with its juft and full puniflimcnt, is nor 
 that crime ccnfidered, in itfdf, or inks ovjn nature 7nere- 
 iy. Water mingled with wine, and thus become a com- 
 pound fubfcance, is no longer mere water. The prece- 
 ding rcaloning fuppofes, that a crimxe in its own nature 
 and tendency deferves difapprobation and the inanifefta- 
 ti on of difapprobation. But a crime taken with the full 
 jjunifhment of it which is according to ftrid dillributive 
 juflice, and confidered in iliis complex view, or that 
 crime and the juft puniHiment of it confidered as one 
 complex obje<£l, is not that crime confidered /;; Jtfdf and 
 in its oiv;i nature merely. Therefore although the crime 
 pnfidered in itfelf deferves p-umihment, yet confidered 
 ' \^ 
 
defervcd by the Wicked, 45 
 
 Sn the complex view j aft ftated, it defer ves not additional 
 
 punifliment.- And whereas it is implied in the objed- 
 
 ion now under confideration, that a crim_e even after it 
 has been punifhed according to ftrift diftributive juftice, 
 isftill the juft objeftof difapprobation, and therefore that 
 disapprobation may juftiy be manifefted even by the magi- 
 itrate, or the crime maybe punifhed ; it is to be obferved, that 
 the whole force of this reafoning depends on the mean- 
 ing of the expreffion, a crime even (jfter it ba^ been punifh'^ 
 ed according to firi£} diftributive jufiice, is f] ill the jiifl cb- 
 jeSi of di [approbation. If the meaning of that exprelTion 
 be, that the crime confidered in its own nature and ten- 
 dency, and as abftracted from the puniiliment or any 
 thing done to prevent the ill efFed: of the crime, is a pro- 
 per object of difapprobatiouj and is an event mod ardent- 
 ly to be deprecated, or it is moft ardently to be wiilied, 
 that it might never have come into exiftence, and in 
 this fenfe, it is the juft objed of difapprobation and of 
 the manifeftation of difapprobation : this is undoubtedly- 
 true, and no ill confequence to the preceding reafoning 
 w '11 folio v/. But if the meaning of that exprellion be, 
 that a crim.e confidered in connexion with its jail: punifh- 
 ment and the good effedts of that punifhment, as one com* 
 plex objecl, is a proper object of difapprobation, io that it 
 is proper to wifu, that this complex objetl had not coma 
 into exiftence ; it is not true that in this fenfe a crime af- 
 ter it has been punifhed according to ftricl diftributive juf- 
 3ce, is ftill thejuft objed of difapprobation. There have 
 doubtlefs been many inftances of crimes in civil fociety, 
 >vhich taken with the juft punifhments inflicted on them, 
 have been on the whole the occafion of great good to fo- 
 ciety, have^ eftablifhed government and preferved the 
 peace, of fociety longer and more effedually, than v/ould 
 have been the cafe, had no fuch crimes been committed. 
 Therefore the odftence of thofe crimes taken with the 
 punifhments, as one complex objedl, is no proper object of 
 difapprobation or deprecation, but of accjuiefcence and joy : 
 becaufe in this connection they tend not to impair, but 
 eftablifli and promote the general freed. In this fenfe 
 any crime or any fm, after it has been puniflied according 
 to ftriifl diftributive juftice, is not the juft object ofdifap-. 
 probation, and therefore not of the m.anifeftation of dif- 
 approbation 
 
46 Mof'^ thdM DirdpUnt 
 
 approbation or of puniilimcnt. So that the foregoing 
 
 reafoning v/ill not prove that a fin or crime, once pun— 
 i/lied a<:cording to ilrict dhlributive juftice, deierves an 
 additional puniiliment. 
 
 The effence, of moral evil is, that it tends to impair the 
 good and happinefs of the univcrfe : in that the odi- , 
 oufnefs of fm or of moral evil confiils. xA.nd a punijhment 
 in the diilributive lenie juil:, is that puniOmient 
 iaflitted on the perfon of the finner, which elte^Lually pre- 
 vents any ill confequence to the good of the uaiverfe, of 
 the fin or crime piinillied. i\a\v therefore iin taken 
 withthe juft punifhment of it, no more tends to impair 
 the good of the univerfe, than poiibn taken v/ith an ef— 
 feclaa] antidote, tends to deilroy the life of him who takes it. 
 
 Objection, i. .. If iin taken w\t\\ its juli punifhment, do 
 not tend to impair the pood of the univerfe, and if the 
 silence of moral evil conhll in its tendency to impair the 
 good of the univeric, ic feeins that fm taken with its juifc 
 puni/hment is no Iin at all. Anfwer : It is indeed not mcrs 
 fm. It is no more iin, than poifon taken with its antidote^ 
 is poifon. That poifon which is mixed with the antidote, 
 if it were feparated from the antidote, would produce the 
 fame effec^ts, is of the fame tendency, and coniequently of 
 the fame nature, as before the mixtm-e. Yet the comipcund 
 liiade by the mixture, produces no fuch efFcfts, is of no 
 fuch tendency, and confequently is of a very diiferent na- 
 ture. So any fm which is puniflicd according to flricl ju- 
 ilice, a'Dflracled from the punifiimcnt, is of the fame reu- 
 cicncy and. nature, cf wjiich it \v as before the punifhment. 
 1 et that Iin taken vdth its full aud jult puniiliment, as one 
 complex object, is cf a v^ry different tendency and nature, 
 and vvdll be followed with no fiLch -efTecls asvpuid have. 
 followed from it, Iiad it not been puniihed. In this fenfe, 
 fm taken v/ith its full and juft puniiliment is indeed n» 
 fm at all. 
 
 Gbjecdon. 2. If the fmner do not deferve punifnment, 
 v/hen the ill confequence s of his iin are prevented by his 
 peribnal puniiliment; why does he deferve puniilmunt, 
 when the ill confequences are prevented by the fufFcrings 
 of his fubliiiute r Anfwer. Defert and ill delert are ac- 
 cording to tlie chara6{;er of the pcrfcn hittifclf, and not acr 
 cprdinr to that of his reprefcntdtive or fubftitutc. Now 
 fatisfaition for a criiue by pcrlonal fii&in^ is as really a 
 
 part 
 
icftrvetl'hy ih^ Wicked, 47 
 
 |>art of the criminars perfonal charafter, as the criiDC itfelf* 
 Bat latisfa^lion by the iu.Termg of another, is no part of 
 the perfondl character of the crimmal. 
 
 If then on the whole, it be an eilabhfhed point, that on 
 the fuppofition that no other punifhinent can be jultly m- 
 flided on the linner, than that which is neceilary lor his 
 repentance and happhiels, iin is no moral evil ; this will 
 be attended with many other confequenccs equally, or if 
 po-Tible, ftill more abfurd : 
 
 1. TiTAT Iin deferves no -punifliment at all. Surely no» 
 thing but moral evil defervei puni/hment. 
 
 2. Tha^i' neither iinitfeif, nor v/e as linners are the ob- 
 jed:s of the divine dii approbation. 
 
 3. That neither ought we to difapprove it, whether 
 in ourfelves or others. 
 
 4. That repentance is no dut)?- of any man ; yea, it 
 is pofitive?y wrong. Shill we repent of an innocent adlion ? 
 
 5. That the calamities vv^hich God brings on men in this 
 life, are not reconcileable with jidtice. "ihat thefe cala* 
 mities in general are punilhments or demondrations of 
 God's difpleafurc at the Uns of mankind, is manifefb front 
 the fcriptnres. This is efpecially manifeft concerning the 
 mofl extraordinary and unufual calamities which in I'crip- 
 ture are mentioned to have befallen communities or indi- 
 viduals ; as the flood of Noah, the overthrow of Sodom, 
 and Gomorrah, the dellruclion of Jerufalem and the Tern* 
 pie by the Chaldeans, and afterwards by the P».omans, the 
 death of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, of Nadab and 
 Abihii, of Uzzah, o^c. &:c. But all thefe puniihments were 
 unjuft, ff fm be no moral evil. 
 
 6. That there is no foundation in any human adtionS' 
 or chara^ers, for praife or blame, reward or puniihment. 
 If Tmbe no moral evil, it is not blameable ; and if fni or 
 vice do not deferve blame or puniihment, virtue which is 
 the oppofite, does not delerve praife or reward : and all 
 moral difbinflions are groundlefs, as in a moral view there 
 is no difference between virtue and vice, fin and holinefs* 
 Therefore there is no moral govermnent in the univerfe^ 
 nor any foundation for it- 
 
 I NOW appeal 10 the reader, with regard to the propri- 
 ety of the preceding remar]cs,' and whetlier the ablurdiiie* 
 before ui£utioned, be not indeed iraplied in tlie hypotbsils^ 
 
/fi The damned ivUl in fa^ 
 
 thst die iinner can, confiftently with juflice, be made i^ 
 fufFcr no other punifnment^ than that v»hich is difciplinary 
 cr conducive to the good of thq fufFercr, by leading him 
 to repentance and preparing him for happinefs. If thofe 
 abfurdities juftly follov/, not the leaft doubt can remain, 
 but that the principle from which they follow, is abfurd 
 and falfe. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Whether the damned ivill in fa6l Ji^ffer any other punijhmenf^ 
 than that "ujhich is conducive to their perfonal good, 
 
 N the laft chapter the fubjecl of inquiry was, whethei* 
 the damned iinner deferve^ according to ftrift juftico 
 and the law of God, any other puniihment, than that 
 which is necedary to lead to repentance and prepare for 
 happinefs. But though it fhould be granted, that he does 
 indeed deferve a further or greater puniihment, than that 
 which is fufficient for the ends juft mentioned ; yet it may 
 be pleaded, that in fad he never will fulFer any other pun- 
 iiliment ; that in hell the damned are puniihed with the 
 fcle defign of leading them to repentance ; that when this 
 defign fhall have been accompliflied, whatever further 
 puniihment they may deferve, wjH be gracioufiy remitted, 
 and they immediately received to celeftial feheity. Whe- 
 ther this be indeed the truth, is the fubjed of ourprefent 
 inquiry. — -With regard to this, fubjecl, I have to propofe 
 the following conliderations. 
 
 1. If the damned do indeed deferve more punifhment, 
 than is fuilicient barely to lead thern to repentance ; then 
 they may, confillently with juftice, be made in fact to luf- 
 fer more. That they may confulently v.'ith juftice be made 
 to fufFer according to their demerits, is a feif-evident pro- 
 pofition. To punilli them fo far, is not at all inconliftent 
 with the jullice of God, therefore the objection drawn 
 from the juftice of God againft vinditlivc punifliment as 
 oppofed to mere difcipline, muft be v^holly relinquidied. 
 A merely difciplinary puniihment is one which is fuited and 
 defiened to lead the fmner to repentance only. A vindic- 
 tive punifhment is one which is defigned to be a teftimony 
 ef the difpieafure of God at the conduct of the Iinner, and 
 
 by 
 
Jhffer more than Dtfdplhie. j^(^ 
 
 by that tf^ftimony, to fupport the authority of the divine 
 law, fubferve the general good, and thus fatisfy juftice i 
 and itmuft be no more than adequate co the demerit of the 
 finner. I do not find that Dr. C. has in his whole book, 
 given us a definition of a vindictive puniihment, as he 
 ought mofc certainly to have done. According to Che- 
 valier Rar,iroy\<; definition of divine vindictive juftice, vin- 
 dictive punifliment is, ^' That difpeniation of God, by 
 '^ which he purfues vice with all forts of torments, till it 
 '^ is totally extirpated, deftroyed and annihilated."* What 
 then is a difciplinary puniihment ? This definition perfectly 
 confounds difciplinary and vindictive puniflnnent. 
 
 If il be jufl to punilh a iinner according to his demerit; 
 as it certainly is by the very terms ; and if fuch a punifii- 
 ment be greater than is fuiTicient to lead him to repentance 
 merely ; as is now Ihppofed : then all objections drawn 
 from the juftice of God, againft a vindiclive punifhment, 
 and all arguments from the fame topic, in favour of a pun- 
 ifliment merely difciphnary, are perfectly groundlefs and 
 futile. The Iinner lies at mercy ; and if he be releafed 
 on his repentance, it is an. a(^ of grace, and not of juftice. 
 1, If the damned cIq deferve more puniftjment than is 
 fufficient barely to lead them to repentance, they will m 
 fa^ fuffer more. As it is juft, lo juftice will be executed. 
 That they will be punifhed according to their demerits, is 
 capable of clear proof, both b}'' the authority of fcripture, 
 and by that of Dr. C. 
 
 (i) By the authority of fcripture. — —This aniires us, 
 that God will '^ render to e-J^ery man according to his deeds' 
 '^ to therA that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, 
 *' but obey unrighteoufnefs, indignation and v/rath, tri- 
 '^ bulalion and anguiih upon every foul that doth evil,^' 
 Rom. XI. 6, &c. ^* For the work of a man, fhall he ren- 
 *• der unto him, and cauie every man to find according to 
 his ways," Job, XXXIV. i. '■'- Thou reudereft to 
 every man according to his work,'" Pi'al. LXII. 12. 
 I the lord fearch the heart, I try the reins, q\zt^ to 
 give every man according to his ways, and according to 
 the fruit of his doings," Jer. XVII. 10. See alfo 
 chap. XXXII. I p. '* For the fon of man ihall come in 
 *"' the glory of his fatlier, with his angels; and then he 
 ^' fhall reward every man according to his v/orks," Mati. 
 
 ix J^'^ V i . 
 
 Principles, Vol. I, P. 434, 
 
5© The Damntd ■will in Ta6} 
 
 XVI. 27. " Forwemuftall appear before the JudgmcRt 
 feat of Chriil ; that every one may receive the things 
 done in his body, according to that he hath done, whe- 
 ther it be good or bad," 1 Cor. V. !o. '^Behold 
 I come quickly ; and my revv'ard is with me, to give 
 *' every man according as his work fhall be,*' Rev. XXII. 
 12. '' Agree with thiue adverfary quickly, whiles thou 
 '• art in the way with him: left at any time the adver- 
 *^ fary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver 
 '^ thee to the officer, and thou be cafl into prifon. Verily 
 ** I fay unto thee. Thou fliait by no means come out 
 *' thence, till thou haft paid the uttermoft farthing,*' Mat. 
 V. 25, 26. In the parallel text in Luke, it is thus ex— 
 ^^ prelTed, ''I tell thee, thou llialt not depart thence till 
 " thou haft paid the very laft mite." James. II. 13, 
 '* He fhall have judgment without mercy, that hath 
 *' ihewed no mercy." Rev. XIV. 10, '^Thc fame Ihall 
 *^ drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured 
 " out without mixture, into the cup of his indignation? 
 '^ and he fhall be tormented with fire and brimftone in 
 '' the prefence of the holy angels and in the prefence of 
 '^ the Lamb ; and the fmoke of their torment afcendeth 
 '' up for ever and ever." 
 
 Thcle texts, it is prefumed, fufSciently fhew, that we have 
 the authority of fcripture to prove, that in the future 
 world, the wicked will be punifhed accoding to their de- 
 merits, and that no mercy will be ihewn them. 
 
 (2) The fame truth is evidently holden by Dr. C - 
 He afferts, *that ^'there viil be no falvation for thofe in 
 the next ftate, w ho habitually indulge to luft in this ; 
 but they muft be unavoidably miferable, notwithftand- 
 ing the infinite benevolence of the Deity, and to a great 
 degree, God only knows how long, in proportion to the 
 number and greatnefs of the'ir vires. ^^ jThat *^fome of 
 them" [the damned]^ 'ihall be tormented for ages of 
 ages, the reft varioufly, as to time, in proportion ti 
 their deferts :^^Th.ut they will fuffer ^* fpofitive tor- 
 ments i:4 proportion to the mwiber and greatnefs of their 
 *' crimes :" That ''**there will be a difference in the pun- 
 " ifliment of wicked men, accordin<i to the difference there 
 " has been in the nature and number of their evil deeds:" 
 That '* 'j-f if they" [the bialphmers of the Holy Ghoft are 
 
 not 
 
 ■^ P.xo. J P, 307. t P- 25"^- ''''' ^' 3^^' tt P- 33^-- 
 
 i< 
 
 tt 
 tt 
 
 Mt 
 
 tt 
 t( 
 tt 
 
fuffer m^re than DifcipUne. 51 
 
 ^* not faved tiJI after they have pafTed through thefe tor- 
 
 '' ments" [of hellj ''they hive never been forgiven 
 
 *' The divine law has taken its crurfc; nor has any inter- 
 *^ vening pardon prevented the full execution of the threat* 
 '' ened penalty,*' Some obfervations have been already %% 
 made on thefe pafTages concerning the blafphemers of the 
 Holy Ghoft, to fhow, that on Dr. C's plan they equally 
 prove, that all the damned are faved without forgivcnefs ; 
 that the divine law has its courfe on them all; that they 
 all fuffer the full threatened penalty, and of courfe they 
 fufFer all that punifhment which they deferve. 
 
 The other quotations let this matter in a light equallf 
 clear . If the wicked fhall be puniihed in proportion to the 
 number and greatnefs of their vices ; in proportion to the 
 number and greatnefs of their crimes ; according to the na- 
 ture and number of their evil deeds ; in proportion to their 
 deferts ; they will moft certainly receive the full punifh- 
 ment due to them according to their demerits, and nothing 
 >'iil be remitted to them. 
 
 Thus it appears both by the authority ot fcripture and 
 alfo by that of Dr. C. that the damned will actually fufFer 
 all that punifhment, which they deferve. And as it is now 
 fuppofed to be proved in the preceding chapter, that the 
 damned deferve a further punifhment than that which is 
 conducive to their repentance and perfonal good ; of courfe 
 it follov/s, that they will in fact fuffer fuch further punifh- 
 ment. 
 
 Objection. — The argument from the fcriptural de-» 
 clarations, that the wicked fhall be punifhed according to 
 their worlcs &c, to prove, that they will fufler all which 
 they juftly deferve, is not conclufivc ; becaufe the fame 
 expreffions are ufed concerning the righteous, fetting forth, 
 that they fkall he rewarded according to their works kc. 
 Yet it is granted on all hands, that their reward is not 
 merely fuch as they deferve, or is not flrictly according 
 to juflioe. 
 
 An'SWER. The reward of the righteous is indeed not 
 merely fuch as they deferve, but in^nitely exceeds their 
 deferts. It is therefore at leaft equal to their deferts ; or 
 it falls not fhort of them. If this be allowed concerning 
 the puniflnnent of the wicked, it is fuflicient for ever>' 
 purpofe of the precedir.n^ argument. If the wicked fuffer 
 a punifhment at leafl equal to their demerits ; then no part 
 of the puniHiment deferved bv them, is remitted to thcni. 
 , Xl P. 2, &c, ' Befick 
 
52 
 
 The Damnid" will hi Fact 
 
 a 
 
 Befide ; the declarations of fcripture are, that the wick cd 
 fhall pay the uttermoft farthing, the very laft mite ; that 
 they ihail have judgment without mercy, wrath with- 
 out m xture, &c. which are as ftrong and determinate 
 exprefiions, to reprefent that they will be punilhed to 
 th« full extent of juilice, as can be conceived. 
 
 3. Although Dr. C. is fo great an enemy to vindi'fl- 
 ive puniihment; yet he himl^lf^ holds that men do even 
 in this life fuuer fuch punifnment. ^-But do thofe tefti— 
 *• monies of his ve:ig?unce lofe their nature as judgmettts 
 ** on his part, and real evils on their's, becaufe they 
 ''' may be an occafion of that repentance, which fhall ilTue 
 ^^ in their falvation ? When God threatened the Jewifii 
 *' nation, in cafe the-/ would not do his commandments, 
 *^ with famine, the peililence, the fword, and a difperiion 
 *^ into all parts of the earth; did he threaten them with 
 *• a benefit \ And when thofe threstenings w^ere for their 
 ** fms carried into execution, did he inlli-fl a hleflng on 
 *^ them ? ¥/hen he threatened in particular, that if they 
 where difobedient, they fhould be curfed in the field, 
 *' Deut. XXVIII. 16, did he hereby intend, that the 
 *^ field fliould be curfed ; but that he meant thereby a 
 *^ real benefit to them ?" * If vindictive puniiliment be in- 
 flicted even in this life, much more may we conclude th;it 
 it is indicled in hell, the proper place of retribution to the 
 wicked. 
 
 4. If the puniihment of hell be a mere difcipline hap- 
 pily conducive to the good of the fuffercrs, there is no 
 forgivenefs in the prefervation " of a m.iin from it. It 
 is no forgivenelfi for a parent to give his child a li- 
 cence to tarry from fchool ; or for a phyfician to allow his 
 patient to deiift from the cold bath, which he had pre- 
 fcribed. Or if a parent, to inure his child to hunger and 
 cold, have kept him for fonie time on a fcanty diet, and 
 have clothed him but thinly ; it is no aCi- oT ^Fi^givcnefs, 
 to allow the child in future a full diet, c^-Warm-cioth-- 
 ing. Forgivenefs is to remit a deferved penalty, or to ex- 
 empt, fro iji penal evil; not to deprive of a benefit, or of 
 any thing which is abfolutely necelTary to our liappinefs, 
 and which is therei'ore on the whole no real evil, but a 
 real good. If therefore there be nothing more /Jd"?/.'?/ or 
 vlndldJive m the puniihment of hell, than in the cold 
 
 .*.^ DiiTertations^ P. no. 
 
fuffzr more than Dlfclplhie. ^3 
 
 bath, or in the fcanty diet and thm clothing jufb men- 
 tioned ; there is no more of forgivenefs in exemption from 
 
 the former, than in exemption from the latter. 
 
 Thus the fcheme of difciplinary punifhment in hell lead? 
 to a conclulion utterly inccniiitent v/ith the v/hole tcnoif 
 of fcriptui-e, and of the v/rilings of Dr. C. ,. 
 
 5. All tliofe texts A^^hicji fpeakof the ^ivme, vengeance, 
 fury^ wrath, indignation, fiery indignation, Zee, hold 
 forth fome other punifhment, than that which is merely: 
 diiciplinary. The texts to vvh^xh I refer areC^ch.as thcfe ;• 
 Deut. XXXII. 41, 'Tf I whet my glittering fwcrd and 
 *' mine hand take hold on judgment ; I .will render 7;^^?-- 
 '* geance to mine enemies, and will reward them that 
 hate me.'' Rom. III. 5, 6, *^ Is God unrighteous, 
 
 ** who taketh z;<f;?^£'^«rd'." '^God forbid.'"' Chap. XII. 
 
 19, ^* Vengeance is mine: I will rf/);S(y faith the Lord i'^ 
 Luke. XXI. 22, ^'Thefe be the days oi vengeance J^ 
 2Thef. I. 8, *T.n flaming fire taking z'fwg-t'.'/.'^rf of them, 
 that know not God, and that obey not the gofpel of 
 
 '^ our Lord Jefus Chrift." Jude. 7, ^'Suffering the 
 
 ^^ vengeance of eternal lire." Job. XX. 23, '^ When 
 
 *^ be is about to fill his belly, God fnall call the fury 
 
 .^' of his wrath upon him." Ifai. LI. 17, *^A\vake, 
 
 *^ awake, fiand up O Jerufalem, which hafl drunk at 
 '' the hand of the Lord, the cup of his fury ; thou haft 
 *• drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, and wrurg 
 
 *^ them out." Chap. LIX. 18, ^'' According- to their 
 
 deeds, accordingly he \7ill repay fury to his adveria- 
 ries, recornpence to his enemies" Sec. Infcances of the 
 denunciation of wrath againfl the wicked, are noted in the 
 
 margin.* Rom. II. 8, 9, *' Indignation and wrath, 
 
 tribulation. and anguiih, upon every foul of man that doth 
 evil.^' Heb. X. 27, ^^A certain fearful looking for of 
 *^ judgment, and fiejy indignation, which fliall devour 
 ^^ the adverfaries." See alfo Pfal. L. 22. Keb. XII. 
 
 29, Luke. XII. 46.- Rev. XIV. 10. '^ Shall drink of 
 
 the wine of the wrath of God poured out without mixture, 
 into the cup of his indignation.^^ Therefore in the punifli- 
 ment of the wicked there v/ill be no mixture of mercy or 
 forgiyenefs. 
 
 It is of no importance, that in fome of the texts nov/ quot- 
 ed, a reference is not had to the punifiiments of the future 
 
 world 
 *Matt. III. 7. Luke III. 7, XXI. 23. John III. 36, 
 Rom. IV. 15, V. 9. IX 22. I Tef. I. 10. V. 9. 
 
 a 
 
54 ^^* Damned will in Fact 
 
 world, but to thofe of this life. If God can csnfiftently 
 with his perfed:ions inflid a partial vengeance, why not 
 the whole of that which is jufUy due ? If he c;m and does 
 iniiidfc vengeance in this life, why not in the future too, 
 provided^ as is now granted, it be juft? 
 
 That the palFages now quoted, do indeed fpeak of < 
 puniihment more than merely difciplinary, is manifeit by 
 the very terms of the paflages themlelves. To fay «thac 
 vengeance y ''.v-'athy fury, indignation, fiery indignation, wrath 
 •without mixture^ mean a m-^re wholefome, fatherly difci- 
 piine, defigned for the good only of the fubjeccs, is to hj 
 that the infpired writers were grollly ignorant of the 
 proper and comrnon ufe of language ; and particularly 
 that they v/ere wholly ignorant of that important dii'- 
 tinflion betv/een vindictive and -difciplinary puniiliment, 
 on which Dr. C. and other writers of his clafs fo much 
 infift. If vengeance m.ean fatherly difcipline, v/hat is pro- 
 per vengeance ? If it be proper to call fatherly chaftife- 
 inent, vengeance, wrath, fury, fiery indignation, wrath 
 without mixture ; by what name is it proper to call a 
 punifnment realiy vindidive ? 
 
 6. The fame may be argued from various other pafTagv 
 cs of fcripture, fome of which I fliall now cite, i Cor. 
 XVI. 22. ^' li any man love not our Lord Jefus Chrift, 
 '^ let him be anathema maranatha.*' It is abfurd to luppofe, 
 that this curfe means a difcipline defigned for the good on- 
 ly of the patients. Such a difcipline is fo far from a curfe, 
 
 that it is a very great bleiIii>g.-= Deut. XXVII. 16, 
 
 campared with Gal. III. 10, *' (Ti^/y^r/ be he that confirm - 
 " eth not all the words of this law, to do them.'' Deut. 
 XXIX. 19. ^' And it come to pafs, when he heareth the 
 *' words of this curfey that he blefs himfeif in his heart, 
 ** faying, I ihali have peace, though I walk in the imagi- 
 '^ nation of my heart, to add drunkennefs to thiril. 1 he 
 *=*' Lord will not /pare him, but the anger of siie'Lord and 
 '*^ his jeahufy (hall frnoke againft that man, and all the 
 ^^ curfes that are written in this hooky fliall lie upon him, and 
 '' the Lord will hlot out his name fromunder heaven. And the 
 *^ Lord ihali ieparatc him unto evil, out of all the tribes of 
 **' Ifrael, according to all the curfes oi the covenant, that 
 ^' are \^Titten in this book of tSe law." — -This text feems 
 tpo be in feveral refpefls i-nconfiftent M-ith the idea, that 
 
 the 
 
fiiffer imrs ihan Difci^line, 55 
 
 the fiitvu'e punifhment of the finner is merely dlfciplinary. 
 It declares, that *' the Lord will nor fpare him.'^ 
 But to infiici that punilhment onh/, which is far lefs than 
 the (inner deferves, and which is not at all vindictive, but 
 wholly conducive to his good, is very greatly to jpars 
 him. It is further faid, that the *^ anger of the Lord and hij 
 *' jealozify {liuWfiiioke againft him :" which is not an ex- 
 prelTion properly and naturally reprefenting the difcipline, 
 which proceeds from parental affecftion feeking the good on* 
 ly of the child. The fame may be obferved of this ex* 
 pi'cfTion, '^ The Lord fliiall blot out his name from under 
 *' heaven." It is added, '' JII the curfss that are written 
 
 ** \n this book fhall lie upon him'^ '^ And the Lord fhall 
 
 *■' feparate him unto evil — according to ^// the cur/es of chtt 
 *' covenant, which are vv'ritten in this book of the law.^'' 
 Thefe lail exprefiious feem to be very determinate. Ckf/^ 
 fis are not bielFrngs : but that difcipline which is fubfervient 
 to the good of the fubjecl: is a blelfmg. The curfeshere 
 mentioned are all the curfes written in this book of Mofes, 
 or the book of the Law, Therefore fome men will fufFer 
 the curfe of the law, even the whole curfe of the law, or 
 all the curfes mentioned in the law ; which, by what has 
 come tip to our view in the laft chapter, appears to be 
 more than a difcipline promoting the good of the fubje(^. 
 
 Again ; Deut. XI. 26 — 20, '^ Behold I fet before you 
 ** this day a blt-JJlng and a cwfs. A blcfling, if ye will 
 *' obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which 
 ^ I command you this day ; and a curfe, if ye will not 
 
 ^ obey the com.mandments of the Lord your God." 
 
 Prov. III. 33, ** The curfe of the Lord is in the houfe 
 ^ of the wicked ; but he blej^[}th the habitation of the 
 
 *^ juft." .Job XXIV. 18, *^ Their portion Iscurfedm 
 
 ^ the earth." Pfal. XXXVII. 22, '' They that be 
 
 *' curfedoi him, Ihall be cut oiF." Pfal. CXIX. 21, 
 
 *' Thou haft rebuked the proud, that are accurfedJ^ 
 
 Jer. XL 3, *' Curfcd be the raan that obeyeth not the 
 ** words of this covenant.," Ibid. chap. XVIl. /;, 
 ^ Curfedy be the man, that trufteth in man, and maketh 
 *' fiefh his arm." ivL:!. I. 14, •' rz<?y?^' be the deceiver,'^ 
 lic' Chap, III. 9, ** Ye are curfcd with a curfe." 2 
 Pet. II. 14, ^' r.V'.^y I'/ children." 
 
 By *U thefe texts it appears, that forn? i^ien do or ihiall 
 
56 ' Tht Damned will In Fa6} 
 
 fuiFer the cnrle of God. "Whether all thefe texts refer td 
 d curfe to be infildled after death, does not for reafons al- 
 ready given materially afFecl the prefent argument. A 
 curfe i« undoubtedly a puniflament which does not promote 
 the good of the fabjecl : othervrife a curfe and a blelling 
 are perfeilly confounded. 
 
 If it fhail flill be iniifred, that the curfe fo often men- 
 tioned, means that punilhment only^ which is conducive 
 to the good of the fubjecl : it may be anfwered., then 
 there would be no impropriety in calling the prefent af- 
 fiitlions of the real difciples of Chrift, by the name of a 
 curfe . 'V'Jtij then are they not fo called in fcripture ? 
 Why are not the real children of God, even the rnoft vir- 
 tuous and pious of them, faid to be curfed by God, &c. ? 
 And why are not the curies of the wicked, as well as the 
 afiiiccions of the rifrhteous, laid to work tocrether for their 
 good, and to v/ork out for them a far more exceeding 
 ani eternal weight of glory ? Dr. C. loves to iiluitrate 
 the punilhment of hell by the difcipline inflided by fathers 
 on earth with a fole view to the good of their ch'ldren. 
 But would it be proper to call the neceifary, wife and 
 wholefome difcipline of earthly parents, by the name of a 
 
 curfe ? or is it ever fo called, either by God or man ? 
 
 Equally abfurd is it, to call the punifliment of hell by 
 that name, if it be defigned for the good only of the pa- 
 tients. 
 
 I befeech the reader to confider what a contrafl: there 
 is between the texts, which have now been quoted, and 
 thofe in vvhich a punifliment really difciplinary is mention- 
 ed and defcribed. In the former the punifhment is called 
 by the names of vengeance, fury, ivratk, fmoaking wrath, 
 fiery indtgymiton, wrath 'without mixture, a curfe, an ana- 
 thema, all the curfes of the laiv^ be. Whereas the real 
 'difcipline of God's children is called a chafiifemtnt ; *' If 
 *' ye be without chaftifement, then are ve baflards and 
 '^ not fons :'* a corre6}ion ; *^ I will correv^ thee in mea- 
 ^^ fure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunilhcd.'' This 
 correction is faid to be mingled loith pity. *' Like as a father 
 *- pitieth his children ; fo the Lord pitieth them that fear 
 ** him.'' '' I will viiit their tranfgreifion with ihe rod, 
 '^ and their iniquity with ftripes, neverthelefs, my loving 
 " kindnefs v/ill I not utterly tr.ke frem him.'' But where 
 
 in 
 
fuffer more than DifcipUnf, cy 
 
 in all the fcriptures is the puniihment of the future ftate 
 Teprefented to be deligned for the good of the fubjeds ? 
 Where is it in fcripture called a fatherly chailifement, cor- 
 rection or difcipline, or by any other appellation of the like 
 import ? V/hat right then have we to conlider it as a mere 
 chaftifement ? Is not this an idea formed in the fond ima- 
 gination of thofe who would fain fupport a favourite fyf- 
 tem ? 
 
 7. If future puniihment be merely difciplinary, the 
 difcipline will produce its propter effect on fome^ fooner 
 than on others. Some who fliall in this life have contract- 
 ed a lefs degree of depravity and hardnefs of heart, will 
 be mc^'e eafily and fpeedily brought to repentance, than 
 others. This on the hypothefis now made, is both agree- 
 able to the dictates of reafon, and is die very doctrine ex- 
 preilly and abundantly taught by Dr. C. But how is this 
 to be reconciled with the account of fcripture ? That in- 
 forms us, that all thofe on the left hand of the judge are 
 to be fentenced to everlafting fire, and fhall go away into 
 everlafting punifliment. The fentence denounced on all is 
 in the fame terms, and not the leaft intimation is given, 
 that fome of them fhall be puniflicd longer than others ; 
 much lefs that only fame fhall be punifhed for ages of ages ; 
 others releafed, in a much fhorter time. Dr. C. and 
 other writers of his clafs fuppofe, that in hell the wicked 
 are put under thofe means of grace, which are vailly more 
 advantageous, powerful and conducive to the efFedt of re- 
 pentance, than thofe means which are enjoyed in this life. 
 But the fame writers will allow, that in many inflances, 
 even the means which are enjoyed in this life are followed 
 with the defired effect of repentance, and this within ^o 
 fhort a term as threefcorc years aad ten. Therefore v/e 
 may reafonably conclude that within the like term, many 
 more will be brought to repentance by the vafcly m-ora 
 powerful means to be ufed with the damned : and fo on 
 through every fucceflive period of feventy years. I think 
 then an anfwer to two queftions may jailly be demanded 
 of any one in Dr. C's fcheme. 
 
 (i) With what truth or propriety can a fentence of 
 everlafting punifliment be pronounced on the whole body 
 of Tinners, when fome of them fhall repent and be faved 
 very foon ; others in largie numbers_, iu every fucceeding 
 
*8 The damned will tn Faci 
 
 age, and even every year ? As well might a fentence of 
 exclufion from pardon and the favour of God during this 
 life, be pronoanced againil the whole of every generation 
 of mankind, becaufe fome men do indeed continue in that 
 ftate during this life. Nay, with much greater truth 
 and propriety might this latter fentence be pronounced, 
 than the former ; becaufe it is granted by Dr. C. and 
 others, that the greater part of men live and die in impe- 
 nitence and aUenation from God. Whereas, allowing that 
 the punilhment of the wicked is a mere difcipline, we may 
 prefume, that very few indeed of the whole number of the 
 damned, will remain in torment, for that duration, which 
 according to the ideas of our opponents, is intended by 
 everlajthig 2.i\6. for ever and ever, and which is the longeit 
 punillmient to be infiicled on any of the human race. 
 This is a puniihment referved for a very few, the moil 
 denraved, liardened, abandoned linners, perhaps one in 
 a thoufand or ten thoufand. The reft lefs hardened and 
 more eafily wrought on by the powerful meajiis of grace 
 ufed with the damned, will be brought to repentance by 
 a punilhment of iliorter continuance. 
 
 I know Dr. C. fays, that though all the damned jfhall 
 not, yet as fome of them fiiall, fuffer that puniihment, 
 which in his ienfe, is everlailing and forever and ever, 
 therefore everlailing punifiiment may be truly afferted of 
 them colledively." But the fame reafon would jullify a 
 fentence excluding the whole human race from pardon and 
 the divine favour, during the whole of the prefent life. 
 God might with the fame truth and propriety have faid to 
 Adam and all his poilerity, even after the revelation of 
 the covenant of grace, ? doom you, in righteous judgment, 
 to live and die the obje6ls of my \yrath. This latter fen- 
 tence would, for the reafon before aillgned, have been not 
 only equally, but much more conformed to truth and fa c% 
 than that which fhall be pronounced on the wicked at the 
 end of the world ; if they fhall be delivered out of hell 
 from time to time in every age and perhaps every year. 
 Yet it is prefiimed, no man will plead for the truth and 
 propriety of the fentence jufl fuppofed. 
 
 (2) The other queftion to which an anfwermay be ex- 
 pelled, is, how has it come to pais, that no intimation of 
 a diiference in the duration of the punifliment of the 
 
 v/icked ; 
 
' fuffer 7nore tha-n Dlfdplhie, 5a 
 
 wicked, is hiiited in any part of the fcriptures ? The dif<«» 
 ference between a punifliment of a few years, and one 
 which is to lafl for ages of ages, or for fuch a duration, as 
 may with propriety be called an eternity, is very great, 
 and we /hould think^ well worthy to be noticed in the 
 fcriptures. To fay, that it is noticed in thofe texts, 
 which inform us, that the ^\'icked dial! be puniflied ace or-' 
 ding to their luorks, he. is to beg a point in dii'pute : be- 
 caufe thofe who believe endlefs punidiment, believe that 
 the works of all finners deferve an endlefs puniflnnent ; 
 and though they will fuffer different punilliments accor- 
 ding to their different demerits ; yet the difference will 
 not confii^ in duration, but in degree : as the righteous 
 will be rewarded differently according to their vv^orks ; 
 yet the" revv^ard of every individual of the righteous will 
 be of endlefs duration. 
 
 ■ 8. If future puniihment be defigned as a mere difcipline, 
 to lead finners to repentance, it is inflicled without any 
 neceiiity, and therefore mufbbe a wanton exercife of cru- 
 elty. Y\ic repentance of fnmers maybe eafily obtained 
 
 without thofe dreadful torments endured for ages of ages. 
 Doubtlefs that fame wifdom and power which leads a 
 goodly number of mankind to repentance in this life, 
 without the help of the torments of hell, might by the like 
 or fuperior means, produce the like effecT: on all. 1 he 
 gofpel mj'glit have been preached to ail the heathens, and 
 :ill thofe means of grace, which have been fuccefsfu) on 
 fome men, might have been ufed with all. And who 
 will venture to fay, that thofe means and that grace, 
 w^hich effciffted the repentance of Saul the perfecutor, of 
 the thief on the crofs, of Mary Magdaleney and of the old, 
 idolatrous Manajfeh who had filled Jerufalem with inno- 
 cent blood ; could not have effected the repentance of any, 
 or at leafi; fome of thofe who have been, or ihall be, fent 
 into the future ftate of punifhment ? How does it appear, 
 that thofe means and that p-race which were fufficient for 
 the converfion of thofe noted linners before mentioned, 
 v/ouldnot, had they been applied, have been fafiidient 
 for the converiion of thoufands of others, v/ho in fact have 
 not been converted ? And hcv/ does it appear, but that 
 ilinilar though more powerful grace and means, which are 
 doubtlefs within tlie reach of divine pov/er and know- 
 ledge, 
 
6b The chjnned willm Facf 
 
 ledge, would have been fufficient for the repentance and 
 converfion of al] mankind ? If fo, the repentance of fm- 
 ners might have been accompUnied, at a cheaper rate, 
 and in a way more demonflrative of the divine goodnefs, 
 than by the awful means of hell-torments. Thofe tor- 
 ments therefore are inflicled without any real neceflity, 
 uhlefs they be inflided for fome other end, than the re- 
 pentance of the damned. 
 
 I AM aware, it will be objected, that if God Ihould bring 
 men to repentance by efficacious grace or means, itv.ould 
 be incomillent with their moral agency, would deftroy 
 their liberty, and reduce them to mere machines. But 
 Vv^er.e Pauly Mary Magdah*ie &c. brought to repentance 
 in fuch a way as to deilroy their liberty ? It will not be 
 pretended. Neither can it be pretended, chat the fame 
 means and grace would have deftroyed the liberty of 
 others. This being granted, it necelTanly follows, that 
 if repentance be the only end, hell— torments are arbitra- 
 rily infiicled on all thofe, who might have been, or may 
 in future be brought to repentance by thofe means, and 
 that grace, by which Paul or any other man hath been 
 
 brought to repentance in this life. 1 ailv, does God in 
 
 this life, apply all thofe means and all that grace, to all 
 men, to lead them to repentance, which are confiflent 
 with their moral agency ? And if he apply to any man, 
 more povvcrful means, or more efficacious grace, than he 
 does apply to him, would he deftroy all his hberty and re- 
 duce him to a mere machine ? If fo, then how are the 
 more powerful means of hell-torments confifient with mo- 
 ral agency or liberty ? They, it is faid, are more power- 
 ful and eiiicacious means of grace, than any employed in 
 this life: and if in this life the utmofi: is done to lead tin- 
 ners to repentance, which is confulent with moral agency ; 
 hell-torments mufl entirely deftroy moral agency and re- 
 duce poor damned fouls to mere machines ; and of courfe 
 they will be no more capable of repentance or falvation, 
 thin clocks and v/atches. 
 
 If on the other hand it be faid, that the utmoft which is 
 connilent v/ith" moral agency, is not done in this life, to 
 lead men^ to repentance ; it will follow, that God choofes 
 to inflict hcli-torments, not merely as a neceffiiry mean to 
 lead llnhers to repentance ; to grant vv^hich, is to give up 
 
 the 
 
fuffer mors than Difctpllne. 6x 
 
 the whole idea, that they are merely difciplinary. 
 Thole whom I am now oppoling, hold, that God can- 
 not, coDliftently with their moral agency, bring all men 
 to repentance in this life. How then can he, confiflently 
 with their moral agency, bring them to repentance in 
 hell :* If thofe means which would be effectual in this life, 
 would be inconfiftent with moi al agency, why are not hell- 
 torments equally inconfiftent with moral agency, fnice it 
 is allowed that they will be effeftual ? Or if thofe means 
 which are barely effedbual in hell, be not inconfiftent with 
 moral agency^ I wifh to have a reafon alTigned, why thofe 
 means which would be barely efFeftual in this life, would bs 
 any rnore inconfiftent with moral agency. 
 
 Dr. C. and others hold, that to fay, that God cannot 
 confiftently with morsl agency, or in a moral way, bring 
 men to repentance in hell, is to limit his power and wif- 
 dom. But to fay, that God cannot, confiftently with 
 moral agency, bring m^en to repentance in this life, as 
 really implies a limitation of the divine pov/er and wif- 
 dom, as to fay, that he cannot, confiftently with moral 
 agency, bring thejti to repentance in hell. How is it any 
 more reconcileable' with thofe divine perfections, that he 
 cannot reduce a (inner to repentance, in threefcore years 
 and ten, than that he cannot produce the fame effed:, 
 throughout eternity ? To fay, that there is not time in 
 this life, for the fmner to obtain a thorough conviclion of 
 the nccelTity of repentance, affords no relief to the difficul- 
 ty. For though it ihould be granted, that there is not 
 time for the (inner to obtain this conviclion by experience, 
 which however there feems to be no neceflity of grant- 
 ing ; yet cannot God exhibit the truth in fuch a manner, 
 as to produce, that convidtion ? And let a reafon be given, 
 v/hy that conviction produced by a clear divine exhibition 
 of truth and a fenfc of happinefs and mifery, fet in fuch 
 a light, as to lead to repentance, is more inconfiftent 
 with moral agency, than the fame convici:ion obtained by 
 experience, or by the torments of hell. 
 
 If hell--torments be neceffary to lead fmners to repent- 
 ance, becaufe they are more painful, th:in the affliclions 
 or other means ufed with men in this life ; vvhy are not 
 greater afflidions fent on men in this life ? It is manifeft, 
 that moft men might fuffer much greater affliclions, than 
 
 they 
 
()2 The damned will In Fa6i 
 
 they really do fiifFer. And if greater pain be all that is 
 wanting to lead them to repentance, it feems that to in- 
 flict that, would be the greateft inftance of gooduefs^ and 
 anight fuperfede the ncceihty of hell—torments. 
 
 It is granted by Dr. C. and others, that hell-torments 
 will certainly lead to repentance all who fulfer them. 
 At the fame time he objects to the idea of leading linners to 
 repentance by the efficacious grace of God, thai it dedroys 
 moral agency. But if there be a certain eftablifl :ed/un. 
 failing connection between hell-torments continued for 
 a proper time, and repentance ; thofe torments as effec- 
 tually overthrow moral agency, as cfncacious grace. All 
 that need be intended in this inftance, by efiicacious grace, 
 is fuch an exhibition or view of the truth and of motives, 
 as will certainly be attended with repentance. But fuch 
 an exhibition of the truth as tliis, is fuppoled by Dr. C. 
 to be made in hell. And why this exhibition made in hell 
 is more confiftent with moral agency, than an exhibition 
 which is no more effcvftual, powerful or overbearing,, made 
 m this life, I wifh to be informed. 
 
 Perhaps it will be further pleaded, that though it be 
 feafible to lead fnmers to repentance in this life ; yet it is 
 not wife and belt. But why is it not as wife and good, 
 to perfuade fmners to repent, without the ufe of Iiell-tor- 
 ments, as by thofe torments ? If indeed it be facl^ that 
 God does not inllid: endlefs but difciplinary nufery on iin- 
 ners, we may thence conclude, that it is wifely fo ordered. 
 But this is not to be taken for granted ; it ought to be 
 proved before an inference is draw from it. It is the 
 great queftion of this difpute. 
 
 9. That future punilhment is not merely difciplinary, 
 appears from the various declarations of icrjpture, that thofe 
 who die impenitent, arc /:y?, are cajl awavy per'i/J), fuf- 
 fer perdition, are defrroyedy lufFer e\'eriailing dcJlritLlioriy 
 &.C. as in thefe texts ; John XVII. r2. ^' None of them 
 '' isloflj fave the fon of perdition,^' — Luke IX. 25. '* What 
 '* is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and 
 '' h/e himfelf orbe ca/l away/'—Miin, XIII. 48! '' Ga- 
 ** thered the good into veffels, but r/-^/?- the bad (c^rpa 
 <' the dead, rotten filiij away.'' 2 Peter II. 13. '^ 'i'hey 
 *' fhall utterly perifo in their own ccrruption.'' — .lieb. X. 
 39. ** We are not of them xhzt draw back unto perdition ; 
 
 '' but 
 
fuffer more than DijapUn^. 63 
 
 '' hut of them that believe unto the favlng of the foul.'' — 
 2 Peter, III. 7. *^ But the heavens and the earth which 
 " are now, are referved unto fire, againfl the day of 
 ** judgment, and /Jdr^^/V/o;! of ungodly men." — Matt. X. 
 28. *^ Fear him who is able to dejtroy both foul and body* 
 '' in hell."— 2 Thefi'. I. 9. '' Who fliall be puniihed 
 *' with everlafliing dejirufnon from the prefence of the 
 
 ^•' Lord and the glory of his power." But what truth 
 
 or propriety is there in thefe exprefiions, if future pu- 
 niliiment be a mere difcipline ? The dannied in hell are 
 no more cafe away, loft, deilroyed ; they no more periih, 
 or fuffer perdition, than any of God's elecl are caft away, 
 &:c. while they are in this world. Hell is no more a place 
 of deilrucftion, than this world. The wicked in hell are 
 no more veilels of v\'rath fitted to defiruclion, than the 
 faints are in this world. The damned are under diicipline ; 
 fo are even the mofb virtuous and holy, while in this life. 
 Yet they are not lolt, caii away, rejeded as reprobate fil- 
 ver, or delh'oyed by God ; but are kept as the apple of 
 his eye. And as the means of grace, under which the 
 damned are placed . are far more adapted certainly to fecure 
 and pomote their grcatell good, than any means which 
 we enjoy in this flate ; to confider and tofpeak of them as 
 loft, calt away, deitroyed, &c. becaufe they are under 
 thofe means, is to t]ie highefb degree abfurd. They arc 
 juft as much further removed from a ftate, Vv'hich can juftly 
 be called defrruction, perdition, &c. than they were, 
 v/hile in this world, as the means of grace which they en- 
 joy in hell are more powerful and effeftunl to prepare 
 them for hapnincfs, than thofc means which they enjoyed 
 in this world. 
 
 Suppose a man fcized with fome dangerous difeafe, and 
 a variety of means is ufed for his recovery, but in vain. 
 Suppofe it appears, that if no more effectual means be 
 employed, he will never be recovered. Suppofe further, 
 that at length an entirely diirerent courfe is taken with 
 him, a conrfe v/hich is not only far more likely than the 
 former to be iucceftfiil ; but ccncerniiig which there is ab- 
 folute certaintv, that it v. ill be fuccefsful : I aik, can the 
 man now under the operation of thefe moil excellent and 
 infallible means, with any truth be faid to be hjtf to be 
 cofi ax^ayy toh^ dfjlrrjed'^ &c? Or if thofe terms muft 
 
 i)c 
 
64 ^-^^ damned lulll In TaSl 
 
 be applied to one or other of thofe fituations, in whick 
 we have fuppofed him to be at different times ; to which 
 of them are they applied with the lead truth and reafon ? 
 This example may illuftrate the fubjed now under con- 
 fideration. 
 
 10. If it be confiftcnt with the divine perfe£lions, to 
 fubjecl a (inner to mifery, for the fake of advancing his 
 c-jon good^ as is implied in the very idea of difciplinary pu- 
 nifhment j why is it not equally confiftent with the fame 
 perfections, to fubje6i: a (inner to mifery, for the fake of 
 promoting the good of ihe fyj}em\ provided that mifery 
 do not exceed the demerit of the fubjecl ? — I prefume no 
 believer in endlefs punifhment, will plead for any ^^s^rto, 
 or duration of punilhment, which is not fubfervient to the 
 glory of the Deity implying the greateft good of the uni- 
 verfe. Therefore, all fuch puniljmient, as is not fubfer- 
 vient to that end, is foreign to the prefent queftion. Fur- 
 ther, it is now fuppofed to be proved, that other pu- 
 nifament than that which is adapted to preparfe the (in- 
 ner for happinefs, is juftly deferved.by the fmncr. Now 
 fince this is allowed or proved, why is it not confiftent 
 with every attribute of the Deity, to inflict that other pu- 
 nilhment, provided only it be fubfervient to the good of 
 the fyltem ? 
 
 It is holden by our opponents, that the punidiment of a 
 finner may lead him to repentance. So it may lead other 
 Imners to repentance -; or it may reftrain them from fm, 
 and in a variety of ways may equally fubferve the good of 
 thofe who are not the fubjefts of the punifhment, as it may 
 the good of him who is the fubjed of it^ And that the 
 good of other perfons may be of equal worth and import- 
 ance, nay, of far greater worth to the fyftem, than the 
 good of the tranfgreffor himfelf, cannot be denied. 
 Therefore, as I faid in the beo-innino- of this arti- 
 cle, if the perfonal good of the fmner be a fufncient reafon 
 why he (hould be punhhed according to juftice ; why is 
 not the good of others, or the good of the fyftem, a fuf- 
 ficient reafon for the fame proceedinp- ? And is it not 
 evident, not only that fuch a punifliment is confiftent with 
 the perfedions of God ; but that thofe perfedions, good- 
 nefs itfelf not excepted, require it ? In this cafe, to in- 
 flict a punifhment merely conducive to the good of the 
 
 perfon 
 
ftiffer more than DlfcipUne, gz* 
 
 perfon puniflied, would be no fruit of goodnefs, but of ^ 
 contrary principle ; and the doctrine of merely difcipli^ 
 nary puniihment, if it mean a punifhment conducive in- 
 deed to the good of the Aibjed, but deftructive to the 
 .good of the lyftcm. is fo far from being built on the di- 
 vine goodnefs, as fome boait ; that it is built on a verv 
 difi-erent fouj^idation. I am aware, that it is holden by the 
 V advocates for univerfai falvation, that the good of the 
 ^'' fyftem cannot be promoted by the endlefs mifery of any 
 individual, but requires the final happinefs of ever}'^ one. 
 Merely to affert this however, as fome do very ccnlidenily, 
 is perfeft impertinence. Let them prove it^ and they 
 vv'ill do fome thing to the purpofe . 
 
 II. If none of the damned will be puni/lied for any 
 other end than their own good, and yet they all deferve 
 to be puniilied more than is llibfervient to their ov, n good ; 
 then fome of them deferve to be punifned for a lonp-er term, 
 than that which in fcripture, according to Dr. C'sfenfe of it, 
 is laid to h^ forever and ever. The puniihment, which in 
 the language of fcripture, is frid to be everlcfiing, fir^ 
 ever and ever^ See. will actually be fuffered by Ibme of th^ 
 damned, as is 'agreed on all handa. But if none of the 
 damned will fufFer any other punifliment than that which 
 is conducive to their perfonal gcod^ then the punifhment 
 v/hich in fcripture is laid to be forever and ever, is con- 
 ducive to their perfonal good. I'hey therefore deferve a 
 puniihment of greater duration than that which in fcrip- 
 ture is faid to be forever and ever : and of courfe that more 
 durable puniihment is the curfe of the divine law, and 
 is threatened in the law. But where in all the law, or 
 in all the fcripture, is any puniihment threatened, or even 
 hinted at, of greater duration than that which Ihall laft 
 
 forever and ever ? So that this fcheme of difciplinary 
 
 punifliment necefTarily brings us to this abfurdity, that the 
 true and real curfe of the divine law, is not contained in 
 the law ; and that the punifhment juflly delerved by the 
 finner, is no where revealed or even hinted ar, in all the 
 fcripture. Yet the fcripture aiTures us, that fome linners 
 will be in fad punifned according to their demerits, fo as 
 to pay the uttermofl farthing, and to receive judgm.ent 
 without mercy. And no man pretends that any fmner 
 \yill fufrer more than that punifliment which in fcripture is 
 laid to be frsver and ever. The confeciuence is.» that 
 
 K that 
 
^5' The damned ivill In FaSf 
 
 that puniniment which is forever and ever, is the whofc 
 that the fmner deferves, and therefore is by no means a 
 mere diicipiine. 
 
 12. Our, Lord informs us, Matt. X. 33 ; That whofo- 
 ever ihall deny him before men, fhall be denied by him be- 
 fore his lather. But on the hypothells now under confi- 
 deration, this means only, tliat Chrill: will deny him till 
 he repents. In Luke XIII. 25, &c. we read, that when 
 once the mafcer of the houfe ihall have rifen and fhut the 
 door, feme will begin to itand without and to knock, fay- 
 ing, Lord, Lord, open to us, and will urge feveral ar- 
 guments in favour ot their admilTion : to whom the maf- 
 ter will anfwer, I know you not, whence you are ; de- 
 part from me, all ye workers of iniquity. But on the 
 prefent hypothells, Chrift will deny them in no other fenfe 
 than he denies every real penitent andbelievfr, during the 
 prefent life. He will deny the wicked after the general 
 judp-ment no longer than till they fhall have been fufficiently 
 difciplined ; after that, he will know them, will own 
 them, and receive them to eternal and blifsful communion 
 with himfelf. The fame is obfervable of all his molt fin- 
 cere difciples in this life. While here, they arc under 
 difcipline, though not fo merciful and gracious a difcipline 
 as that with which the damned are favoured. However, 
 during the continuance of the difcipline of this life, Chrift 
 denies and refufes to confer on any of his difciples, an en- 
 tire exem.ption from'pain, diftrefs, or affliilion ; and fub- 
 jecls them equally with the refl of the world, to thefe ca- 
 lamities : fo that in this refpeftall things come alike to all., 
 He does indeed give them affurance of reft and glory after 
 this life. As full aillirance of reft and glory after the ex- 
 piration of the term of their difcipline, is, on the prefent 
 hypothefis, given to all the damned. Alfo in the profpecl 
 of this reft and glorj'", and in the certain i<:no\vledge that 
 they are the objects of his favour, he altords his difciples 
 much relief and comfort under their prefent trials. The 
 fame fources of relief and comfort are afforded to all the 
 damned. So that Chrift denies the damned in no other 
 fenfe, than that in which he denies his moft (incere fol- 
 lowers, during this life. 
 
 The fame obfervations for fubftance may be made con- 
 cerning the application cf the damned for admiffion into 
 heaven, after the general judgment, and the anfwer and 
 
 treatment 
 
fuffer more than 'Dlfc'ipUne* 6j 
 
 'treatment which they Ihall receive on that occafion. The 
 door fliall be jOiut againft them no longer than till they 
 ihall have been fujfticiently difcipiined. The fame is true 
 of every real chriftiaii in" this life. — The mafter of the 
 lioufe will anfwer, I knoivyou not, ft. e.J I do not as yet own 
 you as my friends. and difciples, becaufe you have not yet 
 been fufficiently difcipiined. The fame is true of every 
 real chriftian in this hfe. — He will tell them, ^^ Depart 
 ^' from me, all ye workers of iniquity." But this means 
 no more, than that they muft not be admitted into hea- 
 ven, till they diall have been fufficiently difcipiined. The 
 fame is true of all real chriftians in this life. 
 
 13. On the hypotheiis now under condderation, what 
 damnation do thofe in hell fuffer, more than real chrif- 
 tian s fuifer in this life ? They are kept in a ftate of moft 
 merciful and gracious difcipline, till they arc prepared, 
 and then they are taken to heaven. The fame is true of 
 every real chriftian in this life. This difference however 
 is v.'orthy of notice, that the difcipline of hell is far more 
 advantageous than that of this life, becaufe more effeclual, 
 and likely to fit the fubjeft for heaven more fpeedily and 
 thoroughly ; otherwife it would never have been applied. 
 It is alio a more merciful and gracious exhibiton of the di- 
 vine goodnefs. Dcubtlefs that mean of grace, w^hich is 
 mod happily and eiFcclually conducive to the fpeedy re- 
 pentance and preparation of the finner for heaven, is to 
 him the m.oft merciful and gracious exhibition and demon- 
 ftration of the divine goodnefs. 
 
 It is true, the difcipline of hell is attended with more 
 pain than that of this life. So the difcipline of this life, 
 with refpect to fome individuals, is attended wiih more 
 pain, than it is with refpecl to others. Yet it doth not 
 hence follow, 'that foine chriftians fuffer damnation in this 
 life : nor will it be pretended, that either the fcriptures 
 or common fenfe would jufliify the calling of thofe greater" 
 pains of fome chiftians in this life, by the name of damna- 
 tion, in any other fenfe, than the lefs pains or afflicllons 
 of other chriftians, may be called by the fame name. 
 
 On the whole then, v/hen the fcripture lays, '^ He that 
 '^ believe;:h, and is baptized fhall be faved ; but he that 
 " believeth not ihall be damned :'' The whole meanincr is, 
 he that beheveth, fliall be admitted to heaven immediately 
 after death : but he that believeth not, Ihall not immedi- 
 
6B The damned ivill in FaSi 
 
 ately b§ admitted, merely becaufe he is not yet prepared for 
 it by riCpelitance ; but he iballbe put under a dilcipline abfo- 
 lutely ncceiTary for his own good, and the moPc wife, effedtual, 
 merciful and| gracious, that divine wifdom and goodnefscan 
 devii'e ;- and as foon as this difcipline Ihall have prepared 
 him for heaven, he fhall be admitted without further delay. 
 Vv' hen the fcriptures fay, he that believetii not the Son, 
 fnali not fee life, but the wrath of God abideth on him ; 
 the meaning is, he ihall not fee hfe till he is brought to 
 repentance by the merciful difcipline juft novv mentioned.; 
 and not the -ivraih of God abideth on him ; becaufe he fnali 
 be made the fubjecl of nothing wrathful or vindictive ; but 
 the mercy y or moil merciful and benevolent difcipline of 
 God abideth on him. 
 
 14. If the only end of future punifnment be the repen- 
 tance of the fmner, and if the means x^^tCi with finners 
 in hell be fo much more powerful and happily adapted to 
 the end, than thofe ufed in this life ; it is unaccountable, 
 that while fo many are led to repentance by the compara- 
 tively w eak means ufed v^-ith men in this life, and v\nthin 
 fo ihort a period as feventy years, the far more powerful 
 means applied in hell, fnould not be productive of the 
 fame effect, in a fingle inflance, within fo long a period 
 as a tlioufand years. That none are to be delivered out 
 of heii, v/ithin a thoufand years alter the general judg- 
 ment, is expiiciLly taught by Dr. C. His words are,* 
 '• This period " /a thoufand years ) '* muft run out, be- 
 *^^ fore the wicked" dead could *.tiy of them live askinp-sand 
 '^pricaswith Chrift.'' 
 
 We all doubdefs believe, that many llnners die impe- 
 nitent, vvlio iu-e not the fubjects of depravity and hardnefs 
 of iieart vaftly greater, than are in fome, v/ho are 
 brou;;ht to repentance in this life. Nou^ put the cafe of 
 th? ciafs of fn: vers, wI^aO are the fubjefts of a depravity 
 and hardnefs of "heart, the very next in degree to that of 
 ll? moll depraved of tliofe who are brought to repent- 
 ance in this life. Is it reaicnable to believe, that thefe 
 cannot be broujiht to repentance, even b}'- the mcH pow- 
 crfnl r^e;ii:3 of -grace enjoyed in hell, within a lc(s time 
 thrra a thoufand years ? If it js not reafonable to believe 
 this, then it is net reafonable to believe Dr, C's fcheme 
 ©f difciplinary puniiliment. 15. The 
 
fuffer more than D'lfctplinc, 69 
 
 15. The laft enemy that iliall be deitroyed is death. 
 This death is underftood by Dr. C. and other advocates 
 for miiverfal falvation, to mean the fecond death. Then 
 the fecond dea ch is doubtlefs an enemy. But if it confiil 
 in a neceilliry difciphns, the mofl wife and wholefomd, 
 the moft conducive to the good of the recipients, and to 
 the divine glory, which the wifdom of God can devifc ; 
 furely it is no enerny either to Goii or the recipients ; but 
 is a perfefl" fnend to both. Witli what truth then could 
 the apoille call it an enemy ? 
 
 16. T\{^. fcripture, fo far from declaring thofe v/ho fuf- 
 fer chatliiemeat and difcipiinary pains, accvrfed, merely 
 on that account; expreffiy declares them blejjed. Pfal, 
 XCIV. 12 ; '^ BleiTed is the man whom thou chafteneft^ 
 *' O Lord, and teacheft him out of thy law ; that thou 
 *' mayefl give him reft: from the days of adverfity." But 
 where are the damned ever faid to be bleiled \ They ^re 
 
 conftantly declared to be accurfed. Keb. XII. 5 — p^ 
 
 ^* Ye have forgotten the exhortation, which fpeaketh to 
 '^ you, as unto children, my fon, defpife not thou the 
 '^ chaltening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebu- 
 '^ buked of him. For whom the Lord loveth, he chaf-» 
 ^^ teneth, and fcourgeth every fon whom he re~ 
 *^ ceiveth. If ye endure chaft:ening, God dealeth 
 '^ with you as with fons. For what fon is he, whom the 
 " Father chafteneth not ? But if ye be Vv'ithout chafcife- 
 *^ ment, whereof all are partakers, then are ye baflards 
 
 '^ and not fons." This pafFage evidently conliders 
 
 thofe who fuiier chaftil'ement from the hand of God, as 
 his children, his fons. If therefore the damned fuffer 
 a mete chaiiifement, they ;ire not accurfed, but are the 
 blefled fons or children of God. But are they ever fo 
 called in fcripture? — Befide ; thispaiTage evidently fuppo- 
 fes, that fome men do not fuffer fatherly chaflifement, of 
 which all the fons or cliildren of God are partakers ; and 
 exprefHy declares, that fuch as do not fuffer it are bailards 
 and not fons : which fcems not to agree with the idea, 
 that all the drnined, v/ill by fathrrly chaflifement be 
 brought to final falvalion. If no other puniihmeiit 
 ke inflided by God, than fatherly chaflifement, .then there 
 
 ar( 
 
70 The damned will in FaSf 
 
 are no baftards in the univerfe. Yet it is evidently fiip- 
 pofed in this text, that there are baflards. 
 
 Heb. X. 28, '' He that defpifed Mofes law died without 
 
 *' mercy of how much forer punifiiment fhall he be 
 
 ** thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the fon 
 *' of God ?'^ &c. But if all who die impenitent, be fent to 
 a ftatc of difciphne moft excellently adapted to their good 
 and falvation, no man dies without mercy. This dif- 
 cipline itfelf is the greateft mercy which can, in their frate 
 of mind, be beftowed upon them. With refpect to the 
 fame fubjeft, it is faid, Heb. II. 2 ; '^ That e^^cry tranf- 
 ^' greihon and diibbedience, received a jufl recompence 
 *' of reward.'^ — ^^ P'ft recompence, is a pun'-lhment ade- 
 quate to the demands of juftice ; and this, as we have 
 feen in the preceding chapter, cannot be a mere merciful 
 difcipline . 
 
 17. If the puniflimcnt of hell be a mere wholefome 
 difcipline, then what the apoftie fays of tiie difcipline 
 of chrlftians in this life, may be faid with equal truth 
 and propriety of the puni/hment of the damned : thus, We 
 glory in damnation ; knowing that damnation worketh 
 repentance, and repentance falvation. 
 
 18. If no other than a difciplinary punifiiment be con- 
 fiflent with the divine goodnefs ; furely the requirement 
 of an atonement in order to .pardon, is unaccountable. 
 Xhedoclrine of atonement, and cf the neceility of it to^par- 
 don and falvation, is abundantly hoiden by 3Jr. C. He 
 fays,* *' Jefus Chrift is the perfon vpon whofe account hap- 
 '* pinefs is attainable by the human race.'' He fpeaksf of 
 the ^\facrifice of himfelf,'' vvhich Chrifl /^ offered up 
 *' to God to put away Im." '' The obedience of ChrilV 
 *' to death, is the ground ov reafc-z upon which it hatli 
 '^ pleafed God to m.ake happinefs attainable by any of the 
 '^ race of Adam. '^f *^ By thus fubmitting to die, he" 
 (Jefus) '^ m^ile atonenzent, not only for the original lapfe, 
 *' but for all the fins this would be introductory to."^ — 
 '^ Chriil: v/as fent into the world to make way for the 
 '' 'dj'ije, juj} and holy excrcife of mercy towards the fmful 
 ^' fons of men. ''II '^ The only begotten Son of God 
 '^ both did and fuffered every thing that was neceiTary, in 
 
 der 
 
 or 
 
 * Page 17. :;: P. iS. f P. 19. § 5 dilTertations, p. 245. 
 ibid, .p. 247. 
 
fuffer more than Difdpltne. ft 
 
 *' order to a righteoufnefs on account of which God might, 
 '' in confiftency with the honour of his perfeSiionSj and the 
 '^ authority of his lavjj make the grant of life. Accord— 
 ^' ingly this meritorious righteoufnefs is that /or the fake 
 ^' of which y upon the account of which, this blelfmg is con- 
 ^^ ferred.'^llll According to Dr. C. then, Chrift hath 
 not only made atonement by his obedience and death, but 
 that atonement was necelTary to the wife, jufi and holy 
 exerclfe of mercy to the fmner ; and without that 
 atonement, faving mercy could not have been exercifed 
 toward the fmner, in a confiftency with wifdom^ juftice 
 and holinefs, or the honour of the divine perfections, or 
 the authority of the divine law and government. The 
 conftitution therefore by which falvation can be obtained 
 in no other way, than in confequence and on account of 
 his obedience and death, is not only conflftent with wif- 
 dom, holinefs, juftice, yea, all the divine perfections, 
 and the authority of the divine law and government : but 
 it was required by them all. 
 
 But the fufferings and death of Chrift", or his atone- 
 nient, is no difcipline of the fmner. They are as foreign 
 from it as the vindictive punilhmcnt of the fmner himfelf. 
 The atonement, as Dr. C. hath explained it, makes way 
 for the wife, juft and holy exercife of mercy toward the 
 fmner. It v/as therefore defigned to fatisfy the divine 
 ivifdom, jufiice and holimfs. It was defigned to make the 
 grant of life to the (inner confflent with the honour of the 
 divine perfe^ions, and the authority of the di-jine law and go- 
 vernment. And if our Lord Jefus Chrift might, in the 
 behalf of 'the Imner, be made to fuifer in order to fatisfy 
 divine jufiice ; why may not the fmner himfelf be made t^^ 
 fufter for the fame end ? 
 
 If Chrift have, on the behalf of fmners, fuifered fcr 
 the end of fuppordng the authority of the divine la\v and 
 government ; w hat reafon can be affigned, why it IhouIJ 
 be inconfiftent with any attribute of the Deity, that 
 finners themfelves fhould be made to fuller for the fame 
 end ? But this v/ould be a proper vindictive punifhnient. 
 Therefore Dr. C. is entirely inconfiftent with himfelf, in 
 allov/ing the atonement of Chrift, in the terms before 
 quoted ; and yet denying the reafonablenefs of a vindictive 
 puniiliment, or its conliiteucy with the divine perfections. 
 
 19. We 
 
 |||[ 12 fermons^ p. 334. 
 
^2 The damned ivlll in Ta6i 
 
 19. Wk are alTured, '^ that all things work together 
 ^^ for good to them that love God, to them who are called 
 ^* accordmg to his purpofe ;'' Rom. VIII. 28. But this 
 implies, that all things do not work for good, to them who 
 Jove not God. Yet all things do work for their good, if 
 they fiifFer no other than a difciplinary punilhment. Con- 
 cerning thofe who arc Chrift's, it is faid, that " all things 
 *' are their's ; whether Paul or Apollos, or Cephas, or 
 *' the world, or life, or death, or things prefent, or 
 *^ things to come ; all are their's; '' I Cor. III. 21, 1%, 
 But on the fuppoiition, that all puniihment is difciplinary, 
 ■it is equally true concerning all mankind, that all things 
 prefent and to come are their's. Yet this is not i'aid, but 
 the contrary is implied in that it is faid of thofe only who 
 are Chriil's or are Chi-ifcians, that all things are their's. 
 
 20. I ARGUE from thofe words of the wife man, Eccl. 
 IX. 10 ; ^' Whatfoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with 
 *^ thy mig:ht ; for there is no -work, nor device, nor 
 ^* knowledge, nor wifdom in the grave whither thou 
 *' goefr.^^ If future punifhment be difcilplinary, the 
 damned are in a ftate of probation, and may and will fo 
 exercife their rational powers, as ihall finally ifTue in their 
 falvation. But can this be reconciled with the v.ords of 
 Solomon, that in the future ftate, there is no v/ork to be 
 done, no device to be invented, no knowledge or vv^ifdom 
 to be exercifed by lis, to the accompliiliment of what we 
 nov/ leave undone ? This is manifeftly the argument, by 
 which he preiTes on us the prefent diligent difcharge of our 
 duty ; and this argument would be utterly inconclufive, 
 if there v/ere another flate, in which what our hand now 
 fmdeth to do, might be done. 
 
 Of fimilar import is John IX. 4 ; ^^ I mufl work the 
 '^ works of him that fent me, while it is day ; the night 
 *^ cometh when no man can work. As long as I am in 
 ^' the zuoj'ld, I am the light of the world." That our 
 Lord, by the day, means this life, is manifefl by the laft 
 words 'jf the quotation. But if in the future ftate no 
 man can work, the future ftate is not a ftate of proba- 
 tion. 
 
 To thefe I may add, Gen. VI. 3 ; '' My fpirit fhall 
 not always ftrive with man — yet his days fhall be an 
 hundred an twenty years.'' As if it had been faid, my 
 fpirit fhall not always ftrive with man ; yet he fhall ftrive 
 
 with 
 
 
fuffer more than Difclpline* 73 
 
 with him an hundred and twenty years, and no longer ; 
 for fo long only fhall his days be continued. But how is 
 this conliilent with the idea, that God will be ftriving 
 with man, for ages of ages after his days jQiall have been 
 elap fed ? 
 
 Objedion i. If to fonie part of the foregoing reafoning 
 It be objeded, that it fuppofes future puniihment to be 
 merely dlfciplinary, and dcfigned to fubferve no ^iher end> 
 than the repentance of the linner : whereas it is granted^ 
 that God may and will inflict vindiclive pnnifliment, but 
 not apiinifhntent merely vindictive; that he may take ven- 
 geance of the flnner, provided at the fame time he aim at 
 the good of the {inner ; To this I anlVer- — 
 
 1. That in this objection it is granted, that God may 
 and will inflict on the dam.ned a punifliment properly vin- 
 diftive, a punifliment over and above that ^¥hich is con- 
 ducive to the perfonal good of the fmner. But this is to 
 grant all which is pleaded for in this chapter, and all 
 which at prefcnt is attempted to be proved. 
 
 2. If the meaning of this objection be, that God may 
 inflift vengeance, provided he do it v/ith a fole view to the 
 
 . good of the iinner, it confutes itfelf; it feems to grant 
 fomething, but in reality it grants nothing. It feems to 
 admit a proper vindictive punifliment, but really admits no 
 puniihment belides tlint which is merely dlfciplinary. For 
 to talk of inflicl:ing vengeance with a fole view to the gooct 
 of the fubject, can mean nothing more, than to in^ii'dpaln 
 v.'Ith a fole view to the good of the fubject ; and this is 
 jiothing more than a punilliment merely dlfciplinary : if 
 Cod iliow 'diipleafure witii a fole view ta the good of the 
 linner, this is mere difcipline. 
 
 3. \y the meaning of this objection be, that Gcd may 
 confillemly with his perfeccions, inflict a ]7roper vlndi6!:ivc 
 punifliment, provided at the fame time that he is aiming 
 at a proper vindication of his broken law and defpifed go- 
 vernment, he aim at the good of the linner alio ; I an- 
 fwcr, if it be right smd confluent with tlie perfedicns of 
 God, to vindicate his lavv^ and p-overiiment, there iy no ne- 
 ceility oi bringing in the aid («f "another motive or dehgn, 
 to make it right or confilrent with his perfections. If on 
 the other liand, it be not i'-i itfelf right tj \ indicate his 
 law and government, nooth'rr atfcctions, views or actions, 
 
 however 
 
74 '-^^<^ damned '-Mill in Fact 
 
 however right and benevolent, co-exifting V^ith the fup- 
 pofed vindication, can atone for it, or make it right. 
 
 To illiiftrate this by an example : — A parent has a. dif- 
 obedient child ; and it is become necelTary both for the 
 good of the child, and for the iupport of the parent's au- 
 iliority in his family in general, and over his child in par- 
 ticular, that lie be properly pmiiflied. Accordingly from 
 both thsfe motives, the good of»the child and the fupport 
 of his own authority, the parent inflicts the proper punifh- 
 ment. This according to the obje6tion novv^ before us, is 
 right. Biit according to the fame objection, if the child 
 be defperate and there be no profpecl of eiFefting his good 
 by punifhment, it is not conlifLent with the character of a 
 good parent to inilict the fame punifliment, from the mo- 
 tives of fapporting his ovv^n government and the good of 
 the family only. If this action done from thefe motives 
 only, be a wrong action, it is {iill v/rong, fo far as it pro- 
 ceeds from the fame motives, however it may arife in 
 part from the motive of the child's good. To render 
 this,rtiil plainer, let us fuppofe, that a parent inflids pain 
 on his child merely to afford amui'ement to his neighbours, 
 as the Romans were wont to exhibit fip-hts of gladiators. 
 It will be agreed on all hands, that this action is abomina- 
 ble. Again, fuppofe the fame pain be infiicled partly from 
 the motive of amuling his neighbours, and partly from 
 a regard to the child's good. I prefume all will allow, 
 that fo fdr as the action proceeds from the former motive, 
 it is ftill abominable, and is not fanctifled by the co-exill- 
 ent motive of the child's good. 
 
 On the whole, v/e arrive at this conclufion \ that if it 
 be confiftent with, the divine perfections, that God fliould 
 inflicl punifliment from the two ■ motive>s of vindicating his 
 ov/n law and government and benefiting the fmner ; it is 
 equally confiftent with the divine perfections to inflict pun- 
 iflnnent from the former motive only. 4.11 the vindictive 
 punilhment pleaded for, is that v/liich is deferved by the 
 linner and is necefiary to iupport the divine law and mo- 
 ral government in proper dignity, and thus to promote the 
 general good : and this fur|.'ly is oppofed to no attribute 
 of God, "whether juftice cr goodnels. 
 
 Objection 2. To tlie argument .(!rawn from the def- 
 tructicn threatened to the wicked, it may be objected, that 
 this dcfcrutli on means, that th^v ilir;!] h- dclh'oyed ^7j- /7;2- 
 
 ners 
 
fuffer 7nore than DifcipUne. 7^ 
 
 ners only, or fhall be brought to repentance and a renun- 
 ciation of fin. To this it may be anfwered, that in this 
 fenfe every one who in this life repents and believes, is 
 deftroyed, and luiTers dellruftion. Yet tliis is never faid 
 in fcripture. This fenfe of the word de(}ru^ion makes 
 the puniihment of hell, and the awful curfe of the divine 
 law, to confifh in repentance, which is no puniihment or 
 curfe, but an inefl;imable:bi<:iring. Belides, that repent- 
 ance, on which the {inner is forgiven if it can be called a 
 dfflrii6lion at all, is not an cverlaji'ing deflruclion, but 
 an emotion of heart, which is begun and finilhed in a ve- 
 ry Ihort time. Or if by this everlailing defl:ru6tion be 
 underftcod tiie habitual and perfevering repentance of 
 the true convert ; then the glorified faints in heaven, are 
 conftantly fuffering that defiruCiion v/hich vv^ill be everiaft- 
 ing, and which is the curfe of the divine law. 
 
 Before this fubjed; is difmifled, proper notice ought 
 to be taken of fome arguments urged in favour of the ien- 
 timent, that the punifhment of hell is merely difcip- 
 plin:';- ^ 
 
 I . It is urged,* that the various afflictions of this life 
 are deugned for the good of tlie patients : therefore pro- 
 bably the fame end is dcfigned by the fuffer ings of hell. 
 
 To this it may be anfwered, It is by no means 
 
 granted, that all the afflictions of this life are defigned. 
 for the good cf the patients. It does not appear, that 
 men in p-eneral, who are vifited with the lofs of children, 
 wives, or otlier dear friends ; or with the lofs of eye- 
 fight, of fome other fenfe, or of a limb ; or with diftrefl- 
 ing pains or incurable difeafes ; are thereby rendered 
 more happy in this life. If men may be ailovv^ed to 
 judge by their ^ own experience, they will in mofc cafes 
 (iecide th? queflion in the negative. Nor does the deci- 
 lion in many cafes appear ill founded to thofe, who have 
 opportunity to obferve perfons under thofe arflidlions. 
 To fay tliat men are no proper judges, whether they 
 themfelves be, in this life, made m^ore happy or not, by 
 the af iiicdons which they fiifFer, is to fay, that they are no 
 iudc;es of their own hapDinefs or miferv. This being; 
 once eiviablifhed, we may affert, -that hell- torments 
 though endlefs promote the happinefs of the patients : 
 becaufe being no judges of their own liappinefs or mifery 
 
 they 
 
 P^''^^C 324, 325. 
 
j6 The damned ivill In Ta6l 
 
 they may be extremely happy, at the very time they judge 
 themfelves to be perfecliy mii'erable. 
 
 i >J any cafe in which calamity proves fatal, it is abfurd 
 to pretend, mat it promotes, in this life, the happinefs 
 of the patient, unleis calamity itfelf be happineis. No 
 man has opportunity in this life to derive any good from 
 the panis of death. Therefore at lead thcfe pains are 
 not defigned for the fubjecVs good during his prefent 
 life. 
 
 Here it may be proper to mention feveral remarkable in- 
 ftances of grievous calamity recorded in fcripture : As 
 the indance of the old world, of Sodom and Gomorrah, of 
 Pharaoh, Saul, the houfc of Eli, Nadab and Abihu, lifel, 
 i^c, Jt is prelumed, Dr. C, himfelf would not pretend, 
 that thefe calamities were intended for ** the profit of the 
 fufferers themfelves'' in this life. What right then had 
 he to argue, as in the following paflage ? * * ' The pro- 
 ^* per tendency and hnal caufe of evils in the prefent ftate, 
 *^ are to do us good. This is the voice of reafon confir- 
 '' med by experience, and fcripturc concurs herewith." 
 Ke then quotes Pial. LXXXIX. 31 — 34; and proceeds, 
 '^ Jf evil, puniihment or mifcry in the prefent life is mer- 
 ** cifuUy intended for the good of the patients themfelves 
 *"' why not in the next life \ Is the character of God, as 
 '' the father of mercies, and God of pity, confined to 
 *' this world only ?'' The force of all this depends en- 
 tirely on the fuppolition, that in all infcances of fuffering 
 in this life, the end is the faffcrer's good during this life. 
 
 But this fuppcfition, we fee by what hns been faid aU 
 ready, is by no means true. The fuperllru61nre there- 
 fore built on this foundation falls entirely to the ground. 
 We all grant, that in feme infranccs afflidions are in- 
 tended for the good of the fuiierers. A proof of this, 
 which needed no proof, }3r. C. has produced out of the 
 eighty-ninth pfalm. On this foundation extended in his 
 own imagination to comprehend ail inilances of afflidlion, 
 
 he built an argument in v.liich he triumplied. Now 
 
 iincc there are -hofe ie^'cral indances of calamity before 
 mentioned, which Dr. C. would not pretend v/cre defign- 
 ed for the fufFcrer's good in this life ; I might as well iup- 
 pole thit no other inilances of calamity arc defigned for 
 the Amerers good in this life; c.vA then adopt Dr. C's 
 
 drain 
 
fufftr more than D'tfc'ipline Tj 
 
 ftrain of ardent dedumationy in manner following : If evil 
 punifhmcnt or mifery in the prefent life, be not intended 
 for the good of the patients tjiemfelves, but to lapport, 
 the authority of the divine law, and thus fubferve the ge* 
 neral good ; why not in the next life \ Is the character of 
 God, as a God of perfect purity and Uriel jufticc, limited 
 to thiK world only ? Why fhould it not be fuppofcd, that 
 the infinitely holy God has the fame hatred of lin in the 
 other world which he has in this I and that he has in the 
 next ftate the fame intention which he has in this, to vin- 
 dicate, by punifhments, his law and government. 
 
 The truth is, that as fome of the calamities of this life 
 arc intended for the patient's good in this life and others 
 are as nianifeftiy not intended for his good in this life ; 
 nothing certain can be hence concluded concerning the 
 end of the mifery of the dannicd. Nay ; if it were cer- 
 tain, that all the calamities of this life are intended for 
 the patient's good in this life or that they are not intended 
 for his good in this life ; yet it could not be certainly thence 
 (oncludcd, that the miferies of the damned are intended 
 for the good of the patients, nor tliat they are not in- 
 tended for the good of the patients. But this point muft 
 be determined by other evidence, the evidence of reve- 
 lation. 
 
 If it fliould be faid, that though fome of the fufferings 
 of this life do not, in this life, produce good to the pa- 
 tients ; * yet they will produce good to them in the future 
 life ; it will be faiiicient to reply, that this wants proof ; 
 that it- is a main point in the prefent difpute; and that it 
 ihould be taken for granted, is not to be fuffcred. 
 
 2. It is alfo urged by our author, ** That the whole 
 ^' courfe of nature, and even the revelations of fcripturc 
 **■ conllantly fpeak of God, as the univerfal father, as 
 
 *' well as governor of men What now is the tamper 
 
 "^ and conduct of fatiiers on earth towards their offspring ? 
 '*■ They readily do them good and chafti^e them for their 
 '* profit ; but they do not punifti their children, having 
 
 '^ no vievv to their advantage.'' *' And fhall v/e 
 
 *' fay that of our father in heaven, v/liicli we cannot fup- 
 '' pofe of any father on earth, till we have firlt dive{l^:d 
 ** him of the heart of a father?'' lie abounds in pathetic 
 difcourfe of the fame ftrain, which is much more fuited to 
 work on the imaginations and pallions of mankind, than on 
 
 tlicir 
 
78 The damned iv'iU in Fa& 
 
 their rcafon. The foundation of all this difcourfe is, that fa- 
 thers on earth, acting in characler, never punifli and never 
 can punifli their children, but with a defign to promote 
 their peribnal good. But would Dr. C. himfelf adven- 
 ture to lay down this pofition, and to abide by it ? Did 
 never a wife and good father find it necf ITary, to pnnifh, 
 and even to cafe out of his family, a defperate child, to 
 prevent his ruining the reft of the children ? Was there 
 never, or can there poiiibly never be, an inftance of this? 
 If fuch an inllance ever has, or ever may occur, the ap- 
 pearance of argument in the forecited paflage, vaniihes at 
 once. Not only dofuthei's iind'it neceffary to punifh def- 
 perate children, without any profped of their perfonal 
 <yood ; but verv freo.uently do kinrs. Vovernors and chief 
 jnagillrates iind this necelTarA'' with regard to their fubjefts. 
 Now in the fcripture, God much cftener illuilrates his 
 character, by that of a king, a prince, a fovereign lord, 
 than by that of a father. And askings, &c. often find it 
 neceffary to inflict capital and other puniihments, without 
 any view to the perfonal good of the fufferers ; we may 
 hence deduce an argument, that God alio will puniih many 
 of his rebelhous fubjeits, without any view to their per- 
 fonal good ; but to fupport his m.oral government, to be 
 an example of terror to others, and thus to fecure the 
 eeneral o-ood : and tliis arp-ument would be at leafr as 
 iirong as that of Dr. C. juil cited. 
 
 3. It may be pleaded, that though calamities in thk 
 life do not always ifTue in the fufferers good ; yet God 
 may compenfate them in the future flate, for the lofs or 
 fuffering, of which they are the fubjefts in this life. 
 Thus our author, ^' It is pollible that the evils which a- 
 •' ny fuffer in this, may be made up to them in another 
 *• ftate."* It is granted, that God is able* to com- 
 penfate his creatures for the evils of this life ; but that 
 
 he in fad will do it in all cafes, is to be proved. Be- 
 
 fides ; the very idea of ccinpenlation is inconfiilent with 
 the idea of difciplinary punifhment and that all the evils 
 of both this life and the future are neceifary and are in- 
 tended for the p-ood of thole vvho fufFer thema. For if 
 this idea bejuft, what foundation is there for compenla- 
 tion? Will a father com^pcnlatc a child ^or the pain of 
 that difcipline which is abfoluicly neceffary fol' his good 
 m ■ 'and 
 
fiiffer more than DifdpUne, yg 
 
 and moft wifely adapted to it ? No man would ever think 
 of it. Compenfation fuppofes, that the evil for which 
 compenfation is made, has been iniiided from other mo- 
 tives, than a regard to the good of the fufFerer. And 
 if evil may in one indnnce be infliclcd from other motives 
 than a regard to tlie good of the iufferer ; it may in any 
 other inftance in which juftice and vvifdom admit of it ; 
 
 and if in this ftate, in the future too. If the evils of 
 
 life be intended for the good only of the fubjeds, we ma}'* 
 as vv'ell talk of compenfating a man for the pain of draw- 
 ing a tooth which is a perpetual torment to him ; or for 
 the difapreeable tafte of the dofe which cures him of 
 
 o 
 
 the colic ; as to talk of compenfatmg him for the calami- 
 ties of life. The faints will indeed be rewarded for their pa- 
 tience under thefe calamities ; and this part of their he— 
 linefs is doubtlefs as amiable, and is as properly as any 
 part of their holineis the objecl of the complacency of the 
 Deity, and of thofe rewards which are the fruits of that 
 complacencyi But thofe rewards are not to be coniidered 
 as compenfations of lofTcs or of damages. The very idea of 
 compenfation implies, that that for which compenfation 
 is made, is on the v/hcle an evil to the perfon compenfa- 
 ted. Bat the very idea that prcfent evils are neceffary 
 and conducive to th- good of the fubjecls, implies, that 
 on the whole they are' no evils to the fubjedts. 
 
 It is nov/ fubmitted to the reader, whether the dodrine, 
 that the damned v/ili in fa6t fufFer no other puniihm.enr, 
 than that which is fubferv^ient to their peribnal good, be 
 not in many refpeds moft glaringly inconliitent with the 
 fcriptures ; and whether it be not equally irreconoileable 
 with thsir general tenor as with many particular pafTages ; 
 andalfo with many narts of Dr, C^s book. 
 
 C H A P, 
 
8o Examination of Dt\ C^y 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Containing an examination of Dr. C^s arguments to prove 
 cndlefs punijhment inconfiftent ivith jujtice^ 
 
 HAT the endlefs puniihment of the damned is incon-r 
 fiftent with juftice, is pofitively and abundantly af- 
 ferted by Dr. C. and other advocates for univerfal fal— 
 vation. Whether the arguments which the Do6tor offers 
 to prove the injuftice of endlefs punifliment, be conclufive, 
 is the fubje<rc of our inquiry in this chapter. 
 
 Before we proceed to this inquiry, it feems necelTary, 
 to explain the meaning of the propofition — That t^e end- 
 lefs punifnment of the damned is confiftent with juftice, 
 
 I DO not find that Dr. C. hath any where given us a de- 
 fmition of his idea oijujiicej or of a juft puniihment, which 
 is certainly a great omifiion. The Chevalier i?^m/^y gives 
 the following definition of the divine juflice : '^ Juftice is 
 that perfedion of God, by w^hich he endeavours continual- 
 ly to make all intelligences juft.*'' But with the fame rea- 
 fon he might have defined the divine mercy to be, not that 
 perfection in God, by v/hich he is hirafelf inclined to the 
 exercife of mercy to the miferable ; but that by which he 
 endeavours to make all intelligences merciful ; and the di- 
 vine love to be, not that perfeftion in God, by which he 
 loves his creatures, but that by v^hich he endeavours to 
 make other intelligences exercife love. By this definition 
 of juftice a human judge, who wrones every man, whofe 
 caufe is brought before him, and yet endeavours to make 
 other men juft, is a juft judge. 
 
 TiiEwovd juftice is ufedin three diiTercnt fenfes. Some- 
 times it means commutative juftice, fome times difirlhuiive, 
 and fometimes general or public juftice. Conmiutative juf- 
 tice refpe6ts property only, and the equal exchange and re- 
 ftitution.ofit. Dif/rihutive juiiicc is the equal diftribution 
 of rewards and puniihments, and it relpects the perfonal 
 rights and demerit of the perfon rewarded or puniihed. 
 General or public juftice refpefts w^hat are called the rights 
 of a? community, whether a city, ftate, empire, or the uni- 
 verle. This kind of juftice requires the public good; and 
 
 whenever 
 * Principles, Vol. I. p. .y?:;. . 
 
Arguments from Jujlics* Sj 
 
 ^'henever that is violated or neglecled, the public is Injured^ 
 This k'lT: ufe of [he word juflice, though very frequent, yet 
 is an improper uie of it; becaufe to prci.flife juilice in this 
 fenfe, is no other than to act from public i'pint, or from 
 love to the community, and with rcfpecl to the univerfe, it 
 is the very fame with general benevolence. 
 
 Now when we inquire, whether the endlefs puniihment 
 of the wicked be conililent with juilice, no man will fup- 
 pofe that the v/ord jiiitice means commutative juitice ; be- 
 caufe the inquiry has no refpecl to property. Nor is the 
 word to be underftood to mean general or public juilice. 
 It is indeed an ijnportant inquiry, whether the endlefs 
 puniiliment of a njan dying in impenitence, be confiilent 
 v/ith the general intereil of the univerfe ; but this is not 
 the fubject to b>- confidered in this chapter. The queftioa 
 to be confidered in this and in one or two fucceding chap- 
 ters, is,whether toinflici: an endlefs punifhment on a man dy- 
 ing in impenitence,be an acl of ^wy/r it'*// jV^t juitice, or be a treat- 
 ment of him by his judge, correfpondent and no more than 
 correfpondent or proportioned to his demerit, to his 
 crimes,, or to his moral conduct and perfonal cbarafter. 
 This is a queftion entirely different from the follovring ; 
 Whether the infliction of an endlefs puniiliment on a lin- 
 ner dying in impenitence, be fubi'ervient to the good of the 
 univerfe ? A puniihment or calamity inflicted on a pcrfcn 
 may be fubfervient to the public good of a community, 
 yet not be deferved by him on account of his perfonal 
 crimes. It was for tlie o-ood of the Roman reoublic, that 
 Reguhs flieuld return to certain death at Carthage ; yet 
 he did not defcrve that death ; it was not correfpondent 
 to bis moral- chara6:er. On the other hand, many a 
 villain h-'^s by his attrocious crimes deferved death ; yet 
 h^j reafon of his power, his connections, or the peculiar 
 circunijaances of the (tate, it could not, conliftently with 
 the public good be inflicted on him. So that in a variety 
 ofinitances public juflice or the public good is promoted by 
 private or diltributive injudice ; and dirtribudve ju.lice 
 would be productive of public injury or damage. And in 
 fome cafes the public good may be promoted by a proceed- 
 ing, which, though not in the diltributive lenft "^/'.dt, 
 yet is not accordina: to diitributivc iulticc. An innocent 
 perlbn may choofe to be made the fubjed of fufterings, 
 in the ftead of a criminal. Therefore though the furfer- 
 
 M iag3 
 
^3 j^n Exa7ninatton of Dr. Cs 
 
 ings Avhich he clioofes to endure, be inflided on lilm, no 
 injuftice is done him : nor will it be pretended, that this 
 proceeding is according to ftri6l diftributire jnftice, which 
 requires the criminal to be puniihed and not his fubftitute. 
 Yet it may promote the good of the community, or fecure 
 it from great detriment by a relaxation of its laws and go- 
 vernment ; as in the well known inflance of Zaleucus, 
 w ho put out one of his own eyes^ to fupport the authority 
 of the law againfl adultery, which his own fon had vio- 
 lated. 
 
 On the whole, when we inquire whether the endlefs 
 punilhment of the damned be confident with juftice, the 
 word ji(f lice rm^ns diftrihutive ]\\idce. This, as has been 
 already obferved, refpecls the perfonal merit or demerit 
 of the man rewarded or puniflied. A man fuffers diflri- 
 butive injuftice when he is not treated as favourably as is 
 correfpondent to his perfonal conduct or character. On 
 the other hand, he has juftice done him, when he is treat- 
 ed in a manner correfpondent to his perfonal conduct or 
 character. A juft punilhment then is that which is pro- 
 portioned or correfpondent to the crime punifhed. But it 
 may be further inquired, v/hen is a punifhment propor- 
 tioned to the crime punifhed ? To this the anfwcr icems 
 to be, when by the pain or natural evil of the punifhment, 
 it exhibits a juft idea of the moral evil or ruinous tendency 
 of the crime, and a proper motive to reftrain all intel- 
 ligent beings from the commifFion of the cnme. 
 
 FuRTHEK to elucidate this matter, let it be obferved, 
 that any crime, by relaxing the laws and by weakening 
 the government, is a damage to the community ; and de- 
 ferves juft fo much puniflmient, as, by reftoring the pro- 
 per tone of the laws, and proper ftrength to the govern- 
 ment, will repair that damage. The chief evil of any 
 crime, on account of which it principally deferves punifh- 
 ment, confifts in the relaxation of the laws and govern- 
 ment of the community in whicli the crime is committed. 
 For example, the chief evil of theft is not that a certain 
 perfon is clandeftinely deprived of his property. His pro- 
 perty may be reftorejl and he may in this refped fuffer no 
 damage. Still the thief deferves punilhment. If a man 
 be defamed, the chief evil is not that the perfon defamed 
 is injured by the lofs of his reputation. His reputation 
 may, by a full confellion of the defamer or by other means, 
 
 be 
 
Arguments from Ju/lke. 8j 
 
 'be reftored. Still the defanier may deferve pumfhment. 
 If a man be murdered, the chief evil is not that the man 
 is deprived of his life, and his iriends and the community are 
 deprived of the benefit of his aid. His Ufe may have 
 been a burden to himfelf, to his friends and to the com- 
 munity ; or he may by divine power be raifed from the 
 dead. Still, in either cafe^ the murderer would dcfervc 
 punilhment. 
 
 The true reafon^ why all thofe criminals would, in all 
 thofe cafes, deferve puniihment, is, that by their refpec- 
 tive crimes they would weaken the laws and government 
 of the community, thereby would break in upon the pub-" 
 lie peace, good order, fafety and happinefs ; inftead of 
 thefe would introduce confufion and ruin ; and thus would 
 do a very great damage to the community. — Therefore, 
 they would refpecftively deferve juft fo much punifhment, 
 as by refloring the tone of the laws and government, 
 would re^eltablifh the peace, good order, fafety and hap- 
 pinefs of the community, and thus would repair the da-r 
 mage done to the community by their crimes. — A punifh- 
 ment adequate to this end exhibits by the natural evil of 
 it, a juft idea of the moral evil of the crime, and a pro- 
 per motive to reftrain all from the commiflion of it : it is 
 therefore duly proportioned to the crime, is correfpon- 
 dent to the conduct of the criminal, and is perfectly juft. 
 
 The paiTages in which Dr. C. declares pojitlvely, that 
 the endlefs punilhment of the wicked would beunjuft, are 
 very numerous ; but his arguments to prove that it would 
 be unjuft, are, fo far as I can find, very few. As this is 
 a capital point in the prefent controverfy, it was to be ex- 
 pelled, that he would go into a formal conlideration of it, 
 and give us his reafons methodically and didlinclly. In- 
 ftead of this, in all the various parts of his book in which 
 he declaims moft vehemently on the fubjed, there are 
 \'ery few in which I find an attempt to argue. Thefe are 
 
 as follows : *^ An eternity of mifcry fwallows up all 
 
 ** proportion : or though there fiiould be fome diiference 
 *• in the degree of pain, it is fuch a difference, I fear, as 
 ^* will be fcarce thought vvorthy of being brought into the 
 ^'' account, when the circumftance of endlefs duration is 
 '^ annexed to it.''* " The fmallnefs of the diiTerence 
 
 bctv/een thofe in this worid^ to whom the character of 
 
 a 
 
 *' 'luichd 
 
 * P<?f^e ""^' 
 
fj^ jin Ey:ct7mnation of Dt\ Os 
 
 ^' ivtckedhe\or\g% in the loweft fenfe, and tliofe to whom 
 '* the chara(::t;er of good is applicable in the like fenfe, 
 '* renders it incredible, that fuch an amazingly great dil^ 
 ^' ference /hould be made betv-v'cen them in the future. 
 <"' The difference between them, according to the com- 
 <* mon opinion, will be doubly infinite. — For the re- 
 <* ward and puni/hment being both eternal, they raufl at 
 <' lafc become infinite in magnitude. How to reconcile 
 <^ this with the abfolutely accurate impartiality of God, is, 
 
 <^ I confefs, beyond me.""^ ^' It does not appear to 
 
 <^ me, that it would be honourable to the infinitely righ- 
 <^ teous and benevolent governor of the world, to make 
 '^ wicked men everlafiingly miferable. For in what point 
 ^^ of light foever Vv'e take a view of Im, it is certainly in 
 ^^ its nature a finite evil. It is the fault of a finite crea- 
 «' ture, and the eiFecl: of finite principles, paffions and ap- 
 *' pctites. 7'o fay therefore, that the fmner is doomed to 
 *' infinite mifery, for the finite faults' of a finite life, looks 
 «^ like a refleftion on the infinite juftice, as well as good- 
 <^ nefs of Gcd. I know it has been often nr^-red, th:^t 
 <^ fin IS an infinite evil, becaufe committed againft an in- 
 *^ finite object ; for which reafon an infinite puniihrnent is 
 «' no more than its due defer t. But this metaphyfical 
 <^ nicety proves a preat deal too much, if it proves any- 
 <* thing at all. For according to this way of c.rguing, 
 ♦ ' all fuiners mufl fuifer the utnioft in degj-ec^ as v/eli as in 
 *' duration ^ otherwife they will notfufFer.fo much as they 
 <' might do, and as they ought to do : v/hich is plainly 
 '^ inconfiftent with that difference the fcripture often 
 '^ declares there fhall be in the punifnment of v/icked men, 
 '* according to the difference there has been in the na-^ 
 'f tuie and number of their evil deeds. '^ f 
 
 These, I think, are the palTages in which Dr. C. offers 
 his moALp'aufible and ftrong, if not his only, arguments, 
 to prove, that endlefs puniihrnent is not confiftentwith juf- 
 lice ; and the arguments here offered are thefe three on- 
 
 \Y That endlefs puniljiment implies fuch a different; 
 
 tJ*eatment of the fmallcfi: fmners and fmalleft faints, as is 
 out of all j^roportion to their rcfpecTtive characters ; it is 
 therefore incredible, andnot rccdncileable with the juflice 
 
 and impartiality of God. That endlefs punifhment is 
 
 out of all proportion to the demerit of fin, as the latter is 
 
 liiiitc 
 
 * Page 320. f Page 361. _ 
 
Arguments from J lift ics^ ^j; 
 
 finite,tlie foriner infinite. That endlefs punijlimeht, oil 
 
 account of the infinite evil of fm, as committed againft a 
 God cf infinite glory, implies, that future punifliment is in- 
 finite in degree too, and therefore that the pUnilhiiient of 
 all the damned is equal. 
 
 I. That endlefs punidiment implies fuch a ditTereht 
 treatment of the fmallefl fmner and fmalleft faint, as is out 
 of all proportion to their re fpecTsve characters; it is there- 
 fore incredible, and not reconcilcrxble vvith the jufbice and 
 impartiality of God. On this I obferve, 
 
 1. That there is an infinite? difference between the treat- 
 ment of tv/operfons,one ©f whom is lent to endlefs mifery, 
 the other not, is readily granted. But that the one, v^ho 
 is fent to fuch a punifiinient, is treated nnjuftly, is not 
 granted ; and to aflert, thjlt he is treated unjulUy, is to 
 beg-AXidi not to prove the thing in queflion. 
 
 2. That of the tv/o perlons now fuppofcd, one fliculd 
 be treated according to his demerits, and the other by the 
 '^ bonnalefs goodnefs of God/' ihould be exempted from 
 that punilhment, to which, by his demerit, he is juftly lia- 
 ble, is nothing incredible or unjuft. Surely the gracious 
 exemption of one man from that punifliment, which he de- 
 ferves, renders not the punifliment of another unjuil, which 
 would cthrrwife be juft. 
 
 3. As there is noinjuflice in the cafe now (lated, fo nei- 
 ther is there any partiality in it. There is no partialitj'- 
 in the condiicl of the Supreme Magiilrate, v/ho condemns 
 one crimiiaal according to his demerit, and pardons another 
 criminal equally guilty. But partiality is then pradifed, 
 when of tv.'o real and knov/n criminals, one is condemned 
 by the judge • the other cleared, on the pretence, that he 
 is innocent. So that this whole argum^ent from the incre- 
 dibly different treatment of the fmallefl {inner and fmallefl 
 faint, whofe characters are fo nearly on a level, fo far as it 
 fuppofes the different treatment to be incredible, on ac- 
 count of the endlefs punilhment of the fmner, is a mere 
 begging of the queftion. It takes for granted, that the 
 fmner does not deferve an endlefs punifliment. So far as 
 it fuppofes the different treatment to be incredible, on ac- 
 count of the infinite reward or happinefs befiowed on the 
 faint, it fuppofes, that God in his infinite goodnefs, cannot 
 beflov/ an infinite good on a creature, who in his own pcr- 
 fou is entirely unworthy of it. It alfo fuppofes^, that if c- ' 
 
 ver 
 
BC Exafnlization of Dr. Cs 
 
 ver God pardon any fmner, he muft pardon all, \vhore de- 
 merits are no more than that of the man pardoned ; other- 
 wife he is partial : and for the fame reafon^ that if ever he 
 condemn any fmner, he mull condemn all thofe, whofe 
 characters are equally linful with that of the man con- 
 demned. But it is prefumed, that thefe fentiments will be 
 avov/ed by no man. 
 
 II. The next argument is, That endlefs punifliment is 
 out of all proportion to the demerit of fin, as the former is 
 infinite, the latter finite. — As this is a matter of great im- 
 portance in the prefent difpuie, it requires our particular 
 
 attention. How then does Dr. C. make it appear, that 
 
 fin is a finite evil ? By thefe feveral coniiderations, that it 
 
 is the fault of a finite creature, durinp- a finite life, 
 
 and the efred of finite principles, paiFions and appetites ; 
 the fum of which is, that it is impollible for a creature, in 
 a finite duration, to commit an infinite crime; or which 
 is the fame thing, a crime which iliail deferve an endlefs 
 puniihment. As to this let it be obfcrved, 
 
 I. That if it be impolFible for a creature, in a finite du- 
 ration, to commit a crime which fhall deferve an endlefs 
 punifhment, it is as really againil Vv^hatDr. C. holds, as a- 
 ' gainft theoppofite fyfbem. He fays,* '^ If the next is a 
 "fiiate of puniPnment intended to fatisfy the juflice cf God, 
 *' 'tis impo'lible ail men fhould be finally faved:" that is, 
 if in the next fr^te a puniihment be iniliaed, wiiich fatl:fies 
 juflice, all men will not be favcd. But a priuifmnent, 
 which fatisfies ]aftice is a perfe^flly jult puniihment. It is 
 therefore juft, that fome men {hould finally not be faved ; 
 or it isjiiil:, that on account of their iins, they be without 
 end excluded from falvation. And what is the endlel's ex- 
 clufion of a fmner from falvation on account of his ims, but 
 an endlefs puniihment inflicled for the fault of a finite crea- 
 ture, committed hi a finite life, and the effect of finite prin- 
 ciples, paifions and appetites ? ThispaiTage of Dr. C. is 
 
 a plain and full conceffion both of the juftice of endlefs pu- 
 niihment, and of the iaiinite evil of iin. 
 
 That lin is an infinite evil, or an evil defer ving an end- 
 lefs puniihment, is implied in all thofe paiTages alio, in 
 which Dr. C. alTerts, that the ialvarion of all men, and e- 
 ven of the damned, after they have fuftered all which they 
 ever are to fufrcr^ is ths fruit cf bQiin:'!''fs and '::t:>:hciujiivie' 
 
Jrgumc7its from Jufilcf, Sf 
 
 goodnefs, tM finite indulgence end love, &c. In his argument 
 that the puniihment of the damned is difciplinaiy, he fays,* 
 ^* That God m.ufl in the other world, as well as this, be 
 '' difpofed to m^ke it evident, that he is a being of houndlefs 
 '' and inexhauftihle gcodnefs.^^ It is plain by the connecti- 
 on, that the Dodlor means, that the deliverance of ihc 
 damned, in confequence of a punifliment, which is condu- 
 cive to their good, is an aftof houndlefs and inexhauftihle 
 goodnefs. 
 
 But that the goodnefs of ihst acl of deliverance is not 
 greater than the evil or punifl-ment from which it delivers, 
 will be conceded by all. There is goodnefs in delivering 
 a man from the tooth-ache ; but no man will pretend, that 
 this is an a6t of houndlefs and inexhauftihle goodnefs. To de- 
 liver from the mifery of a thoufand years torment in hell, 
 is an act of far greater goodnefs. But this is not sn ad of 
 houndlefs uwdinex hat ft: hie gQod.T^c{s. Nor is any aft of de- 
 liverance worihy of thefe epithets, unlefs it deliver from 
 an evil, which.is houndlefs and inexhauftihle. Doubtlefs 
 the acl of God in delivering a Tinner from the puniihment 
 of hell is called aa acl of houndlefs and inexhauftihle good- 
 nefs with refpecl to the greatnefs of the benefit conferred 
 by that deliverance, and not with refpecl to the inherent 
 and elTential goodnefs of God. If the latter be Dcclor 
 C's m^eaning, v. hat he fays is no illuftration of the divine 
 goodnefs in delivering a finner from the pains of hell : he 
 might have faid the \c.vp.s. concerning the deliverance of a- 
 ny perfon guilty or innocent, from the tooth-ache, or from 
 the prick of a pin. He fays, that God in the other world, 
 as well as this, muft be difpofed to make it evideiit, that he 
 is a being of houndlefs and inexhauftihle goodnefs. But 
 if the dehverance of a finner from the pains of hell be not 
 a houndlefs benefit, it does not make it evident, that God 
 is a being of houndlefs goodnefs. If it be a houndlefs be- 
 nefit, the evil delivered from is houndlefs. If therefore the 
 deliverance of th^ damned from the torments of hell, he 
 an aft and a proof of houndlefs and inexhauftihle goodnefs, 
 as the Doftor holds, the evil from which they are deliver* 
 ed, and to v/liich they are expofed by the divine lav/, is 
 boundlels and inexhauftihle. But they arc not by the di- 
 vine law expofed to a greater punifiim.ent than they juftly 
 deferve : therefore they juftly deierve a boundlels or inex- 
 hauftihle puniihment : or confeq^uence fm, bv which thcv 
 * r. 3^6. ' «icfei:vi 
 
8S> An ExamhiatiOn cfDr. CV 
 
 deferve this puniihment, is a bpundlefs and inexhauftible or 
 aji innnitjs evil. 
 
 Agajn, Dr. C. in the words of Mr. IVhiJhn^ fay?,* 
 'MVIapy,pr all of them, "[the darnned] '^inay poifiblybe re- 
 '' covered and faved at lall, by the infinite indulgence and 
 ^' love of their creator.'' The lame obferv^ations, which 
 were made in the preceding paragraph, are applicable here. 
 It cannet be the meaning of Dr. C. that the recovery ©f 
 the damned i& in no other fenfe a fruit or proof pf the in- 
 finite indulgence and love of their Creator, than the reco- 
 very of a peribn in this life from the fmalleft difeafe, or ca- 
 lamity ; or the deliverance of even an innocent being from 
 fome flight evil. A iefs degree of indulgence and love, 
 than that which is infinite, would be fufficient for thefe re- 
 coveries, or deliverances. And if nothing ihcrt of infinite 
 indulgence and love can recover the damned, then their 
 recovery is a proof of infinite love. Nov/ what can be a 
 proof of infinite love, but the beiiov/ment of an infinite be- 
 nefit ? And no benefit coniifling in recovery from evil is 
 infinite, unlefs the evil, from which the recovery is made^ 
 be infinite. But if the evil from which the damned are 
 fuppofed to be recovered, be infinite, fm, by which they 
 are expofed to that evil, muft itfelf be an infinite evil. 
 
 If here it fhould be objected, that the damned are not 
 indeed delivered from •wrath, by boundiefs p-oodncfs and in- 
 finite love ; but that boundiefs goodnefs and infimite love 
 are exercifed ia their admiffion to the pofitive happinefs of 
 heaven only : I entreat the reader to obferve, that in the 
 former of ih.^ two pafFages lafl quoted. Dr. C. is fpeaking 
 of God's making evident his boundiefs and inexhauftible 
 goodnefs, by pitying fmners, and. punilhing them in order 
 to their benefit, or by the deliver ancs of the damned, in 
 confequence of a difciplinary pnnifimient: In the other, 
 he is fpeaking in the words of Mr. Whifton, concerning 
 
 x}s\^ recovery of the damned. But for a more full anfwer 
 
 I beg leave to refer the reader to page 13, where this fame 
 objedion has been flatcd and confide red. 
 
 That fin is an infinite evil, is imphed in what Dr. C. 
 holds concerning annihilation ; he f«ys, '* Jf the fore- 
 '^ going fchcme fiiculd be found to ha\;e no truth in it — 
 *' the fecond death ought to be confidered as that which 
 *• will put an end to their ezducnce both in ibul and body, 
 
 * P. 405. 
 
Argmnenis from Jvjlice. Ja 
 
 ^^ {<) that they fhall be no mere in the creation of God.'* 
 By this it appears that the Doclor held, that endlefs an- 
 nihilation would be no unjuftpuniihment of fm. But end- 
 lefs annihilation is an endlffs or hif-7ih: puniilnneRt. It is 
 an endlefs lofs of not only ail the good which the man at 
 prefent enjoys ; but of ail that gcod which he would have 
 enjoyed throughout eternity, in the ftate of blifs to ^^ hich 
 he would have been admitted, if he had never fmned. 
 This in an endleis duration would amount to an infinite 
 quantity of good. Annihilation therefore is an infinite 
 puniihment both as it is endlefs^ and as the quantity of 
 good loll is infinite : and Dr. C. in allowing that endlefs 
 annihilation would be no more than a juft puniflimient of 
 fm, allows, that lin deferves an infinite purifnment, or 
 that it is an infinite evil, though it is the fault cf a finite 
 creature, in a finite life, and the efFect of finite principles, 
 pallions and appetites. If therefore it be a difficulty h:ird 
 to be folved, that a finite creature, in a finite life, Ihouid 
 commit an infinite evil, meaning a crime which may be 
 juftly punifhed v.ith an endlefs punirnm.ent ; it is a diS- 
 culty that equally concerned Dr. C. as myfeif : and it 
 Vv'as abfurd for him to objecl that to others, v/liich lay 
 equally in his ovvn way. 
 
 It may be objected to thefe obfervations, that endleis 
 annihilation is not an infinite punifhm.ent, becaufe it may 
 be inflicted on even an innocent perfon. God having- once 
 communicated exiflence is under no obligation to perpetu- 
 ate it ; but for wife ends may without injury fuiter even the 
 moil holy bfhi8creatures,after the enjoyment of exiflence and 
 cfgood for a feafon,to drop into their original nothing. To this 
 it may be anfivered ; that this objection equally proves, that 
 annihilation is no punifhment at ctII, as that it is net an 
 infinite pnniflnnent. When an innocent creature is fufFcrcd 
 in fovereign wifdom to drop into non-exiilence, this is not 
 only not an infinite punilbinent, but is no piniiihment at 
 all. A punifhment is foms evil brought on a perfon, in 
 teftim.ony that his conduct is difapproved by the author of 
 that evil. This is not the cafe in the annihilation of the 
 innocent perfon now fuppofed. Therefore it equally fol- 
 lows from the pofhble annihilation of an innocent creature, 
 that the annihilation of the v/icked would be no puni/li- 
 ment at all, as that it would not be an infinite punifhment. 
 Annihilation is an infinite lofs, and in that icnfe^ an in- 
 
 N frjite 
 
p9, Jn excmi' nation of Di\ Cs 
 
 finite evil, to an innocent perfon, as v/ell as to one ever fb' 
 guilty. But as it is not infiided on the innocent, in tefli- 
 mony of difapprobation, it is not a punifiiment. On the 
 other hand, If it be inftifted at all on the wicked, it is in— 
 flidled in exprefs teliimony of the divine abhorrence of 
 their conduct, and therefore is a puniihment: and any pu- 
 niihment, which is an infinite evd, is an infinite puniih- 
 ment. 
 
 To illuflrate this, let the followinp- exaniDle be taken. 
 A parent liaring begun the moll: liberal and advantageous 
 education of his fon, may for v/ife reafons, entirefy drop, 
 without any injuftice to his fon, the courfc of education, 
 which he had begun, and may fufFcr him to grow up in 
 comparative ignorance. This would not only not be a very 
 great puniihment of his fon, but no punifnment at all. 
 Whereas, if he fhould treat his fon in the fame manner, 
 from the m.otive of teftifying his difpleafurc at fome tri- 
 flino; levity or childilh inadvertence, it would be both a real- 
 and a very great punifhment : and though it would confift 
 in a lofs or privation, yet it would be a much greater punifh- 
 ment than the infliction of a very confiderable pofitive pain. 
 In like manner, though annihilation may be inflicted in fuch 
 a manner, as to be no punifiiment ; yet when it is inflifted 
 with the declared defign of exhibiting the divine difplea-* 
 fure at fm ; it is a far greater punifhment, than a very great 
 
 and long temporary mifery. That annihilation is an e- 
 
 vil, no man v/ill deny, who allows that exilience and hap- 
 pinefs are good. And if it be an evil, it isan evil equal to 
 the good loll by it^ taking into view the continuance of 
 that lofs ; and as this is infinite, final annihilation is an in- 
 finite evil : and vv-henever it is infiifted in teflimony of dif- 
 approbation of the condiicl: cf the finner^ it is an infinite 
 punifhment. 
 
 Doubtless Dr.C, was of the opinion, that annihilation 
 may be a punimment, as it was his belief, that if his 
 fcheme of imiverflilfldvation be not true, the wicked are 
 to be annihilated. He would doubllefs have allowed, that 
 annihilation will not be brought on them in teflimony of 
 the divine approbation of their conduft. Nor can it be 
 fuppofed to be the fruit of perfect indifference in the divine 
 mind, with refped to their conduct: It muft therefore be 
 a teflimony of divine difapprebation, v^hich conflitutes it a 
 
 punifhment 
 
Argiimsntsfronijufiicc* 4)1 
 
 punifliment. And as it is an infinite evil, of couiTc it is an 
 infinite punifhment/* 
 
 Perpiaps it may be further faid, in cppofition to what 
 has been now advanced, that the meaning cf thole who af- 
 fert, that im does not deferve an infinite puniflmient,is net, 
 that fin does not deferve an endlefs prlvat'ioity or fiegatlvs 
 punifliment ; but that it does not deferve an endlefs pojitive 
 
 puniilinient, confifting in pojitive pains or tcnnfnis. If 
 
 the objedion be thus explained, it comes to this merely, 
 that fm docs indeed deferve an endlefs punifhment, and fo 
 is truly and properly an infinite evil, in the fenfe in which 
 any of us hold it to be an infinite evil : but it is not fuch 
 an iniinite evil, as to deferve fo great an endlefs punifli- 
 ment, as endlefs pofitive pain and torment. But this bat- 
 ing of the objection entirely ihifts the ground of tlie difpute : 
 granting, that an endlefs punifliment is juftly deferved by 
 Jin, it denies, that fo greats degree of puniflnnent, as end- 
 lefs pofitive mifery, is deferved by it. Endlefs anni'iilation 
 is equally and as truly an endlefs punifiiment, as endlefs tor- 
 ment. Ncr is there any ground of objedion to the one 
 more than to the other, on account of any difference in du- 
 ration, or that in which alone the infinity confifts. But the 
 ground of obje<5i:ion to endlefs mifery, rather than to end- 
 lefs annihilation, is, that it is a greater, more dreadful, and 
 more intolerable punifnment ; or a greater punifhment in 
 degree. 
 
 Bkside;3, not every degree of endlefs pain is a greater e- 
 yil or punifhment, than endlefs annihilation. No man will 
 pretend, that any flight pain continued to eternity, is fo 
 great an evil,' as endlefs annihilation and the endlefs lofs 
 of all enjoyment and exiflcnce. 
 
 On the whole, as the ftatc of the argument before us, is 
 nov/ wholly fliifted ; as it is granted by the objedor, that 
 fill deferves an mfinite or endlefs punifiiment, but not fo 
 great an endlefs punilhment, as is implied in fome degrees 
 of endlefs pain ; every thing for which we contend, as to 
 the duration of future punifiiment, is granted. It is not 
 
 pretended 
 
 * To prove that fin does not deferve an endlefs pnniflirnent, 
 Dr. Prieflly too fays, ^^ There is no proportion between finite 
 '-and infinite J''* Inftit. Vol. II. p. 383. Neither is there a- 
 ny proportion between this finite life and endlefs annihilation., 
 Tet Dr, Prieflly is of the opinion, that endlefs annihilation 
 would not be an unjufi punifrrnent of fin* 
 
'p'i An examination of Dr, C^s 
 
 pretended by the advocstes for endlefs punllhment, that 
 fin deferves an inlinite degree of endlefs punifliment. Nor 
 do they pretend to determine the degree of punilhment, 
 which it deferves. It becomes all to leave that to God, 
 who alone is able to determine it. The advocates for tem- 
 porary puailhment v/ill not pretend to determine the de- 
 gree of temporary punilhment, which fm deferves. The 
 degree of future puniihmcnt is not the fubjeft of the pre- 
 fent difpute. I might now therefore fairly difmifs the fur- 
 ther difcuiTion of the infinite evil of Im, as on account of 
 the conceiTions already mentioned, wholly impertinent to 
 the prefent difpute. But wiiliing to relieve what difficul- 
 ties, and to throw what light un the fubjecl, I can, I pro- 
 ceed to obferve, 
 
 Perhaps it may be yet further pleaded, that the oppo- 
 fers of the infinite evil of fm mean, that fm does not de- 
 ferve fuch an endlefs pofitive mifery, as is worfe than non- 
 
 cxiftence. As to this, befides that it makes the fubjeft 
 
 of the difpute to be wholly the degree of punifhment, and 
 not the duration of it; it may be remarked, that it is grant- 
 ed in this plea, that it would be juit, if all the wicked, who 
 die in impenitence, vv'ere annihilated. Annihilation there- 
 fore is the puniihment deferved by the leaft fmner, who 
 dies in impenitence ; and thofe, whole guilt is more aggra- 
 vated, deferve a greater punifliment; and as fome are incon- 
 ceivably greater linners than the leaft, they deferve an in- 
 conceivably greater punifliment than annihilation. Again, 
 as the leaft finner deferves annihilation, fo he deferves that; 
 degree of pofitive pain, or that mixture of pain and plea- 
 fure, which is equally undefirable, or equally dreadful as 
 non-exiftence. Therefore thofe, v/ho are inconceivably 
 greater Tinners than the leaft, deferve that degree of pofi- 
 tive endlefs pain, which is inconceivably worfe and more 
 to be dreaded, than non-exiftence, or than that mixture of 
 pain and pleafure, vvhich is equally to be dreaded as non- 
 exiftence. Therefore from principles conceded by Dr, 
 C. it clearly follows, not only that all fmners deferve an 
 endlefs punifhment, but that all fmners, except thofe of the 
 very loweft clafs, defer\'e that degree of endlefs mifery, 
 which is worfe than non-exificnce; and which is not only an 
 infinite evil, but an evil doubly infinite, as the lofs is infinite, 
 and the pofitive mifery exceeding all the good enjoyed, be- 
 ing endlefs, is infinite too. 
 
 " Z, The 
 
Arguments from Jufilce. 9^ 
 
 2. The argument of Dr. C. now under confideration^ 
 ** If it prove any thing, proves a great deal too miich/.^ 
 as it fuppofes, that any crime can juftl}^ be puniflied for no 
 longer time, than was confumed in the perpetration of the 
 crime. — That this isimphed in the argument, will appear, 
 if v/e confider, that if it be once allowed, that a crime may 
 be puniflied for a longer time than was confumed in the 
 perpetration of it, the whole argument, that a creature can- 
 not, in a finite life, commit fuch fin, as fliall dcferve an Qn6^ 
 lefs punifhmenc, mufl be given up. If a man may in one 
 day commit a crime, which deferves a punifliment to ba 
 continued for a year, v/ho will fay, that he may not in one 
 day commit a crime, which ihall deferve a punifnment to be 
 continued for two years, for ten years, or during his life > 
 Therefore in determining the duration of the punifhrnent, 
 no regard at all is had to the time taken up in the perpe- 
 tration of the crime. And if no regard be had to this, 
 there is no abfurdity in fuppofmg, that the crimes of a fi- 
 nite life may deferve an endlefs punifhrnent. To fay, that 
 there is an abfurdity in it, fuppofes, that in adjuilirig ti;e 
 punifliment, a regard is always to be had to the time taken 
 up in the perpetration of the crime ; which is contrary to 
 known faft, as well as to the dedud:ion juft now made. 
 N.ay, it implies, as I before obferved, that no juil punifli- 
 ment can be continued tor a longer time, than was confu- 
 med in the perpetration of the crime. The mere dura- 
 tion of puniflmient is of no importance or confideration, un- 
 lefs the whole punifhment be exceirive. Therefore perpetual 
 imprifonment is inflicted for crimes, which are perpetrated 
 in a very fliort time. 
 
 By the fame argument, by which Dr. C. undertakes to 
 prove, ' that fm does not deferve an endlefs punifhment, 
 any man may undertake to prove, that it dees not deferve 
 a punifliment to continue for ages of ages. The Doctor's 
 argument is, that fm deferves no more than a temporary 
 punifliment, becaufe it is committed in a finite doration. 
 vVith the fame ftrength of argument ir may be faid : Sin 
 deferves not a punifhment of ages of ages, bat a punifhment 
 of no longer duration, than feventy years, becaufe it is com- 
 mitted in the fpace of feventy years. — It is manifeilj that 
 when a punifliment of ages of ages is infiicled on the (inner, 
 no regard is had to the time confumed in the pernstracion 
 ^f fm. And if it bejufttoiuflid a punifhment in one cafe, 
 
 without 
 
^4 ^^ examination of Dr. (Ps 
 
 ■without regard to the time confumed in the perpetration of 
 fin, why not in another ? If becaufe im is the fault of a fi- 
 nite hfe, it does not deferve an infinite punifliment ; then 
 becaufe it is the fault of a hfe of lefs duration, than that of 
 ages of ages, it does not deferve a punilhment which is to 
 
 continue for ages of ages. Or how will Dr. C. prove, 
 
 that fin, the fault of a life, which is to continue only, feventy 
 years, deferves a punifnment, which is to continue for ages 
 of ages? I pre fume he v/ill not pretend to prove it by any 
 proportion between the duration of feventy years and that 
 of ages of ages; but merely by revelation. From the fame 
 fource of evidence, we undertake \q prove both the reality 
 and juilice of endlefs punidnnent. And it is as ineffedual 
 to objedl to our proof of endlefs punifiimcnt, the difpropor- 
 tion between an infinite and a finite dm^.tion, as it is to ob- 
 ject to his proof of a punilhment of ages of ages, the dif- 
 proportion between the duration of ages of ages, and that 
 of feventy years. I grant that the difproportion between 
 infinite and finite duration, is greater, than that between 
 ages of ages and feventy years. But, when the time confu- 
 med in the commilhon of a crime is not at all regarded, let the 
 difproportion be what it may,nothing can be thence concluded ♦ 
 If it be fliill pretended, that a regard to the time confu- 
 med in the commillioD of fm is hr.d, in determining the du- 
 ration of its puniihment : I alls: what regard is had to it ? Jf 
 the duration of tlie puniihment may at all exceed the time 
 confumed in the commillion of fui, how m.uch may the for- 
 mer exceed the latter? To fay there is an infinite difpro- 
 portion betv/een a finite life, and an endlefs eternity, affords 
 no fatisfaftion. So there is a very great difproportion be- 
 tween a life of feventy years, and ages of ages. And if on 
 the principles of Dr. C, an endlefs puniihment be more un- 
 juft than that of ages of ages, is not the latter on the fame 
 principles really unjaft? If not, then a punifnment, the du- 
 ration of v/hich is greatly diiproportionate to the time con- 
 fumed in the commifTion of the crime, is Hill jull : and \\\\o 
 will undertake to fix the degrees of difproportion between 
 the duration of the punilhment, and the time confuined in 
 the commifiion of the crime, which are coniifcent, and which 
 ane inconfifcent with juilice ? And let a Veafcn be given, 
 why it is not as really unjuft to infiicl; a punilhment, the du- 
 ration of which is greatly difproportionate to the time fpent 
 in the commillion of the crime^ as to' inflict a punillnnent, 
 
 the 
 
Jfguments from Jufl'ice, ^^ 
 
 the duration of which bears no proportion to the time 
 fpent in the commiiTion of the crime. Why would not 
 the fame argument from the difproportion of the dura- 
 tion of the puniilimcnt, to the tim.e fpent in committing the 
 fm, prove, that Adam was unjuflly punifhed, in that he 
 was condemned to eat bread in the fweat of his face, all the 
 days of his lifc^ for the fm of eating the forbidden fruit, 
 which was doubtlefs finifiied in a very fliort time ? Alfo,that 
 David was unjuftly punilhed, in that the f^ard never depart* 
 ed from his houfe, becaufeof his fm in the matter of Uriah? 
 
 If a finite creature, in a finite time, cannot commit an in- 
 finite evil, or one which deferves an endlefs punilhment, it 
 will follov/, that even our Eord Jefus Chrill: himfelf, if he 
 be a real creature, though the firilborn of every creature,* 
 cannot, if he v/ere difpofed, comm.it an infinite evil. Yet 
 as he created and upholds all things by the v/ord of his pow- 
 er^ he doubtlefs has power to annihilate all things. Now 
 I afk, whether if Chrifl fhould annihilate the whole crea- 
 ted fyftem, himfelf only excepted, it would be a finite or an 
 infinite evil ? If the anfwer fiiould be, that it would be a 
 finite evil, I would afic again, whether it would not be as 
 great an evil to the univerfe, as the endlefs mifeiy of one 
 
 finner, provided he deferves that mifery. 1 make this 
 
 this provifo, becaufe Vv'e do not plead for endlefs punifh- 
 ment on any other fiilppofition, than that it is jufc : And if 
 it Ihould be faid^ that the endlefs punifhment of a finner is 
 an infinite evil, becaufe it is unjuflly inflicled, this would be 
 a begging of the c|uefl:ion : it would alfo follow, that on the 
 fuppofition of the juilice of the endlefs punifhment of the 
 fmner, it is not an infinite evil, and therefore there is no 
 foundation for the objection now under confideration, that 
 fin a finite moral evil is puniflied with an infinite natural e- 
 
 vil or puniflmient. Beiide, that the endlefs annihilation 
 
 of the created fy item would be an infinite evil in the very 
 fame fenfe, in which the endlefs punifhment of the damned 
 is an infinite evil, is evident from this coniideration, that 
 the punilhment of the damned is not pretended to be infi- 
 nite in any other refpeft, than in duration. In the very 
 fame refpedl the endlefs annihilation of which v/e fpeak, 
 is infinite. 
 
 If 
 
 * So far as can he judged from the hook of Dr, C* now un-^ 
 der exammatlon, and fme others of his vjorksj he wsuld K^t 
 have obje^ed to this chara^^r if Chrlft, 
 
^6 An exa?nhtation ofDr, C's 
 
 If the anfwer to the queftion jufl propofed, fliould be^ 
 that the annihilation of the created fyftem would be an in-^ 
 finite evil ; the conreqnence is, that an infinite evil may- 
 be caufed or committed by a finite creature, in a finite time. 
 
 PciSSTBLY it may be further objefted, that if our Lord 
 Jefus Chrifi: be a mere creature, he had no power in him- 
 felf to create the univerfe ; but created it by a divine pow- 
 er communicated for that purpofe ; and that if he fhould 
 annihilate it, he mufl do it by the fame communicated pow- 
 er. Therefore Chrifl himfelf has it not in his power, to 
 
 effc£l an infinite evil. But we are to obferve, that if 
 
 Chriit was a proper intelligent moral agent in creation, 
 that work is his work, and properly to be afcribed to him, 
 as properly as any actions of men are to be afcribed to 
 them. It is allowed on all hands, that all men have re- 
 ceived all their powers of aftion from their creator ; yet 
 no man will difpute, whether thefe actions be the proper 
 aclions of men, or whether the effeds produced by thefe 
 adlions be imputable to them, as their proper caufes. 
 Therefore with at leaft as great truth and propriety is 
 Chrift, even on the fuppofition that he is a mere creature, 
 the proper caufe of all his works, whether of creation or 
 annihilation, as men in general are the caufes of their works. 
 He cannot poffibly be more dependent for his powers, than 
 we are for ours. Nor is it of any importance to the fub- 
 ject now under conlideration, whether Chrift had original- 
 ly the power of creation and annihilation, or whether it 
 was communicated to him afterwards. A pov/er given by 
 God at one time, is as really given by him, as if it were gi- 
 ven at another time. 
 
 In the argument againftthe infinite evil of fin, that a fi- 
 nite cresture cannot commit an infinite evil, in a finite 
 time ; the finitude of tke time is ei ther efiential to the va- 
 lidity of the argument, or it is not. If it be elTential, ic 
 implies, as was before obferved, that no crime can deferve 
 to be puniflied for a longer time, than was confumed in the 
 commiifion of the crime. If the finitude of the time be not 
 elTential to the argument, but the meaning be, that a finite? 
 creature cannot at all com.mit an infinite evil, becaufe he is 
 ^finite creature, it will follovv^, that if the whole' fyftem of 
 intelligent creatures were to revolt from God, and to con- 
 tinue in their revolt to an abfolute eternity, it would be but 
 a finite evil. 
 
 Objection 
 
Argiimenis from JuflicCy 97 
 
 Objection : The time never can come, at which the 
 fyfteni of creatures fhall have continued to an abfolute eter- 
 nity, in their revolt from God. Though therefore we 
 fuppoie that the whole created fyfbem fliould revolt, it is 
 abiurd to mppcfe, that they fiiali have continued in their 
 revolt to an abfolute eternity : and therefore it is impof- 
 iihle, that the whole created fyftem fliould hav<? com- 
 mitted an infinite evil.- Ansv/er.* For the fame reafon 
 
 it is impoluble, that a creature flioukl have been puniihed 
 to an abfolute eternity. The longed punilhmcnt to v.'hich 
 any fuppofe the wicked are doomed, is in no other fenfe 
 infinite, than that in Vv'hich the revolt which has been fup- 
 pofed, may be infinite. If then the wicked be not doomed 
 to an infinite or endlefs punifhmcnt ; fin is not, on any 
 fchcme, puniflicd with an infinite punifliment ; and then 
 the whole objection of punifhing a finite evil, with an in- 
 finite puniihment, falls to the ground. 
 
 But this whole argument, founded on the finitude of 
 the hfe and of. the capacity ef the iinner, was virtually 
 given up by Dr. C. in that he believed, that endlefs an- 
 nihilation would be a juffc punifiiment of fm ; though the 
 duration of the puniihment in this cafe, would infinitely 
 exceed the time confumed in the commiiuon of fm. 
 
 III. We come at length to confider the third argument 
 of Dr. C. againft the juftice of endlefs punifhment, which 
 is, that endleis punilhment, on account of the infinite 
 evil of lin, as committed againft a God of infinite glory, 
 implies, that future punifhment is infinite or to the utmoft 
 in degree, as well as duration, and therefore that the pu- 
 nilhment of all the dnmnedis equal, which is both abfurd 
 and contrary to fcripture. This I take to be the argu- 
 ment intended in the latter part of the lafb quotation made 
 in the beginning of this chapter. — On this it is obfervable^ 
 that though a fmner, on account of the infinite evil of lin 
 as ccvmmitted againft a God of infinite glory, deferve and 
 fiiall fufier an endlefs punifhment ; it by no means follows, 
 that he deferves or will fulFer that punilhmcnt which is 
 infinite in degree too, or vv-hich is to the utmoil degree in 
 which aoy llnner is puniflied. All that follows from the 
 infinite evil of fm is, that it deferves an infinite punii]i». 
 ment ; and an endlefs punilhment is an infinite punilli- 
 ment, though it be not to the utmoil in degree. I'here- 
 fore^ when Dr. G. lays, *' According to this wny of ar- 
 
 ® «' ^uing, 
 
^8 An ^Etcaminaiion of Dr. Cs ' 
 
 *^ guing, all fmners mnil: fuffer to the lumofc in (kgreCy as 
 " vvell as darauon_, otherwife, they will not iufFer {o 
 ^* much as they ought to do ;'' he merely afferts what he 
 ought to have proved. Therefore he fails in his attempt 
 to fallen on the doctrine cf the infinite evil of iln^ the ab- 
 Jurdity tliat the punilhnient of all the damned will be 
 equal. He might as well have argtied, that becaufe all 
 iaints ihall receive aft infinite or an endlefs reward ; the 
 rev/ard of tVQYy one will be to the utmcli: in degree, and 
 the reward of all will be equal. 
 
 Or if the meaninp- of this arp'timent be, that the wick- 
 ed will all be puniflied equally, not becaufe they will fuf- 
 fer an ejidlefs puniihment, but becanfe they all lin-againft 
 the fame infinitely glorious cbjedl:, and therefore their fins 
 are all equal ; the anfwer is, that the confequence by no 
 means follows from the premifes. Though it be true, that 
 the ^^'icked all lin apainit: the fame God, and on that ac- 
 count all deferve endlefs punifhment ? yet it no more fol- 
 lows thence, that they all deferve the fame punifhment in 
 degree, than if a nimil^er of fubjecls fnould rebel againfl 
 the fame excellent Prince, it would follow, that they are 
 equally guilty, and all deferve an equal puniHiment. 
 
 The e>:prci]ion. infinite tv'il of fm, feems to be very of- 
 fenfive to ibme rentlemen. Tliev^ {^^.m. to conceive that 
 it means as great an 6vil or crime, as it is poihble for a man 
 to commit ^ the moral turpitude of which can in no refpedt 
 be increafed. — — This idea of .the infinite evil of fin is 
 very different from that wdiich is entertained by thofe who 
 hold, that lin is an infinite evil. All they mean is, that 
 iin is in fuch a fenfe an infinite evil, that it m.ay be juflly 
 followedby an endlefs puniihment. It no more foUov/s 
 hence, that the moral turpitude of any particular (in can 
 not be increafed, than that the endlefs punifliment of it 
 cannot be increafed ; or than that the endlel's happinefs of 
 the faints in heaven cannot be increafed. Indeed, neither 
 the happinefs of heaven, nor the niifery cf hell can be 
 increafed in duration : nor can the turpitude of fin be {o 
 increafed, as to deferve a greater duration of puniihment, 
 than, that which is endlefs. But as both the happinei^s of 
 heaven and the mifery of hell, though endlefs, may be in- 
 creafed in degree ; fo may the turpitude of fin be fo in-* 
 ereafed, as to deferve a greater degree of puniihmen.. 
 
 Whex 
 
Arguments from Jujtica, 09 
 
 Wkxn it is faid, that if the evil of fin be iiiHnite, it is 
 as great as pofTibie, and fo ail fms are eqiTal ; it feeins to 
 be imphed, that all infinites are equal in all rcfpecls, than 
 which nothing is more faife. An infinite line, an infmite' 
 fuperiicies, and an infinite folid, are all infinites, and they 
 are all equal in one refpecl or dimeniion, that of length. 
 But a line though truly infinite in length, is not in the di- 
 menlion of breadth equal to an infinite fuperiicies. Nor is 
 a luperiicies, though iruiy infinite in die two dimennons of 
 length and breadth, equal in depth to an infinite folid- — 
 .To apply this, fin ]nay be infinitely aggravated v/ith re- 
 fped to the object; againft whom it is conunitted, and in 
 thatrefpet^ it maybe incapable cf an increafe of aggrava- 
 tion. Still it may not be infinite with refpecl to the de-^ 
 gree of oppofition, or virulence and rnahgnity to the object, 
 againft whom it is committed. 
 
 By the infinite evil of fin therefore is meant, that fin tru- 
 ly (jziQvw&s an cndlefs punilhincnt, as it is committed againfl 
 an infinitely glorious object, againll God himfelf, his autho- 
 rity, his law, his government ; and as it enervates the \^ySj 
 violates the peace and fafcty of his kingdom, introduces con- 
 fuuon and ruin, and would actually ruin entirely that king- 
 dom, and the happincfs of all who l?elong to it, v/ere not 
 racafures taken b;/ Gcd to prevent its natural effecft. 
 In this refpeft it is infinitsly evil, and in this refpe^t, in 
 which it is infinitely evil, the evil of it caiiJiotbe increaied, 
 becaufe the object againfl: which it is committed, cannot be 
 greater, iiQore important, or more excellent ; and in this 
 refpect all fins are equal. But by the infinite evil of lin, 
 is not medni; an evil, which deferves an infi.nite deg-ree of 
 punifliment ; or an act of oppofition to God and his king- 
 dom, whicli IS infinitely virulent or malicious. In this re-^ 
 ipect the evil of fin maybe increafed, and in this refpect all 
 
 lin's are by no means equal. The evil of any one fin is 
 
 notfo great, but that on the vv'hole it may be increafed, as 
 the happinefs of heaven is not fo great, but that on thq 
 whole that may be incr-eafed. 
 
 Though the turpitude of fin is infinite wath refpect to 
 the objecT: oppofed, yet it is not infinite as to the degree of 
 ODpofition. If a fubie(51: rebel ag-ainft the moit excellent 
 fovereign on earth, his crime is, in refpect to the object, as 
 great as he can commit in rebellion againvt a temporal 
 pnnce ; becaufe by fuppofition he cannot be the fubjed of 
 
 a 
 
100 yfriExamlnaiion of Di\ CV 
 
 a better temporal prince, and therefore he cannot rebel a- 
 gainli a better. Yet this rebellion may be more aggrava- 
 ted by greater degrees of oppofition, abul'e or infult to this 
 fame excellent prince. . 
 
 What has been now faid concerning the infinite evil of 
 lin, has been in the v^ay of explanation, and in anf\v er ta 
 Dr. C's objeclions. The pofitive proof, that {\\\ is an infi- 
 nite evil, has been fo largely and ably given by others, 
 that the reader will allow me to refer him to them.* 
 
 Thus I have particularly attended to the arguments 
 brought by Dr. C. to prove, that the endlefs punifijnent 
 
 of the wicked would not be juft. ^.I ihall nov^ pi oceed 
 
 to a more general confideration of the juflice of endlefs 
 puniihment confifting in mifery, and to fome aiguments ni 
 proof of it. The firfl argument to vvhieh I wilh to direct 
 the attention of the reader » is, that if endlefs puniihment 
 be the curfe of the divine law, or the puniihment threaten- 
 ed in the divine law_j as the wages of fni;; or as the proper 
 puniiliment of linners ; undoubtedly it is juif. It is impof- 
 i^ble^ that a God of perfect and infinite juftice Ihould threat- 
 en an unjufl puniihment. 1 am indeed aware, that it is 
 
 not a conceded point, that endlefs mifery is threatened in 
 tlve divine lav/ : I therefore purpcfe to attempt the proof 
 of it. The curfe of the divine law is either endlefs an- 
 nihilation, or it is that miicry which the wicked in fad fuf- 
 fer in hell, or it is fome temporary miiery of greater dura- 
 tion than that which is aclually fuffcred in hell, or it is end- 
 lefs mifery. Thefe feveral hypothefes fiialleome under con- 
 l^d^eration in the follovving chapters. 
 
 But before I proceed, it may be proper to explain in 
 what fenfe I ufe the word /^^xu, in this inquiry concerning 
 the curfe of the divine law. — By the divine law, I mean 
 not merely any pofitive, revealed law, as th"5t given to 
 Adam concerning the tree of knov/ledge of good and evil : 
 but what Dr. C. calls *^ the moral law of God,'' and 
 ^' the law of vv'orks, as requiring perfect:, a6lual, indefecr— 
 ''' able obedience." TheDocior allows, that" he" [Adam] 
 ^' was, without all doubt, under ilrid indifpenfable obli- 
 ^' gat ions to obey every command of God, wherein it 
 
 ^' Ihould 
 
 * Prefident Edivards^ s fcrmon on //'i? Eternity of heli-torr 
 ments, o: .'//?/ J- //-'ii.? C7iJuftification. Br. Bellamy^ s Effay 
 fin the Gofpel, i'c"^, l/\ Mr, Hapklns^ on the Future State^ 
 Seel. IV. 
 
Argiivnenis from Jujlice. ' lot 
 
 ^^ fliould be made known to him — and mud have rendered 
 *' himfelf obnoxious to the righteous rcfenrments of his 
 *^ God and king, had he expreiTed any difregard to any of 
 *' them."* This he fpeaks concerning the moral law^ as 
 may be feen by the context. Anddoubtlefs as Adam was 
 obhgated to obey ** every command" of the moral jaw, 
 and in cafe of difobedicnce, was *^ obnoxious to the rlgh- 
 *' teous refentments of Godjl^' the fame is true of every 
 other man. The righteous refentment of God for dif- 
 obedicnce to this law, is that very curfe of the laxu, from 
 v/hich Chrift hath redeemed his people, and which is the 
 proper objed of our prefent incjuiry. By law taken in this 
 fenfe, Dr. C. abundantly holds, that no man can be juili- 
 fied. *^ By/^f, the apoftle fometimes means law in ge- 
 ^- neral, both the lav/ written in men^s hearts, and in the 
 *' books of revelation — fometimes — the Mofaic law in 
 *^ fpecial. But whether he underftand by it natural or 
 *' revealed law, or law including both ; v/orks done in 
 '' conformity to it, when mentioned with reference to 
 ^' juftification, he always fets afide as totally infufficient 
 '^ for the procurement of it."f Here the Doctor tells us in 
 what fenfe be ufes the word laiv^ which is the fame in 
 which I ufe it, in the prefent inquiry ; and as he afferts 
 in this context, and in very many other paiTages, that no 
 man, '* Jew or Gentile," can be juftified on the foot of law 
 taken in the fenfe juft explained ; of courfe all men are 
 condemned by the lav/, and the punilliment to which the 
 law condemns all, is the curfe of the law ;. or the curfe of 
 the law is 'that punifhment to which the moral law con- 
 demns every man who tranfgreifes it. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 * .5 DiiT. p. 5^. ^12 Sermoft^ p. 4. 
 
t02 ~ Annihilation not ihr 
 
 C H A P. V. 
 
 Is j4nnlhllation the Punifnment of the c\amned\ 
 
 "I'^OCTOR C's firfl objecl was, to prove that all men 
 3^ will bs finally happy. — If he f] 
 
 appy. — If he fhould fail in 
 
 this, his lail: refort was annihilation. '■^ If the foreoroino: 
 *^ Icheme," fays he,* * ' ihould be found to have no truth 
 *^ in it, and the wicked are fent to hell, as fo niany In- 
 *' cur able s, the fecond death ought to be coniidered, as 
 '' that which will put an end to their exigence, both in 
 *^ foul and body, fo as that they Ihall be no more in the 
 *"- creation of Gcd." Kaving made the fuppofition, that 
 the next is the final {late of men, he fays,f ** It is mofb 
 '' peremptorily affirmed, that they'' (the wicked) >^ fhall 
 ^* ?^eap corri'ptlcn, perlflo, be dejiroyed^ and die a fecond 
 ^' time ; which fixes the fenfc of the word everlafi'ing, 
 ^* w'hen joined v/ith the mlfery they fliall be doomed to 
 "^ undergo, limiting its meaning to an age, or period 
 '^ of duration only." Corruption, perdition, deftruiflion, 
 and the fecond death do notlin)it the meaning of the v.crd 
 everlafting, unlefs it be oii the fuppofition, that thofe 
 words themielves mean annihilation. LoiieiimeG by thofe 
 words Dr. C. feems to have meant a tranfition from one 
 future ftate of exiHence to another ; at other times he 
 expreiHy declares that they mean rnlfcry ^'-torment. Now 
 if thofe Vv'ords applied to the wicked mean a tranfition from 
 the next ftate of exigence to another, they by no means 
 certainly limit their mifery. This traniition may be from 
 one ftate of mifery to another ftate of mifery ; as Dr. C. 
 fuppofed that they might pafs through feveral future ftates 
 of mifery, before they fliould arrive at happinefs. Kay, 
 from the words ufed in this fenfe, no inierence can be 
 drawn, that they will ever arrive at a ftate of happinefs : 
 bccaul'e a tranfition from one ftate pf m.ifery to another 
 ftate of mifery, is as truly a trsnfition, as a traniition from 
 
 a ftate of mifery to a ftate of happhiefs. But if thofe 
 
 v/ords mean rntjery or torment ^ they certainly do not liiijit 
 'the future mifery of the wicked ; as will m»ore fully ap- 
 pear pi*efently. 
 
 I DO 
 * P. 282. t P- 2S3., ■ 
 
 Vi 
 
Pioujhment of the damned. xo? 
 
 1 DO not find any proof offered by Dr. C. that the 
 wicked will be annihilated, unlefs he confider the very 
 meaning of the words definition y deaths k.Q, as a proofs 
 But this proofs if it be one, was abfolutely given up by 
 himfeU", as he held, that thofe words fignify not annihila- 
 tion, but mifcry ; as in the following palTages ; '^ Ever^ 
 ^' lafling punifhmsnt, cverlafling fire, ever lofting defiruc- 
 *' tion : i'o the words are rendered in our Engli/h bibles ; 
 *^ but we are very obvionfly led to underftand by them 
 ^' MISERY, that muil: be fufFered for a certain period.''* 
 If men continue the fervants of iin, the wages they 
 iliall receive before the gift through Chrilfc is conferred 
 o\\ them, will be t\\Qfecond death : whereas if they be- 
 come the fervants of God, this gift through Chriit will 
 '* iffue in their eternal hfe, without their paffing through 
 *• the fecond death.'" f That by the fecond death he here 
 meant not annihilation, but the mifery of hell, is manifefc 
 as it is to be follov/ed with the gift of God through Chrift 
 which is eternal life. ^^ The going away into everlaftinp- 
 *' punifnment, the being call: into the furnace of fire^ 
 " v\^here there fliall be wailing and gnafhing of teeth, 
 mean the fame thing in the facred dialed, with the fe^ 
 cond death. ^^X *^They may be faved without firft going 
 through the torynents of hell, or as thefcripture expreiTes 
 it, v/ithout being hurt of the fecond death. ^^\\ How 
 llrange then is it, that Dr. C. fhould urge the Hteral and 
 original meaning of the words death , defirueiim, Sec. as 
 an argument for annihilation, when he himfeif fuppofed 
 that they mean not annihilation, but obviouflymean??2//?ry / 
 and that he iliould fuppofe, that they limit the fenfe of 
 the word everlaffingj when it is joined to the mifery of the 
 damned'! As well might he have faid, that the word mi- 
 fery limits the {exiiQ ot the A/ord everlailing, v/hen it- is 
 joined to the mifery of the damned ! 
 
 Perhaps fome admirers of Dr. C. may attempt to re- 
 concile this inconfiflence, hy faying, be held that the words 
 death y defji'ucIiQn, Sec. mean and prove annihilation, ©n 
 the fole fuppofition, that the next fbte is final : that on 
 
 any other fuppofition he held that they mean mifery. 
 
 But this would be a vain nttempt. For if thofe words do 
 or may mean mifery, they are no proof of annihilation, 
 whether the next flaie be iinai or not. They are no more 
 
 a proof 
 *" Page 22d. t Page go. t P^ge 2ic. ^ P-ge 337. 
 
J04 Anmhilation not the 
 
 a proof of it, than the words m'tfery and tcnnent ; be-« 
 caufe by his own concefllons, they are at leait capable of 
 ineaninp- mifery or torment. Therefore though, Dr. C's 
 icheme of univerfal happinefs ihould fail, we ihould from 
 the application of the words death ^ deflrudhn^ Szc. to 
 the v/itked, be under no necellity of fuppofmg that they 
 will be annihilated ; everlafting deftrudion may mean ever- 
 lafting mifcry. 
 
 The truth appears to be, that Dr. G. was led to adopt, 
 -as the lail refort, the idea of the annihilation of the 
 wicked, not by tlie obvious meaning and ufe of the words 
 .^katf} and dejlm^ion in fcripture ; fnice he allows they ob- 
 yioufly mean milery or torment ; but by the preconcep- 
 tion, that it is a certa'n truth, that the endlefs mifery of 
 any of mankind can never exifl. To this preconceived 
 opinion the fcripture mufi: fome way or other be accom- 
 modated. 
 
 But let us proceed to fome confiderations to confirm the 
 propolition, that annihilation is not the curfe or puniili- 
 anent denounced againfl iin in the divine lavv^ 
 
 The doctrine, that annihilation is the curfe of the di-" 
 "'nne law, may be holden in two different fenfes, both 
 which ? conceive to be entirely oppofite to the truth. — 
 It is the fentiment of many, that annihilation is the punilh- 
 merit of fm threatened in the law, and is actually infiicled 
 on thofe who die impenitent. — Again ; it is the fentiment 
 of fome, that though annihilation v/ill not be inflicled on 
 any ; yet it is the curfe which was originally in the law de- 
 nounced againft fm ; but that Chrill: hath abfolutely re- 
 deemed all from it ; and therefore none will liiffer it. 
 
 I. It is the fentiment of many, and was the fentiment 
 of Dr. C. provided his fcheme of univ'erfal happinefs do 
 not hold ; that annihilation is the punlfhment threatened 
 in the law, and is aclually inflicted on thofe who die im.- 
 penitent. — Concerning which it is to be remarked ; 
 
 I. That on this hypotheiis, all Dr. C's arguments both 
 from fcripture and reafon, to prove the falvation of all 
 men, entirely fall to the ground ; and it is nothing incon- 
 llftent with either the jultice or goodnefs of God, that a 
 great part of mankind fliould be forever call off, and .fuf- 
 fcr an endlefs puniflnnent ; and not only a great part, but 
 the greater part of .the whole ; as he atknovv ledges, that 
 
 but 
 
Puntjhment of the damned » lo^j 
 
 1 
 
 but few are faved immediately from this life.* Nor is it 
 at all inconfiftent with the dsiign of Chrift's undertakingi 
 nor with his honour as the Saviour of mankind, that the 
 greater part of the whole race fhould not be faved.f All 
 that arp-ument therefore of Dr. C. with his declamatioit 
 on the Ibppofed abiurdity, that Chrift fhould undertake 
 to defeat the devil and defbroy his works, and yet really 
 be fo far baffled by him,± as Itili to fail of the falvaticn of 
 the greater part of mankind, comes entirely to nothing.-— 
 Nor mult it be any more urged as an argument in this dis- 
 pute, that God is v/iliing that all men (heuld te faved, and 
 not willing that any IJiould perifli ; or that Chrift died for 
 all men, 8zc. Sic. At leafl thcfe propofiuons mull be re- 
 ceived with the fame limitations and diflinctions, with 
 which the deipifed orthodox, fyftematic divines have re- 
 ceived them. At the fame time, all thofe texts which 
 fpeak of the reftitution of ell things ; cf God's tender 
 mercies over all his works ; of the free gift coming upon 
 all men to juftiflcation of life ; of the creature delivered 
 from the bondage cf corruption, into the glorious liberty 
 of the children of God ; of the deftruciiion of the lafl ene- 
 my, death ; of all things gathered together in Chrifl ; of 
 all things reconciled to ijoA by Chrift ; of every creature 
 faying, blelTmg and honour, ore, to him thai fitteth on the 
 throne and to the Lamb, &:c, &c, mud be given up, or 
 underilood with the like limitations, as are put upon them, 
 by the believers in endiefs milery. — At the fame time, all 
 Dr. C's laboured criticifm on ^/'^v, a/^vncj and ?/? '7oic 
 «iavoz/; Tct'v a,«r6v^ &c, muft be acknowledged to be ground- 
 lefs : and all that he hath laid apainfl vindiclive punilh- 
 ment, and in favour of mere difcipline, is nothino- to the 
 purpole. 
 
 II. The fcriptural reprefentations of the punifbment 
 of the wicked are inconfillent v/i'ch the idea that it confifts 
 in annihilation. According to the fcriptures the wicked 
 depart into everlaftingj?r£'. — The fmoke of their torment 
 afcendeth up forever and ever. — They fnall iveef and 
 
 P u'^/7 
 
 * Pap-e 8, and 722. 
 
 f The reader ivlll taka notice, that thfe oh/ervations are 
 ■made on the fole ground of Dr. Cs conceffhn^ that bid few q/ 
 rnanklnd are to be faved immediately fr am this life, and do not 
 imply, that this is the real truth. 
 
 t See p. 322, 323. 
 
lo6 Annihilation not the 
 
 %uall and gnaJJj their teeth. — They have no reft day nor 
 night. — The rich man in hell lifted up his eyes, being in 
 ior-ment. — The damned fhall Avellwith ever lalting burnings. 
 —When the mailer of the houfe fliall have rifen n^J and 
 iiiut the door, they ihall ifand without, crying Lord, Lord, 
 open to us : to whom the mailer fliall fay, I know you not, 
 depart from me.— After they tlicmfclves fhall have been 
 tiumfc out, they fhall fee Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob, and 
 all the prophets in the kingdom cf God.— -The rich man 
 in hell faw Abraham afar otFand Lazarus in his bofom. — 
 The faved fhall go forth and look on the carcafes of tranf- 
 grefTors, and they fhall be an abhorring to all flefh. — The 
 beaft and falfe prophet, and by parity of reafon, a]l men 
 dying in wickednefs, fliall be caft ii'ito a lake of /ire and 
 fliail be tormented forever and ever; Brti-Jty^TSna-ov';*; in the 
 plural number, determining, that they, the devil, the 
 b«alt and the falfe prophet, lliall be torfnentiid for ever and 
 ever. — The wicked Hinll be tormented with fire and brirn- 
 flone, in the prtfencs of the angels, and in the -prefence of 
 the lamb. 
 
 But how can thofe who are annihilated, be faid to be 
 caft into fire, into a lake of f.r e and hfimfirriCj and to be 
 tormented ihsre ; to have no reft ; to lueep, and vjf.il and 
 gnajk their teeth ; to ckuell with everlafting burnings r' — - 
 As well might thefe things be faid of them before they 
 were created. — Hov/ can they be faid to plead for admilhon 
 into heaven, and to reafun on the fubjed; with the mafter of 
 the celeftial mannons ? Kow can they fee Abraham, 
 Ifaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God ? How can they 
 feeing Abraham and Lazai-us in that ftate, e?itcr into dif- 
 
 cou?-fe with the former? Rev. XIV. ii. The fmoke 
 
 of their torment afcendeth up forever and ever, and they 
 have 7to refl day nor night. But thofe who are annihilated, 
 fo far as they have any thing, have continual reft day and 
 night. 
 
 The different degrees of the punifliment of the wicked 
 in hell prove, that their punifument does not conilft in an- 
 nihilation. Matt. V. 22, '^ Whofoever Ihall be angry 
 *^ with his brother without a caufe, fnall be in danger of 
 ^' the judgment : whofoever fhall fay to his brother, racu, 
 '^ fnall be in danger of the council: but whofoever fnall 
 '^ fay, thou fool, fhall be in danger of heli^-iire." — The 
 
 fervant 
 
PumJImient of the damn;;cL 107 
 
 fervant who knows not his mafter's will, and commit^ 
 thinp;s worthy of ftripes, ilmll be beaten with/f"Li; ftripes, 
 but tile lervant who knows his mailer's will, and com- 
 mits things worthy of ftripes, fliall be beaten with rnaiiy 
 ftripes. — It fnall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon and 
 for Sodom, than for Chorazin^ Bethfaida and Capernaum. 
 — The wicked ihall receive accordino; to their works, ac- 
 cording to the fruit of their doings, and according to that 
 which they fliall have done in the body. The fcribes and 
 Pharifees were to receive the greater damnation, Matt. 
 
 XXIII. 14. But if annihilation be the puniihment of 
 
 the wicked, there is no difference between the puniihment 
 of the lead (inner and the greatef!:, who die impenitent : 
 Avhich is both abfurd in itfelf and abfolutely contradictory 
 to the fcriptural account. 
 
 If it fliould be pleaded in anfwer to this arp-unient, that 
 though all the wicked fnall fuffer annihilation ; yet the 
 puniflnnent of all will not be tjie fame ; as the more ag- 
 gravated flnners will be made the fubjeds of mifery for a 
 while, and then be annihilated : it may be replied^ that 
 this fupoofes the curfe of the law to confift in two thinp-s, 
 temporary mifery and annihilation. But where have we 
 any hint in the fcripture, that the curfe of the lav/, as fuf- 
 fered in the future world, is fuch a heteroreneous com- 
 pound as this.'^ — After all, it feem.s, that annihilation is but 
 a fmail part of that curfe ; for that alone will be infiidled on 
 the leaft (inner only^ and on account of the lead: fni; and 
 all that puniiliment which ihall be infiicled on any perfon, 
 above that v/hichisdue to the leaft (in; is to confift in torment. 
 Why then might not the conftitutionhave been, that the fmall 
 additional part of the curfe, which is to con(ift in annihila- 
 tion, fuould likevvdfe be infiicled in torment ? This was very 
 fealible. He who fuffers the puniHiment of ninety nine fins 
 in torment, might by a fmall addition, in degree or dura- 
 tion to his tormentp have fuffered the puniihment of an 
 hundred fms. Add to the torment of every finner dying 
 impenitent, a degree or duration of mifery, equal to that 
 which is deferved by one Cmy and that the leaft, and there 
 v/ould have been no need that anv of them be annihilated, 
 but having fuftered the whole curfe of the law, they would 
 on the foot of ftrict juftice be entitled to exemption from 
 furtlier punlilimcnt. And v/ho having by mifery fatisfied 
 
 for 
 
ioS j^nmhilatton not thtr 
 
 for all the various and moft aggravated fins of his life, would 
 not choofe to fatisfy, in the fame way, for the leaft of all 
 his fms, rather than to be {truck out of exigence, and to loic 
 inconceivable and endlefs enjoyment ? As therefore this 
 Tuppofed conftitution would be fo ap|)arcntly iinnecelTary 
 ^nd unwife, it carmot be expected to obtain credit, unlefs it 
 ibe moft clearly revealed in fcripture, which is not pretend- 
 ed concerning it. — Befides, this hypothelis places fo fmall 
 a part of the punifliment of ('nners in annihilation, that it 
 cannot with any propriety be faid, that the curfe of the law 
 confifts in annihilation. 
 
 Should it be further objected, that though all the wick- 
 ed be annihilated, yet their punilhment may be of different 
 degrees, as the lofles they fliall refpedively fuffer, will be 
 different according to their various degrees of enjoyment 
 or capacities for enjoyment : it may be anfv.'ered, that the 
 wicked are to be punifhed according to their feveral crimes. 
 A man guilty of murder, will, if his other crimes be the 
 fame, be puniihed more than the thief, who ftsals the va- 
 lue of five ihillings. Yet the enjoyment of the latter and 
 his capacity for enjoyment, may be far greater than thofe 
 of the former. By annihilation therefore he would fuffer 
 
 a far greater lofs.-: Not all thofe who Icnow their raaf- 
 
 ter's will, and yet commit things worthy of ftripes, pofTefs 
 greater enjoyments or"capacities for enjoyment, than thofe 
 who know not their maPter's will. 
 
 3. The punilhment of the fallen angel r> does not confift 
 in annihilation : and the damned fuffer the fame kind of 
 puniihment with them. That the fallen angels are as yet 
 annihilated, I prefume, will be pretended by no believer 
 in divine revelation, and that they are not to be annihila- 
 ted, will be evident, if we connder, that in expectation of 
 that full punilhment, to which they nre liable, they afked 
 our Lord, whether he were come to tonnt^nt them before 
 the time. It was fofjnn^t then y not annihilation, which 
 they expected. The prefent itate of the fallen angels is a 
 Itate of torment to a certain degree. They ^^ believe and 
 frembls i' '^They are referved in chains under darknefs, 
 to the judgment of the great day,'' J^^de, 6 : '^ They arc 
 caft down to hell,'' 1 Peter, II, 4 : ^' The devil that de- 
 ceived them, was caft into the lake of fire and brimftonc, 
 where the beaft and the falfe prophet are, and [they] Ih^ll 
 be tGrmentcd (^'xy and night, forever and ever," Rev. XX, 
 10. This text prcvjs/ (i,) Th^-.t 
 
P umjh me nt of the damned » 109 
 
 (i) That die de\'il is nov, before the general judpjment. 
 In a ftate of torment, in the lake of fire and brimitone.* 
 A.nd it appears from the queflion, which he put to our 
 Lord, to which reference was juft now had, that he anxi- 
 oLiIly dreads the removal, wliich he is to fuiier, from this 
 his prefent ilate, to that in which he is to be after the g-e- 
 neral judgment, and to which he and his angels, arc re- 
 lerved in chains. But can we fuppofe, that iie would anxi- 
 oufiy dread a deliverance by annihilation, out of the lake of 
 torment by fire and brimilone? This would imply, that 
 endlefs annihilation is more to be dreaded, than the endiefs 
 torment which is the fubjeft of this controveriy. If fo. 
 Dr. C. ought to have dropped all objections to the juftice 
 of endlefs torments, {nice he allov/ed that the annihilation 
 of the v.'icked would be jufl. And if that be juil, th'^n al- 
 fo endlefs continuance in the lake of fire and brimflone, 
 which is the utmofc puniOiment that any m^in holds concer- 
 ning the wicked, and which is now fuppofed to be a lefs 
 piiniHiment than annihilation^is juPi. But if it be grant- 
 ed, tiiat annihilation is not fo great a puniihment as end- 
 lefs continuance in the lake of fire and brimlcone ; it is as 
 abfurd to fuppofe, tliat the devils fliould dread or tremble 
 at the profped of annihilation, as that a man tormented 
 with the gout or flone, fliould dread or tremble at an af- 
 furance, that he fhould ere long be delivered from his tor- 
 tures, and in their fl:ead fliould fuiier tlie prick of a pin. 
 
 (2) That text direclly proves, that the devil is tobe/or- 
 ever tormented, and not annihilated. *• And they,^ [the 
 nominative to be fupphed] ** ihall be tormented forever 
 and ever." — To fay tliat this means, that the devil will be 
 firll tormented for ae;es of ag-es, and then be annihilated, 
 leads into the abfurdities before noticed. 
 
 But to this flate of torment, in which the fallen angels 
 are, and are to be, the wicked fhall be lent. ^^ Depart ye 
 curfed into everlafling fire, prepared for the devil and his 
 angels." ''The devil that deceived them, v/as cait into the 
 lake of fire and brimftone, •where the bead and the falfe 
 prophet are." And as the devil is not to be annihilated, 
 butpuniflied wdth torments, foare the wicked. 
 
 4. Rom. 
 
 * The fceiis of luhich this text displays a part, h ma^ 
 ntfrjily an exhibition of ivhct Is to take place before the geKe^ 
 ral ju.lgm^nt^ This is evident from the context. 
 
1 10 Annihilation mi the 
 
 4. Rom. IX, 22, 'affords an argument pertinent to the 
 prefent fubject. The words are, ^' What if God wilHno- 
 to Ihew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured 
 with much long fufFering, the velTels of wrath fitted to de- 
 flruclion.'' One end it leems of permitting fmners to pro- 
 ceed to fuch lengths in fni, is to make known the divine 
 power in their deftru6lion. But annihilation is no exertion 
 
 of power, it is a mere fufpenfion of power. The words 
 
 imply further, that the longer God endures with the wick- 
 ed, the greater Vv-ill be the manifeflation of both his wrath 
 201 d power in their deftruclion. But as annihilation is the 
 fame to every perfon annihilated, it exhibits no greater 
 manifeftation of power towards one than towards another. 
 And if it were a manifejftation of pov/er, there would be 
 no greater manifeftation of power in the annihilation of 
 one, than of another. It is prefumed, that no unbiafTed 
 judge will fay, that the meaning is, that God endures, "jjlth 
 77iuch hng'fiifferlng the vefTels of wrath, to dilplay his 
 wrath and power In their annihilation ; as the very fame 
 difplay of both would be made, without any iong-fuffer— 
 
 The only confideration urged from fcripture in fupportof 
 the fentiment, which I am oppofing, is the application of 
 the words, death, d^Jlrunion^perifh, ccrrifption^ &c. to the 
 punifliment of the v/icked. — This hov/ever came with a 
 very ill grace from Dr. C. who underftood,'-.ahd was ne- 
 cefhtated by his icheme of univ^erfal falvatlon,to underfland, 
 thofe words to mean mifcry, as I have already ihown. — 
 With regard to others, who make not this conceffion, let 
 them, if they believe in revelation, (and with fuch only I 
 difpute) reconcile the fcrlptures with themfelves, and un- 
 derftand fuch like palTages as thofe I have quoted above, 
 reprefenti:?g the punifliment of the damned, to confift in 
 mifcry, in any confiilence with the threatening of death, 
 dejirucUon, Szc, otherwife than by allov.ing that thofe 
 words do mean poiitive mifery. But to allow this, is to 
 give up the fchcme of annihilation ; or at leafl this argu- 
 ment for it. 
 
 Besides, the fcriptures themfelves explain their own 
 meaning in the ufe of the vrcrds death, defiruSllon, 8<:c. 
 The fecond death is exprefsly faid to confift in being caft 
 into the lake of nvc and brii^llone, and in having; a part in 
 that lake ; Vvfiich ie not a defcription of annihiiation; nor 
 
 can 
 
Puni/hnifnt of ths damned. tt i 
 
 can be reconciled with it. Rev. XX, 14. Ch. XXI, 8.— « 
 
 Mat. XXIV, 51, ^^ And fliall cut him afunder, and appoint 
 him his portion with hypocrites, there fliall be wailing and 
 gnafhing of teeth." To divide a man into two parts, as 
 deterniinately expreiTes annihilation, as the words death^ 
 pe?-dUion, &€. This however the fcripture fuppofes to be 
 coniifcent with a ftate of mifery, expreffed by wailing and 
 p-nafiiinp* of teeth Gen. V, 2d. *' Enoch Vv'alkcd with 
 God,. and ix^as not, for God took him." In this inftance, 
 though the fcripture fays, Enoch ivas noty which more di- 
 rectly cxprelTes snnihilation, than death, deflruftionf &c, 
 yet it explains itfelf to mean not annihilation ; indeed no 
 man pretends that the righteous are annihilated. —When 
 the fcriptures fay, that men are dead in trefpafl'es and fms, 
 no man underftands the expreilion to mean annihilation. 
 The fame nuay be faid of the apoflle's words in i Tim. V, 6. 
 ^^She that iiveth in pleafure is dead while flie liveth." 
 
 Thehefore, (nice the fcriptures do often ufe the v/ord 
 death f &c. to iignify fomething entirely dilferent from a ccl- 
 fation of life 01* of e^rifrence ; and fince we cannot make 
 the fcripti^res connfcent with themfelves, unlefs \ve under- 
 iland the fame words in the faiile latitude, when applied 
 to the puniihment of the wicked, we are necelhtated to un- 
 derftand them in that latitude. 
 
 II. As I obferved, there is another fenfe in which an- 
 nihilation may be holden, and was holden by Dr. C. 
 which is this ; that though annihilation will not actually 
 be inflicted on any man, yet it is the curfe which was ori- 
 ginally in the divine law denounced againfl lin ; but that 
 Chrifl: hath abfolutely redeemed all men from that curfe, 
 fo that no man is now liable to it. ^' By Chrifi — they 
 \\ ere abfolutely and tinconditionly ^wtmto {■Ji\Y2ih\e, cir- 
 cumflances — Upon this foundation and this only, they 
 are become r<8!j^^^/c? of a future immortality .^^"^ ^^ God 
 might upon the lirft oiTence he" [Adam] '^ committed, 
 have immediately turnedhim outofexlftejicd, as he threat- 
 ^^ ened he would ; the effect whereof would have been the 
 *^ total lofs of dl his principles bodily and mental, and of all 
 ^* his obligations. "f '^ The fame grace through Chrifr, 
 "■' which continued Adam in heln^ after the lapfe," Sec, t 
 ^^ It will further enhance cur idea of the greatnefs of 
 '' God's grace" [through ChriTt] *^ in reltoring that 
 
 ^^ poffibllity 
 * P. 132. f 5DI1T. p. 198. ± Ibid. p. 243. 
 
rfI2 \AnmhihtiQH mt ths 
 
 *^ pOjJihlUty of exiftence which had been forfeltedhy Adam's 
 
 *' lapfe/^ dec. Ij ** Death would have put a period to 
 
 *' all poiTi'oility of perception or exertion in any ihape for- 
 '' ever, had it not been for the interpolltion of grace through 
 **■ Chriil."** *^ 1 he term death when ufed v/ith refer- 
 '*' ence to the pofterity of Adam, confidered fimply as 
 *' fuch, cannot contain more in its meaning, than is in- 
 *^ eluded in it, v/hen ufed with reference to Adam him- 
 '' felf.ft 
 
 On this hypothecs, the punishment actually fuffered by 
 the damned is no part of the curie of the divine law, but 
 merely a necefliiry and wholefome dilcipline deiicrned for 
 the good of the patients. But this fcheme of annihilation 
 can, no more than the former, be reconciled with the 
 icripture, which fays the wncked iliall receive according to 
 their works, fhail pay the uttermoft farthing, {hall have 
 judgment vvdthcut miercy, wrath w^ithout mixture, &c. 
 Nor indeed can it be reconciled with Dr. C's book, which 
 fays. The v.icked will be puniiflied according to their de- 
 ferts, accordinp- to their (ins, according to the nature and 
 number of their crimes and evil deeds ; and fo that the 
 law v/ill have its conrfe, and the threatened penalty will 
 be executed on fome of them at leafl. Thefe excreflions 
 certainly declare, that they v/ill fuller the full curfe of the 
 divine law. Otherwife the curfe of the law is a greater 
 puniHiment than that which is accord ng to the deferts of 
 the wicked, and greater too than the full penalty threat- 
 ened in the law ; which is abfurd and contradictory. 
 
 He FIE I might repeat the various arguments urged in 
 the third chapter, to prove that the punilliment of the 
 damned is not a merefalutary difcipline. But to avoid re- 
 petition, I beg leave to refer the reader to the coniidera- 
 tions there fuggefted : and to proceed to other coniidera- 
 tions, which may further fhov/, that the future punifli- 
 ment of the wicked is not dilciplinary, and that Chrifl: hath 
 not fo redeemed sU men from annihilation, that no man is 
 nov/ hable to it, if indeed that be the curfe of the law. 
 
 I. If annihilation be the curfe of the divine law, and 
 the torments of hell be a mere falutary difcipline ; then 
 there is no forgivenefs in exemptinp- a fmner from thofe 
 torments. To forgive a linner is to exempt or releafe 
 him from the curfe of the law ; not to excufe him from a 
 
 falutary 
 
 II Ibid. p. 244. ** Ibid. p. 140. ft ^^^^- P-.I44- 
 
Pumjhment of the damned, I la 
 
 falutary me"an of grace. If a phyficlan excufe his patient 
 from an emetic or from the cold bath, no man will pre- 
 tend, that he exercifes forgiving grace. 
 
 2. I WISH the reader to attend to Gal. III. lo; 
 '^ For as many a:: are of the works of the law, are under 
 *^ the curfe : for it is written curfed is every one that con- 
 '^ tinueth not in all things written in the book of the law 
 *' to do them. '^ This proves that all men are not sbro-* 
 lutely delivered from the cnrfe of the law^, whether that 
 curfe conliilin annihilation, or mifery temporary or endlefs : 
 becaufe fome men are evidently fuppofed in this text, to 
 be expofcd to that curfe. *^ As many as are of the 
 *^ works of the law," as doubtlefs many of the Jews of 
 that day were, are expreiHy faid to be '* under the curfe." 
 They therefore were not akfolutely and vncoridittonally de- 
 livered from that curfe. But if the curfe of the law be an- 
 nihilation, and all men be unconditionally delivered by 
 Chrift from that curie, how can any man be under it ? 
 
 If it iliould be faid, that this text is nothing to the pur- 
 pofe, becaufe the curfe here mentioned is the curfe, not of 
 the m.oral^ but of the ceremonial law ; it may be anfwered. 
 If this text, with the context fay nothing of redemption 
 from the curfe of the moral law, how isitknov.n, that 
 Chrift, according to the hypotheiis nov/ under confiderati- 
 on, haih delivered all m^en unconditionally from annihila- 
 tion, which is fuppofed to be the curfe of the moral law ? 
 It is the 13th verfe, which allures us, that '^ Chrlit hath 
 redeemed us from the curie of the law." If this mean the 
 ceremonial law, it fccms, we have no alTurance that Chrift 
 hath redeemed us from the curfe of the moral law, be that 
 annihilation or what it may ; but all that Chrift hath done 
 or fuffer^d notwithftanding, we are as liable to that curfe^ 
 as we were before Chrift undertook for us. 
 
 Besides, the curfe of the law here mentioned, is the ve- 
 ry curfe mentioned in Deut. XXVII, 26, from which it is 
 quoted. But that was not the curfe of the cerem.onial 
 law, but of the moral, as every precept enum.erated in 
 that context, and to which this curfe is annexed, is pure- 
 ly moral. -Or if this curfe be that to which any man 
 
 is liable, who tranfgreiTcs any precept, written in tlie 
 book of the law ; it will certainly include the curfe of the 
 moral law. For whether the hook mentioned, be the 
 book of Deuteronomy, or the whole Pentateuch, it con- 
 
 O tained 
 
j^i^ 'Jnmh'ihihn mt the 
 
 tained the whole moral law. Therefore the curfe hcrff 
 mentioned includes the curfe of the vioral law. And in- 
 deed with refpcft to us under the gofpel, the t«xt muft 
 mean the moral law only, beeaufe, as the ceren:onial law is 
 now repealed, it is no longer in exiftence, and therefore is no 
 
 lono-er contained in the bock of the law. Further, if the 
 
 redemption of Chrift was a redemption from the curfe of 
 the ceremonial law only; then it had no refpeftatall tons 
 Gentiles, who never were under the ceremonial law ; nor 
 are we in any refpect redeemicd by Chrift. 
 
 It is alfo to be obi'erved, that Uiis curfe is oppofed by 
 the apollle, throughout the context, to the bleiling cf Abra- 
 ham, as is manifelt by infpettion. But the bltiling of A- 
 braham did not coniift in freedom from the ceremonial law. 
 If it confuled in that, the Gentiles originally polTeiTed the 
 blefiing of Abrrihum, fmce they v/cre asperfc61:ly free from 
 the ceremonial law, as Abraham himfelf. Whereas the 
 coming of the bieilmg of Abraham on the Gentiles is fpo- 
 ken of as a nev/ and adventitious bleffng, not as one origi- 
 nally polTelTed by them j fee v. 8 and 14. The blelfing of 
 A^braham is not only not faid to confirc in bare freedom from 
 theceremoniallaw, but it is pcfitiveiy faid to ccnfift in jufti- 
 Ikation by faith ; v. 6 — lo. v. I4und2c. 
 
 This pallage throws light on the prefent quefticn in a- 
 nother point of view.- As the curie of the law is fet in di- 
 rect oppoiition to the bleffing of Abraham, all who arc not 
 entitled to the blclhng of Abraham^ are of courfc under 
 the curfe, and are not unconditionally rclcued from it by 
 
 Jefus Chrift. If it fhould be faid, that ihc bleffmg of 
 
 Abraham is ccm.mon to all" mankind, all being juftified and 
 exeicpted from the curfe of the law, as he was ; let it be 
 obfervcd, that Abraham obtained this bleliing in confe- 
 quence of faith only ; and will it be pretended, that all 
 men are iiovv- the inbjefts of the faith of Abraham? The 
 apoftle cenftantly ipeaks of this bleffng as fuipended en 
 the condition of faith : v. 7, ^*lhey ANhich are of faitli, 
 the fame are the children of Abraham.'' V. 8, ** Ihe 
 fcripture, forefeeing that God Vv ould juflify the heathen 
 through faith.'' V. 9, ** They v^hith be of faith, 2.yq 
 blellcd with faithful Abraham.^' V. 14, <* That the blef- 
 fmg of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through, Je- 
 fus Chrift ; that we might receive the promJfe of the 
 fpirit through faith.'' V. 29, *' If ye be Chrift^s, then 
 
 are 
 
Piinijhment of the damned, lij* 
 
 are yc Abraham's feed, and heirs according to the promife." 
 Now if faith in Chriit be neceHary to the inheritance of the 
 blelling of Abraham, and ail who arc not entitled to that 
 bleiling, be hable to the curfe of the law ; then it cannot 
 be true, that all mankind are unconditionally freed by 
 Chrift from the curfc of the law, whether that curfe be 
 annihilation or any thing elfe. 
 
 3. On the hypotheiis now under confideration, what 
 are pardon and juftification ? They are every where in 
 IjriptLire reprefented to be conditional, fufpended on the 
 conditions of repentance and faith ; and the fame is abun- 
 dantly holden by Dr. C however inconiiiiently with his 
 other tenet concerning the unconditional exemption of all 
 men froai the curfe of the law. The language of fcrip- 
 ture is, He that belie veth ihall be favcd ; but he that bc- 
 lievcth not, fhall be damned. He that believeth not is con- 
 demned already — the wrath of God abideth on him, &c, &c. 
 How can thofe be condemned, and how can the wrath of 
 God abide on thofe, v/ho are unconditionally delivered from 
 the curfe of the law ? Pardon is generally fuppofed tocon- 
 fift in an acquittance from the curfe of the law : but if all 
 men, penitent and impenitent, believing and unbelieving, 
 be acquitted and delivered from that curfe, v/hcre is the 
 propriety or truth of limiting pardon to the penitent and 
 believino-, and of declarino; that all the reft of men are con- 
 demned ? To v. hat are they condemned? Not to fuifer 
 the curfe of the law : From this they are by fuppofition 
 unconditionally delivered. By what are they condemned? 
 Not hj the lavv^ : this would imply, that they are under 
 the curfe of it. 
 
 If to this it be faid, that the impenitent are condemned 
 to fufFsr the curfe of the law, in this fenfe only, that the 
 law declares the punidiment to which, according to ftrift 
 juftice^. they are liable ; but not that punilhment to which 
 they are nov/ liable, ilnce the redemption of Chrift; — To 
 this it may be anfwcrcd, In this ^en^z the penitent and be- 
 lieving are equally condemned, as the impenitent and un- 
 believing ; nay, the whole body^of the iaints in heaven. 
 Nor would there be any truth in faying, in this fenfe, '^ Kc 
 that believeth on Cliriil, is not condemned.'' 
 
 4. That Tingle text, Gal V. 2, feems to confute the 
 hypothefis now in queftion. The words arc, ** If ye be 
 ^/' drcumcifed, Chrift faa]! profit you nothing.'' Whereas 
 
 according 
 
 w9 
 
 \ 
 
ji6 Annihilation not the 
 
 according to the hypothefis now in queftion, whether the 
 Galatians were circumcifed or not ; whether they depended 
 on their circumciiion and other conformity to ceremonial 
 inftitutions or not : flill Chrill did profit ihem ; ftill by 
 him was unconditionally fecured to them the infinite pro- 
 fit of efcape from rhe curfe of the law, and of an endlefs 
 life of happinefs and glory in heaven. 
 
 This argument is equally conclufive, whether it be fup- 
 pofed that Clirift has unconditionally refcued all men from 
 annihilation or any other punifhmcnt. If falvation be fe- 
 cured to all men by Chrift, then he does profit them, how- 
 ever they be circumcifed o.' depend on their circum- 
 ciiion. 
 
 Beside the two lights in which the doctrine of annihi- 
 lation hath been dated above, there is another in v/hich 
 fome fecm to hold that doftrine ; it is this, That if after 
 God fhall have ufed all proper means for the repentance 
 and falvation of the wicked, they fliall ftill remain impeni- 
 tent, he will annihilate them from defpair of ever bring- 
 ing them to good. Concerning this fentiment it may- 
 be inquired, what then is the curie of the lav/ ? Is it an- 
 nihilation ? If fo, then I refer to the arguments already 
 urged in this chapter againft that idea ; viz. That on that 
 fuppofition endlefs puniThment is juft : That the fcripture 
 abundantly reprelents the punifnment of the damned to 
 confifl in mifery : That the punifliment of all who fuffer 
 the curfe of the law vvdii be equal : That the curfe of the 
 law is the fame punifhment which the devils fuffer, which 
 is not annihilation : That the punifliment v/hich the finally 
 impenitent flrall fuffer, will be fuch, that in it God will 
 difplay both his wrath and power, and greater degrees of 
 wrath and power in the cafe of thofe,,with refpeft to 
 whom he exercifes the greatefl long-fufferiug : which can- 
 not be true, if the curfe of the law be annihilation, as that 
 is not an exertion of power at all, or a difplay of greater 
 "wrath and pov.er in the cafe of one (inner than of another. 
 Ifitbefaid, that the curfe of the law is that difcipline 
 which the wicked fhall fu'Fer, before they be annihilated, 
 I refer to what has been faid, chap. II and III. — If it be 
 granted iiiat the curfe of the law is endlefs mifery ; either 
 it muft be allowed, that endlefs mifery will be fuifered by 
 fome men ; or that though endlefs mifery be the curfe of 
 the law, Chriil hath redeemed and \yiii fave all men from 
 
 it. 
 
Punijljmmtofthedamtwd, 117 
 
 it, by admitting fome to endlefs happinefs, and by inflict- 
 ing on others endlefs annihilation. With refpecl to this 
 kit fentiment, I beg leave to refer to the confiderations al- 
 ready hinted in this chapter : and that the curfe of the 
 law, or all that puniihment which the wicked jullly de- 
 ferve, whether it confilt in endlefs mifery or any thing 
 clfe, will actually be inflided, hath been attempted to be 
 proved in chap. HI. 
 
 On the whole ; it is left with the candid and judicious 
 to determine, whether annihilation be the curfe of the 
 law : and whether that as the curfe of the law can be re- 
 conciled with the fcriptures, on either of the foremen- 
 
 tioned hypothefes. 1. That all who die in impenitence, 
 
 will be annihilated, as the proper and adequate puniih- 
 ment of their fms in this life. 2. That annihilation was 
 
 originally the curfe of the law ; but that Chrift hath ref- 
 
 cued all from it. If it fliall be found that annihilation 
 
 in any view of it, is not the curfe of the law ; it will re- 
 main, that that curfe confifts either in that punifhment 
 which linners a(^ually fuffer in hell ; or in fpme temporary 
 mifery greater than that which they aftually fuffer in hell ; 
 or in endlefs mifery. In which of thefe it does confift, 
 fhall be farther inquired in the next chapter. 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 The Juflict of endlefs Punifhment confifling in Mifery, 
 
 ACCORDING to what was propofed in the clofe of the 
 laft chapter, I am to inquire in the firft place. Whe- 
 ther the curfe of the law, or the punifhment which in the 
 divine law is threatened againft tranfgrelTors, confift in that 
 punifhment which the wicked will adually fuffer in hell. — 
 That this cannot be the curfe of the law, on the fuppofition 
 that all men are to be faved, appears at firft blufh from 
 this confideration, that fome men will aftually fufrer that 
 punifliment : and if that punifhment be the curfe of the 
 lav/, fome men will be damned and not faved. For falva- 
 tion confifts in deliverance from the curfe of the law. 
 " Chrift hath redeemed us from the curfe of the law :" 
 and ail v/ho are fiived, are faved by the redemption of 
 
 Chrift, 
 
ti9 The Jujlue of endlefs Pumflmient 
 
 Chrift, which is a redemption from the curfe of the law. 
 But fince all men are not faved from that puniihmeut 
 which a great part actually fufFer in hell ; it is abl'urd lo 
 fay, that that puniihment is the curfe of the law from 
 which Chrilf hath redeemed and will fave all men. 
 
 I MEAN not now to enter into any difpute concerning 
 the nature of Chrid's redemption. It is fufFicicnt for my 
 prefent purpofe to take for granted no moFC, than is grant- 
 ed by all chriftians, that all who are favcd^ are faved fome 
 .how by and through Chrifl. This is abandantly aiTcrted in 
 the various works of Dr. C. But neither has he pretended 
 nor will any other advocate for univcrfal falvation pre- 
 tend, that the puniiliment which is actually to be iufrVred 
 by a great part of mankind in hell, is the curfe of the law 
 from which Chrilt is to fave all men : becaufe by the very 
 terms a great part of mankind are aclualiy to fuffer it. 
 
 Beside ; if that be the curfe of the law ; it is all the 
 puniihment to which the fmner is juftly liable. He having 
 fuilered that, cannot confidently with juflice be made to 
 fufFer any further puniiliment ; and if after that he be ex- 
 empted from further puni/liment, he is exempted from it, 
 not in the way of grace, forgivenefs or pardon ; but en- 
 tirely on the footing t)f juftice and of his own pcrfonal 
 right. It is to be noticed however, that the gofpel is ig- 
 norant of any falvation of fmncrs, except in the v/ay of 
 frrace and forn-ivenefs. 
 
 o o 
 
 If the puniihment a(ftually to be fuffered in hell be the 
 curfe cf the law, then the damned in thcit*" deliverance out 
 of hell, and exemption from further punifhment, experi- 
 ence no falvation at all They ane deUvered from nothing 
 to which they arc or ever were expofed. Wc might as 
 well fay, that the mofb innocent citizen in the (late is faved 
 from the gallows, when he hath neither committed any 
 
 crime, nor is accufed of any. The very idea of i'alvation 
 
 is deliverance from the curfe of the law. But if the pains 
 of hell for ages of ages be the curfe of the law, they who 
 fuuer thofepain?, arc not faved; they are damned to the 
 highefi pofllble degree confiilent with law and juiVice; . 
 which is all the damnation for which any man can argue. 
 • On the whole, I conclude, that the idea^ thatthe curfe 
 of the law confifcs in the punilliMieiit, which tlie damned 
 are aftually to fufFer in hell, is totally ii-reconc lie able Vvith 
 jihc falvation of all men. 
 
 In 
 
conffting In Mifery, ti^ 
 
 In the next place we are to inquire, whether the curfe 
 of the law confiPc in Ibme temporary punifliment, which is 
 of greater duration than that which is fuppoi'ed to belong 
 to the punifhment which the damned fnall actually fuller. 
 If the curfe of the lav/ be a temporary punifhment of great- 
 er duration than that v, hich is actually to be fuffered by the 
 damned ; that more hiling temporary punifnment is doubt- 
 lefs threatened in the law. Eioubtlefs the curfe of the law 
 is the curfe threatened in law : the very terms imply this. 
 Now^ where in all the law, or in all the fcripture, is threat- 
 ened any punishment of greater duration, than that which 
 in the lacred dialect is faid to be everkjitng^ for ever, forever 
 and ever y Sec I But all thefe exprefiions are on ail hands 
 allowed to be applied in Icripturc to the punifhrnent which 
 the damned ihall acluaily fuffer. Unleis therefore fome 
 longer puniihment cn.n be found threatened in fcripture, 
 than that which is faid to he forever and ever , &s, it cannot 
 be pretended, that the curfe of the law is a temporary pu- 
 nilliment of greater duration, than that which is aftually 
 to be fuffered by the damned. But no puniflimenf of great- 
 er duration, whether temporary or endlcfs, than that 
 which the damned are conibntly declared to fufver, can be 
 pointed out from any part of fcripture. 1 herefore the 
 curfe of the law is not % temporary puniO:mcnt of greater 
 duration, than that which is to be fuffered by the damn- 
 ed. 
 
 Now, if this train cf reafoning be juil, if the curfe of 
 the divine law be neither annihilation, nor (on the fuppo- 
 fition of the falvation of all men) that miiery Vvhich the 
 damned are acftually to fuifer ; nor a temporary mifery of 
 greater duration ; the confequcnce is inevitable, that it is 
 cndlefs mifery. I'vo other hypothecs feerns to be conceiva- 
 ble. The law certainly threatens Tome punifnment. This 
 punifhment muft confifl either in annihilation, or in fome- 
 thincr elfe. If it coniifl- in foraethina; elfe, that fomethinjr 
 mufi- be either temporary or endlefs mifery. If it be tem- 
 porary mifery, it mufl be either a mifery of ihcrter dura- 
 tion than that v/hich is to be fuffered by ihe damned ; or 
 that very mifery which is to be fufTered by the damned; or 
 a temporary mifery of longer duration. That the curfe 
 «f the law is a mifery of jhorter duration than that v/hich 
 is to be fuffered by the damned, no man will pretend ; as 
 i\\i% would imply that tks damned v/ill fuffer a greater pu- 
 niihment 
 
ti6 The Juftice cf endlefs Pum/I.ment 
 
 Tiifliment than was ever threatened, and than is juft. And 
 that the curfe of the law is neither the very mifery to be 
 fuffered by the damned, nor a temporary mifery of longer 
 duration, I have endeavoured to prove, and fubmit the 
 proof to the candid and judicious* If the proof fhall be 
 found to be good, we are driven to the conclufion, that 
 the curfe of the divine law is endlefs mifery. 
 
 If then it be an eftablilhed point, that endlefs mifery is 
 the curfe of the divine law ; the inference is immediate 
 and necelTary, that the endlefs mifery of the fmner is a 
 juft punifhment of his fin. It is impolfible that a God of 
 inviolable and infinite juftice fhould threaten in his law an 
 unjuft punillmient. A law containing fuch a threatening, 
 is an unjuft lav/ ; and an unjuft law can never be enacted 
 
 by a legiflator of perfetl juftice. It is in vain to fay, 
 
 that God will never execute the law. To make an unjuft 
 law, is as really irreconcileable with juftice, as to execute 
 it. What fliould we think of a human prince v/ho fhould 
 enaft a law, that whoever (liould walk acrofs his neighbour's 
 ground without his confent, fhould die on the gallows. I pre. 
 iume no man would pretend, that the forbearance of the 
 prince to execute the law, would fave his charader from 
 abhorrence and contempt. 
 
 Again; If all men ihall be faved, they will be faved 
 from fomething, from fome punifliment. That punifti- 
 ment muft be either temporary or endlefs. If it be tem- 
 porary, it muft be either that puniihment, which is to be 
 endured by the damned, or a longer temporary punifli- 
 ment. But for reafons already given, it can be neither of 
 thefe. Therefore it muft be an endlefs punifliment. But 
 if all men be faved from an endlefs punifhment, they were 
 cxpofed to an endlefs punifhment, and expcfed to it by a 
 divine conftitution, and therefore an endlefs punifhment is 
 juft ; otherwife it could not have been appointed by Cod. 
 
 If ail men fnall be faved, they are redeemed by Chrift, 
 and they are redeemed by him from fom.e punifhment. 
 That punifhment is either temporary or endlefs. If it be 
 temporary, it is either the puniihment which the damned 
 fliall aclually fuffer, or a longer temporary punifhment. 
 But for reafons already given it is neither of thele. There- 
 fore, it is an endlefs punifhment. Therefore they were 
 cxpofed to an endlefs punifliment, and that punifhment is 
 juft. Surely no Chriftian will pretend, that our Lord Je- 
 
 fus 
 
conjifting in Mifery, j^i 
 
 fus Chrift came to redeem and fave us from a puni/hmcnt 
 to which we never were expofed, and which the very juf- 
 tice of God would never permit him to inflicft. 
 
 If endlei's puniihment be unjuft, it feems that Chrifl 
 came to fave mankind from an unjuft punifhment; a pu- 
 nifhment, to which they were not juftly hable, and which 
 could not be inflicted on them confiftently with juftice. 
 But what an idea does this give us of God ? It implies, 
 that he had made an unjuft law, denouncing an unjuft pe- 
 nalty ; that having made this law, he v/as determined to 
 execute it, till Chrift came and prevented him. 
 
 If all men fliall be faved, and fhall be faved in the way 
 of grace, favour, pardon or forgivenefs ; then it would be 
 juft, that they fnould not be i'aved. If their deliverance im- 
 ply grace and forgivenefs, then it woald be juft, that they 
 Ihould not be delivered, and that they Ihculd fuffer that 
 puni/hment froni which they are delivered. But fcF rea- 
 fons already given, if all men fhall be faved, they Ihall be 
 faved from an endlefs puniiliment. And to be faved from 
 an endlefs puniihment not on the footing of juftice, but by 
 mere grace and forgivenefs, implies, that the infliction of 
 endlefs puniihment would be juft. Surely to liberate a 
 peri'on from an unjuft puniihment, is no a6l of forgivenefs. 
 All the afcriptions of praife, and all hymns of thankf- 
 giving fung by the faved on account of their falvation, 
 prove, that it would have been juft, that they ftiould noc 
 be faved. If God in delivering all men from endlefs pu- 
 niihment, be worthy of praife and thankfgiving, it would 
 have beeu juft, if he had not delivered them from it. A 
 mere a6l of juftice, which the objedt of it may demand on 
 the footing of his perfonal right, does not infer, an obli- 
 gation to any great praife or thankfgiving. No man con- 
 ceives hhnfelf bound very much to praife another for gi- 
 ving him his due, or for not injuring him, or for not pu- 
 nifhing him, when he deferves no puniihment. But the 
 only punifhment, from v/hich God delivers all men, on the 
 fuppoiition, that all are to be faved, is aii endlefs puniili- 
 ment, as was ihewn before. Therefore^ unlefs endlefs pu- 
 niihment be juft, there -is no foundation for praife and 
 thankfgiving for the falvation of all men. 
 
 If endlei's puniilmient be unjuft, then God was bound 
 in juftice to fave ail m.en from it, and could no more fail 
 of granting this falvation, than he could cienv himfeif : and 
 
 R hs 
 
tTi The Juflice of endkfs Pumfnment 
 
 hef was bound in jufbice to do whatever was necefiary td 
 that falvation, and if that falvation could not be. diipenied, 
 but in conieqiience of the incarnation and death of ChrJlt ; 
 then unlefs God had given his fon to become incarnate and 
 to die, he vrould have committed injuftice. So that on 
 this plan, the very gift of Chriil, of the gofpel, and of all 
 the means of grace, are mere acts of juilke, .and not of 
 grace or favour : and the revelation of the gofpel or of 
 the lalvation of all men is no gracious communication, but 
 a communication made entirely on the foundation of juftice. 
 For furely it is but an act of jullice to tell mankind, if 
 there be any need of telling them, that God will not injure 
 them, and fo preferve them from the tormenting fear of 
 injury from the hand of God. To have kept them with- 
 out the neceiTary means of knowing this, would have fa- 
 voured of cruelty. Yet according to the fcriptures the 
 
 forementioned divine ads and communications are no a£ts 
 of juftice, but of free and infinite grace. 
 
 If endleis puniflmient be unjuft, it is hard to imagine of 
 what advantage the mediation and redemption of Chriil is 
 to all mankind. Dr. C. fpeakinp- of his own fcheme of 
 univerlal lalvation, fays, ^^Nor is there any fcheme that 
 ^* fo illuftrioufiy lets forth the powerful eiiicacy and ex- 
 tenfive advantage of the mediation of Jefus Chrift. If 
 mankind univerlally are the cbjecl.s of his concern, if he 
 died for them all, if he afcended up to heaven for them 
 all, if he is there acling on their behalf, and managing 
 all things in the kingdom of grace, with a viev/ to their 
 falvatioUj and will not give up his miniftry in this kino-- 
 ** dom, till he has actually accompli/bed this great defign, 
 '^ and inflated the whole human kind in eternal glory, 
 *' what more noble idea can v/e form of his undertaking 
 ** for us? ^' &c. * What is '^ the powerful eiiicacy and ex- 
 tenfive advantage of the mediation of Chriil:,'' with regard 
 to thofe, who fuffer for ages of ages, as Dr. C. alioy/s fome 
 men do? Is ^^ the powerful efficacy and extenlive advan- 
 tage of Chrift's mediation" " illuftricufly fet forth"' in de- 
 livering them from sn unjuft punishment ? is the idea, that 
 Chrift came to fave them from a puniihment, which they 
 do not deferve, ** the moft noble idea w^e can form of his 
 undertaking?" Thofe who are faved by Chrift, without 
 fuffering the torments of hell, do indeed derive fonie ad- 
 
 p. 14. 
 
 vantage 
 
conjifting in Mifery, 123 
 
 VLintag-e from the mediation of Chrift. But this is no greatr 
 .er advantage than is derived from Chrift, according to the 
 Icheme of thofe, who beheve in endlefs pnniihment. They 
 hold, that all who are preferved from hell, are prefcrved 
 fi'om it by Chrift. But what advantage do thofe men de- 
 rive from Chriffc's mediation, whopafs through the torments 
 of hell, and are not faved, till they have been puniflied for 
 ages of ages ? To fay that they are refcued by Chrifl from 
 endlefs mifery, is either to give up the prcfent queflipn, 
 and to allow that endlefs mifery is jufl ; cr it is to give -up 
 the moral recTitudc of the divine charader, and to hold, 
 that God has threatened, and was about to inflicl:, an un- 
 juflpuniikment.— — To fay, that the advantage, which 
 they derive from Chrift, is that they are refcued from a 
 temporary punifhment, which is longer than forever and 
 ever, is to fay, that for which there is no foundation, as no 
 fuch punifhment is threatened or mentioned in fcripture. 
 So that in any cafe, if endlefs puniHimentbe unjuft, it isim- 
 polTible to im.igine, of what advantage the mediation and 
 redemption of Ohrift is to all mankind. 
 
 The hope of the gofpel implies that endlefs puniihment 
 is juft. On the plan of univerfal falvation, all men are en- 
 couraged to hope that they fliall be delivered from fome 
 puniihment. Dr. C. applies Ro'm. VIII. 20, to all men, 
 and fuppofes that they are all fubje6ledto vanity in hope of 
 *-^ deliverance from the bondage of corruption,'' and from 
 '*" the final confequences'^ of it.* That is, all men have a 
 jrround to hope, that they Hiall be at lail delivered from 
 lin and it? punifhment. This punifhment as v/e have feen, 
 can be no other than an endlefs punifliment. But that God 
 'encourages us to hope, that we may efcape endlefs punifh- 
 ment, as clearly implies that endlefs punifliment is juft, as 
 his en-jouraging us to hope, that he will never leave us 
 nor forfake us in this life, implies that it would be juit, if 
 lie fliould leave us. If endlefs punifhment be not juft, 
 then God encourages us to hope, that he will not injure us, 
 will not rob us of our rights or tyrannize over us ! The 
 yery idea of hope in this cafe, implies feme dinger that 
 God will injure us ; however that there is a pofhbility, and 
 therefore a foundation to hope, that he will not injure us. 
 
 If endlefs punifliment be unjui't, we are as fure, that it 
 will never be inflicted, as we are of the juftice oi God^ or 
 
 as 
 
 * P. ic6, 119. 
 
124 '^^^ Ju/iice of endlefs PuniJJoment 
 
 as we are, that the judge of all the earth will do right. 
 But are we ever encouraged in fcripture barely to hopCy 
 that the judge of all the earth will do right ? — What if a 
 fubjeft who has always entirely conformed to the laws of 
 his prince and is conicious of his own innocence, and alfo 
 knows that his prince is fully informed of it, Ihould fay, 
 that 'he hopes his prince will not order him to be executed 
 as a felon ? This would certainly imply great diffidence 
 in the juftice of his prince, and would be a high reflection 
 on his chara6ter. Much more is it a refieftion on the cha- 
 radter of God, to exprefs a bare hope, that under his go- 
 vernment, no man v/ill be puniihed with an unjuft 
 puniihment. 
 
 The promifes of the gofpel appear to be a further proof 
 of the juftice of endlefs puniihment. They are promifes of 
 deliv^erance from fome punifliment. If there be any pro- 
 mifes of the falvation of all men, they are not promifes 
 that all fhall wholly efcape the punifhment of hell. Dr. 
 C. and others grant, that fome men v>'ill fuffer that pu- 
 niihment. Nor are they promii'es of efcape from a longer 
 temporary puniihment, than that of hell, as there is no 
 mention in all the fcripture of fuch a puniiliment. There- 
 fore they are promifes of deliverance from endlefs punifli- 
 ment. Therefore endlels puniiliment isjuft: otherwife 
 the promifes that God will fave from it, would be abfurd. 
 The very idea, that God promiies to fave from endlefs 
 puniiliment, implies that he has a righ| to inflicl; it. Do 
 we ever find God promJfmg in fcripturey that he will not 
 injure or tyrannize over his creatures ? And are the ^^ ex- 
 '' ceeding great and precious promifes,'^ which the apof- 
 tle Peter mentions, merely alTurances that we iliall not be 
 treated by God unjuftly? There would be nothing at all 
 precious in fuch promiies ; becaufe they would give us no 
 greater fecurity from fuch injury, than we fliculd have 
 without them. If the bare juftice of God do not fecure 
 us from injury at his hands, neither will his veracity.— 
 What ihould we think of a prince of good reputation for 
 juftice, i£ he make proclamation, that he would not pu- 
 nifli any of his fubje^ts ten times as much as they deferve ; 
 and ihould call this an exceeding great and precious pro- 
 mile ? Whatever we might before have thought of him 
 and of his government, we ihould doubtlei's then think 
 that his fabje61s were not perfectly fecure in their rights. 
 
 Dii. 
 
c on f\ fling In M'tftry, 22 
 
 Dr. C. allows that it is our duty to pray for the fal- 
 vation of all men. This appears efpecially in his comment 
 on I Tim. II, 4, &c.* But this proves the juftice of end- 
 lefs punifhment. If we are to pray for the falvaiion of all 
 men, we are to pray that they may be delivered from the 
 curfe of the law ; which, as wx have feen already, is an 
 endlefs punifhment. Now, to pray that God would fave 
 men from endlefs punifhment certainly implies an acknow- 
 ledgement of juft cxpofnre to fuch puniihment. Other- 
 wife there would be as much propriety, that the angels a- 
 round the throne of Gociy iliould pray, that they, perfectly 
 guiltlefs as they are, may not be puniihed with the tor- 
 ments of hell. What if an entirely innocent and moft du- 
 tiful fubject of fome earthly prince, and one who is by all 
 acknowledged to be fuch, iliould prefer a petition to his 
 prince, that he would not order the petitioner to the flake 
 or the sallows ? 
 
 Hitherto thejuftice of endlefs punifliment has been 
 confidered on the ground of what 1 fuppofe to be the truth, 
 that it is deferved by every fmner, on account of the fins 
 which he hath committed in this lite only. — There is ano- 
 ther ground, on which it may be fupported, and which is 
 equally ineonfiftent with that capital argument in favor of 
 the falvation of all men, that endlefs punifhment is not re- 
 
 concileable withjudice. Though it were not jufl, toin- 
 
 flift an endlefs puniihment for the fins committed in this 
 life only, which I by no means allow ; yet there would be 
 no injuftice in fuitering the finner to go on in fin, and to 
 punifli him continually and without end as he fins. 
 
 That it was no injuftice in God, to leave man at firfl 
 to falljnto fin, will doubtlefs be granted by all, becaufe it is 
 an evident faft. Now if God may without injury permit 
 a creature to fall into fin to day, and punilh him for it, why 
 may he not do the fame tomorrow, andfo on through eve- 
 ry day or period of his exiflence. And if it be juft to leave 
 a finner to endlefs fin, it is doubtleft jud to infiicl: en hini 
 endlefs puniihment for that endlefs fin. Therefore the 
 endlels lin and puniihment of a creature is no more ineon- 
 fiftent with di^^ine juftice, than the exifience of fin and pu- 
 niihment in any inltance, and for ever fo iliort a duration. 
 If it be not confident with judice, that a finner be left by 
 God to endlefs impenitence ; then the leading of a finner 
 * P. 163. to 
 
126 The Jiifiice ofendkfs Punljhment 
 
 to repentance is an a£l of mere jullice, the payment of ii 
 debt, and not an act of grace, which is utterly irreconcile- 
 
 able with the fcriptures. If it be not confiftent with j.uf- 
 
 tice to leave a finner to final impenitence, then God is 
 bound in juffice, Ibme time or other to lead every finner 
 to repentance. But when is this time? How long may 
 God, without injury, permit the finner to continue impe- 
 nitent/' If he may for one day, why not for two? for 
 four ? for eight, &c. to eternity? — Though the damned 
 fhould, by their fuiFerings, fully fatisfy for all their pall 
 fms; yet God would be no more obliged in juftice, to lead 
 them to repentance, or to preferve them from, fin in future, 
 than he was obliged to preferve them from iln at the time 
 they firll fell into it ; and confequently he would not be ob- 
 liged in jultice toreleafe them from puniPnment. I take it to 
 be abundantly conceded by Dr. C. that the damned may 
 juftly be puniflied till they repent. Therefore if they ne- 
 ver repent they may juftly be punifned Vvithout end 
 
 Now, that our advocate for univerlal falvation, may ef- 
 tabli/h his favorite propofition, that endlefs puniihment is 
 not reconcileable v/ith divine jufdce ; he mult Ihow, that 
 it is not confiitent with divine juftice, to leave a fnmer to 
 proceed without end in his own chofen courfe of f n, and 
 to punilh him daily for his daity fms. Till he ihall have 
 done this, it will be in vain for him to plead, that thofe 
 who die in impenitence, will- all finally be faved, becaule 
 endlefs puni/hment is not reconcileable with the juftice of 
 God. 
 
 If after all, any man will infiit, that endlefs punifii- 
 ment is not reconcileable with divine jultice? he ought 
 fairly to anfwer the preceding reafoning, and to fliow that 
 the curfe of the divine law from which Chrift hath re- 
 deemed us, is either annihilation, or that mifery which 
 the damned are actually to fufFer ; or a longer temporary 
 mifery. Ke ought to fhov/ farther, that Chrilt cam.e to 
 deliver all men from fome other puniiiiment, than that 
 which is endlefs ; or that it is reconcileable with the cha- 
 racter of God to refufe to releafe man from an unjuft pu- 
 niihment, without ths mediation of his fon : that deliv-er- 
 ance from unjult punifliment is an a6t of free grace, 
 j)ardon, or forgivenefs : that deliverance front an unjult pu- 
 nifnment is a proper ground of extatic and evcriafiing 
 praife and tliankfr-ivin^- to God. 1 nat the very mifjion of 
 
conji/lwg In MiferyU tif 
 
 Chrift, the inftltution of the gofpel and of any means rie* 
 celTary to the dehverance of imners from endlcfs punifh- 
 ment, can be conlidered as gracious gifts and inftitutions, 
 on any other fuppofition than that endlefs punifhment is 
 JLifl. He ought alfo to ihovv',. of what advantage the me- 
 diation of Chrifc is to thole; who fulFer in hell for ages of 
 acres ; and how the hops and the p?-omifes of the gofpel, 
 and hov/ prayhig for the falvation of all men, can be re- 
 conciled with the idea, that endlefs punifliment is unjuft, 
 and finally, that it is unjuft, that God Ihould leave a linner 
 to perpetual iln, and to piiniih him perpetually for that lin. 
 It fcems to be but an acl of juiliee to Dr. C. to repeat 
 here, what I noticed before, that he himfelf, whether con- 
 fiftently or not, does acknowledge the juftice of endlefs pu- 
 nifhment : as in thefe words : *^ If the next ftate is a ftate 
 *• of punifliment, not intended for the cure of the pa— 
 *^ ticnts themfelves, but to fat'isfy the juftice of Gody 
 '^ and give Vv^arning to others, 'tis impofiible all men fhould 
 '^ be Hnall/ laved." f This is a plain declaration, that a 
 flate, in which" all falvation, and all poiTibility of falvation, 
 are excluded, no more than fatisfies juftice, or is no more 
 
 than juft. -The fame is confelTed in thofe many palTages 
 
 of this and the other v/orks of Dr. C. wherein he has po- 
 litively alTerted, that man cannot be " juftified on the foot 
 of mere law/' of ^M'igid law" &c.* He would not deny, 
 that the lavv^ of God is juft, perfectly juil. If therefore 
 we cannot be juftified on the foot of the divine law, Vv'e 
 muft on that foot be finally condemned, and confequently 
 muft be fi«ally condemned on the foot of juftice. There- 
 fore the final or endlefs condemnation of tlie wicked is en- 
 tirely juft. The juft law of God himfelf condemns them: 
 and if that law, *' mere lav/,'' '^' rigid law,^' be executed, 
 they muft be condemned to an endlefs punifnment, and can- 
 not poiPibly be juftified or faved. So long therefore as the 
 divine law is juft, fo long, according to the conceffion of Dr. 
 C. the endlefs condemnation and mifery of the wicked are 
 juft. — — There feems to be no way" to avoid this confe- 
 quence, but by holding that the curfe of the law, and the 
 puniihinent Vv'hich *' fatisfies juftice," are annihilation, 
 witii refpeft to which fentiment, I muft refer the reader 
 back to Chap. V. But how incoofiftent it is, to hold, that 
 endlefs puniihment, whether confiftirg in annihilation, cr 
 
 II lifer 7 
 
 [- 1 . II. ^ . 34? j-> "-xZy ^"'-' 
 
iiS The Ji'Jl'ice of endlefs Piin'ijl:ment 
 
 mifery, is no more than fatisfacftory to juftlce ; and at the 
 fame time to hold, that the wicked in temporary pains in 
 hell^ fuffer according to their dei'erts, and endure the whole 
 penahy of the law, cannot efcape the notice of any atten- 
 tive reader.^ — Or will it be faid, that the Doftor held a 
 commutation of punifhmenr ? that endlefs annihilation is 
 cnmmiited iov temjjorary mifery ? If fo, then temporary mi- 
 fery is the curfe of the divine law now inflitled in commu- 
 tation for endlefs annihilation ; and onr author was entire- 
 ly miilaken in a doctrine abundantly taught in all his wri-- 
 tings, that, ''bylaw," ''mere law,'^ "rigid law," no 
 man can be juflified or faved. 
 
 As a corollary from the whole of the preceding reafon- 
 ing concerning thejuftice of endlefs puniiliment, may I not 
 fafely aiTert, v;hat was mod grievous to Dr. C. and is fo 
 to all other advocates for univerfcd falvation ; that sin is 
 AN INFINITE Evil ? if every Inmer do, on account of lin, 
 deferve an endlefs punifnment, fin is an mfinite evil ; that 
 is all that is meant by the infinite evil of fm. —There- 
 fore if any man deny the infinite evil of fm, let him prove, 
 that it does not deferve an endlefs puniihment, and let him 
 anfwer the preceding reafoning to evince the juflice of end- 
 lefs punifhment.* 
 
 Perhaps fom.e may object, that fuppofing fin do deferve 
 aTi endlefs puniflmient, when it is not repented of; yet how 
 can it deferve fo great a puniihment, when it is renounced 
 in real repentance.— — But if repentance make atonement 
 for fin ; if it fatisfy the broken law of God ; if it repair the 
 damage done to fociety by fin ; or if it fo far atone, that 
 the good of the univerfe, com.prehending the glory of the 
 deity, though it before required, that fin iliould be punifh- 
 ed with endlefs puniihment, now requires that it be punifh- 
 cd with a temporary punifhment only ; tlien as repentance 
 is a fatisfaclicn made by the finner himfelf, and makes a 
 part of his perfonal charader, lin repented of, does indeed 
 not deferve endlefs puniihment, otherwife it does. And 
 if repentance do make the fatisfaclicn for fin which has been 
 
 deicribed 
 * In this chapter it luas often ijTore convenient for me, on 
 fever al accounts y to ufe the expreffion endlefs puniiliment, 
 //'^/2 //;.?/ 0/ endlefs mifery. Still the reader luiil perceive, 
 that the latter is my meaning. Thereafons had b sen given in the 
 preceding chapter , why the endlefs pimfomcnt of th^ damned 
 cannot be annihilation, ^ 
 
ton fi fling in M'lfery* 42^ 
 
 clefcribed, then the fatisfacllon or atonement of Chrlft is in 
 vain, fince repentance would have anfwered the purpofe 
 without the death and atonement of Chrift. There was 
 no need that fmners be redeemed by Chrift, or as Dr. C. 
 fays, that he fliould be '' the perfon upon ivhofs accounty^ 
 and that '* his obedience and death fhould be the ground 
 *' or reafon upon which happinefs fhould be attainable by 
 ** any of the race of Adam. '^ They might have redeem- 
 ed themfelves, and by repentance have made a full fatis- 
 faclion or atonement for their own fms, and thus might 
 have been faved 07t their own account ^y and on the ground or 
 
 reafon of their repentance, But if on the other hand it 
 
 be granted, that repentance does not make atonement or 
 fatisfaclion for lin, and it be juft to puniili a fmner without 
 end, provided he do not repent; it is jufi to inflid the 
 fame puniihment, though he do repent. 
 
 Th I s chapter fliall be clofed with a remark on a pafTage 
 before quoted from Dr. C* in which he fays, that the dif- 
 ference in the degree of the pain of the damned will fcarce 
 be thought worthy to be brought into the account, when 
 
 the circumftance ofendlefs duration, is annexed to it.- 
 
 If the different degrees of the mifery of the damned be un- 
 worthy of notice, and do not fufficiently diilinguifli them ac- 
 cording to their feveral degrees of demerit ; then the dif- 
 ferent degrees in the happinefs of the faints in heaven do 
 not fufficiently diftinguifii them, according to their charac- 
 ters. Therefore on the fame principle we ought to deny 
 the endlefs duration of the happinefs of heaven, as well as 
 of the misery of hell ; and to fay, that the difference in 
 the degree of happinefs of the bleifed in heaven, will fcarce 
 be thought worthy to be brought into the account, when 
 the circumflahce of endlefs duration is annexed to it ; that 
 if the happinefs of heaven be of endlefs duration, the hap- 
 pinefs of all the inhabitants of that world will be equal, 
 which is inconfiftent with the declarations of fcripture, that 
 all fnall be rewarded according to their works ; and that 
 therefore the dodrine of the endlefs happinefs of heaven 
 
 is not true. But the falfity of this conclufion is evident 
 
 to all : and equally falfe is theconcluiion from the like pre- 
 mifes, that the puniihment of the damned is not endlefs. 
 
 V* XJl. 
 P. 309. 
 
 " A P. 
 
130 /tnoiher view ofthf 
 
 C H A P. VII. 
 
 Containing another view of the queflhn concerning the JuJlxcC 
 of endlefs Ptmifhment, 
 
 IN the preceding chapter, the queftion concerning the juf- 
 tice of endlefs puniihment was coniidered in the hght in 
 which it is flated by Dr. C. There is another view of the 
 ianie queftion, which is not indeed exhibited in his book,but is 
 much talked of by fome who in general embrace his fcheme. 
 It is this ; Whatev^er the general good requires, is juft : 
 Whatever is not fubfervient to the general good, is unjufl. 
 Now as the endlefs puniihment of the wicked is, in their 
 opinion, not fubfervient but hurtful to the general good, 
 it is, fay they, unjuit. The queftion thus ftated feems to 
 be nothing more than a difpute concerning the proper 
 meaning of the word juftice* It reduces all juftice to the 
 third fenfe of juftice as explained above,* and perfectly 
 confounds juftice with goodnefs as it refpedls the general 
 fyftem. Therefore the queftion which comes up to view, 
 according to the fenfe of juftice now propofed, is the very 
 fame with this. Whether the endlefs punifhment of the 
 wicked be coniiftent with the general good of the univerfe, 
 or with divine goodnefs ; which Ihall be coniidered at large 
 in the next chapter, and needs not be anticipated here. 
 However it may be proper to point out' the impropriety 
 and abfurd confequences of this ufe of the word jufllce. 
 
 It was doubtlefs fubfervient to the general good, that 
 our Lord Jefus Chrift was crucified by wicked hands, and 
 therefore in the fenfe of juftice now under confideration, 
 his crucifixion was juft ; they v/ho perpetrated it, perform- 
 ed an ad: of juftice. Yet will any man pretend, that our bleffed 
 Lord was not injurioufly treated by his wicked crucifiers ? 
 If they committed no injury to our Lord, wherein did the 
 wickednefs of this aftion confift ? — The truth is, the cru- 
 cifixion of Chrift was no injury to the univerfe, but an in- 
 eftimable benefit : yet it was the higheft injury that could 
 be done him perlbnally. 
 
 Every ^nftance of murder is doubtlefs made by the over- 
 ruling hand of divine providence, fubfervient to the ge- 
 neral good and the divine glory. But does a man murder- 
 *' P. 80, Sec. ed 
 
Juji'ice of endltfs PumP^meni, 131 
 
 cd fufFer no injury ? The fame may be faid of all the 
 aflaultS;, thefts, robberies, murders and other cringes that 
 have ever been committed. Though they will in the con- 
 fiimmation of all things be overruled to fubferve the general 
 good, fo that the univerfe will finally fuffer no injury by 
 them; yet very great perfonal injury may be done by them to 
 thofe who have been robbed, murdered, &:c. Thefe ob- 
 fervations may fhov/ the necelhty of diftinguifliing between 
 the private rights of individuals, and the rights of the uni- 
 verfe, and between private, perfonal injuftice, and injuftice 
 to the univerfe. If all the crimes in the world, becaufe 
 they will be finally rendered by the divine hand fubfer- 
 vient to the good of the univerfe, be in every fenfe en- 
 tirely juft, and the omiffion of them v/ould be iinjuft ; 
 where fhall any injuftice be found ? No injuftice is, ever 
 was, or can polhbly be committed by any being in this, or 
 any other world. No injuftice can be committed, till fome 
 thing (hcili be done, which God Ihall not finally render fub- 
 fervient to his ov.n glory and the good of the intelledlual 
 fyfleni. 
 
 According to the principle now under confideration, 
 it would not be juft, that any man fhould efcape any cala- 
 mity, which he does in fad fuifer. It was not juft that I'aul 
 fnould efcape ftcning at Lyftra, or that John ftiould not be 
 banifiied to the iftc of Patnios : and whenever it is fubfer- 
 vient to the public good, that any criminal, a murderer 
 for inftance, Ihould be pardoned, or ftiould be fuiFered to 
 pafs with impunity ; it is not juft to punifti him ; he does 
 not deferre punifhment ; Cain did not deferve death for 
 the murder of his brother, nor did Joab, during the life 
 of David, deferv^e death for the two murders of Abner 
 and Amafa, both better men than himfelf. And if he did 
 not deferve death, what did he deferve \ It appears by the 
 hiftory and by the event, that it was not fubfervient to the 
 general good, that he ftiould, during the life of David, 
 be pnnifhed at all. Therefore on theprefent fuppofition, 
 he deferved, during that period, no puniihment at all for 
 thofe murders. If fo, then during the fame period, at 
 leaft, there was no fin, no moral evil in thofe murders : 
 for (in or moral evil always deferves hatred and punifli- 
 
 ment. But afterwards in the reign of Solomon, the 
 
 general good required Joab to be puniihed with death. At 
 That time therefore he deferred death for thofe murders; 
 
 an el 
 
132 Endlefs Punijhynfnt coytfi/fent with 
 
 and thofe fame aclions which for feveral years after they 
 were perpetrated, had no incral evil in them, grew, by 
 mere length of time, or change of the circumltances of the 
 
 ftate, to be very great moral evils. See then to what 
 
 confequences the principle now under confideration will 
 lead us ! It muft therefore be renounced as falfe, or as a 
 great perverfionof language. 
 
 When I afTert the juftice of the endlefs punifhment of 
 the wicked, I mean that it is juft in the fame fenle, in 
 which it v/as jufl, that Cain or Joab fliould be executed as 
 murderers: i. e. it is correfpondent to their perfonal con- 
 duct and characters. If thofe with whom I am now dif- 
 puting, allow that the endlefs punifhment of the wicked is 
 juft in this fenfe, they allow all for which I at prefent con- 
 tend. If they deny, that it is juft in this fenfe, they give 
 up their favorite principle, and difpute againft the juftice 
 *of endlefs punifliment, not merely becaufe it would be in- 
 confiftent with the general good, butfor the fame reafons 
 as thofe for which Dr. C. difputed againft it : and they 
 place the queftion on the fame footing, on which it has 
 been fo largely conlidered in the preceding chapters. The 
 execution of Cain as a murderer would have been corref- 
 pondent to his perfonal condu6t, and therefore would have 
 been juft. If the endlefs punifhment of the wicked be de- 
 nied |o be jufl in this fenfe, it is denied to be juft, not mere- 
 ly becaufe it would not be fubfervient to the good of the 
 univerfe ; but becaufe it would not be a punifnment corref- 
 pondent to their perfonal condu6t ; inftead of this, it would 
 exceed the demerit of that condufl, and therefore would 
 rob them of their perfonal rights. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 In 'which It Is inquired y whether endlefs puntJJj7nent he conjl- 
 fient with the divhie goodnefs , 
 
 '' J ^KATthis inquiry is very important, everyone mufl 
 JL be feiifible, who is in the leair acquainted with this 
 ecntroverfy. No topic is lo much infilled on by the advo- 
 cates for univerfal falvation ; en no fubjeci do they throw 
 ©ut fuch abundant and fervciU declaniaticn; no argument 
 
 is 
 
th; divine Coodtiefs, i^j 
 
 ts urged with fuch an air of triumph. This is their flrong 
 hold, in which they feel themfelves perfeclly fecure, and' 
 from which they imagine fuch effeftual fallies may be made;"* 
 as will drive out of the field all believers in endlefs puniih-' 
 ment. Therefore this part of our fubject requires parti- 
 cular and clofe attention. 
 
 I PROPOSE to begin with dating the queftion, — then to 
 proceed to fome general obfervations concerning the di- 
 vine goodnefs and fome conceflions made by Dr. C. — 
 then to confider Dr. C's arguments from the divine g-ood- 
 nefs ; — and in the lad place, to mention fome confider ations 
 to fliow, that the endlefs punifliment of fome of mankind, 
 is not inconfiftent with the divine goodnefs. 
 
 I. It is a matter of great importance, that the queftion. 
 now to be confidered be clearly flated. The queftion is. 
 Whether it be conliftent with the divine goodnefs, that 
 any of mankind be doomed to endlefs punifhment confifting 
 in mifery. This queftion is not now to be confidered with 
 any reference to the atonement of Chrift ; or the argu- 
 ment in favour of univerfal falvation, drawn from the di- 
 vine goodnefs, does not depend at all on the atonem.ent. 
 To argue that goodnefs requires the falvation of all men 
 now fince Chrift has made a fufficient atonement, irnphes 
 that without the atonement no fuch argument coiij^d be 
 urged . To argue from the atonement is not to argu^jj&*om 
 goodnefs merely, but from fatl, from the gofpel, Troin 
 particular texts or from the general nature of the p-ofpel. 
 The argiiment is this ; Chrift hath made atonement for 
 all, therefore all will be faved. But that this argument 
 may carry conviction, it muft firft be made evident that 
 the atonement did refpecl all mankind ; alfo that it is the 
 intention of God, to apply the virtue of that fufficient 
 atonement, totheaclual falvaiion of all. But thefe things 
 can be proved from the declarations of fcripture only* 
 Now all Dr. C^s arguments from fcripture Ihall be confi- 
 dered in their place ; but this is not their place. 
 
 The queftion. Whether it be conliftent with divine 
 goodnefs, that any of m.ankind be punifned v/ithout Qnd, 
 means, either, Whether it be confiftent with the greateii 
 poflible exertion or difplay of goodnefs in the Deity ; or 
 Whether it be confiftent v/ith goodnefs in general, fo that 
 God is in general a good Being, and not cruel and malicious , 
 though he do inflid: endlefs punifhment on fome men. — — 
 
 It 
 
134 Endhfs Puri'Jhment cwfflcnt with 
 
 It is not an article of my fairh, that in all the works of 
 creation and providence taken together, God difplays in- 
 deed goodnefs in general, but not the greateft pofiiblc 
 goodnefs. This diilincluon is made, to accommodate the 
 difcourfe, if pofTible, to the meaning of Dr. C. As he 
 denies that God has adopted the beft polTible plan of the 
 univerfe, it feems, that he mull have diftinguiihcd in his 
 own mind, between the goodnefs accually exerted and dif- 
 played by the Deity in ihe prefent fyiiem, and the great- 
 eft poffible difplay of goodnefs. 
 
 If the former of thefe be intended by Dr. C. and others, 
 all their ftrong and frightful declamations on this fubje^l, 
 come to this only, that endlefs punifhment is not the great- 
 eft polhble difplay of the divine goodnefs ; or that the fy- 
 ftera of the univerfe, if endlefs puniihment m.ake a part 
 
 of it, is not the wifeil and befl poiTible. But 
 
 this is no more thnn is holden by Dr. C. and it is prefu- 
 med by other advocates in general for univerfalfalvation. 
 Dr. C. abundantly holds, as v/e fiiall fee preiently, that 
 the prefent fyftem of the univerfe, according to his own 
 view of it, without endlefs punilhment, is not the wifeft and 
 beft poifible. It is therefore perfefl abfurdity in him, to 
 object, on this ground, to endlefs punithment. 
 
 But it is manifeft, by the veheingnt and pathetic excla- 
 mations of Dr. C. en thisfubjet^, that he aimed at fome- 
 .^-thing'more than this. It is manifeil that he fuppofed and 
 meant to reprefent, that if the doctrine of endlefs punilh- 
 ment be true, God is not a p-ood, a benevolent beirio;, but 
 a cruel, malicious one. ?Ie fays,* that the deftrlne of end- 
 lefs puniiliment *' gives occafion for very unworthy re- 
 ** flections on the Deity :" That in view of that doftrinc 
 ** t an horror of darknefs remains, that is fadly dillreiTmg 
 *' to many a coniiderate heart.'' Ke quotes^ with ap- 
 probation thofe v/ords from Mr. Y/hifton : *^ If the com- 
 ** mon doclrine were certainly true, thejVy/zVc'ofGodmuft 
 
 '* inevitably be given up, and much more his fuercy. 
 
 '^ This do£i:rine fappofes him,'* L^^^J ^' to delight in r/^j^/- 
 <* /)','' So that the queftion agitated by Dr. C. is really, 
 "VVhether, if God infiicl endlefs punifliment on any linner, 
 i-t be not an ad of cruelty and injujftcc, as all crutlty is in- 
 
 tuilice. But this is the very queftion, which has been 
 
 fo largely confidered in feveral preceding chapters, and 
 needs not to be reconfidered here. So that Dr. C's argu- 
 
 -* P, 8. f P, 14. % P. 356 ment* 
 
the divtn: Coodn^fs, t j^ 
 
 ments from goodnefs arc mere arguments from juftice; 
 and if endlefs punifhment be reconcileable with divine juf- 
 tice, it is equally reconcileable with divine goodnefs, in tfie 
 fenfe in which he argues from divine goodnefs. 
 
 If after all it be infifted on, that Dr. C. meant to con- 
 fider the queftion, or that the queftion ought to be conli- 
 dered, in the firft {ew^z Itated above, viz. Whether endlefs 
 punilhment be confiilent with the moft perfect difplay of 
 goodnefs ; although if the negative of this queliion v/ere 
 granted, Dr. C. could not confiftently thence draw an ar- 
 g'jment in favor of univcrfal falvation ; yet it may be pro- 
 per to confider this flate of the queftion, and perhaps fuf-» 
 ficient obfervations upon it will occur in the fequel of this 
 chapter. 
 
 II. I a:m to make fome general obfervations concerning 
 the divine goodnefs, and take notice of fome conccilions 
 made by Dr. C. 
 
 The goodnefs of God is that glorious attribute, by which 
 he is difpofed to communicate happinefs to his creatures. 
 This divine attribute is diftinguiHied from the divine juftice 
 in this manner : the divine juftice promotes the happinefs 
 of the univerfal fyftem, im.plying the divine glory, by treat- 
 ing a perfon fbridily according to his own character : the 
 divine goodnefs promotes the fame important object, by 
 treating a perfon more favorably than is sccording to his 
 own character or conduct: So that both juftice and good- 
 nefs may and always do, as far as they are exercifed, fub- 
 ferve the happinefs of the univerfal fyftem, including the 
 glory of rfie Deity, or the glory of the Deity, including the 
 happinefs of the univerl'al fyflem. As the glory of God, 
 and the greajte ft happinefs of the fyftem of the univerfe, 
 and even of the created fyftem, mutuallj'- imply each other ; 
 whenever I mention either of them, I wifn to be under- 
 ftood to include in my meaning the other alfo. The de- 
 clarative or the exhibited glory of God, is a moft perfect 
 and moft happv created fyftem ; and a moft perfect and 
 moft happy created fyftem. is the exhibited glory of God ; 
 or it is the exhibition, the manifeftation of that glory ; as 
 a pic1:ure is an exhibition of the man. 
 
 TiiAT iniinite goodnefs is in God, and is effential to his 
 nature, is granted on all hands : Cod is lgvf. This at- 
 tribute feeks the happinefs of creatures, the happinefs of 
 the created fyftem in general, and of Qvery individual 
 
 creature 
 
,^3^ Endhfs ^unijlomtnt conjlfient -wiih 
 
 creature in particular, lb far as the happinefs of that indi- 
 vidual is not inconliftent with the happineis of the fyftem, 
 .or with happinefs on the whole. But if in any cafe, the 
 happinefs of an individual be inconfiflent with the happi- 
 nefs of the fyflem, or with the happinefs of other indivi- 
 duals, fo that by beftov/ing happinefs on the firfi; fuppofed 
 individual, the quantity of happinefs on the whole Ihall be 
 diminifhed ; in this cafe, goodnefs, the divine goodnefs, 
 .,%yhich is perfeft and infinite, v.'ill not confent to beftow 
 happinefs on that individual. Indeed to beftow happinefs 
 in iuch a cafe would be no inflance of goodnefs, but of the 
 , want of goodnefs. It would argue a dlfpolition not to in- 
 creafe happinefs, but to diminifn and deftroy it. 
 
 Therefoiie that Dr. C. iniglit prove, that the endlefs 
 puniiliment of any fmner is inconfiftent v.'ith the goodnefs 
 of God, he fliould h'ave fliown, that the fum total of hap- 
 pinefs enjoyed in the intelle6lual fyftem will be greater if 
 all be faved, than it will be if any fuffer an endlefs punifli- 
 ment. To ihow that God by his infinite goodnefs will be 
 excited to feek and to fecure the greateft happinefs of the 
 fyjtem^ determines nothing. This is no more than is grant- 
 ed by the believers in endlefs puniiliment. It is imperti. 
 nent therefore to fpend time on this. But the great quef- 
 tion is, Does the greateft happinefs of the fyftem require 
 the final happinefs of every finner ? If Dr. C, have not 
 Ihown that it does, his argument from divine goodnefs is 
 entirely inconcluiive. 
 
 Instead of fhowing, that the divine, goodnefs or the 
 greateft happinefs of the general fyftem, requires the final 
 happinefs of every individual; Dr. C. has abundantly 
 Ihown the contrary. In his book on the Benevolence of the 
 Deity * he expreffes himfelf thus ; ^' It would be injuri- 
 *' ous to the Deity to complain of him foi' want of goodnefs 
 *' merely becaufe the manifeftation of it to our particular 
 '' fyftem, confidered (ingly and apart from the reft, is not 
 
 '* fo great as w^- may imagine it could be. No more 
 
 *' happinefs is required for our fyftem, even from mfinitely 
 " perfe^ henevolencey than is proper for a part of fome 
 ** great rohole.-^ — We ought not to coniider the difplays 
 '^ of divine benevolence, as they affedl: individual beings 
 '^ only, but as they relate to the ^-avticwl^Y fyflem of which 
 
 '< they are parts. The divine benevolence is to be efii- 
 
 *< mated from its amount to this ivhole, and not its corfii- 
 *P. 36, &c, '' tuent 
 
the d'lv'tns Goodnefs. 737 
 
 *^ iiient parts feparately confidered. The only fair way 
 
 *^ of judging of the divine benevolence with refpecl to 
 ^^ our world, is to confider it not as difplayed to Jeparate 
 <^ individuals y but to the whohfyftem, and to thefe as its 
 
 conitituent parts.'' '- f No more good i> to be ex- 
 
 pscted from the Deity v/ith refpecl: to any [pedes ot be- 
 ings, or any indivinuals in thefe fpecies, than is reafon- 
 ably conriiient vvith the good of the whole of which they 
 
 '' are parts.'' -'■ t It is tru:.', that dedruclion of life 
 
 *^ will follov/, if foine animals are food to others. But it 
 " rnay be true alfo, that there would not have been fp 
 ^•' much life, and confcquently happinefs, in the creation, 
 
 *'• had it not been for this expedient." ^^ ii As we are 
 
 '"' only one of the numerous orders which conffituce a ge- 
 '^ neral fyftem, this quite alters the cafe, making thofe 
 *• capacities only an evidence of wife and reafonable bene- 
 *' volence, which are fitted for a particular part fuilaining 
 
 '^ fuch a place in the conffitution of ihis zvhok.^' '' * I 
 
 '^ proceed to ihovv wherein the unhappinefs that is con- 
 '' necled in nature, or by pofitive infliclion of the Deity, 
 '^ with the mifufe of moral powers, is fubfervient to tl^e 
 '^ general good of the rational creation, which is hereby 
 '• more effsclually promoted, than it would have been, if 
 '^ free agents might have acted wrong v/ith impunity." — 
 *^ nil For if they" [future puniliiments] ^^ are confidered — 
 ^' under the notion of a needful moral mean intended to 
 *^ promote, upon the whole, more good in the tntelliga^t ere- 
 *^ ation, than might otherwife be reafonably expelled ; 
 '• thev are fo far from beincr the efFect of ill will, that 
 *^ they really fpring from benevolence and are a part of it. 
 
 By thefe quotations" it appears with fufiicient clearnefs, 
 that it vyas Dr. C's opinion, that there are defeds, miferies 
 and puniihments of individual creatures, v/hich are coniif- 
 tentwith the good of the fyilem, and are therefore confif- 
 tent with the divine p-oodnefs : and that the divine good- 
 nefs does not feek the happinefs of any individual any fur- 
 ther, than the happinefs of that individual is fubfervient to 
 the happinefs of the fyftera, or to the increafe of happinefs 
 on the whole. Therefore Dr. C. fuppofes the miferies of 
 men in this life, and even the puniilments of the future 
 world, are not inconfiftent wiih the divine goodnefs, be- 
 
 caufe they are fubfervient to the good of the iyftem. 
 
 T Now 
 
 t P. 5S. X P. 84. !! P. 107. =^ P. 237. IHI p. 242. 
 
I^S Bnilcfs V unijl:ment conpjjent with 
 
 Now the advocates for endlefs punifhment believe the Tamtf 
 concerning the endlefs punifhment of thofe who die impe* 
 nitent; and for him to fuppofe without proof, that this pu- 
 niihment is not confident v/ith the greateft good and hap- 
 pinefs of the fyftem, is but begging the queftion. 
 
 What is the abfurdity of fuppofmg, that the endlefs pu- 
 niminent of foine Tinners may be fubfervient to the good of 
 the fyllem ? Why may not the general good be promoted, 
 as well by endlefs mifery, as by the miferies of this life ? 
 And why may we not be allowed to account for endlefs 
 mifery in the fame Vvay, that Dr. C. accounts for the mi- 
 feries of this life, or for the temporary mifery which he al- 
 lows to be in hell ? It is now fuppofe d to have been proved, 
 that endlefs punilhment is juft. If then the general good 
 may be promoted by the tortures of the ftone endured for 
 a year, by a m.an who deferves them, why may not the ge- 
 neral good be promoted by the fame tortures, continued 
 without end, provided the man deferves fuch a continuance 
 of them? If we v/ere to judge a priori, we fliould probably 
 decide agfjuil mifery in either cafe. But fa6t fliows that 
 temporary miferies are confiftent with the goodnefs of God, 
 or with the general good : and wAvy may not endlefs mile- 
 ry be fo too, provided it be juft? 
 
 If it be aiferted, that the endlefs punifhment of a fmner 
 v/ho deferves fuch punilhrniCnt, is fo great an evil, that it 
 cannot be compcnfated by any good, v/hich can arife from 
 it to the fyftem ; I v/iih to have a reafon given for this af- 
 fertion. It is granted that the good accruing to the fyftem 
 overbalances the temporary miferies oflinners both here 
 and hereafter. And is the endlefs mifery of an individu- 
 al, though juftiy deferved, fo great an evil, that it cannot 
 be overbalanced, by any endlefs good, which may thence 
 accrue to the fyflem ? Endlefs m.ifery is doubtlefs an infi- 
 nite evil ; fo is the endlefs good thence arifmg, an infinite 
 good. 
 
 Non does it appear, but thnt all the good ends, which 
 are anfwered by the temporary punilhment of the damned, 
 may be continued to be anfwered by their continual and 
 endlefs punilhment, if it be juft, God may continue to 
 difplay his juftice, his holinefs, his hatred of fm, his love 
 of righteoulhefs, and of the general good, by oppoling and 
 punifhing thofe v/lio are obiiinately fet in the practice of 
 fm, and in the oppofition of righteoufntfs^ and of the ge- 
 neral 
 
the divine Goodnefs, i^^ 
 
 neral good. In the fame way he may eftablifh his audio-* 
 rity, manifefl the evil of fin, reilrain others from it, and by 
 a contraft of the circumftances of the faved and damned, 
 increafe the gratitude and happinefs of the former, as well 
 as increafe their happinefs by the view of tlie divine holi- 
 iiefs, and regard to the general good, manifefted in the pu- 
 ni/liment of the obftinate enemies of holinefs and of the gene- 
 ral good ; and by a view of divine grace in their own fal- 
 vation, and the falvation of all who ihall be faved. Thefe 
 are the principal public ends to be anfwercd by temporary 
 vindidive punifliment, on fuppolition that future punifh- 
 ment is temporary ; and if any other good end to the univerfe 
 ihall be anfwered by it^ in the opinion of thofe who believe 
 it, let it be mentioned, that by a thorough enquiry we may 
 fee whether the fame good end may not be anfwered by 
 continual and endlefs puniiliment. 
 
 Another quertion concerning the divine goodnefs pro- 
 per to be conlidered here, is, whether \x.fecure and make 
 certain the final happinefs of every man ; or whether it be 
 fatisfied with this, that opportunity and means are afford- 
 ed to every man to obtain happinefs, if he will feize the 
 
 opportunity and ufe the means. Concerning this alfo. 
 
 Dr. C. hath fu/ficiently exprefled his fentiments ; as in 
 the folio wino; palTages ; ^^ * V/e muft not jadge of the be- 
 *^ nevolence of the Deity merely from the acinal good we 
 *' {eeproducedj butihould likewife take into conQderation 
 ^' the tendency of tliofe general laws conformably to \ 
 '^ which it is produced. Becaufe the tendency of thofe 
 *' lavvs may be obftracled, and lefs good a<iiually take 
 '' place ^ than they were naturally ftted to produce. In 
 '^ which cafe, it is no argument of want of goodnefs in 
 '^ the. Deity, that no more good was communicated ; 
 ^^ though it may be of folly in the creatures.'' — ^^ f It is 
 (^ impoihble we fhould judge fairly of the Creator's bene- 
 '' volence, from a vievv- only of our vi^orld, under itspre- 
 *^ fent aclaal enjoyments. But if we would form right 
 '* fentiments of it, we muft confider the tendency of the 
 *' divine fcheme of operation, and what the ilate of the 
 ^' world would have been, if the rational and moral beings 
 ^' in it had acted up to the laws of their nature and oiven 
 
 *'' them full fcope for the produdion of good." '* X 4.11 
 
 <* the good fuitable l\3r fuch a f\{lem as this, is apparently 
 
 the 
 
 * Bene\', of the Deity; p. 60. f lb, p. 69. % p. lb, 73. 
 
140 Endlefs puntfJmient confijlent "jjith 
 
 " the tendency of nature and the divine adminiflratlon, 
 '^ and it actually prevails fo far as this tendency is not per- 
 ^^ verted by creatures tbeinfelves. — tor v/hich he'' [God] 
 ^' is not anfwcrable.'^ The Deilor exprefles hinifelf to 
 the fame purport in many otlier pafiages of the fame book. 
 It is inanifeit, that in thefe pafTages, Dr. C. efleems 
 it a fufiicient vindication of the divine goodnefs, that God 
 hath eftabliflied o-ood laws, huih benevolentlv conftituted 
 the nature of things and hath given opportunity to men to 
 fecure to themfelves tlie enjoyment oC p'ood : and that the 
 divine goodnefs does not imply that every individual crea- 
 ture fliall actually enjoy complete oood or happinefs. Jf 
 thefe things be true, then no argument from the divine 
 goodnefs can prove, that every individual of mankind will 
 be finally happy : the divine goodnefs though complete 
 and infinite does not fecure a clual happinefs to every indi- 
 vidual : it fecures the opportunity and means only of hap- 
 pinefs : or it fecures fucha divine fcheme as has Tatendeticy 
 to the happinefs of all, and would avStually prevail to the 
 communication of happinefs to all, if it were not perverted 
 by creatures themfelves, for which perverfion God is not 
 anfwerable. 
 
 Now that fuch a divine fcheme as this is aftually adopt- 
 ed, is undoubted truth, and may be granted by every ad- 
 vocate for endlefs punifliment. Therefore on tlie fame 
 ground on which Dr. C. vindicates the goodnefs of God, 
 from the objeftions which arife from prefent calamities, 
 and from future temporary puniiliment ^-may the fame 
 goodnefs be vindicated from the objections which are raifed 
 from endlefs punilhraent. In the former cafe it is pleaded, 
 that God is infinitely good, though creatures fuffer cala- 
 mities here and deferved punifliment hereafter, becaufe he 
 has given them opportunity to obtain happinefs, and has 
 adopted a fcheme of operation which has a tendency to 
 good. Juir fo God is infinitely good, though feme men 
 fui^^r deferved endlefs punifliment ; becaufe he has given 
 manivind opportunity to obtain eternal life and falvatioh, 
 and has adopted a fcheme of providence and of grace, 
 which will aftualiy prevail to the final falvation of all, 
 if it be not ncglecled or perverted by men themfelves ; for 
 which ni'glect or perverfion God is not anfwerable. 
 
 It is alio conceded by Dr. C.* that ** none of tlie fons 
 
 " of Adam, by the mere exercife of their natural povv'ers, 
 
 .* 12 Serm. p. zjo. *■ ever 
 
the divine Coodncfs, 141 
 
 *' everyet attained to a nerfeft knowledge of this rule'^ [the 
 rule of man's dut)'', and of God's conduct in rewarding and 
 puniihing.] '' Moft certainly they are unable, after all 
 ** theirreafonings, to fa}-, whatpuiiifiirnentasto /j/;f/f/, or de- 
 ^^ gree, or duration, would be their due, in cafe of fm." 
 This is plainly to giv^e up all arguments againft endiefs pu- 
 nifhment, drawn from the goodnefs of God, or from any o- 
 ther divine perfection. For if ^' mofc certainly after all 
 '*' our reafonings" from the divine perfections as Vs^ell as 
 from other topics of reafon, we be '^ unable to fay v/haf pu- 
 ^' nilliment, as to kind, or degree, or duration, is due'*ln cafe 
 ^' oflinj'^ then ^^ mojr certainly yjq are unable to fay,'* 
 but that an endiefs punilhment, and that coniirting in mife- 
 ry too, is due, and is necelTary to fecure and promote the 
 good of the f3''rtem. Therefore to have been confiftent, 
 Dr. C. o'JiTht never to have pretended, that endiefs niile- 
 ry is not reconcileable with divine goodnefs. 
 
 D?v. C. farther grants, that it may be neceflary, that the 
 penalty of the divine lav/ be inflicted, and that the inflidi- 
 on of it may be honorable to God, and ufeful to creatures : 
 yea, he grants, that the full penalty of the lav/ will aftual- 
 ly be inflicled on fome men. " ^-^ Perhaps the reafons of 
 '^ government mJght make it fit and proper, and therefore 
 " morally neceiTary, that the threatening, which God has 
 '^ denounced, ihouM be executed. Would the v/ifdom of 
 *^ the fupreme legidator have guarded his proliibition v/itk 
 ^' a penalty it was not reafwable and juil he fhould inflio: ? 
 '' And might not the infiidion of it, vv^hen incurred, be of 
 ^' fervlce' iig;nal fervice, to the honor of the divine autho- 
 '^ rity, and to fecure the obedience of tue creature m all 
 
 ^^ after timea?"-^ If it be *^ fit j?nd proper, and morally 
 
 '^ necelTary; ^' if it be ^^ of fip-nal fervice to the honor of 
 *^ the divine authority, and to fecure the obedience of 
 ^^ creatures,'' to infii6t the penalty of the divine lav/ ; 
 doubtlefs the infliclion of it is not only conllfLcnt v/ith the 
 general good, but lubfervient to it, and therefore perfectly 
 confiflent )vith the divine goodnefs. It is not '* reaioaa- 
 ble," that God ihould imiid; the penalty of his law, unlefs 
 the infliction be confiftent with the general good, and fo 
 with the divine goodnefs. Therefore the queilion proj^o- 
 fed in the lafl qiioiaiion may with equal truth and force be 
 propofed a little diifirently, thus^ Would the v/ifdom of 
 
 >-. the 
 
 * 5 DilTer. p. 231. 
 
142 Endltfs PumJJjmeni confifient with 
 
 the fuprcme legiflator have guarded his prohibition with a 
 penalty, which it was not confiftent with the general gcod 
 of the univerfe, or with the goodnefs of his own nature, 
 that he fhould in any one inflance inflict ? Thus it ap- 
 pears to he fully granted, that divine goodnefs does not op- 
 pofe the infliftion of the penalty of the divine law, but re- 
 quires it. Nay, as hath been hinted above. Dr. C. ex- 
 
 preffly afTerts, that the penalty of the law will be iuiiided 
 on fome men ; that, on thofe who pafs through the tor- 
 ments of hell, the divine lav/ will take its courie, and the 
 
 threatened penalty will be fully executed.* Now what 
 
 the penalty of the divine lav/ is, we have before endeavour- 
 ed to fliow. Therefore if ourreafoning on that head be juft, 
 it follows from that reafoning and from Dr. C'"s conceiTions 
 in the preceding quotations taken together, that endlefs pu- 
 nifliment is not only reconcileable v/ith divine goodnefs, 
 but is abfolutel)^ required by it. Would divine goodnefs 
 both denounce and actually inflict a penalty, which that 
 goodnefs did not require, and which was not even reconcile- 
 able with it ? 
 
 Dr. C. informs us,f that ^' Chrift was fent into the 
 '* world, and the great delign he Vv'as fent upon was to 
 '^ make ivny for the v/isEjjV/? and holy excrcife of mere}'' — 
 *^ towards ihe linful fons of Hjen.^' It feenis then, that 
 if it had not been for- the mediation of Chriil, there would 
 iiave been -no way for the exercife of mercy towards men, 
 in a confiflency not with juflice and holinel's only, but with 
 wifdom? and if not v/ith wifdom, not 'with the general 
 good : for wifdom always dictates that which is for the ge- 
 neral grood. And if it would noc have been confulent 
 with the general good, to excrcife mercy tov/ards dinners, 
 without the mediation of Chrifl, neither,would it have been 
 conliftent with the divine goodnefs, for that and that only 
 which is fubfervient to the general good, is an objejcl to 
 the divine goodnefs. In this fentimcnt Dr. C. was very 
 
 full, as we have already feen.-^- Therefore without the 
 
 !Dediation of Cliriit, divine goodnefs required, tfiat all man- 
 kind be left in a Hate of defpair under the curie of tiie lav»\ 
 And if it have been ihewn, that this curfe is endlefs mifery, 
 it follows, that divine goodnefs, required that all manlund, 
 if it had not been for tlie mediation of Chriit; fhould fuller 
 endlefs miiery. 
 
 III. As 
 
 ' P. 33^^- t 3 ^i^- P- 247. 
 
 * 
 
the divine Coodnefs, 14^ 
 
 III. As was propofed, Vv-e now proceed to Gonfider Dr. 
 C's arguments from the goodnefs of God, to prove the 
 falvation of all men. If fome of the following quotati- 
 ons be found to be rather pofitive affertions than argu- 
 ments ; I hope the fault will not be imputed to me, provi- 
 ded I quote thofe paffages which contain as ftrong argu- 
 ments from this topic, as any in his book. 
 
 (c % jj, jg high time, that fome generally received doc- 
 '^ trines lliould be renounced, and others embraced in their 
 ^' room that are more honourable to the Father of Mer- 
 ** cies, and comfortable to the creatures whom his hands 
 *' have formed. I doubt not it has been a perplexing dif- 
 ** ficulty to mofcperfons (lam fure it hasbeen fuch to me) 
 *^ how to reconcile the doccrine which dooms fo great .1 
 *^ number of the human race to eternal flames, with the 
 " elTential, abfolutely perfect goodnefs of the Deity. — 
 '^ And perhaps they contain ideas utterly irreconcileable 
 *^ with each other. To be fure, their ccnfiftency has ne- 
 << ver yet been fo clearly pointed out, but that a horrour 
 *^ of darkneis ftill remains that is fadly diftrelling to many 
 *^* a coniiderate tender heart.'' In this pafTage it is im- 
 plied, that the doctrine of endlefs mifery is not honourable 
 to the Father of Mercies. But what is the proof of this? 
 
 If there be any, it coniiilsin thefefeveral particulars • 
 
 That this doctrine is uncomfortable to the creatures of 
 God — That it has been a perplexing diiHculty to fome, Dr. 
 C. thinks to moil", and •' is fure it has been fuch to him,'* 
 to reconcile that doctrine with the o-oodnefs of God — That 
 perhaps th^y are irreconcileable — lliat to be fure (in Dr. 
 C^s opinion) they never have been fo reconciled, but that 
 a horrour of darknefs remains. 
 
 If thefe be arguments, they require an anfwer. — The 
 firfi is, that the doctrine of endlefj mifery is uncomfort- 
 able, or rather not i'o comfortable to God's creatures, as 
 fome other dodrines : therefore it is not honourable to the 
 
 Father of Mercies. But would Dr. C. dare to fay, 
 
 that every doctrine is diihonourablc to God, which is not 
 equally comfortable to frnful creatures, as fome other doc- 
 trines ? and that no doitnne is confiftent with the divine 
 goodnefs, but il^^ofe which are in the higheft degree com- 
 fortable to ^v.cW creatures ? V/hat then will follow con- 
 cernintr his doctrine of '•' torment for 3 res of ao;es?" — 
 
 Or 
 
 * P. 14. 
 
l44 Endlefs PuntJIfnient conpflent with 
 
 Or would any man choofe that the comparifon be dropped 
 and that the argument be exprelTed thus : — The doftnne 
 of endlefs mii'ery is uncomfortable to creatures, therefore 
 it is diilioiiourable to God? This fbiil confutes the do6lrine 
 of torment for ages of ages. BeJ'.de, if the meaning be, 
 that it is uncomfortable to all creatures, it is a millake. — 
 To thofe Vv'ho believe it to be a iuftand p-Iorious exDreifion 
 of the divine hatred of lin, ^.nd a neceffary mean of vin- 
 dicating the juilice of God, of fupporting the dignity of 
 his government and of promoting the general good ; it is 
 fo far from being uncomfortable, that it is necelTary to their 
 comfort ; and they rejoice in it for the iame reafons, that 
 they rejoice in the advancement of the general rrood. They 
 rejoice in it on the famiC principles of benevolence and pie- 
 ty, that Br. C. rejoiced in the profpect, that the divine law 
 would have its courfe, and the full threatened penalty be 
 executed on fom.e of mankind. 
 
 The next particular of the above Quotation is, that the 
 docl:rine of endlefs mifery has been perplexing to fome, 
 
 or to moil uiq-a, and to be fure to Dr. C. Doubtlefs 
 
 this is true of many other doftrines, which hov/ever haVe 
 been beheved both by Dr. C. and by other ChriiHans : fuch 
 as the perfect rectitude, goodnefs and impartiality of all the 
 difpenfations of divine providence : the ccnliilence be- 
 tween the exifrence of fm in the v.'orld and the infinite 
 wifdom, power, holinefs and goodnefs of God : the iinal 
 fubierviency of all events to the divine glory and the ge- 
 neral good of the fyftem, ^rc. Therefore, if the argu- 
 ment prove anything, it proves too much. 
 
 The third particular is, Perhaps endlefs mifery is not 
 reconcileable with the gccdnefs of the Deity.— — -Anfwer^ 
 Perhaps it is reconcileable with that divine attribute. 
 
 The laft particular is, To be fure (in Dr. C's opinion) 
 they never have been fo reconciled, but that a horrour of 
 
 darknefs remains with refpecl to the f'ubjedl. Anfwer, 
 
 In the opinion of many other men, they have often been 
 fo reconciled, that there v/as no reafon, why a horrour of 
 darknefs in viev/ of the fubje6l ihould remain in the mind 
 of any man. They experience no m^ore horrour of dark- 
 nefs in the idea, that God inflicls that endlefs punidiment 
 which is perfev:Hy juil:; is abfolutcly neceiTary to fatisfy di- 
 vine julHce, and vindicate the dch'Scd. authority, govern- 
 ment and grace of God^ and is fubfervient to the glory of 
 
 God 
 
Ihe dlvhtt Goodnefs, l^i 
 
 Cod and the general good ; than in the idea of mofl other 
 cloftrines of the gofpel. 
 
 But let us proceed to another palTage of Dr. C. 
 
 ^Multitudes are taken off before they have had opportu- 
 nity to make themfelves hardened abandoned fmners s 
 and fo far as we are able to judge, had they been con- 
 tinued in life, they might have been formed to a virtu- 
 ous temper of mind, by a fuitable mixture of correction, 
 inftrudion, and the like. And can it be fuppofed with 
 refpect to fuch, that an infinitely benevolent God, with- 
 out any other trial, in order to efFeft their reformation^ 
 will confign them over to endlel's and irreverlible tor- 
 ment ? Would this be to condu6l himfelf like a father 
 on earth ? Let the heart of a father fpeak on this occa- 
 fion. Nay, it does not appear, that any finners are fo 
 incorrigible in wickednefs, as to be beyond recovery by 
 ftiJl further methods within the reach of infinite power : 
 And if the infinitely wife God can, in any wife methods, 
 recover them, even in any other ftate of trial, may we 
 not argue from his infinite benevolence, that he will?'* 
 The firft branch of this aro-ument is, that fome die be- 
 fore they become incorrigible ; therefore tlie fatherly good- 
 nefs of God will give them another trial. But did Dr. 
 
 C. know when fnmers become incorrigible, and when not? 
 Does any man know how long a perfon muft live in fm, to 
 arrive at that flate ? If not, what right has any man to 
 fay, that any linners die, before God as perfeftly knows 
 them to be incorrigible, as if they had lived in fm ever fo 
 
 long? jBelide, were fmners to live in fm ever fo long^ 
 
 ftiil this objedion might be made ; and Dr. C. has in fa'6t 
 made it, not only with regard to thofe who die premature- 
 ly, but with regard to allimners. He fays, ** It does not 
 appear,' that ^«y (inners are fo incorrigible, as to be be- 
 yond recovery by ftill further methods.'' That is, if it do 
 not appear, that fmners are m this world beyond recovery 
 by ftill further methods to be ufed for their recovery, we 
 are to believe from God's infmite benevolence, that thofe 
 further methods will be ufed for their recovery. But 
 fhould a linner go through the torments of hell, and of teri 
 other fucceeding ftates of trial, it is to be prefumed, that 
 Dr. C. would not fay, but that poifibly he might be reco- 
 Yered by fome further methods within the power of God 
 
 a to 
 
 * P. 321. 
 
i.46 Endkfs Pun'ijljment conjlftent with 
 
 to ufe, if indeed God fhould fee caufe to life thofe furtliar 
 methods. The ground of this argument is, that goodnefs 
 requires, that God ufe means for the recovery of fmners, as 
 long as it is in the power of God to ufe any further means 
 to that end. But this as much needs to be proved as any 
 one propofition advanced by Dr. C. 
 
 The next branch of this arirument is, that it would not 
 be afling like a father on earth, if God were to confign 
 fmners to endlefs torment. — And is it ading like a father 
 on earth, to doom men to the feccnd death, the lake which 
 burneth vvith €re and brimilone, and there torment them 
 for ages of ages ? Let the heart of a father on earth 
 fpeak and declare whether it would be agreeable to him, 
 to inflidl on his children thefe extreme and long continued 
 tortures ? or even many of the temporal calamities which 
 God inflicts on mankind 5 fuch as poverty, ihame, a feeble 
 fickly habit, extreme pain and diilrefs, lofs of reafon, and 
 death attended with the moil afilicling circumftances ? 
 Would a father on earth choofe to plunge his children in 
 the ocean, and leave them to the mercy of the waves ? 
 Would he fet his houfe on fire, while they were buried in 
 
 foft flumbers, and confume them in the flames ? Such 
 
 declamatory applications to the pafiions are a two-edged, 
 fword which will wound Dr. C's fcheme, as certainly as 
 that of his opponents. But this controverfy is not to be 
 fettled by an application to the paffions. 
 
 The lailpart of the above quotation defl;roys the whole. 
 It is this ; It does not appear that any iinners are fo incor- 
 rigible, as to be beyond recovery by fl:iU further methods 
 within the reach of infinite wifdom. If God have revealed 
 that no finners Ihall be recovered after this life, it is doubt- 
 lefs a wdfe confl:itution that this hfe is the only ftate of pro- 
 bation. Therefore it is not within the reach of infinite 
 wifdom, to ule any further m.eans after this life for the re- 
 covery of thofe who are incorrigible here. So that this 
 whole paragraph is a mere begging of the queftion : it 
 takes for granted, that this life is not the only flate of pro- 
 bation, or that the endlefs punifliment of all who die im.— 
 penitent is not a doctrine of divine revelation. 
 
 Dii. C. elfev/here* argues univerfal falvation from this, 
 that God fpeaks of himfelf, ** as the univerfal Father of 
 *^ Men ;'' and fays, ^^ fathers on earth chaflife their 
 
 ** children 
 
 ? P. 326, 327. 
 
the divine Coodnefs. 147 
 
 ** children iov thtir profit , but do not punifh them, ha- 
 
 *' ving no view to their advantage.'^ But does a father 
 
 on earth never piiniih an incorrigible child, when it is ne- 
 ceilary for the good of the reft of the family ? If he did 
 not, but fufiered him toruin his whole family, or even one 
 of his other children ; would he a6l the part, or deferve 
 the name, of a father ? '^ And fhall v/e fay that of our 
 '^ Father in Heaven (who inftead of being evil, as all 
 *' earthly fathers are more orlefs, is infinitely good) which 
 *' we cannot fuppofe of any father on earth, till we have 
 
 *^ firft divcfted him of the heart of a father?" The 
 
 truth is, this and all arguments of the kind take for grant- 
 ed what is by no means granted, that the falvation of all 
 men, is fubfervient to the good, not of the perfons favecj 
 only, but of the univerfal fyilem. 
 
 I:f various pafTages * Dr. C. has much to fay of our rtafu- 
 ral notions of God\^ goodnefs ; particularly, that the natural 
 notions we entertain of the *' goodnefs and m.ercy of God, 
 '^ rife up in oppofition to the dodrine of never ending tor- 
 '^ ments.*' I grant that our natural notions of thofe di- 
 vine attributes rife up in oppofition to endlefs torments, on 
 the fuppofition that they are unjuft and inconfiftent with the 
 general good. Cut on the fuppofition that they are both 
 juft and lubfervient to the general good, our natural no- 
 tions rife up in favour of them. So that this and fuch like 
 arguments all depend on taking for granted what is no more 
 granted than the main queftion. 
 
 Nearly allied to the argument from the divine good- 
 nefs, is tliat by which Dr. C. attempts to prove univerfal 
 falvation from the end of God in creation. ^' ^As the firft 
 *'* caufe of all things is infinitely benevolent, 'tis not eafy 
 '^ to conceive that he fnculd bring mankind into exiftence 
 ^' unlefs he intended to make them finally happy.'' ^' f If 
 '' the only ^ood God knev/ — that fome free agents would 
 '^ make themfelves unhappy, notwithftanding the utmoft 
 ■'^ efix)rts of his vvifdom to prevent it^ why did he create 
 *' them ? To give them exigence knowing at the fame 
 '^ tim.e that they would render themfelves finally mifer- 
 << >able — is fcarce reconcileable with fupremely and abfo- 
 
 '^ folutely perfed benevolence." This argument, as 
 
 the preceding, entirely depends on the fuppofition that the 
 final happinefs of every individual is neceflary to the greats 
 eft hapninefs of the fvilem. Doubtlefs God is abfoiutely 
 
 *P/35i, kz. ±P. I. t P ^; 3- ^"*^^ 
 
148 Endltfs Punijh7neni conjifhnt ivith 
 
 and perfectly benevolent : but fuch benevolence feeks 
 the greateft happinefs of the fyftem, not of any individual, 
 Vinlefs the hajTpinefs of that individual be confiftent with 
 the greateft happinefs of the fyftem. This is the plain 
 didate not of reafon only, but of fcripture, and is abun- 
 dantly conceded by Dr. C. as appears by the quotations 
 already made. There is no difficulty therefore in con- 
 ceiving, that however the firft caufe of all things is inli- 
 nitely benevolent, he fhould bring mankind into exiftence, 
 though he never intended to make them all finally happy. 
 He might in perfect confiftence with infinite benevolence, 
 bring them into exiftence, intending that fome of them 
 ihould fuffer that endlefs puniihment w^hich they iliould 
 deferve, and thereby contribute to the greateft hap- 
 pinefs of the fyftem. And if fuch a punifliment be fub- 
 fervient to the greateft happinefs of the fyftsm, infinite be- 
 nevolence not only admits of it, but requires it ; nor w^ould 
 God be infinitely benevolent, if he fhould fave all men. 
 Therefore this grand argument, on which Dr. C. and 
 other writers in favour of univerfal falvation, build fo 
 much, is a mere begging of the queftion. Let them ftiow 
 that the. greateft good of the fyftem requires the final hap- 
 pinefs of every individual, and they v/ill indeed have gone 
 far toward the eftablilhment of their fcheme. But until 
 they ihall have done this, their argument from this topic 
 is utterly inconclufive. It is no more inconfiftent with the 
 goodnefs of God, that he ihould create men with a fore- 
 light and an intention, that they fhould fuifer that endlefs 
 punifhment w^hlch they fhculd deferve, and which isfubfer- 
 vient to the general good; than that he Ihould create them 
 with a forefight and intention, that they fhould fubferve 
 the fame important end, by fuiFering the torment of ages 
 of ages, or the pains of the ftone or the colic ; provided 
 thefe temporary pains are not fubfervient to their perfonal 
 good. And to fay that temporary pains cannot confiftently 
 with the divine poodnefs be inflicted on the fniner, unlei's 
 they be fublervient to the perfonal good of the patient, is 
 to contradid the plain dictates of reafon, of fcripture, and 
 of Dr. C. himielf. But this fubject has been largely ccn- 
 fidered in Chap. III. 
 
 1 Hf.sE, I think, are Dr. C's principal arguments from 
 the divine goodnefs, to prove univerial falvation ; I pre- 
 fi4me_, that in his v/hole book there are none more forcible 
 
 tha^ 
 
the divine Coodnefs, i^^ 
 
 than the fe. His arguments of this kind generally, if not 
 univeri'ally, depend on taking for granted, what is as much 
 in difpute as any point in the whole controverfy, that end- 
 lefs punilhment is not confident with the greatefl good of 
 the univerlal lyitem, or the greateft general good. If it 
 be true, that any man will be punilhed without end, no 
 doubt it is fo ordered, becaufe infinite wifdom and good- 
 nefs faw it to be necelTary to the general good. If it bs 
 not true, it is equally certain, that infinite wifdom and good- 
 nefs faw endlefs punifhment to be inconfifcent with the ge- 
 neral good. But which of thefe is the truth, is the main 
 queftion. 
 
 IV. That endlefs punifliment is confiitent with the di- 
 vine goodnefs, not only is implied in various fentiments 
 and tenets of T)r. C, but appears to be a real and demon— 
 Arable truth. To evince this, I fhall now, as was propo- 
 fed, mention feveral confiderations. 
 
 I. All arguments againft endlefs puniOiraent, drawn 
 from the divine mercy, grace or goodnefs, imply a concef- 
 iion, that endlefs punifliment is juJL Were it not juft, 
 there would be no occafion to call in the aid of goodnefs. 
 Stern, unrelenting judice would afford relief. Nor is there 
 the leaft goodnefs, as diitinguilhed from juflice, exercifed 
 by a judge, in delivering a man from an unjuft punifhment, 
 attempted to be brought upon him by a falfe accufer. If 
 therefore the falvation of finners, and of every linner, be 
 an ad of goodnefs, mercy or grace, as Dr- C. abundantly 
 declares; then endlefs punifnment is jufb. And if it be 
 juft, it appears by Chap, ill, that it will be inflicted^ and 
 inuicled by God too. Therefore it is coniiflent wil'o. di- 
 vine goodnefs. 
 
 It is.hopecfit has been made manifefl; in Chap. II and 
 III, that the end of future punifliment is not the perfonal 
 good of the patients, but to fatisfy juftice, and fupport the 
 authority and dignity of the divine law and government; 
 as both Dr. C. and the fcriptures abundantly hold, that 
 the v.acked will be puniflied to the utmoit extent of their 
 demerit. Now if the end of future punilhment, whether 
 temporary or endlefs, be to fatisfy juilice, and to fupport 
 government ; then the general good is promoted by the 
 fatisfadion of jviftice : otherwife Godv/ould not infiici: fach 
 puniiiiinent. And if the proof in Cli^p. VI, that endisfs 
 punilhment is juft; be valid, then juflice is not fatisfied 
 
 by 
 
I JO Endlcfs pwtrjhment conpftcnt vnih 
 
 by any punifnment fiiort of endlefs. But by Chitp, 
 
 II and III it appears, that all that panifliment, which the 
 wicked deferve, will a(9^aally he inflided upon th(^ by 
 God. Therefore endlefs punifliment is perfectly confif- 
 ftent with divine goodnefs. 
 
 2. If the divine law may be .in any one inftanee execu- 
 ted confiitentiy with divine goodnefs, endlefs punilliment 
 is confident with the divine goodnefs. But the divine 
 law may, in fome inflances, be executed confident- 
 ly with divine goodnefs. 1 have before endea- 
 
 voured to Ihow, that the penalty of the la\/ is end- 
 lefs puniihment. If this be true, then when the law is ex- 
 ecuted, endlefs punilhrnent is inflicted. And who Vv'ill 
 dare to fay, that God has made a lav/, which he cannot in 
 any one inllance execute confidently with his own perfec- 
 tions : And that if he fliould execute it in any indance, his 
 goodnefs and mercy mud be inevitably given up ? Nay, he 
 delights in cruelty I If the lau' cannot be executed without 
 cruelty, it is a cruel unjud law : and to make a cruel and 
 imjud law, is as irreconciieable with the moral reftitude of 
 God, ^s to execute that law. If the infiiftion of endlefs 
 puniihment be cruel, the threatening of it alfo is cruel. 
 But this runs into th? former quedion, whether endlefs pu- 
 nifhment be^'z^?. 
 
 If it be faid, though the law is juft, ai^d the execution 
 of it would not be cruel ; yet it cannot be executed confif- 
 tently v/ith the divine goodnefs, bccaufe the divine good- 
 nefs leeks the greated poflible good ofthefydeni: But the 
 greated po'Hble good of the fyilem requires the final hap- 
 pinefs of all; — As to this I obferve, 
 
 (i) That it is giving up the argument from divine 
 goodnefs in the light, in which Dr. C. has dated it. It 
 appears by the quotations already made, that he held end- 
 lefs puniilnnent to be fo inconfiilent v/ith divine goodnefs, 
 that if that puniihment be inflicled, it will pro^^e God to be 
 deditute of goodnefs, and to dtilght in cruelty, 
 
 (2)' Til AT the nueltion as now dated comes to no more 
 tlianthis, Whether endlefs puniOiment be confiitent v/itli 
 the greated poiffble difpiay of divine eoodnefs : For a fyf-^ 
 tern, in \vhir:h there is the greated polfible good, and the 
 greated po'lible dilplay of the divine goodnefs, are one and 
 the fame thing. But if it were granted, that endlefs pu- 
 iiiiljmcnt is, in this fenfe, inconliiieai with the divine good- 
 
 nefs, 
 
the divine Gcodmfs, I^t 
 
 nefs, it would by no means follov/, on Dr. C's principles, 
 that all men will be faved. Becaufe it is an eftabliihed 
 principle with him, that divine goodnefs is not and cannot 
 be difplayed, to the higheft poGible degree, or fo but that 
 there is room for higher difplays and further communica- 
 tions of it. *^ *Neith£r is it to be fuppofed, becaufe God 
 '* is infinitely benevolent, that he has in faft made an in- 
 ^* finite manifeilation of his goodnefs. — —Infinity in bene- 
 '* volence knows no bounds, but there is ftill room for 
 
 *^ more and higher difplays of it. This perfection is 
 
 '* flricftly fpeaking, inexhauPdble, not capable of being dif- 
 '^ played to a ne plus,^^ Therefore, it would be abfurd 
 for Dr. C. or any one, who agrees with him in the fenti- 
 ment expreiTed In the laft quotation, to flate the argument 
 from divine goodnefs, in the light in which it is exhibited 
 in the objeftion now under confideration. This fcating of 
 the argument runs entirely into the quefcion, whether the 
 prefent fyiiem of the univerfe be the befl pclfible ; v/hich 
 Dr.C. has fufiiciently anfwered in the negative, inthepaf- 
 fage lalt quoted, and in many other pafTages of his writings. 
 If it be true, that divine goodnefs does not adopt and pro- 
 fecute the befl porfibie plan of the univerfe in general : 
 v/hat rea.ibn have wc to think, that it will adopt and pro- 
 fecute the beft poflible plan with regard to any part of 
 the divine fyliem ; for inllance the future (late of thofe 
 who die in impenitence ? 
 
 (3) On the fuppolition, that God does adopt and profe- 
 cute the belt poilible plan, both with regard to the univerfe 
 in general, and in every particular difpenfation of his pro- 
 vidence ; Hill we ihall never be able to determine a priori, 
 that the final falvation cf all men is, in the fenfe nov/ un- 
 der confideration, molt fubfervient to the general good. It 
 mufl beidetermined either by the event itfelf, or by revela- 
 tion : and Vv'hecher revelation do alTure us of the falvation 
 of all men, is not the fubjecl of inquiry in this chapter, but 
 fhallbe particularly confidered in its place. 
 
 3. If divine goodnefs without refpecl to the atonement 
 of Chrifl:, which is foreign from the fubjecl of this chapter, 
 require the falvation of all men ; it either requires that they 
 be faved, whether they repent or not ; or it requires, that 
 they be faved on the condition of their repentance only. 
 If it require that they be faved, whether they repent or 
 
 * Benev. of the Deity, p. 40. 
 
 no! 
 
152 Endlefs Pun'iJImisnt confident imth 
 
 not, it follows, that they have dene no damage to the uni- 
 verfe, or have committed no fin. For the very idea of firi 
 is a damage to the univerfe, a difiionor to God, and an in- 
 jury to the creature. Now v/henever a damage is done 
 to the univerfe, the good of the univerfe, or which in the 
 prefent argument comes to the fame thing, the divine good- 
 nefs requires reparation. But if the good of the univerfe 
 require, that the fninerbe favcd without even repentance, 
 the good of the univerfe requires no reparation, and if it 
 require no reparation, it has not been impaired, or there 
 has been no damage done to the good of the univerfe : 
 and if no damage have been done to the univerfe, no fm 
 has been committed. No wonder then, that the divine 
 goodnefs requires the falvation of thole who have com- 
 mitted no fm or no moral evil. 
 
 If on the other hand it be allowed, that by fin damage is 
 done to the univerfe, and yet it be holden, that divine 
 goodnefs requires the falvation of all men, on the con- 
 dition of their repentance only ; it will follow, that re- 
 pentance alone makes it conliilent with the general good, 
 that the fmner be faved. Repentance then repairs the 
 damage done to the univerfe by fm ; and fo m.akes fa- 
 
 tisfa6lion or atonement for fin. The very eifence 
 
 of atonement is fomething done to repair the damage 
 done by fm to the univerfe, fo that the fnmer can 
 be exempted from puhiihment, without any difadvantage 
 to the univerfe. And as repentance is a peribnai ad: of the 
 finner, he does on this fuppoiition make atonement for his 
 own fm by his perfonal virtue. Therefore, if after this 
 he be faved from wrath, he is but treated according to his 
 perfonal character, or according to ftricl juilice ; not ac- 
 cording to goodnefs or grace. So that while Dr. C, pro- 
 felTes and fuppofes himfelf to be arguing from the divine 
 goodnefs, the falvation of all men from the wrath to come ; 
 his arguments are really drav/n from the jujlice of God only . 
 They imply either that the fmner who is by divine good- 
 nefs to be faved from the wrath to come, is no (inner, de- 
 fervcs no puniihment, and therefore is incapable of being 
 faved from wrath, as he is expofed to none; or that 
 though he be a iinner, he has in his ownperfon, niade full 
 fatisfaftion for his lin, and therefore merits falvation from 
 wrath, and is incapable of it by an ad of grace or good- 
 nefs. 
 
 4- T» 
 
the divine Goodnefs, 153 
 
 4. To argue the falvation of all men from the goddnefs 
 of God, without regard to the atonement of Chriil ; and 
 yet to allow that endlefs puniiliment isjufl, is a direct con- 
 tradidion. — ^— If it be allowed or proved, that endlefs 
 punilhment is jull, it follows of courfe that it is confiftent 
 with the general good, and which is the fame thing, with 
 the divine goodnefs, and is even reqnired by divine gocd- 
 hefs, on the fuppofition on which we now proceed, that 
 no atonement is made for fin. The very idea of a juft 
 punifliinent of any crime is a punilhment vv'hich in view of 
 the crime only, is requifite to repair the damage done to 
 the fyfbem by that crime. Any further punidimeuE than 
 this is unjufl:, and any punilhment Oiort of this, falls fhort 
 of the demand of julHce. At the lame tim.e that this is 
 demanded by juftice, it is demanded by the general good 
 too: becaufe by the definition of a juft punilhrnent, it is 
 neceiTary to the general good ; necellary to fecure it, or to 
 repair the damage done to it, by the crime puniihed. So 
 that a jufl punilhment of any crime is not only coniiftent 
 with the general good, but is abfolutely required by it, 
 provided other meafures equivalent to this punifnment be 
 not taken torepair the damage done by fin, or, v/hich is the 
 fame, provided an atonement be not made. And if the 
 endlefs punifnment of Hnbe juil; it is of courfe, on theprovi- 
 fojufl made, perfectly ccniiflent v/iththe general good of the 
 univerfe, and abfolutely required by it, and equally requi- 
 red by the goodnefs of God. And to fay that though it 
 be juit, it is not reconcileable with the divine goodnefs, is 
 the fame pfS to fay, that though it be juil:, it is not recon- 
 cileable with juilice. 
 
 Objection : Divine goodnefs does not admit of the 
 endlefs. punifhment of the apollle Paul ; yet his endlefs 
 punilhment would be juft. — ■ — Anfwer : Divine goodnefs, 
 or the general good of the univerfe, confidering the fms 
 or the perfonal character of Paul by itfeli, does both ad- 
 mit and require his endlefs punifhment. But conftdering 
 the atonement of Chrift, which, as I have repeatedly ob. 
 ferved, comes not into confideration in the prefent argu • 
 ment, it does not indeed admit of it. 
 
 I^EEGleave to a Ik the advocates for unlverfal falvation, 
 whether if Chrift had not made atonement, it would have 
 been confiftent with the general good of the univerfe, 
 thatlinners be puniihed without end. If they anfwer in 
 the affirmative, then endlefs puniiliment is in itfelf recon- 
 
 X cileable 
 
154 Endlep Pumjhment conji/tent with 
 
 cileable not with juftice only, but with gooclnefs too, as 
 goodnefs always acquiefces in that vv'hich is confiftent with 
 the general good. For if only in confequence of the atone- 
 ment^ endlel's pimifliment be inconfiftent with the divine 
 goodnefs, it becomes inconliftent with it, not on account 
 of any thing in the endlefs punifliment of fm, or in the di- 
 vine goodnefs firaply ; but wholly on account of fon:e- 
 thinp- external to them both : and therefore that external 
 fomething being left out of the account, there is no mcon- 
 liltency between the endlefs puniilmient of fm and the di- 
 vine poodnefs in themfelves conildered. But that they arc 
 in themfelves inconinlent is implied in Dr. C's argument 
 from divine goodnefs ; and that they are not in themfelves 
 inconfiitent is all for which I am now pleading. 
 
 If the anfwer to the queftion juft propofed be, that it 
 Vs^oukl not be conliflcnt with the general good, that a fin- 
 ncrbe punifhcd Vv4thout end, even if Chrift had not made 
 atonement ; it follows, that fuch punifliment is not juft ; 
 as the very definition of a juft punifhment is, one which 
 in view of the fmner's perfonal character only is neceffary 
 to the general good. Or if this be not a proper defini- 
 tion of a juft punifliment^ let a better be given. Any pu- 
 niHiment is juft, or is deferved, for no other reafon, than 
 that the criminal viewed in himJelf owes it to the pubhc, 
 or the general good requires it. 
 
 «;. If divine goodnefs require, that every (inner be, on 
 on his mere repentance, exempted from puniihm.ent, it 
 
 will follow, that fm is no moral evil. If divine goodnefs 
 
 require that every (inner be, on his mere repentance, ex- 
 empted from puniflmient, the general good of the univerfc 
 requires the fame. If the general good do require it, 
 then either the linner hath in that aclion,of which he re- 
 pents, done nothing by which the general good hath been 
 impaired ; or that impairment is repaired by his repent- 
 ance. For if he have impaired the general good, and 
 not afterward repaired it, then by the very terms it re- 
 quires reparation. And this which the general good inthefe 
 cafes requires of the iinner for the reparation of the general 
 good, is his punifhment, and not his exemption from pu— 
 niflnnenr. But if the fmncr have done nothino' whiclj re- 
 quires that reparation be made to the general good, then 
 he hath committed nothing which hath impaired the gene- 
 ral good : or, which is the fame, he hath committed no 
 
 moral 
 
the divine Coodnsfs, ,i^^ 
 
 moral evil. For moral evil is a voluntary a6l impairing the 
 general good confiiiing in the glory of God and the hap- 
 
 pinefs of the created iyiiem. Or if it be fiiid, that the 
 
 repentance of the linner repairs the general good^ and 
 prevents the ill eiFecls of his lin ; I aniwer, repentance is 
 no punifliment, nor any reparation of damage to the uni- 
 verie by a pafl action. It is a mere celi^ition from Im and 
 a forrow for it. A man who has conimitted murder, makes 
 by repentance no reparation for the damage which is there- 
 by done to fociety or to the univerfe. So that if ever any 
 damage were done to the univerfe by fm, and if therefore 
 the public good required that reparation be made by the 
 puni/hment of the linner, it ftill recjuires the fame, and 
 therefore does not require his exemption from punifhment. 
 Bellde ; the falfe and abfurd confequeuces* necelTarily 
 following from the principle that the penitent delerves no 
 puniihment, which is the fame with this, that the general 
 good does not require that the penitent, viewed in his 
 own character merely, be puniflied ; plainly point out the 
 falfrcy and abfurdity of the principle itfelf. Particularly 
 this confequence, that on that fuppolition the penitent 
 never is nor can be forgiven, as he makes by his repentance 
 full fatisfaclion in his own perfon, and thus anfwers the de- 
 mand of jaftice or of the general good. But if it be 
 
 true, that repentance does not repair the damage done by 
 fm to the univerfe ; and if as is now aiTerted, the general 
 good do require that the penitent fnmer, without regard 
 to the atonement of Chriit, be exempted from puniihment ; 
 it required the fame before he repented ; confequently his 
 fm never did impair the good of the univerfe, and there- 
 fore is no moral evil. 
 
 Objkction I. The fourth argument feems to imply, 
 that {in confifts in damage actually done to the univerfe : 
 whereas there are many fms, in which no real damage is 
 adually done. As if a man flab another with a delign to 
 murder him, and open an abfcefs, whereby the man is be- 
 nefited inftead of murdered ; and in all acts of malice, 
 which are not executed, no damage is actually done. 
 
 Answ. Taking the word damage in a large fenfe, to 
 "". mean, not merely lofs of property, as it is fometimes taken, 
 but mifery, calamity or natural evil ; it may be granted, 
 that (in does conlill in voluntarily doing damage to the uni- 
 verfe. It is a mifery, a calamity, or a natural evil to any 
 
 * See thcfe conjidered at larg^ in Chap. IL lu^i^ 
 
1 1^6 Endlefs PunJfljmcnt confident with 
 
 man, to be the obje^l of the malice of any other perfon^ 
 though his malice be never executed. It expofes him to 
 the execution of that mahce : it renders him unfafe : and 
 to be unfafe is a calamity ; efpecially to be the object of 
 the malice of another to fuch a degree, that the malicious 
 man attempts the life of the object of his malice. In this 
 cafe the man who is the object of malice is very unfafe in- 
 deed. And if but one perfon be in a calamitous lituati- 
 
 on, fo far at leaft the public good is impaired, or the uni- 
 verfe is damaged. Befides, if that one act impairing the 
 public good, be left i.mpunilhed, and no proper reftraint by 
 the puniihment of the act, be laid upon the man himfelf 
 and upon others, the flood-gate is opened to innumerable 
 more ads of the fame, or a like kind. This furely is a 
 further calamity to the univerfe. So that every fmful vo- 
 lition, though it fail of its objedl in the attempt, or though 
 it be not attempted to be executed in overt ad, is a real 
 calamity or damage to the univerfe. 
 
 Object. 2. The preceding reafoning muft needs be fal- 
 lacious, as it implies, that goodnefs or grace is never exer- 
 cifed in any cafe, wherein puniihment is deferved ; that 
 ■whatever is admitted by juftice, is required by goodnefs ; 
 and that if fm be a moral evil and deferve puniihment, it 
 cannot confiftently with the general good be forgiven. 
 
 Answ. This is not .true. The reafoning above does 
 not imply, but that there may be, confifbentiy with the ge- 
 neral good, the forgiven efs of fome finners. Nor does 
 it imply, but that the general good may require the for- 
 givenefs of fome linners ; as undoubtedly it does require 
 the forgivenefs of all who repent and believe in Chrift, 
 and fo become interefted in him according to the Gofpel. 
 Nor does //j/Vrf^/o^i/w^ imply, but that fome fmners m.ay 
 obtain forgivenefs on fome other account than the merits of 
 Chrift : though I believe it may be clearly Ihown from fcrip- 
 ture, that forgivenefs can be obtained on no other account. 
 But tliis reafoning does affert, that if all penitents as fuch, 
 or m.erely becaufe tacy are penitents, or on account of their 
 own repentance and reformation, be required by divine 
 goodnefs to be exempted from puniHimeni ; then fm de- 
 ferves no puniflmient and is no moral evil. 
 
 6. The voice of reafon is, that divine goodnefs, or a 
 regard to the general good requires, that fin be punifhed 
 according to its dement, in fome inilances at lead : other- 
 
 w)ie 
 
the divine Goodnefs, i<y 
 
 wife God would not appear to be what he really is, an ene- 
 my to fin, and greatly difpleafed with it. It is certain- 
 ly confiftent with divine goodnefs, that fin exifts in the 
 world, otherwife it would never haveexifted. ITowfmce 
 fin is in the worlds if God were never topuniihit, it would 
 feem, that he is no enemy to it. Or if he pnniih it in a 
 far lefs degree than it deferves, ftill it would feem, chat 
 his difpleafure at it is far lefs than it is and ought to be. 
 Nor can mere words or verbal declarations of the Deity 
 fufficiently exhibit his oppofiticn to fni, fo long as he uni- 
 formly treats the righteous and the wicked in the fan:e 
 manner. His character in viev/ of intelligent creatures 
 will appear to be what it is holdfin forth to be in his actions, 
 rather than what he in rriere words declares it to be. But 
 will any man fay, that it is conducive to the good order and 
 happinefs of the intellectual fyflem, that God fnould ap- 
 pear to be no enemy, but rather a friend to fin ? 
 
 Objection. God would (1111 appear to be an enemy to 
 fin, though he were not to punifh it : becaul'e he takes the 
 moft: efFedual meafures, to e^airpate it by leading linners 
 
 to repentance. Anfw. The extirpation of fm Ihows no 
 
 other hatred of it, than a phyfician fnov\'i; to a diieafe. Vv'hich 
 he takes the moft effeftual meal'ures to aboliih, by the re- 
 froration of health. But thefe meafures of the phyfician 
 do not iliow, that he viev/s his patient as blameable. Sick- 
 nefs is no moral evil, and all the pains of the phyl'rian to 
 remove licknefs, are no tefdmony of his abhorrence of mo- 
 ral evil. But Im is a moral evil, and it is fubfervient to 
 the general good, that the great governor of the univerfe 
 ihould teftify his abhorrence of it, as a moral evil, or as 
 juftly blameable. To this end he mud do fomething fur- 
 ther tlian is done by the phy'ician, who heals his patient : 
 he muft either in the perfon of the finnsr, or in his fubfti- 
 tute, punifii fm, and that according to its demerit ; other- 
 wife he will not ihow himfelf difpleafed at it as a moral e- 
 vil. 
 
 HatPvEd of fm is as eflential to the Deity as love of ho— 
 linefs ; and it is as honorable to him and as necelTary to 
 the general good, thathe exprefs the former as the latter. 
 Indeed the latter is no further expreiTed^ than the former is 
 expreire4 : and {o far as the former is doubtful, the Litter 
 is doubtful too. The queition then comes to this, v.'hether 
 it be confiftent with the general good^ that God fhould in 
 
 actions^ 
 
^1-53 Endlefs Punijlnnent confi/lsnt with 
 
 anions, as well as words, exprefs his abhorrence of fin a» 
 blameabl?, or as a moral evil ; and exprefs this abhorrence 
 to a j nil degree. If this be confiftsnt with the general 
 good, ir' is alio confillent with the general g;ood, that fm be 
 puniflied accordmg to its demerit : and if it deierve an end- 
 lefs pumfhment, it is coniiiient with the general o-ood and 
 v/ith divine goodnefs, tliat fach a puniibment be infljcled* 
 7. That endlefs puaiilraient is inconfiilent with divine 
 goodnefs, and that all men are faved by free grace, is a di- 
 re.^c contradiclion. To be faved is to he delivered from 
 the curie of the law, which we have before endeavoured 
 to ihow to be an endlefs puniOirnents But to be faved 
 from this by free grace, implies^ that the perfon fo faved, 
 deferves endleis punifiiment, and that fuch puniihment is 
 with refpfiLLto hiin jull. But v/hatever pnnifhnient is juft 
 with refped to any man, provided no atonement be made 
 \rf afubiL'tuie, isneceiRu'v to the public good ; and unlefs 
 h be neceifary to the public good, it is nnjufl. If it be 
 neceiTary to the public good, the public good requires it : 
 and if the public good require it, divine goodnefs ret]uires 
 St. Therefore to apply this reafoning to the endlefs pu- 
 niihment of the fmner : — The falvation of the iinner con- 
 ih%s in deliverance from the curfe of the law : the cnrfe of 
 the law is endlefs panifi'ment ; and to be delivered from 
 this by free grace, implies, that the endlefs puniilmient of 
 the {inner is juit. If the endlefs puniihment of the fmner 
 be juit. and no atonement be made by a fubilitute, the pub- 
 lic good requires his endlefs punilliment, and the divine 
 goodnefs of courfe requires it. So that if the Iinner can 
 be faved by free grace only, and no atonement be made by 
 a fnbflitute, the endleis puniihment of the fmner is not at 
 all inconfident with divine goodnefs ; and to fay that it is 
 inconiiilient with x.\iQ. divine goodnefs, and yet to fay that 
 all men are faved by free grace, and can be faved in no 
 other way, implies, as I laid, a direct contradiction. It 
 implies, that endlefs puniihment is juft, as the deliverance 
 from it is tiie fruit of grace only : it alfo implies, that it is 
 not juft, as the public good or the divine goodnei's does not 
 require it, but is inconiiitent witiiit. 
 
 C HA P. 
 
Do€for Cs argument '59 
 
 aaBS^ESESEt"*** 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 In which is confidered Dr, Chauncy''s argument from 
 Rom, Vf 12, ac. 
 
 T TAVING in the preceding cha])ters confidrred Dr. 
 X~i C's arguments from realon and from the divine per- 
 fections, I proceed now to confider thofe \Vn^ are drawn 
 from particular paiTages of fcripture. TKe nm oT'tfjble 
 pafTages which demands our attention is Rom. V, 12 ^ &c« 
 *^ Wherefore, as by one man tin entered into the world, 
 *' and death by fm ; and fo death palfed upon all men; 
 '^ for that all have finned. For until the lavv' fm was in 
 V the world ; but lin is not imputed, when there is no lav/. 
 '* Nevertbelcfs death reigned from Adam to Moies, even 
 " over them that had not finned, after ihe fimilitude of 
 '^ Adam's tranrgreflion, Vy-ho is the figure of him that was 
 '^ to come. But not as the offence, fo alio is the free gift. 
 For if through the offence of one, many be dead ; much^ 
 more the grace of God, and th©-^ift by grace, which is 
 by one man, Jefus Chriil:, hath aboun-ded unto many. 
 And not as 11 was by one that iinned, fo is the gift : for 
 
 4t 
 
 tc 
 
 <( 
 
 " the judgm.ent v/as by one to condemnation ; but the free 
 
 *^ gift is of i:i=ny offences unto juftincaticn. lor if by 
 i( 
 
 it 
 
 4( 
 
 one man's oflence death reigned by one ; much more 
 they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift 
 ** of righteoufnefs, fliall reign in life by one, Jefus Chnft. 
 •' Therefore as by the olfence of one, judgment came irp-» 
 *' on all men 'to condemnation : even fo by the righteouf- 
 nefs of one, the free gift came upon all men unto juRilica- 
 '' tionoflife. For as by one man's difobedience many were 
 " made iinners ; fo by the obedience of one, l]]all mr.ny 
 ^* be mads ri~hteous. Ivlcreover, the law entered that 
 *^ gr;;xe might abound : but where Im abounded, grace. 
 *' did much more abouu;:! : That as lin hath reigned un- 
 *• to death, even fo miii-ht rrrace rei'-n throuoh rio;htc- 
 '* oufnefs unto eternal Hfe, by Jcfuo Cbriil, our Lord." 
 Tme Do^Tor's argument from this palTr^ge depends 
 wholly on the fv-ppc^i^iion, that the arofcle confiders *' Adam 
 and Chriil as the rei^:)e<ttive. o];^po'ite iburces of death and 
 Hife to mankind unlverfally :*' Or that Chrlilis the lciir:e 
 
 cf 
 
i6o ' Dd{ffor^ Cs urgufnent fr om 
 
 of life and eternal falvation to all men without exception^ 
 as Adam was the fource of death to all men without ex- 
 ception. The Doctor^s reafons to fupport this propofition 
 
 are, (i) That in the 15th verfe it is faid, '^ If through 
 
 ^' the offence of one many be dead, much more hath the 
 *^ grace of God abounded unto many :" and as by 7nany 
 in the former part of this verfe is meant all men, there- 
 fore he concludes that the fame word is ufed in the fame 
 extenfive ^erScy in the latter part of the verfe ; 
 
 '^ the antitli^ris/' he fays, *' will otherwife be loft."- * 
 
 (2) The word many, ■/ro>xoi^ means all men, becaufe the 
 
 article is prefixed to it, o/.tox\o;. (-:;) That in the i8th 
 
 verfe it is exprcfily aflerted, '* As by the offence of ©ne, the 
 *' judgment cairie upon all men, ?/? T-^i-lac «vbp&Tovc, to 
 *' condemnation ; even fo by the rigliteoufnefs of one, 
 '' the free gift came upon all men, ^^^ ^a/'^^c Av6p&^7rcyc, unto 
 '^ judificaiion of life.'' Whence the Doftor concludes^ 
 that the words all men in both parts of the comparifon, 
 
 are ufed in the fame extent. (4) That the advantage 
 
 by Chrill: exceeds , .abounds beyond j the dif ad vantage by 
 Adam ; but this, unlefs all men be faved, would be fo far 
 from the truth, that the former would *^ fink belov/ the 
 ^•' ^latter." Let us attend to thefe diftindlly. 
 
 I. Thk word many in the former part of the 15th and 
 19th verfes, means all men : therefore it means the fame 
 in the latter part of thofe verfes : ^' the antithefis will 
 *^ otherv/ife be \o?c,*^^ Now how does the truth of this 
 propofition appear? It muft certainly be fupported by pro- 
 per proof, to obtain credit. But in the very many initan- 
 ces in which the Dcdcr is pleafed to repeat this propofi- 
 tion, in his long commentary en Rom, V, 12, &:c. I do not 
 find one reafon offered to prove it, befide that quoted abov^e, 
 '^ The antithefis will otherwife be lolt.*" This therefore 
 is now to be confidered. In the rebellion in Great Bri- 
 tain, 1745, large numbers of men were engaged in the 
 rebellion, and vv'ere led av.'ay by the Pretender. After 
 the Pretender was defeated, larp-e numbers, by the influ- 
 ence of fome particular peribn, we will fuppofe, return- 
 ed to their allegiance, and took the proper oaths to the 
 King: yet not 'all who were drawn into therebeUion 
 by the Pretender. Now' would there be any improprie- 
 ty in fa^'ing in this cafe, As by the Pretender many had 
 
 been 
 
 *^ P. 32, 6c, &c. 
 
■Rom. J^. 12, (3C, conjidered, i6i 
 
 been drawn into the rebellion, ib by that other perfon ma" 
 ny were brought back to their allegiance ? The former ma- 
 ny is allowed to be more extenfive, than the latter ; yet 
 there is a manifefl: antithefis in the propoiition ; an anti- 
 thefis as manifefl as there would have been, if the men who 
 returned to their allegiance, had been juil as numerous as 
 thole who engaged in the rebellion, and had been the fame 
 individuals. Equally manifefl it is, that though the many^ 
 who died in Adam, be more numerous than the many who 
 are the fnbjecls of faving grace by Chrifl : yet there is a 
 proper antitheiis in this propoiition, — '^l^ through the of- 
 ** fence of one, many be dead ; much more the grace of 
 <* God by Jefus Chrifl, hath abounded unto many/' 
 
 2. The word -many, ?rf>XA0/, m.eans all men.becaufe the arti- 
 cle is joined v/ithit, 0/ ^o>xo;, the many."^' — If this be evident 
 71 all, it mufl be evident either from the general ufeot the 
 adjective -o^>^5', when conneded with the article, or from 
 the circumftances of tlie particular cafe in which it is ufed 
 in this palTage, Rom. V. i c;, and 19. If the vahdity of the 
 argument nowunder confideration, be evident from the ge- 
 neral ufe of sTc7t;c in the plural with the article ; then gene- 
 rally when ufed by good authors, and efpecially by the au- 
 thors of the New Teflament, it means a llrift univerfalit}^* 
 
 Let us therefore attend to particular infiances. Acts 
 
 XXVI, 24. ^^ Much learnino- doth make thee mad; '" 1* 
 iro\xa. y^a.y.,x3.^\A. But uo mau will fay, that this expreniou 
 means all learning. The ufe of the article however is ve- 
 ry proper, and the expreliion means the much learning of 
 
 which tho. apoflle was poiTeued.- 2 Cor. II, 17 ; '^ For 
 
 *' v/e are not as many^ o; rroxxo/, which corrupt'the word of 
 '' God." If 0/ ^o.Ao/ here mean all men, the apoftle in 
 direct contra'diclion to himfelf in this very expreffion, 
 means that he himfelf, and all the other apcftles, as well 
 
 the refl of mankind, did corrupt the word of God.— Rev. 
 
 XVII, I ; <* I will Ihow unto thee the judgment of th« 
 ^' great whore, that fitteth upon many waters/' l^-'y 
 veTalay lav ^rowav. All Waters, or all p-eople cannot be meant, 
 becaufe by far the greater part of the nations of the world 
 never were under the influence of the great whore. — The 
 only other infiances in the whole New Teflament, in which 
 vt>\vi in the plural is ufed with the article, are Mat. XXIV, 
 12. Rom. XII, 5. Ch. XV, 22. 1 Cor. X, 17 and 33, 
 
 y which 
 
 * p. 60. 
 
i62 Do^or Cs argument fr%m 
 
 which the reader may examine for himfelf, and it Is pre- 
 fumed, he will find, that in no one of them is a ftricl uni- 
 verfality clearly intended. If this be fo, it is by no means 
 evident from the general ufe of ^o.t^- in the plural with 
 the article, that o/j5oxxo/, manyy in Rom. V, 15 and 19, 
 means all men. 
 
 N Oil is this more evident from the circumflances of the 
 particular cafe, in which matxy, 0/ tt&xxo/, is ufed in Rom. 
 V. 15. Let it be tranflated as Dr. C. choofesto translate 
 it, thus : If through the offence of one, the many be dead, 
 7nuch more the grace of God, by one man, Jefus Chrift, 
 hadi abounded unto tl" many. Nothing appears from the 
 exprellion, but that the meaning of the apoftle may be, 
 Y/hat it has generally been underitcod to be, that the many 
 who were connected with Adam, and v/hofe life or death 
 depended on his {landing or falling, became dead through 
 his offence : and the many who are connected with Clu'iil, 
 and with a particular delign to favewhom. He died, fliall 
 be made the fubiecls of the aboundinp- erace of God in their 
 
 moi^ glorious falvation. 1 fay, nothing appears, either 
 
 from the general ufe of 0/ -roxxu, or from the particular 
 ufe of it in this cafe, but that this and this only is the real 
 fenfe of it, in this inftance. And for Dr. C. to wifli his 
 readers, before he has given them a reafon, to give up this 
 {^iS.^ in favor of his ov/n, is for him to come to them in the 
 humble character of a fuppliant, and not in the digniiied 
 charafler of a cogent rcafoner. 
 
 3. In the loth verfe, it is expreflly afferted. As by the 
 offence of one, judgment came upon all men^ 5^5 Travla?- 
 «y6,06J7rot;?, to condemnation ; even fo by the righteoufnefs 
 of one, the free gift came upon all men, u; Trctv^ct; «y9p«7rci/?, 
 to juftification of life : whence Dr, C. concludes, that 
 the words all men, in both parts of the comparifon are 
 ufed in the fame extent ; and fays, *^ It can be no other 
 '^ than a flat contradi6lion to the exprefs words of the 
 *^ apoflle to fay, that in the latter part of this comparifon 
 '* not all men are meant, but believers only ; that is, a few 
 *' of them."* It is indeed a fiat contradidbion toDr. C^s 
 fenfe of the apoille^s words ; but that it is a contradiftion 
 to the ti'ue fenfe of thofe words, does not appear. If it 
 fhould be further granted to be a contradiftion to the moft 
 literal fenfe of thofe words taken by themielves, it would 
 not thence follow, that it is a contradic'tion to the true 
 
 * P. 32. antJ 
 
Ro?n. V. 12, ^c. confidcred, id:; 
 
 aftd real fenre of the words. The real fenfe of words in 
 all authors, is in thouCands of inftances to be known, not 
 from the words themfelves merely, but from their con 
 Heclion and other circumftances. 
 
 The Dr. rightly afferts, that the words all men in verfe 
 1 8th, mean the fame with M^ many in verfe 15th. And as it 
 has been fhown^ that there is no evidence given by the 
 Ootlor, that the many, to vv'hom grace abounds through 
 Chriftj mean all men ; fo all men in the i8th verfe mean- 
 ing, by his own confent, the fame with the many in verfe 
 35th, mult., until we have evidence to the contrary, be un- 
 tie rftood vvdth the fame reflriclion. To carry on the com- 
 parifon, and maintain the antithefis, there is no more re-' 
 cefJity of underftanding the v/ords all men, v/lien applied 
 to the fa\ned by Ghriil: in the i8th verfe, to mean the 
 whole human race ; than there is of underftanding in that 
 extent, the many in the latter part of verfe 15th. 
 
 Beside ; the meaning of thefe words is abundantly 
 refirifled by the context : as verfe 17th, *' For if by one 
 ^^ man's offence death reigned by one ; much more they 
 '^ which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of 
 ^^ righteom'hefs, fliall reign by one, Jcfus Chrift." The 
 1 8th verfe is an inference drawn from the i/th^ and is in- 
 troduced by *,•« ow, therefore. But the 1 8th verfe would 
 benojuft inference at all from the i/th, unlefs the words 
 all men in the latter part of the i8th verfe be equally re- 
 {Iricted as the Vv'ords they •u)hich receive abundance of grace ^ 
 in the 17th verfe. Let us make trial of underftanding thofe 
 phrafes in- a fenfe differently exteniive, thus ; For if by 
 one man's offence death reigned by one ; much more true 
 believers in this life, who are the fubjedls of the peculiar 
 and abundant grace of God, fnall reign in eternal life by 
 one, Jefus Chrift. Therefore as by the offence of one, 
 judgment came upon all men univerfally to condemnation ; 
 even fo by the righteoufnels of one, the free gift came 
 upon all m.en univerfally unto juftification of life, whether 
 in this world they believe or not. The Vvdiole force of this 
 reafoning is more briefly expreffed thus ; I'hofe who be- 
 lieve in this life, (hall reign in life eternal : therefore alfo 
 all men, whether they believe in this life or not, fhall in 
 like manner reign in life eternal. But who does not fee, 
 that this confequence hy no means foUovvS from the pre- 
 iiiifes ? 
 
 Althoijgh 
 
r^4 ^^* ^^^ Argument from 
 
 Altiiougfi Dr. C. fiippofes '^ this therefore''* [in 
 verfe iSth,] '^is the fame which began the 12th verfe :"— ^ 
 yet he allows^ *' it will make no elTential difFerence in the 
 ^•' apoiHe's reafoning, if we Ihould fuppofe, that the i8tli 
 '^ and 19th varies introduced by c^p* ot^v, are a conclu- 
 *' fion from the three foregoing verfes :'^* And it is 
 evident by the Doctor's own difcourfe, that hehimfelf was 
 fall in the opinion, that the i8th and 19th verfes, are a 
 conclurion from the three preceding verfes, though he 
 was of the opinion thatthofe three verfes, are an ^' inter- 
 ^^ POSF.D parenthefis/' Let the reader notice the follow- 
 ing paiFage ; *^ The view of the apoftle in interpofmg 
 «*' thefe verfes'' [the 15th, i6th, and 17th,] *^ was. that 
 '^ he might argue from the gift in this abounding fenfe, 
 *' when he came to profecute the comparifon between Adam 
 
 ^^ and Chrill And if the gift through Chrifl might be 
 
 '^ fuppofed to abound beyond the lapfe, in the 75th, i6th, 
 ^' and 17th verfes, why not in the 1 8th and 19th ?"f 
 
 Indeed the Doctor himlelf allows, that the ^// men m 
 the latter part of the 1 8th verfe, is no more cxtenfive, 
 than they which receive abimdatice of grace in the 17th verfe. 
 But he fuppofes that the latter expreffion is equally extend- 
 ed with the former, and that the former extends to all 
 mankind. I fay, he fuppofes this : but his opponents in 
 this controverfy fuppo/e the contrary ; and how does it ap- 
 pear, but that their fuppofition is as good as his ? If the 
 Dodor wifned that v/e ihould give the preference to his 
 iuppofition, he ought to have given us fome reafon. 
 
 The Doctor with the help of a *^ learned friend" has 
 given us a long diiTertation on the 17th verfe, and on the 
 Greek verb xau.?itv«, with a defign to prove, that 0; xa/^> 
 ■^xvav^z, they who receive, mean not tliofe who receive the 
 grace of God a^ively, voluntarily and with a heart to im- 
 prove it ; but thofe who are the *^ objects of this grace," 
 ^•' or the perfons upon whom it is bellowed." But this is 
 altogether immaterial in the prefent difpute. By the a- 
 bundance of grace Dr. C. underflands the fiboumling advan-r 
 
 iage by Chrift^ terminating in a reign in life. Now it will 
 
 be granted on all hands, that they on whom this grace is 
 beftowed, v/ill be favcd. Indeed the very exprelfion, 
 reigning in life, implies falvation. Thofe therefore on 
 whom this grace is beflowed^ will as certainly and as con-^ 
 
 feffedl/ 
 
 ;^ P. 67. t P- 6a 
 
Rom. V. 12, ^c, conjidcrcd. 16^ 
 
 feffedly be faved, as thofe who cheerfully receive and im- 
 prove the grace of God. All the queftion is, and a very 
 important one it is, whether this abounding grace termina- 
 ting in a reign in life, be beilov/ed on ail mdn. That it 
 is preached or offered to all men, is granted. But that it 
 is fo communicated to all, as to fecure their reign in hfe, 
 is a different idea, and is the main fubjecl of this contro- 
 veriy . 
 
 So that all the labours of Dr. C. and his ^^ ingenious 
 '' friend,'' to fettle the meaning of rc're'/Y'f, A^.w.'^«va>, con- 
 tribute nothing to eflablilli this point. That all men in the 
 latter part of verfe i8th, mean the whole human race. So 
 lonp- as the Doctor p-rants, that the words nil men. verfe 
 1 8th, are not more extenfive than they which receive a- 
 bundance of grace, verfe 17th; and fo long as he has not 
 proved, that they which receive abundance of grace, fo as 
 to reign in eternal life, mean the whole human race; fo 
 long nothing is done to prove univerfal falvation, from 
 the ufe of the words all men, verfe 18th. To fay, that: 
 they which receive abundance of grace mean all mankind, 
 becaufe that exprelTion is equally extenfive as the words 
 all men in the 1 8th verfe, is a mere begging of the queftion. 
 It is in the firfb place to fuppofe and not to prove, that the 
 words all men mean all mankind ; and then by them to 
 prove, that alfo they ivkich receive abundance of grace, mean 
 all mankind. 
 
 The univerfal term all nie}i, verfe 18th, is by the for- 
 mer part of the chapter limited to thofe who are jufiified 
 hy faith; who have peace with God, and v/ho joy in God, 
 through Chrifl, as having received reconciiiaiion. Dr« 
 C's opinion was, that the 1 8th verfe is but the full expref- 
 lion of the fentence left imperfefl in the 12th verfe, and 
 that the therefore in the bep-inning; cfthe loth verfe '^ is 
 ** the fame which began the 12th verfe. "^'^ 1 he i8th 
 verfe then is an immediate conclufion fi om the verfes pre- 
 <:eding the 12th, efpecialiy from the nth. Nov/ the be- 
 lievers in endlefs puniihment hold, that in ail that part of 
 the chapter, from the beginning to the i2tli verle^ the a- 
 poftle had been fbcaking of the privileges of believers on- 
 ly,' and not thofe privilep-es which beloup- to all mankind. 
 And to infer from thofe privileges which are pecuhar to 
 believers, that all mankind will be faved^ is to infer a ecu- 
 
 iequcnce^j 
 
 .* P. 67. 
 
l66 Docior C'a a?-gu7n^nt from 
 
 fequence, v/hich is by no means contained in tke pi'eiiiiies : 
 and fuch reafoning ought never to be imputed to ariy man 
 of Paul's found judgment, much lefs to him^ an inipired a- 
 poftle. 
 
 To illuflrate this matter, permit nie to defcend to par- 
 ticulars. Verfe ifl, believers are laid to be juftified by 
 faith and to have peace with God : verfe 2d, tohaveaccefsby 
 faith into the grace of the gofpcl and to rejoice (or glory) in 
 the hope of the glory of God ; verfe 3d, to glory in tri- 
 bulations : verfe 5th, to have the love of God ihed abroad 
 in their hearts by the Holy Ghcil; : verfe 8th, it is faidthat 
 God commendeth his love towards believers, in that Chrift 
 died for them : verfe 9th, that believers are judiiied by 
 Chrifl's blood, and faved from Vv'rath through hiin : verfe 
 loth, that believers are reconciled to God by the death of 
 Chrift and faved by his life: verfe lith, that believers 
 glory in God through Chrift, by whom they hiive received 
 
 the atonement or reconciliation. 'Now wliat is the con- 
 
 lequence really folio v/ing from thefe premiilss, afcribing 
 to believers thsfe peculiar and exclufive privileges? Is it 
 that by the righteoufnefs of Chrift the free gift unto juf- 
 tification of life, is come upon all mankind, believers and 
 unbelievers ? By no means : any man, without the aid of 
 infpiration, would be aihamcd to draw fuch a confequence 
 from fuch preinifes. The only juft confequence of thefe 
 premiies, is that which has . been generally taken to be 
 the meaning of the 1 8th verfe ; viz, That as by the of- 
 fence of oriC, Adim, judgment to condemnation came 
 upon all mankijid who were his i'eed ; even io by the 
 righteoufnefs of one^ Jefus Chriil, the free gift unto juf- 
 tiiication of life, came upon all his iced, who are believers 
 onby, and who are the only pcrfons of whom the apoftle 
 
 had been fpeaking in the premiies. May I not now 
 
 adopt the fa m,e bold language v/hich Dr. C. often ufcs 
 concerning his comments on fcripture, that no other fenfe 
 than this, can be put on this i8th verfe without making 
 the apofUe argue inconciufively i* 
 
 I KNOW very v/ell that the Doctor underflcod difter- 
 ently the v/hole paiTage from the beginning of this chap- 
 ter to the 1 2th verfe. But as his whole argument from 
 Rom. V. 12, to the end, in the prefent view of it, de- 
 pends on his different conftrutftion oi' verfe i— 12 ; it is not 
 fuiTicicnt to f;iy, th:it the Doctor zirJei-J/ood that paiTage 
 
 diffcrciTtiv, 
 
Rom. y. 12, CT. conJiJered. f^y 
 
 difFerently, or that it is capable of a different conftrudlion. 
 It niufc be fhown that it is not capable of the conilru61ioii 
 which is given above ; and that the Dod:or\s conftruftion 
 mull be the true one. Let us therefore attend to his con- 
 Ifrudion and his reafons in fupport of it. 
 
 The conftruiftion is, that the lad verfe of the preceding 
 chapter, the 6ih, 7th, 8th, 9th, loth, verfes, and the 
 latter part of the nth verfe of this chapter, are fpoken of 
 all mankind. The reafons which he alTigns for fuch an 
 imderiianding of thofe verfes, are 
 
 (i.) That in the 6th verfe Chrif^ is faid to die for the 
 u'dgodly.'^ But if we fnould alTert, that hy the ungodly 
 here are meant thofe only, who aftcrvv-ard and during 
 this life become godly or believers, though Chrilt died for 
 them while ungodly or confidering them as ungodly, the 
 Doflor has given no confutation of fuch a conftruction. 
 Therefore he had no right toexpeft, that it would be reject- 
 ed by an}'- one who fliould choofe to adopt it. Or if we 
 
 allow, that Chrift did die for all men in this fenfe, that he 
 
 died to introduce a diii3enfation cf o-race which fhould offer 
 
 . . . *-' 
 
 falvation to all, and invite all to it, and to ufe Dr. C^s own 
 
 exprelTion, to put all into falvahle cir cum fiances ; nothing 
 will hence follow favourable to the actual falvation of all 
 men, or to the Doctor's argument from Rom. V. 12, &:c. 
 It will not follow, that all v/ill accept the invitations to 
 falvation and acl upon them. Still the "jje and us, which 
 occur fo often from the lil: to the 12th verfe, and parti- 
 cularly in verfe 6th, may mean believers only. 
 
 (2.) '^ It is a grofs miicake to think, that the apcflle in 
 this 9th verfe is fpeaking of that jurtification he had in 
 the lit verfe conne^Tted with faith ; and for this decifive 
 reafon, becaufe — as I'alvation from wrath is one thing 
 clTentially included in that juftification which is the refult 
 *^ of true faith ; it vv'culd be ridiculous to aro-ue, murh 
 ^^ more being juilified, meaning hereby this juflincation, 
 
 *^ we fiiall be faved from wrath. '^f But did Dr. C. 
 
 entertain the opinion, that juilincaticn and falvation are 
 one and the far/ie ? Abraham believed God and it was 
 counted to him for riorhteoufnefs : he was then uiftiiied : 
 but he did not then receive complete falvation. Believers 
 being in this life juib/ied hy faith, have peace with God^ 
 according to the ifl: verfe of this chapter, as Dr. C. allows. 
 
 Yrr 
 
 P- 35. t 
 
 
168 Docior Os argument from. 
 
 Yet they are not in this life Aived from wrath in the fenfc 
 they will be, at the day of judgment. Therefore, how- 
 ever Dr. C. afferts it, it does not appear to be ridiculous 
 to argue, that believers being in this life juftified by faith 
 in the blood of Chnfl:, fliall at the day of judgment, much 
 more be favcd from wrath through him. Is it ridiculous 
 to argue, that Abraham being juililied by faith here, will 
 much more be faved from wrath hereafter ? 
 
 (3) *^ TiiE particle vt'V, now, conne6ted with the jufli- 
 '- ticarion here treated of, is emphatical, making it clear^ 
 *' that the apoftie is not to be underfi:ood of juftihcation at 
 ^^ the great day ; but of juftincaticn that had at that time 
 
 '' been completed. *'' Nobody pretends, that the a- 
 
 poille means a juflitication at the great day. It is allowed 
 on all hands, that he means a iufliiicalion, which had at 
 that prefent time been completed. But what follows 
 hence ? Did Dr. C. imagine, that believers are not in a 
 proper fenfe completely juiliiied in this life ? And that the 
 jurdiication of Abraham, Rahab,&c. was in no proper fenfe 
 com.pleted before their death, or before the great day? 
 Concerning the former, it is cxpreffly faid, that he believ- 
 ed God, and it ivas counted to him for righteoufnefs — that 
 faith uvi"/ reckoned to Abraham for righteoufnefs, cmc, and 
 concerning the latter, ivas not Rahab the harlot juftified^ 
 o:c r Nor is it material to the prefent purpofe, whether 
 thisjirrtiiication of Rahab mean a jullification by God, or a 
 manifefcative jufliflcation, proving, that ihe was juilified in 
 in the fight of God ; becaufe. the latter, equally as the for- 
 ]ner, implies that flie was then juflified in the fight of 
 God. 
 
 That believers are in this life juftified in a peculiar 
 ^ciikf is further taught in i Cor. VI, 11, ** And fuch were 
 *' feme of you : but ye are vv^aflied, but ye are fandified, 
 *' but y^ are jiiftlpecl in the name of the Lord Jefus, and 
 ^' by the fpirit of our God.*' — I prefume it will be grant- 
 ed, that pardon or forgivenefs is an efiential part of juftifi- 
 cation, and that when a man is forgiven by God, he is juf- 
 tified by God. But that behevers are forgiven in this 
 life, is evident from the following texts. Mat. IX, 2, 
 *^ Son, thy fms be forgiven thee.'^ See alfo, Mark, II, 
 5, and Luke V, 20, — Col. 11, i^. '^ And you being dead 
 ** in your lins, and the uncircumcifion of your fiefli, hath 
 
 ** fee 
 
 * I'. V^ 
 
Rom* V, II, cnnjidered, 169 
 
 ^•^ he quickened together with him, having forgiven you 
 *^ all trefpalTes." i John II. 12, '' I write unto you, 
 ^' little children, becaufe your fins are forgiven you, for 
 ^' his name's fake.'' 
 
 But why need I produce proofs of what Dr. C. grants, 
 though it feems in his comment on the pth verfe, he 
 had forgotten it? In his comment on the ilt verfe, &c, 
 he fpeaks of ^^ the jullified by faith, as glorying in hope 
 
 ''■ of the glory of God and in their fufFerings 
 
 ^' becaufe they knew that tribulation worketh patience, 
 *^ and patience experience, and experience hope." The 
 Doclor, as the apoftle did before him, evidently confiders 
 thefe things as taking place in this life. Indeed the con- 
 trary cannot be pretended without the groffefl abfurdity. 
 He alfo confiders thefe views and aiFeclions as peculiar to 
 t^Q jufiified by faith. Therefore fome men are completely 
 juftified by faith in this life : at leafl fo completely, as to 
 render the 9th verfe properly applicable to them. There- 
 fore his argument from vi^v, noiVy that the juftification fpo- 
 ken of in the 9th verfe, is not peculiar to believers, proves 
 nothing. 
 
 Beside, Dr. C. could not, without the moft glaring 
 abfurdity and inconfiftency, underftand this 9th verfe of 
 all mankind : becaufe the perfons here referred to, fliall 
 hefavsd from wrath. But according to the Docuor fome 
 men will not be faved from wrath, they will fuiTer all that 
 v/rath to which they are liable on the footing of ftrift juf- 
 tice : they will fuiFer according to their fms, according to 
 their crimes, and their deferts, and fo that the whole 
 threatened penalty will be executed on them. 
 
 (4) DocTo]^ C. argues, that becaufe it is faid in verfe 
 loth, when v/& were enemies, we were reconciled to God ; 
 by the we here, we mull: underftand, not believers only, 
 but all mankind ; or becaufe, as the Doctor paraphrafes 
 the words, while they were enemies, they were reconciled; 
 therefore this reconciliation cannot mean the cordial re— 
 conciliation of true believers.* The force of this argu— 
 ment wdioUy depends on this fuppofition, that the perfons 
 here intended, were reconciled, and yet after the recon- 
 ciliation was efFe6ted, they ftill remained enemies. But 
 what necelhty of this glofs of the text? Why may it not 
 mean this merely, that Vv'hen the perfons here intended 
 
 Z4 were 
 
17« Do^9r Cs argumsjii from 
 
 were going on in their enmity, they v/ere arrefted by the 
 grace of God, reclaimed from their enmity, and reconciled 
 to God ? There appears to be nothing ablurd or unufual in 
 this exprellion underftood in this lenfe. If it ihonld be 
 faid, When a fubjecl was v/aging war agairil his fovereign, 
 and was in actual battle with the troops of his fovereign, 
 he was reconciled to him ; the exprellion would not natu- 
 rally imply ^ and no man would underftand it to mean, that 
 jiotwithilanding the reconciliation, he ftill continued a fix- 
 ed and mahcious enemy to his fovereign No man would 
 understand the expreffion in any other fenfe than this, that 
 in the midft of the v%\ir and battle, he was flruck v ith con- 
 vidion of his wickednefs, and became cordially reconciled 
 to his fovereign. 
 
 If the Doctor depended on the original v/ords ^-y}-r^' "'=« 
 Kai>ixx«^}iyu?i', to make out that the reconciliation here in- 
 tended took place, while the perfons fpoken of remained 
 enemies ; he might as conclufively have argued, that the 
 perfon mentioned in Joh. IX, 25, (li-s'^!^; ^^v ^xfr:T&.) had his 
 iight reftored to him, while he remained perfectly blind ; 
 and that Saul went to Damafcus, with the expectation of 
 bringing certain perfons to Jerufalem, who at the fame 
 time ihould ftill remain at Damafcus, (a^a-y '^oo? ex-j/a-? cy':^-] 
 Aa. XXII, 5. 
 
 At length Vv'e come to the Doctor's expofition of the 
 I ith verfe, to which his criticifm, on all the preceding ver- 
 les refers. He tells us. The meaning plainly and briefly is, 
 ^* We believers glory in God of our intereft, and relation 
 '^ to him, as our covenant God, through Jefus Chrilt, 
 *' by whom vre were fo changed in our itate, "jjh'ile ene- 
 ** mies — in comm.on with the reft of mankind, as to be ca- 
 *' pable of — final juftification upon the foot of faith." 
 On this it may be remarked. That if by '* intereft in 
 <^ and covenant relation to God,'' Dr. C. meant any thing 
 different from that itate.of reconciliation, which is obtain- 
 ed by Chrift, and which is mentioned in the latter part of 
 this verfe, it does not appear, that the text gives him any 
 warrant to infert that intereft, &c. in his comment, as a 
 ground of rejoicing or glorying. I appeal to the reader, 
 -whether the moft natural {&n(e of the text be not this. 
 We believers glory in God, through our Lord Jeius Chrift, 
 as having by Chrift received reconciliation ; or /cr this 
 reafon^ that of God's rich grace through Chrift; we have 
 
 obtained 
 
Rdm, V, l^ conjidered* iji 
 
 obtained reconciliation with God. Otherwife, why is the 
 circumftance of our receiving the reconciliation by Chriit 
 mentioned in this connection with our glorying in God ? 
 Befide, to glory in God as our covenant God, and to glory 
 in him on account of our reconciliation with him, is one 
 and the fame thing. 
 
 The glorying of which the apoftle fpeaks, is through 
 Chrifi: ; and this implies, that it is on account of fome be- 
 nefit or blefTmg received through Chrift : and what this 
 blefling is, which the apoRle had in view, and which he 
 confidered as the ground of glorying to believers, he im- 
 mediately explains in thefe words, hy ivhom ive have re- 
 ceived the ?'econcUiatlo-n, that reconciliation of which he 
 had been fpeaking in the loth verfe. But if the recon- 
 ciliation, which the apoftle makes, the great ground of re- 
 joicing or glorying to believers, be, as Dr. C. holds, com- 
 mon to believers and unbelievers ? then the great ground 
 of glorying to believers is not any blelhng peculiar to be- 
 lievers ; but fomething common to all mankind ; and 
 therefore unbelievers have j Lilt the fame reafon to glory 
 in that blefTmg as believers ; which is no more credible 
 tlian the doctrine of univei fal falvation, and wants as much 
 proof as that doctrine ; and therefore cannot be admitted 
 as any evidence of the truth of that doclrine. 
 
 I BEG the reader's patience, while I make a few other 
 remarks on Dr. C*s coniirudion of the pallage from Rom. 
 IV. 25, to Chap. V. 12; and I wilh the reader to keep 
 before him the paiTage itfelf, while he follov/s me in theie 
 remarks. - 
 
 This whole pafTage is exprefTed in the firit perfon, and 
 is manifeftly one continued difcourfe. Yet Dr. C. was of 
 the opinion, that in this fhort pafTage of only twelve ver« 
 fes, the perfons, or the ive, us and our, v/hich occur in al- 
 mofl every fentence, are fliifted no lefs than four times. 
 In the laft verfe of Chap. IV, it was his opinion, that all 
 men are intended : that from the firft to the fixth verfe of 
 Chapter V, only believers are intended : that from the 6th 
 to the nth verfe all men are intended : that in the former 
 part of the nth verfe believers only are intended : that 
 in the latter part of the i ith verfe all men are again inten- 
 ded. I beg leave to fet down this whole pafTage, accor- 
 ding to the Doctor's explanation, together with the text 
 itfelf:— Thus 
 
 T£XT» 
 
I7X 
 
 Do^Qr Cs argument from 
 
 Text. 
 CHAP. IV. 25. 
 
 Who was delivered for eur 
 offences a?td raifed again for 
 our juflification. 
 
 CHAP. V. I. 
 Therefore y bei?ig jiiftified 
 hy faith, 'uje have peace 'with 
 God, through our Lord Jefus 
 Chrift. 
 
 2. By whom alfo we have 
 accefs hy faith into this grace 
 wherein vje //and, and re- 
 joice in hope of the glory of 
 
 God. 
 
 3. And not only fo, hut 
 we glory in tribulations al/h, 
 knowing that tribulation 
 worketh patience; 
 
 4. j^nd patience experi- 
 ence ; and expcriejjce hope ; 
 
 5. And hope maketh i2ot 
 afhamed, hecaufe the love of 
 God is fhed abroad in our 
 hearts by the Holy Ghoft 
 which is given unto us. 
 
 6. For when we were 
 with out fir ength, in due time 
 Chrift died for the ungodly. 
 
 7. For fcarcely for a 
 7'ighteous man will one die : 
 Yet peradventure for a good 
 man fome 'W9idd even dare to 
 die. 
 
 8. But God commendeth 
 his love towards \\s, in that 
 while we were yet J'mnerSy 
 Chrifi died j or us. 
 
 Dr. Cs Explanation. 
 
 Who was delivered tp 
 put all men into a capacity 
 to obtain the pardon of 
 their offences, and was 
 raifed again to put them 
 into a capacity of being 
 juftified at the great day. 
 
 Therefore believers be- 
 ing juftified by faith, have 
 peace with God, through 
 our Lord Jefus Chrift. By 
 whom alfo believers have 
 accefs by faith into this 
 grace wherein they ftand, 
 and rejoice in hope of the 
 glory of God. 
 
 And not only fo, but bc-^ 
 lievers glory in tribulations 
 alfo, knowing that tribula- 
 tion worketh patience ; and 
 patience experience and ex- 
 perience hope : and hope 
 njaketh not alhamed, be- 
 caufe the love of God is 
 ilied abroad in the hearts 
 of believers^ by the Holy ^ 
 Ghoft, which is given un- 
 to them. 
 
 For when all men were 
 without ftrength, in due 
 time Chrift died for them 
 all, while they were un- 
 godly. 
 
 For fcarcely for a righte- 
 ous man would one die : 
 Yet peradventure for a 
 good man, fome would 
 even dare to die. 
 
 But God commendeth 
 his love towards all men, 
 in that while they v/ere yet 
 fmners, Chrift died for 
 them all, 9. ¥iuch 
 
Rom* V. 12, (;c* confidercd. 
 
 173 
 
 Text. 
 
 9. Much more then being 
 
 now jujljfied by his blood, lue 
 
 /hall be faved from ivrath 
 
 throuorh him. 
 
 10. For If ivhen we were 
 enemies y we were reconciled 
 to God by the death of his 
 Son : much more being re- 
 conciledy we fhall be faved 
 hy his life. 
 
 1 1 . ylnd not only fs ; but 
 we alfo joy in God, through 
 cur Lord Jefus ChrlJ}, by 
 whom we have now received 
 the atonement, {or the recon- 
 ciUation.~\ 
 
 Dk. C's Explanation. 
 
 Much more then all men 
 being now by the blood of 
 Chrift brought into a capa- 
 city or pojffibility of falva- 
 tion, fhail in fa6l be faved 
 from wrath through Chrift. 
 
 For if when all men v/ere 
 enemies, they were by the 
 death of Chrift brought in- 
 to a poffhtlity of falvation ; 
 much more being brought 
 into a poffdAlity of falva- 
 tion, thole c.ll men Ihall be 
 equally faved by the Hfe of 
 Chrift. 
 
 And not only fo ; but 
 believers alfo glory in God 
 through our Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, by whom all men 
 have received tht pojfbility 
 of falvation. 
 
 How ftrange, that in a continued difcourfe all in the 
 firft perfon plural, the we and us fhould be changed back- 
 ward and forward four times ! What torturing of the 
 fcripture is here ! At this rate, what difcourfe in the 
 world will be intelligible ? How will it be poflible for any 
 man, antl efpecially tor the common people, for whom as 
 well as for the learned, the fcriptures v/ere written, to un- 
 derftand them ? 
 
 ^\JT this is not all. By this various reference of the 
 pronouns we and us, the reafoning of the apoftle is render- 
 ed utterly inconclufive, in almoft every ftep of it. Thus 
 the firft verle of the fifth Chapter is m.anifeftly brought in 
 by the apoftle, as a confequence drawn from the laft verfe 
 of the preceding Chapter. But from the confideration, 
 that Chrift died and rofe to put all men into a capacity of ob- 
 taining juftification at the great day, it by no means fol- 
 lows, that believers are mnv juftified by faith, and have 
 peace with God. Verfe 9th, if it be ever fo true, that all 
 men are put into a poffibility of falvation, it by no means 
 follows, that all men will be actually faved. It no more 
 
 follows. 
 
174 Doctor C^s argument from 
 
 follows, than from the opportunity given all men, of ob- 
 taining fah^ation immediately after this life, it follows, 
 that all will actually be faved immediately after this life 3 
 Or than frcni the opportunity of entering the land of Ca- 
 naan, given -all that generation, which came out of Egypt, 
 it followed, that all that generation would in fad enter that 
 land : Or than from the opportunity given any man to be- 
 come rich or honorable, it follows, that he will in fact be- 
 come rich or honorable. The fame obfervation is equally 
 applicable to the loth verfe. What was before obferved 
 concerning the nth verfe, underftood in Dr. C's fenfe, 
 needs not to be repeated. 
 
 But what is of chief importance is, that according to 
 the Doctor's conftrudtion, there is no argumentative con- 
 nection between the nth and the 12th, or which is the 
 fame thing, betv/eenthe nth and the iSthverfes. If the 
 Do6tor' s i'enfe of the nth and i8th verfes be true, the 
 latter is no juft confequence from the former. The Doc- 
 tor's {t^A\Q of the nth verfe is, that all men throueh Chrift 
 have received a polhbility of final falvation ; and his fenfe 
 of the 1 8th verfe is, that all men will a6tually be faved. 
 But if it be ever fo true, that all men have received a pof- 
 libility or opportunity of final falvation, it does not fol- 
 low, thnt all will ^dually be faved. Yet as the 12th or 
 18th verfe, (the intermediate verfes being a parenthefis) 
 is a deduction from the iith^ the Lift of the proportions 
 juft exprelTed, fliould juftly follow from the other; other- 
 wife the apoflle argues inconclufively. And as the Doc- 
 tor's glofs of thefe two verfes makes the apoflle reafon in- 
 concluiively, we may be fure, that he has not given the 
 
 true fenfe of them. But according to the common un— 
 
 derftanding of thefe verfes, the reafoning is clear and cer- 
 tain. For if believers have obtained through Chrift a cor- 
 dial reconciliation and peace with God, then certainly thofe 
 fame believers will, in the fame way, obtain eternal life 
 and falvation. 
 
 That the 12th, and therefore the i8th verfe, is an in- 
 ference from the nth, is, I think, manifcft from a careful 
 perufal of the pafTage, and it is at leaft implicitly granted 
 by Dr. C. He exprefily fays, that the therefore in the be- 
 ginning of the 1 8th verfe, *^ is the fame which began the 
 *• 1 2th verfe. The protafis or firil part of the compari- 
 ^* fbn was there entered upon, bat left unfiniihed. ■'Tis 
 
 «■ here 
 
Rom. Vf 12, drc. confidered. \j^ 
 
 '*' here refumed, I fay, therefore, as by the ofFence of one 
 *^ man'' &c. * And his paraphrafe of the i8th verfe is in 
 thefe words : '^ 1 fay, therefore, (to refiime now and pur- 
 '* fue the comparifon I began in the rath verfe) as it was 
 '^ by the lapfe of the one man, Adam," &c.f The Doc- 
 tor alfo quotes Dr. Doddridge's aifertion, that *' the 12th 
 ^* verfe is an inference from the nth," and does not con- 
 tradid that affertion, though he labours through a num- 
 ber of pages, to affix a different fenfe from that of Dr. 
 Doddridge, to the nth verfe, that thus he may evade the 
 conftruclion of the i8th verfe, vvdiich Dr. Doddridp-e had 
 given, and eftabhfh his ov/n. But all this v/as needlefs, 
 if indeed the 12th and i8th verfes are not. an inference 
 
 from the nth. Nor is there any inconfiftence in the 
 
 opuiion, that the 18th verfe may be at the fame time an in- 
 ference from the nth and from the 15th, i6th and 17th 
 verfes. True and fufficient premifes or reafons of the pro- 
 pofition of the i8th verfe, may be contained in the nth 
 verfe. Thofe reafons maybe explained, and even others 
 added in the 15th, i6th and 17th verfeS;, which fall into a 
 parenthefis ; and the 1 8th verfe may contain an inference 
 juftly dtducible from either, or from both. 
 
 I AM indeed fenfible, that Dr. C. in his paraphrafe of 
 the 1 2th verfe, does not confider it as an inference from 
 the nth ; but the nth as deducible by v/ay of inference 
 from the 12th, in this manner : Becaufe lin and death came 
 upon all men by Adam, therefore all men have obtained a 
 poffibility of falvation by Chrift. His v^'ords are, ** For this 
 '* caufe or reafon, we have received reconciliation by Jefus 
 *^ Chrifl, namely, becaufe as fin entered into the world by 
 *^ the one man, Adarn,':];'^ &c. But this is as furprifmg as any 
 part of Dr. C's truly furprifmg expofition of this chapter. 
 In the firft place, it is a mere conjecture, unfupported 
 by any thing, but pure imagination. In the fecond place, 
 to apply this paraphrafe to the i8th verfe, which is but 
 the full expreffion of the 12th, it will ftand thus : For 
 this caufe or reafon all men have received a poifibility of 
 falvation, namely, that as by the offence of one, judcr. 
 ment came upon all men to condemnation, even fo, by the 
 righteoufnefs of one, the free gift came upon all men to ac- 
 tual falvation. Or more briefly thus ; The reafon, why 
 
 all 
 fP. 6j. t P. 26. :J:P. 23. 
 
176 Doitor Os argument from 
 
 all men have obtained 0. poj/ibility of {dlvation, is, that fal- 
 vation is actually come upon all men : Or to place the fen- 
 tence in its proper arrangement, Salvation is actually come 
 upon all men ; therefore all men have received a poffibili- 
 ty of falvation. On this reafoning I need malvC no re- 
 mark. It is not hovvev^er probable, that the Do6l:or 
 
 wasfeniible, that his paraphrafe of the 12th verfe, appli- 
 ed to the 1 8th, would come to this. Nor is the reafon 
 juft exprefled, that which the Do6lor beheved to be 
 the true, one, why v/e have received the reconciliation. 
 But that which in the Doclor^s opinion was the true rea- 
 ibn, he expreilly declares to be, ^' That it was in fuch a 
 *' Vvay, viz. by the offence of one, that judgment came 
 
 ^' upon all men to condemnation.*^' Who is anfwer- 
 
 able for this inconfidency, I need not inform the read- 
 er. 
 
 Before I difmifs this part of Dr. C's book, I cannot 
 but.obferve, that he fpeaks of a double juftification,t the 
 one meaning abfolutionat the great day ; the other mean- 
 ing the advantageous ftate, or the poffibility of the falva- 
 tion of all mankind through Chrift. It feems then that 
 the Doctor had forgotten, that he had but a few pages be- 
 fore made out a threefold j unification : Tne firft kind con- 
 filling in the introdufiion to a capacity or poflibility of fal- 
 vation through Chrift : The fecond in the juftification of 
 believers, v^^ho have peace with God while in this life ; fuch 
 was the j unification of Abraham : The third in abfolution 
 
 at the ^reat day. But vv^lien any thing is abundantly 
 
 m.ultiplied, no wonder if the author himfelf of that multi- 
 plication forgets the number of units contained in his own 
 product. 
 
 Dr. C. fays, J It can be no other than a flat contradic- 
 tion to the exprefs wc^i'ds of the Apollle himfelf, to fay 
 that in the latter part of the comparifon in the i8th verfe, 
 the words all 7nen are not ufed in the fame extenfive fenfe, 
 as in the former part of that verfe. This is indeed a 
 ftrcng, pofitive affertion, but where is the reafon to fup— 
 port it ? Belide ; he thought it no fiat contradidion to 
 the exprefs words of the Apoltle, to fay that vje in the former 
 part of the nth verfe, is not ufed in the fame extenlive 
 fenfe as in the latter part of that verfe : nor any flat 
 contradi^rion to the words of our Saviour, to fay, thatthe 
 word cverlafting is not ufed in the fame extenfive fenfe in 
 
 the 
 
 *P. 30. t P. '^%. X P- 32* 
 
Rom, V, 12, 6c. cmpJefed^ \yj 
 
 the former part, as in the latter part of Matt. XXV. 46, 
 '^ Thefe fhall go away into everlaOiing punilhmenc, but 
 *^ the righteous into everlafting life/' 
 
 But it is time we fiiould proceed to the other argument 
 of Dr. C. to prove that univerfal falvation is taught in 
 R.om. V. 12, &c. viz. 
 
 4. The advantage by Chrift exceeds, abounds beyond, 
 the difadvantage by Adam. But unlefs all men be faved^ 
 
 the former '■'■ finks below'' the latter.*-^ It is granted, 
 
 that the advantage by Chrift, to thofe who obtain falvation 
 by Chrii% exceeds, and abounds beyorxd, the difadvantage 
 by Adam. But the queltion is, whether this faving ad-^ 
 Vantage extend to all thofe, to v»/'hom the difadvantage by 
 Adam extended. That it does extend to all the fame fub- 
 jsfts to whom the difadvantage by 4dam extended, is hol- 
 den by Dr. C. But how does he prove it ? By no other* 
 arguments than thofe which we have already particularly 
 conlidered ;, and v/hether they be conclufive, is fubmitted 
 to the reader,- Dr. C. did not imagine, that the advan- 
 tage by Chrift w^as more exteniiye, or extended to a great- 
 er number of perfons, than the difadvantage by Adam. 
 Ke believed, that they both extended to all mankind. — ' 
 Therefore, the fuper-abounding, the excefs, or furplufage 
 of the advantage by Chrift', does not confuft in the extent 
 of it, but in fomething elfe, and that Ibmething elfe may 
 exift, though the extent as to the number of perfons be the 
 fame, or even lefs than the extent of the difadvantage by 
 Adam. 
 
 If the glory of God, and the happinefs of the created 
 fyftem, be more advanced by the falvation of a part of the 
 human race, and by the rejeclion of the reft, than they 
 would h-ave been, if Adam had never fallen ; then furely 
 the advantage by Chrift on the general fcale,does not 
 ^^ fink below" the difadvantage by A-dam : and to aifert, 
 that the divine glory and the happinei's of the created fy- 
 ftem would be moft advanced by the falvation of all men, 
 
 is to beg material points inqueftion. But if Dr. C. 
 
 mean, that jf all be not faved by Chrift, then the ad- 
 vantage by Chrift to thofe who fnall be finally miferable, 
 '' finks below" the difadvantage by Adam to the fame 
 perfons ; I grant it, and apprehend no difadvantage to my 
 caufe by the'conceihon. For it is granting no more than 
 
 A a is 
 
 "- P. 32 & 81, kz. 
 
ijS Do^or €^s argument fram 
 
 is Implied in the very propofition, which I endeavour to 
 defend, that all men will not be faved. 
 
 I HAVE now finiflied my remarks on Dr. C's argument 
 
 from Rom. V, 12, &c. If the reader think I have been 
 
 prolix in thefe remarks, I hope he will remember how pro- 
 lix the Doctor was in his argument from this pafTage ; and 
 I prefume he will not think it unreafonable to take up 
 nineteen pages in anfwering fixty-nine. 
 
 It is now left to the reader to judge, whether it be cer- 
 tain, that becaufe the word many in the former part of the 
 15th and 19th verfes means all men, it means the fame in 
 
 the latter part of thofe verfes : Whether it be certain, 
 
 that the word many means all men, becaufe the article is 
 
 joined with, it, 0/ vro/xo/, the 7nany : Whether becaufe 
 
 the words all men in the former part of the 1 8th verfe, 
 mean all mankind, they certainly mean the fame in the 
 laiter part of that verfe : — — Whether becaufe the advan- 
 tage by Chrift exceeds the difadvantage by Adam, it cer- 
 tainly follow, that the advantage to every individual man^ 
 will exceed the difadvantage to that man. 
 
 C H A P. X. 
 
 Inijjhtchis confidcrcd Dr, C^s Ar gums nt from Romans 
 VilL 19 — 24. 
 
 THE text is, ^^ For the earned expectation of the crea- 
 *^ ture waiteth for the manifeflation of the fons of God . 
 ^^ For the creature was made fubjecl to vanity not willingly, 
 ^* but by reafon of him who fubjeded the fame in hope. 
 *' Becaufe the creature itfelf alfo fhall be delivered from 
 *^ rhe bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of 
 '^ the children of God. For we know that the whole crea- 
 *' tion groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 
 And not only they, but ourfelves alfo which have the 
 iirrfc fruits of the Spirit, ev^en we ourfelves groan with- 
 in ourfelves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the re- 
 demption of our body.'' The wordsof chief import- 
 ance are thofe of the 21ft verfe ; ** The creature itfelf al. 
 '' fo ihall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, 
 ^^ into the glorious liberty of the children of God :" which 
 
 arc 
 
Rom, VIIL 19—24, conJidcrcL 179 
 
 arc fuppofed by Dr. C. to hold forth the falvation of all 
 men. But the main queftion here is, what is the meaning 
 of the word <:r<f^^z<r<?. Dr. C. fuppofes it means //'e /jw- 
 man race. Others fuppofe it means the whole of the cre- 
 ation which was made for the fake of men, and is fubjefted 
 to their nfe. — Belide the word creature, the following 
 words and exprelhons, ^* manifeftation of the fons of 
 <f God" — '^ vanity" — ^^ willingly*' — <* bondage of cor- 
 
 '' ruption" are all underftcod differently by Dr. C.and 
 
 by thofe who believe in endlefs punifliment. Let us there- 
 fore attend to them relpedively. 
 
 I. The meaning of the word >i1'<r/?, creature or creation, 
 is to be fought. It may not be impertinent to inform the 
 reader v/ho is unacquainted with the original, that the 
 word tranflated creature in the itjth, 20th and 21ft verfes, 
 is the very fame which in the 22d verfe is trandated crea- 
 iion ; and doubtlefs whatever be the meaning of it, it 
 ought to have been tranflated uniformly throughout this 
 palTage. Dr. C. was of opinion that it means all man- 
 kind or the rational creation of this world. His rcafons 
 for this opinion are, that *' earneft expe6iation, groaning j 
 *^ travailing together in pain, are more naturally and obvi- 
 *' oufly applicable to the rational, than the inanimate'' [and 
 
 brutal] ** creation'' *^ that Tras-a k-'I/s-/?, xh^ivhole ere-- 
 
 ** ation, is never ufcd (one difputed text only excepted, 
 *' Col. I. 15.) to fignify more than the whole moral cre- 
 
 '^ ation, or all mankind" that '* it would be highly 
 
 '* incongruous, to give this fl^de" [the whole creation] 
 " to the.inferior or lefs valuable part, wholly leaving out 
 *^ tlie moft excellent" part, mankind. 
 
 I. *' Earnest expeJIation, groaning, travailing together 
 *' in pain, aVe more naturally applicable to the rational, 
 
 *^ than the inanimate" [and brutal] *' creation."* If 
 
 this prove any thing, it will prove too much : it will prove, 
 that when in Pfal. CXIV, it is laid '^ The fea faw it and 
 " fled ; Jordan was driven back ; the mountains fkipped 
 '• like rams, and the little hills like lambs ;" the meaning 
 is, that men faw it and fled ; that men were driven back ; 
 that men llcipped like rams and like lambs, it will prove, 
 that Jer. XLVII. 6, ^' O thou fv/ord of the Lord, hov/ 
 *^ long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up thyfelf into 
 " thy fcabbard; reft and be ftill ;" means that ;;»v';; fhould 
 
 * P- 98. 
 
 put: 
 
i8o Do^Qr C*s argument from 
 
 put up themfelves into a fcabbard, and there reft and b© 
 JHII. It will prove that Hcf. XIII. 14, '* I will ranfom 
 *^ them from the power of the crave : I v/ill redeem them 
 '^ from death. O death, I will be thy plagues ; O grave, 
 '^ I will be thy derrruction ;" means that God will be the 
 plagues and deftruction of men : and when once it is efta- 
 bli/lied, that death and the grave mean men, as men are 
 to be ranfomed from the grave and redeemed from death, 
 it will follow that men are to be ranfomed from themfelves 
 
 and redeemed from themfelves. But there is no end to 
 
 the abfurdities which will follow from this mode of con- 
 flruing the fcriptures. 
 
 The truth is, that the figure of fpeech, whereby inani- 
 mate things are reprcfented as living, fenfible and rational 
 perfons, and are addrelFed as fuch, is very conmion in 
 fcripture. Befide the inliances already mentioned, I beg 
 leave to refer to the following : Deut. XXXII. i, *' Give 
 '* ear, O ye heavens, and I will fpeak ; hear, O earth, 
 *' the words of my month.'* Pfal. LXV. 12, 13. ''The 
 " little hills rejoice on every fide. The paflures — the val- 
 '' leys — fhout for joy : they alfo fmg.'' Ifai. LV. 12. 
 *' The mountains and the hills fhall break forth before 
 '^ you into finging, and all the trees of the field fhall clap 
 '' their hands." liab. II. 11. *' For the ftone fnall cry 
 '' out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber fliall 
 f' anfwerit." Pfal. LXXXIX, 12. " Tabor and Her- 
 *^ mon fhall rejoice in thy name.'' Pfal. XCVII, i. *^ The 
 ^' Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice ; let the multitude 
 ** of the illes be glad thereof.'' Ifai. XXIV, 4. ^' The 
 ^' earth mourneth and f^ideth away, the world monrneth, 
 ^' languilheth and fadeth away.". See alfo Pfal. XCVIII, 
 8. Ifai. XVI, 8. XXXV, 1,2. XLIX, 13. Lev. XVIII, 
 28, &c, &c. ' ' 
 
 Now rejoicing, fhouting for joy^. fniging, breaking 
 forth into finging, clapping of hands, crying out, anfwer- 
 ing, mourning, languiihing, S:c, are certainly in thefe 
 pafiages applied to inanimate creatures. But they are ap- 
 plicable to fuch creatures, not more naturally and obviouf- 
 ly, than earneffc expedtaticn, groaning and travailing in 
 pain. 
 
 Though the Doftor thinks thefe exprefiions not proper- 
 ly applicable to any other creatures than mankind ; yet he 
 l^fimlelf applies them to mankind in no other fenfe, than 
 
 that 
 
Rofn. VIII. 19 — 24, confidered. 181 
 
 that In Vv'hich they are applicable to the brutal creation. 
 The fenfe in which he fuppofes all mankind long and luait 
 for the manifeftation of the Tons of God, is^, that the}^ 
 ^' groan under the afflidlions of this world, fenlible of its 
 ^^ imperfections, and confequently deiire fomething bet- 
 ^^ ter." Now the calamities of the world fall not on the 
 rational part of it only, but on all the animal, fenfitlve 
 parts, and confequently they, as well as mankind, ^^ de- 
 *^ fire fomethinp- better.'' From thefe calamities and mi- 
 feries the animal parts of the world will be delivered, at 
 the manifeilation of tlie fons of God. 
 
 Further, the inanimate parts of the world, once per- 
 fonified, as they are in innumerable inftances throughout 
 the fcriptures, may as properly ha^e the particular peiiOn- 
 al affections, adions and fufferings, of exps£lation, -waitings 
 groaning, travrjlingy &c. afcribed to them, as any other 
 perfonal affections, actions or fufferings. 
 
 If any fnould think itimpolfible for brutes and inanimate 
 matter to enjoy the liberty of the children of God, and 
 therefore that it is abfurd to reprefent, that they fliall be 
 deUvered into that liberty : let it be obferved, that though 
 this would be abfurd, while they are reprefented to be 
 (till brutes and inanimate matter ; yet as foon as they are 
 reprefented to be intelligent beings, the abfurdity ccafes. 
 There is in this cafe no more abfurdity in reprefenting 
 them, as broup-ht into the glorious liberty of the children 
 of God after the refurreftion, than in repreientiug, that 
 they rejoice in the manifeilation of the divine perfections 
 and in the prevalence of true religion in this world ; as is 
 done in the palTages before quoted. 
 
 OsjECTioN. Though there would be no abfurdity in 
 figuratively reprefenting brutes and inanimate creatures, 
 in this' world, as rejoicing in the manifeftaticns of divine 
 power, wdfdom and goodnefs, yet there is an abfurdity in 
 the reprefentation, that they ihall be brought into the li- 
 berty of the children of God, after the end of the world ; 
 becaufe then they will be annihilated ; and to reprefent 
 that after they fhall be annihilated, they ftill enjoy glori- 
 ous liberty, is a grofs inconfiltency. This is the objection 
 in its full fcrength. Let us attend to it. 
 
 It is not agreed by all v/ritcrs, that the liberty of the 
 children of God mentioned in the 21ft verfe, means that 
 liberty and bleffednefs which they fnall enjoy after the re- 
 
 furreclion 
 
l82 Do(fi9r C*s argument from 
 
 furredion and general judgment ; fome are of the opinion, 
 that it means that liberty which they iliall enjoy on earth 
 in the latter days, when Chrill: ihall reign on earth for a 
 thcufand years.* If this be the true fenfe of the apoftle, 
 the obje,!:tion vaniflies at once, as the brutal and inanimate 
 creation will then be in as real exiflence, as they are now» 
 
 Non is it agreed among writers, that this world will, 
 after the general judgment be annihilated. It is the opi- 
 nion of many, and of great authority too, that after a 
 purification by fire, it will be rellored to a far more glori- 
 ous I'tate, than that in which it is at prefent, and will for- 
 ever be the place of the refidence of holy and happy be- 
 ings. If this be true, the objection again vanilhes. 
 
 Finally, if it be the real truth, that the brutal and 
 material creation will be annihilated, after the general 
 judgment, yet there is no abfurdity in reprefenting, that 
 it fnall be brought into the glorious liberty of the children 
 of God. Wherein does the liberty of the children of God 
 confifl? Doubtiefs in a preat meafure' in deliverance from 
 im, and from the influence of it in themlelves and others. 
 So the brutal and material creation, even if it be annihi- 
 lated, Ihall be delivered from the power, abufe and abomi- 
 nable perverlion of wicked men, to which it had been long 
 iubjefced, and under which it had long groaned. There- 
 fore this creation introduced as a rational perfon, may, 
 v/ithout impropriety be reprefented as earnelfly \viflinig 
 for that deliverance. And as the deliverance from lin in 
 themlelves and from the effedls offm in others, is at leaft 
 a great part of the liberty v/hich the children of God ihall 
 obtain after the general judgment ; fo the aforefaid deli- 
 verance of the creation may not improperly be called a 
 deliverance into the liberty of the children of God, into a 
 fnnilar liberty, a like freedom from th6 tyranny, abufe s 
 and perveriions of wicked men. Or the fenfe may be a 
 deliverance /«, at, or oft occajion of, the glorious liberty 
 of the children of God. The prepolition «<?, is capable 
 of this fenfe, and then the conitruclion of this paifage 
 v/ill be, That the creation itfeif will be dehvcred from 
 the bondage of corruption, at the time, or on occa{ion,of 
 the glorious liberty or deliverance of the children of God. 
 
 2. Doctor C. further pleads, *^ That ^r^tra ■n'^iKri?^ the 
 
 *' '•johole 
 
 * See Gwfe'^s Paraphrafe hi he. and Hopkhis^s Inquiry 
 comer nwf^ the Tnturi Zi&U of tha Wicked, P, ici. 
 
Rom. VIIL 19 — 24, confidered, cSj 
 
 ^* ivhLle creation, is never iifed (one clifput-ed text only ex— 
 *' cepted, Col. I. 15) to lignify more than the whole nio- 
 ^' ral creation, or all mankind.''* — This is a matter of im- 
 portance^ and requires particular attention. — The phrafe 
 TTx^s. K^ii.-ic is ufed four times only in ail the New Tefta- 
 mentj belide the inftance which is now under confjderr.ticn. 
 The places are, Mark XVI. 15 ; " Go ye into ail the 
 *' world and preach the gofpel to every creature,^'' Col. I. 
 15; ** The firft born of every creaitire.^^ V. 2-:?; ** The 
 ** gofpel which ye have heard, which is preached to every 
 *' creature, which is under heaven.'' i Pet. II. 13; *^*Sub- 
 ^' mit yourfeives to every ordinance of man for the Lord's 
 '' fake." 
 
 As to Mark XVI. 15, it is granted, that in that text 
 
 evny creature means human creatcre.- Though Dr. C, 
 
 fays, that Col. I. 15, is difputed ; yet he pretends not, 
 that every creature here means mankind merely : nor does 
 it appear, that the text is in thi? refped diiputed. It is 
 indeed difputed, w-hether •rru^-n yAir-fua, every creature, or 
 rather, all the creation, refer to the new creation, i. e. 
 the church, or to the old creation, which wr.'^. made at the 
 beginning of the world. It is alfo difputed, whether Chrift 
 be fo the firft born of all the creation, as to be a creature 
 himfelf ; or whether he be the nrft born in this fenfe only, 
 that he is the heir, the head and Lord of all the creation. 
 npa'?6lo;co?, in our verfion rendered firft-born, is by fome ren- 
 dered firj? creator or producer, which gives a flill dilFer- 
 €nt fenfe to the palTage. But it does not appear, that it 
 has evep been contended, that t^sji; y.^nTico^ '* lignines no 
 *' more than all mankind." For in whatever fenfe Chriu: 
 is the firil-bdrn of all the creation, he is the firfc-born not 
 only pf the human race, but of all the creation abfolutc- 
 ly. If it be laid, that Chrifl is the iiril-born of all the 
 creation, as he is the firft creature which was m.ade ; tliis 
 implies, that he was made not before all men only, but be- 
 fore all creatures. If it be faid, that he is the lirft-borii 
 of all che creation, as he was begotten from eternity, and 
 fo begotten before all the creation ; ftill he was in this 
 fenfe begotten not before all men only, but before all crea- 
 tures. \i it be faid, that he is the firfc-born of all the 
 creation, as he is the heir, the head, the Lord of all ; 
 ftill in this fejife he is the firft-born not of mankind only, 
 but of all creatures.-— Wha: right then liad Dr. C. to 
 
 * P. 99. ^^'^^^ 
 
J 84 • Do&or Cs argument from 
 
 fuggei% that it Is difputed, whether Truo-ni xi,5-5&«c In \l\is 
 text ^' fignify more than the whole moral creation of this 
 " world;, or all mankind?" 
 
 The nextpaffige, in which tta^u. >,^/5-/? occurs, is Col. 
 I. 23; ^' i lie golpcl, which was preached to every crea. 
 ^' ture under heaven.^' The Doftor, who was well ac- 
 quainted with the original, doubtlefs recollefted, or at 
 ieaft, he ought to have examined, and then he Vv^ould 
 have feoin, that in the oriciinal it is, '^ «;- 7r.vT» % xl/c-s^, 
 '^ in all the creation under heaven," or in all the world. 
 Surel/ the Doctor did not imagine, that the golpel was 
 preached lukbin every man. 
 
 The other pailage is i Pet. 11. 13, '^ Subm.it your- 
 '^ felvesto every ordinance of men •/' 7rar« rty.3-,ffiT,v« ;t1/3-s/^ 
 every human creciture. The quefrion is whether thefe 
 vv^ords lignify all mankind : and the very propcfmg of the 
 queftion, I prefame, fuggefts the anfwer. Will any man 
 lay ,that every Chriftian is required, either by realon or 
 revelation, to fubmit to every individual of the human 
 race, whether man, woman or child ; and whether the 
 
 Chriftian be a lord or a tenant, a king or a fubjeft ? 
 
 Befides ; allowing that the phrafe as it ftands,'means the hu- 
 man race ; the addition of ^y'S-caTrsvn to ^r^ra :t^ic-ri ihows that 
 TtzTii y.^i.Tit v/ithout «.yep&,7r.'v>«, would uot fignify the human 
 race; other wife why is it added? Ifthe words in our language, 
 every creature^ mean always every human creature, it would 
 be needlels in any cafe to infert the adjeclive human ; and 
 the very infertion of it would imply, thaf the writer or 
 fpeakcr was of the opinion, that the bare words every crea-^ 
 ture, were not certainly limited to human creatures, but 
 
 would moft obvioudy be taken in a greater extent. 
 
 Inis text therefore is fo far from a proof, that '^ TTAo-a. 
 •-^^x'T^" ^ every creature y is never vSt{\ in all the New 
 Teflament (except in one difputed text) to fignify 
 *' more than all mankind;" that it is a clear proof, 
 '^ that it does n:iturally '^ fignify more than all mankind," 
 and to m.ike it fignify no more, mull be limited by ^v- 
 6c.'<;--!'», human. 
 
 Aftsr all, tlie very drift of the apoflle fhows, 
 that ^i:i i Pet. II. 13, he was fo far from meaning all 
 mankind by the exprefllon Tac-->i «,-Sfu)^/v« -."/r?', that he 
 meant either rot one of the human race, pi* at 
 Kioil but vzrj fcv/ ; that he meant either human laws' and 
 
 conftitutions 
 
Ko7n, VIIL 1 9 ■ -24, confidered, x%^ 
 
 toiiflitutions, or human magiftrates, the king as fupreme, 
 governors who are ient b}^ him, &c. 
 
 Now let the reader judge, whether t-^t^- Jti^^-zcbe never 
 ufed in ail the New Teftament to fignify more or lefs than 
 all mankind ; and whether of the four inftances, in which 
 it occurs, befide this of Ptom. VIIIp it do not in every one 
 fignify either more or lefs than all mankind ; excepting 
 Mark XVI, 15. And it is equally againft Dr. C^s argu- 
 ment from Rom. "VIII, whether it be ufed in other places 
 to fignify more, or to fignify lefs than all mankind. If it 
 fignify more in other places, it may ligilify more in Rom. 
 VIIL If it fignify lefs in other places, it may fignify lefs 
 in Rom. VIII : and when the apofde fays, '' the earnefc 
 ^' expedation of the creature v/aiteth for the manifeflati- 
 ** on of the ions of God,^' he may mean that only believers 
 and true Chriftians, or the true church in all ages, as dif- 
 tinguiihed from the Apoille, and firii converts, v/ho had 
 the firft fruits of the Spirit, are thus v^^aiting, &c. 
 
 It is further to be obferved, that y^^.i-n^^ creature or 
 creation, without ~^-at, is in the whole New Teltament u- 
 fed ten times, befide the ufe of it in Rom. VIII ; in no 
 one of which does it mean mankind. The places in which 
 it is ufed are all noted in the margin, that the reader may 
 examine them for his own fatisfadion.* 
 
 In? the Septuagint verlion of the Old Tefcament, k'^/t;? 
 
 occurs but three times : 2 Chron. XIV. 15, where it is 
 
 tranfiated r^r//L' .• Ezra VIIL 21 ; v.'here it is tranflated 
 
 fuhflance : and Pfal. CIV. 24, where it is tranflated rirhcs. 
 
 'In the Apocrypha it is M^^di nine times ; and not oncfe 
 
 to fignify all mankind and not more or I'efs.f 
 
 BuT it is time v/e attend to Dr. C's other reafon for un- 
 derftaxidino; the creature to mean all mankind : or at leail 
 to include all mankind, if it mean any thing more. The 
 reafon is, 
 
 3. That '' it would be highly incongruous, to give this 
 ** ftyle^' [the w^hole creation] '*■ to the inferior or lefs v'a- 
 
 B b '' iuabie 
 
 *MarkX, 6. XIII. 19. Rom. I. 20,25. 2Cor.'v. 
 17. Gal. VI. 15. Heb. IV. 13. IX. 11. 2 Pet. III. 4. 
 Rev. III. 14. 
 
 t The places are, Judith IX. 12. XVI. 14, Wifd. IL 
 6. V. 17. XVI. 24. XIX. 6. Eccl. XVI. 17. XLIIL 
 25. XLiX. 16. 
 
1 86 /)r. Os Argument from 
 
 ^^ luable part, wholly leaving out the moft excellent'^ 
 
 part, mankind. J But is there more propriety in calling 
 
 a fmall part, though it be the moft excellent part, the 
 whole creation ; than in calling by far the greater part the 
 whole creatloHy though it be not fo excellent ? The learned 
 men in any nation, are, in Ibme refpecls, the moft excellent 
 part of the nation. But would it be more proper to call 
 them, to the exclufion of all the unlearned, the whole 
 nation, than to call all the unlearned, to the exclufion of 
 the few learned, the whole nation ? The few truly vir- 
 tuous and holy perfons who love God fupremely and their 
 neighbour as themfelves, and who find the ftrait gate, 
 are undoubtedly the moft excellent part of any nation. 
 But would it be more proper to call them alone the whole 
 nation, than to call ihe reft alone, the whole nation ? 
 Thofe of the apoftolic age, who had the firft fruits of the 
 Spirit, vv^erc, without doubt the moft excellent of that ge- 
 neration. But v/culd it therefore be more proper to call 
 them as diftinguifned from the reft of men, that whole ge- 
 neration ; than to call the reft of men as diitinguiOied 
 
 from them, that whole generation ? Befide ; propriety 
 
 or congruity of language depends wholly on ufe. If the 
 words creature, creation and whole creation be frequently 
 in fcripture ufed without any reference to mankind ; 
 then there is no incongruity in the fame ufe of the 
 fame words, in this eighth chapter of R.omans : and that 
 this is the ufe, I appeal to the texts before quoted, which 
 are all the texts in which the words here, tranflated crea- 
 ture, and the %vhols creation, are to be found in all the 
 fcriptnres. 
 
 IX. We are to inquire into the meaning of the expref- 
 fion, '^ manifeftation of the fons of God." — Thefe words, 
 *^ llie earneft expcclation of the creature waiteth for the 
 ^^ manifeftation of the Tons of God ;" are thus paraphrafed 
 by Dr. C, ** The creature, the rational creature, man- 
 ^* kind in general, waits for the time when it fliall be re- 
 *' vealed, that they are the fons of God.^'|| He here 
 takes it for granted, that the word creature means man- 
 kind. Whether this be a fuppofition juftly founded, is 
 now fubmitted to the reader who has perufed what has 
 been offered on this fubjed. 
 
 But 
 
 t P. 98. [! P. 92. 
 
Rom, VIIL 19 — 24, conjidersd, 187 
 
 But even on the fuppofition that the creature does mean 
 mankind y how flrange it is that the waiting of this crea- 
 ture for the manifeftation of the fons of God, fhoukl mean 
 that this creature is waiting to be itfeif manifefted to be 
 the fons of God ! Would it not be ftrann-e areuino-, to 
 fay, that becaufe tne Jews waited for the manifefi-aticn of 
 the Mefiiah, therefore they w^aited to have it manifefted, 
 that they were the MeiTiah ! or that becaufe Simeon v/ait— 
 ed for the manifeftation of the confolation of Ifrael ; there- 
 fore he waited to have it m.ade apparent, that he was the 
 confolation of Ifrael ! Yet either of thcfe e3s:preiiions as 
 naturally imports the fenfe which I have now given, as 
 the expreflion, the creature luaiteth for the manifeifation of 
 the fons of God, imports, that the '^ creature'* or race of 
 creatures is waiting to have it '^revealed that they are the 
 ^' fons of God.'' 
 
 III. The meaning of the word ^' vanity" next requires 
 our attention. — By this word Dr. C. underftands ^^ mcriali' 
 '^ ty and all other unavoidable unhappinefs and imperfe^l'ion 
 *^ of this prefent weak, frail, mortal ftate."* Again, 
 '^ mankind were fubjecled to vanity or ;72cr//j///);.'*|j ** God 
 ^^ fubjeded mankind to vanity, i. e. the infelicities of this 
 '* life.'^f According to Dr. C. then, the vanity here 
 fpoken of is a natural evil. But it may at leaft be made a 
 queftion, v/hether he be not mifba-ken, and whether it be 
 not a moral evil. The fame word, /c/.itla.ol^?, is ufed twice 
 more in the New Teflament ; Eph. IV. 17 ; ^^ That ye 
 '' henceforth walk, not as other gentiles walk in the va- 
 '^ miv of their mind, havinfr the underflandin^: darkened, 
 ^' being alienated from the life of God,'' Scc •, and 2 Pet. 
 II. 18, '* For when they fpeak great fwelling v/ords of 
 ^' vanity. ^^ In thefe two, the only inilances of its ufe in 
 the New Teflament, belide the text under confideration, 
 it manifeftly means not a natural but a m.oral evil, either 
 pofitive wickednefs or at lead a linful deficiency. Is not 
 this a ground of prefumption at leafc, that alio in Rom. 
 VIII. 20, it means a moral evil ? 
 
 Ik the fame fenfe y.<«.i(ji the adjedive from which /^.A>/e1«? 
 is derived, is ufed Jam. I. 26, ^' This man's religion is 
 *' vain:" and i Pet. I. 18; ^^ Ye were not redeemed 
 '^ with corruptible things — frbm your vain converlation." 
 ^ctist/oo//.*/ is alfo ufed in the fame fenfe, Rom. I. 21 ; ^' Be^ 
 
 ^^ cam© 
 
 £ P. JC4. I P. 106. t I^i^* 
 
l88 Doiior Os argurnent jrom 
 
 ^^ c^me vain in their imaginations and their foalifh heart 
 ''^ was darkened. '^ Vain and vanity in none of thefe in- 
 ilances lignify *' mortality" or " infehcity ;" but either 
 poutive lin or flnful deficiency. 
 
 Besides ; the ver^^ nature of the cafe lliows, that vani- 
 ty in this inllance was not ufed by the apoftle, in Dr. C's 
 ienfe. According to his fenie oi vanity, the apoille under 
 the influence of the Holy Ghoil, advances this propoiition ; 
 The human race was made fubjeft to *^ mortality, una- 
 '^ voidable unhappinefs and imperfection/*' not willingly. 
 But who ever fupcofed that the human race v/as made 1 ab- 
 ject to thefe things v.illingly ? or that any man, or any in- 
 telli^ent beins:, ever chofe to be fubjecl to mortality and 
 unhappinefs ? This is a propodtion too iniignilicant to be 
 advanced by fo fenfible and grave a writer as Paul, and 
 under the infpiration of the Holy Ghoft too. The Doc- 
 tor feems to have been avvare of this obje<ftion to his con- 
 ilrudion oivajiityy and therefore fuppofes the word ivlUlng- 
 ly means, not vv'hat is naturally underflood by it, a volun- 
 tary confent of the heart ; but that it means, '^ through 
 ** fome fault," *^ hy a criminal choice.'' Therefore 
 
 IV. We are to inquire into the meaning of the vvord 
 
 willingly. Is it not at iirft blufli a little extraordinary, 
 
 that willingnefs mufc certainl}'- mean a fault, a criminal 
 choice? Suppofe anhiftorian Ihould fay, th3.t Hi^gb Peters 
 and ethers who w^erc executed at the refcoration of Charles 
 the fecond, were executed not ivllllngly ; mufc we under- 
 ftand him to mean, that they were not executed in confe- 
 
 quence of any fault of their own : The original word 
 
 «K6n' is ufed once more only in ail the New "^L euament, i 
 Cor. IX. 17, *^ If I do this thing" (i. e. preach the 
 gofpel) *^ ivillhi-gly , '.kkv^ I have a reward : but if agalnfi 
 ** my will, ei-iuy, a difpenfation of the gofpel is committed 
 '^ unto me.'' According to Dr. C's conflruftion of wil- 
 Ihigly in Kom, VIII, the meaning of the apoflle is, If I 
 preach the gofpel '* through fpme fault of my ov/n," or 
 '^^ by my own criminal choice," I have a reward ; but 
 if I do it without any fault opi* criminal choice of my 
 own, a difpenfation of the gofpel is committed unto m.e. 
 
 F^y.oicrioc derived from cx&v, and of the fame figiiification, 
 is in the New Teftament ufed in Philera. 14, only ; *^ That 
 ^' thy benefit ihould not be of necefilty, but ivllllngiy .•" 
 "wliich I prefume even Dr. Cv would not expound thus ; 
 
 .1 liat 
 
Rom, VIIL 1 9 24, conjidered. 189 
 
 That tliy benefit {liould rot be of neceiHty^ but through 
 
 fome fault of thine own.-^ The adverb, i^io-joo),^ js ufed 
 
 twice in the New Teftament^ lieb. X. 26 : '^ If we lin 
 *^ vjillfully, after we have received the knowledge of the 
 ^^ truth :^' and i Pet. V. 2, ^^ Taking the ovcrlight 
 *^ thereof, not by coiiliraint but iviilhtgly.'* To the iirft 
 of thele the Doctor in a quotation from Taylor, refers, as 
 an authority, to confirm his fenfe of wlJUngly in B.cm. 
 VIII. But furely both he and I'aylor made this reference 
 with httle coniideration ; for according to them the fenfe 
 of the verfs in Hebrews is this ; If after vve have received 
 the knowledge of the truth, we lin ^* through our own 
 *'' fault,'' or ^^ by our own criminal choice.'' Did Dr. 
 C. or Dr. T. indeed believe, that wc ever fm v/ithcut 
 any fault of our own, or without our own criminal choice? 
 
 It is plain, that the meaning of Keb. X. 26, is what 
 
 is well exprefled in the tranilation ; If 'we iin ivilfidly, not 
 through fome inattention, but pertinacioufly, after v/e 
 knovv^ the truth, know our duty and the proper motives 
 to it ; there remaineth no more facrifice for iin. 
 
 Thus the conftrudion, v/hich Dr. C. o-ives ofvjHlbir^'y* 
 as meaning, *^ through our own fault," or "by our cu^n 
 '^ criminal choice/' appears to be v/hclly unfupported by 
 any authority; to be a mere invention to help over the dif- 
 ficulty of the fuppofition, that the infpired apollle {liould 
 advance fo trifling a proposition as this ; that mankind do 
 not choofe mifery : and alfo appears to be attended with 
 naany abfiu'dities. 
 
 The error of that conftruflion further appears frcin 
 this, that if what comes upon us not through our own fault, 
 be properly expreffed by faying, that we are fubjecVed to 
 it, not,iuillingly ; then what does come upon us through cur 
 own fault, may be properly exprelTed- by faying, it comes 
 upon us zuillingiy. At this rate the inhabitants of the old 
 world were drowned willingly : Sodom and Gomorrah 
 were burnt up willhigly -. Pharaoh was lirft plagued, and 
 then deftroyed in the Red Sea -ujillinclv : Korah, Dn than 
 and Abiram were fv/allowed up in the earth iviUingly : 
 Thofe v/hom Dr. C. fuppofes to be puniflied in hell for 
 ages of ages, are punilhed iv'iUmgly. 
 
 Neither is it true, in Dr. C's fenfe, that mankind are 
 made fubject to vanity, not nvUUngly : i.e. " Not through 
 f* any fault of theirs;" *^ not by their own criminal 
 
 <^ choice.'^ 
 
ipo I>r, Cs argument f mm 
 
 *^ choice.'- By varaty he underflands '^^ mortality/* 
 
 *' and the infelicities of this vain mortal life.'' There- 
 fore according to him, men are not made fubject tc morta- 
 lity, and the infelicities of this life, through any fault of 
 their own. And if fo, then death and the various infeli- 
 cities of life are not any evidence, that the iubjecls of 
 death and thofe infelicities are themfelves fmners, or the 
 objects of God's difpleafure. But this is contrary to the 
 whole current of icriptural reprefentations ; particularly 
 to Pf. XC. 3, &c. ^^ Thou turnefl: man to dcflruftion, and 
 
 *' fayeil, P.eturn ye children of men. Thou carrieil 
 
 *' them av.'ay, as with a flood ; they are as a fieep. In the 
 '^ morning they are like grafs, which groweth up ; in the 
 *' evening it is cut down and withereth. For they are 
 confumed ^j; thins anger, and by thy "cjrath they are 
 troubled. Thou haft fet our iniquitlis before thee, 
 our fecret fins in the light of thy countenance. For 
 our days are paffed away in thy ivrath : we fpend our 
 days as a tale that is told. The days of our years are 
 ^^ threefcore years and ten ; and if by reafon of ftrength 
 ^' they be fourfcore years, yet is their fcrength labour and 
 *' Ibrrow : for it is foon cut ofF, and we fly away. Who 
 ^' knoweth the power of thine dinger, according to thy 
 '* fear, fo is thy ivrath. So teach us to number our days, 
 '' that we may apply our hearts to wifdom." *' How 
 '- plain and full is this teftimony, that the general morta- 
 ^^ lity of miankind is an evidence of God's anger for the 
 " fn of thofe, who are thefubjedls of fuch a difpenfati- 
 '' on?"* 
 
 But if mortality and the calamities of life be an evi- 
 dence of God's anger at the fm of thofe, who fufFer death 
 and thofe calamities ; then it is not true, that men in ge- 
 neral are fubjecled to death and thofe calamities, without 
 any fault of their own ; but the truth is, that they arc 
 fubjecl:ed to them on account of their own fin, as this is 
 the very caufe of the divine anger, of which calamity and 
 death are the effeds and tokens. 
 
 If 
 
 * For further proof that temporal death and Infeli cities 
 came on men, on account ef their own fins, I beg leave to 
 refer the reader to Prejident Edwards's hsk an Original 
 Sin, P4rt L Chap, IL 
 
Rom. VIIL 19 24, conjidere^. Jy£ 
 
 If it fliould be objeded, that to be made fubjecl to va- 
 nity, in this paffage, does not mean^ to be made aclually to 
 fuffer death and infelicity, or does not inchide the infli^i' 
 on of death and infelicity ; but implies mortality only, or 
 that confbitution whereby men are mads mortal or i'lahle 
 to death and infelicity : this objedtion grants, that death 
 and infelicity are aftually infli^led on men on account of 
 their own fault or fin ; but holds, that ihe/d«/<?wc^of mor- 
 tality and liahknefs to infelicity took place in confequence 
 of Adam's fm only. So that according to this, the fenfe 
 of the apoftle will be. That the human race v/as put un- 
 der a fentence of mortality, without any fault of their own; 
 yet this fentence was never to be executed, but en ac- 
 count of their own fault. And the confide ration that m.an- 
 kind are put under the fentence of mortality, without any 
 fault of their own, is 2 ground of hope, that they will be 
 dehvered from that fentence of mortality. But as the ac- 
 tual Inf/t^kn of death is on account of their own fault, 
 there is no fuch ground of hope, that they will be deliver- 
 ed from death and infelicity themfelves. — — A mighty pri-. 
 vilege this (were it poiFible) to be delivered from the Jiri' 
 ience of death, and from mortality, but not from death it^ 
 felp. To be delivered from liabknefs to infelicity, but not 
 from infelicity itfelf ! 
 
 I AM not infenfible of the abfurdity and impolTibility of 
 fuch a fuppofition. But who is anfv/erable for this ab- 
 furdity? Doubtlefs the objector himfelf, who is of the o- 
 pinion, that to be made fubjed to vanity, is to be under 
 the fentence of death, and to be made liable to infelicity, 
 but not to fuffer death or infelicity. 
 
 The idea, that to be made fubjeft to vanity, t^rsla^H, 
 means not xhe/tate of fubjeftion to vanity, but the aM by 
 which the creature was fubjedled : and that s-ia lev i/7rol«t|-- 
 «v']« means, as Dr. C. fays,* by or through him, who 
 fubjected it ; implies this further abfurdity, that the a6i:, 
 by which the creature, was made fubjed: to vanity, was by 
 him who fubjecled it ; or that a£l was really the aft of him 
 whofe a6l it was ; that he who fubjeded ,the creature to va- 
 nity, really did fubjecl it to vanity. Eut who will dare 
 
 to impute lucb identical propofiticns to the infpired apoftle ? 
 
 V. We atienp-th come to confider Dr. G's fenfe of the 
 
 o 
 
 phrafe bondage of corruption. This according to him is 
 
 fynonymous 
 
 * p. 105. 
 
't6Z Dc^or C^s argument from 
 
 fynonymous Vv-itli vanity : Therefore the fame obfervations 
 for iubftance, which were made concernmg his fenfe of va- 
 nlty, are applicable to his fenfe of the bondage of corruption* 
 But a few things in particular are worthy of remark. Dr. 
 C. fays, that in confequence of the fubjecLion of man ** to 
 
 *' a frail, mortal, corruptible condition ^^he is upon the 
 
 '* foot o? mere law^ and without the fuppofition of grace 
 *' or gofpel, in bondage to bodily or animal appetites and 
 '' inclinations,*'^ It feems then, that fmce all chriltiani- 
 zed nations are under not mere law, but grace and gofpely 
 they are not in bondage to bodily or animal appetites and 
 inclinations, and doubtlefs for the fame reafon, are not in 
 bondage to any principle of depravity. But is this indeed 
 fo;, that men under imre laiu are fo depraved, as to be 
 in bondage to animal appetites; but as foon as they are 
 placed under the goipcl, in the mere external difpenfation 
 of it, they are no longer the fubjecls of any depravity ? 
 It feems then, that the natural depravity of men depends 
 on their mere external circumitances ; that while they are 
 without the gofpel their hearts are in bondage to animal 
 appetites : but as foon as they are placed under the gofpely 
 however they diiregard it, they are free from that bon- 
 dage. But all thole nations, to whom Chriftianity ispub- 
 liflied, are under the gofpel ; therefore they are already free 
 from bondage to animal appetites ; and it is abfurd for them 
 to hope, that they fiail be delivered from this part of the 
 bondage of corruption. 
 
 Beside ; Dr. C. fays, that ^' both' thefe fenfes of 
 '* bondage'^ [i.e. bondage to death and bondage to ani- 
 mal apetites] '^ are certainly included in that vanity the 
 '* creature is fubjecled to."f Then by the creature Dr. 
 C. nuifl: mean, not the whole moral creation, or all man- 
 kind including thofe nations and individuals to whom the 
 gofperis made l:nov,'n : becaufe they are not under mere 
 iaw, and therefore according to him are not fubjecled to 
 that part of vanity which confifts in bondage to animal ap- 
 petites. Yet he abundantly holds, that all men are fub- 
 jecled to vanity, which certainly includes, according to him^ , 
 bondage to animal appetites. 
 
 According to Dr. C. vanity includes bondage to bo- 
 dily or animal appetites^ Yet mankind are fubje6led to 
 vanity not through any fault or crime of their own. But 
 
 is 
 
 * P. IC9. flbid. 
 
Rotn» VIIL 19—24, conjiciered, 103 
 
 is It not a fault or crime in any man^ to be governed by 
 his bodily appetites, or to be in bondage to them ? "VVitli 
 what truth or confiftency then could he hold, that men are 
 fubjecled to vanity not through any fault or crime of their 
 own, and that therefore their fubjeftion to vanity is a 
 ground of hope of deliverance from it; when the very 
 Itate of fubjedlion to vanity is a very great fault or crime ? 
 Can a fault or crime be a ground of hope of impunity, or 
 of the divine favoui' ? 
 
 But perhaps it may be pleaded, that though the fiate 
 of fubjedtion, or t'cvQ being fubjecl to vanity, implies a 
 fault ; yet the acl of fzthjs cling, or the c6l by which man- 
 kind were fubjected, to vanity, is not through, or On ac- 
 count of any previous fault of mankind in general ; and 
 this is the ground of hope that they Ihall be delivered. If 
 this be the meaning of T)y. C. it comes to this. That, 
 becaufe mankind are, in confequence of Adam's {in, not 
 their own peribnal iin, fubjectcd by God to frailty, mor- 
 tality, bodily .appetites and iin ; therefore they do nor de- 
 ferve to be left v.^ithout hope of deliverance : the divi^ie 
 perfections do not admit of it : it would not be juft : at 
 leafc it v/ould be a hard cafe. Otherv/ife where is thd 
 ground of hope of deliverance ? No promife is pleaded 
 as the ground of this hope. The only pretended ground 
 of hope in this argument is, that mankind were fubje6led 
 to vanity, not through any fault of their own : as in the 
 following palTage ; ^' For if mankind were fubjecled to a 
 •^ ftate of fuifering, not through any wilful difobedience 
 *^ which they themfelves had been perfonally guilt}^ of, it 
 "^ is congruous to reafon to think, that they ihould be fub- 
 
 *^ jecled to it not fmally but with room for hope tliat 
 
 '* they' ihould be delivered from it : and was it not for this 
 ^^ hope, it cannot be fiippofed — it would be a refleftion on 
 *^ the — benevolence of the Deity to fuppofe, that they 
 *' would have been fubjecled to it/'* But if this fubjeclion 
 to vanity by God be perfecllyjuft, what right have we to 
 expect, that God v/ill deliver all men from the confe- 
 quences of it I Have v/e a right, without a divine pro- 
 mife to expe6i:, that God will fufier none of the fmful race 
 of men, to bear the confequences of a juft and wife con- 
 "ftitution? And v/ould it be a reflection on the Deity, not 
 to expect this I 
 
 * P. 102. Cv. 
 
ia^ . DoSfor Os argument frora 
 
 So that this whole argument of Dr. C. implies that 
 God in fubjecting mankind, on account of Adam's fm, 
 ^' to a ftate of fuftering," made an unjuft conftitution. 
 Yet Dr. C. himfeif abundantly holds, that this is a real 
 conilitution of God. 
 
 At the fame time, it is implied in all this, that if man- 
 kind had been thus fubjefted to vanity, in confequence of 
 their own per fonal fin; theymightjuftly have been left with- 
 out hope. Thus it is really granted by Dr. C. after all his 
 labour to prove the contrary, that the perfonal fins of 
 men, deferve a hopelefsflate of fuiiering. And the whole 
 queftion in the prefent view of it, comes to this, Whether 
 the perfonal aftual fins of mankind, under the prefent di- 
 vine conftitution, be real fins, and deferve the puniihment 
 juftly due to fin : or whether thcfe fins be not excufable, 
 becaufe they are the eftablifhed confequence of Adam's 
 tranfgreffion, and not the confequence of their own volun- 
 tary acl. Or in other words, whether the. moral evil of 
 any aftion confiit in the nature of the action itfelf, or in 
 its caufe or. antecedents. Of this queftion I ihould bev-ery 
 willing to enter into the difculTion, were it neceffary : but 
 as it has been fo particularly confidered by another author, 
 I beg leave to refer to him.* I beg the reader's patience 
 however, while I make only one or two brief obferva- 
 tions. 
 
 If the prefent a6lioris of mankind be excufable, becaufe 
 they are the confequence of Adam's tranfgreffion and not 
 of their own previous finful actions or volitions, in the 
 firft inftance ; it will follow that there is no fin or 'moral 
 evil in the world, nor ever has been. All the prefent ac- 
 tions of men, if they be excufable, are no moral evil. 
 The fame is true of all the actions of men ever fince the 
 fall of Adam. And even Adam's tranfgreffion itfelf is no 
 moral evil ; for this did not take place in confequence of 
 any previous criminal choice or action ; becaufe by fuppo- 
 fition, that tranfgreiTion was the firft fin committed by 
 man. Whatever tranfgreifion he firft committed, is the 
 very tranfgreifion of which we are fpeaking : and it is 
 abfurd to talk of a fin previous to the firft fin, 
 
 CoNCEPvNiNG Dr. C's idea, that mankind are fubje^led 
 to mortality, infirmity, and the infiueYice of bodily appe- 
 tites, 
 
 * Prefidsnt Edv/ards's Enquiry -into Freedom of JVilj 
 throughout ; particularly Part 11/. Secf. L 
 
Rom, Fill. 19 — 24, cmfidered, 195 
 
 tites, on account: of Adam's fm only, without any regard 
 to their perfonal fins ;• and -that this fubjeclion was the 
 eaufe and occafion of all the actual trarifgreilions and tem- 
 poral calamities' 'of the poflerity of Adam ; it may be ob- 
 ferved ," . 
 
 ^- "i. That forreafons already given,* it appears not to 
 be true, that Mortality and the calamities of life are brought 
 onmen 6'h -account of Adam's fm merely, without regard 
 to Ihe pferfonal demerit of thofe who fuffer them. 
 
 ' 2. That the human race was indeed, in the fentence 
 of ^od 'on Adam, fubjecled to infirmity and mortality : 
 but it\^as Tio morefubjedted- to thefe, than it was to de- 
 pravity and fm; At ieaft to afiert the contrary would be 
 to beg an important point in difpute : and to be fure, Dr. 
 Ci could not with any confiilency aiTert the contrary. He 
 holds throughout this, and all his other works, that the 
 human race is fubjefted to infirmity on account of Adam's 
 iin, and the Doctor's idea of this infirmity amounts to a 
 proper moral depravity of nature. All that is meant, or 
 that needs to be meant, by the moral depravity natural to 
 mankind, in this fallen ftate, fo far as that depravity is dif- 
 tinct from actual fin, is fomething in our nature, which uni- 
 verfally leads to a6lual fm. Whether this fomething ex- 
 jft primarily in the body and bodily appetites, or primarily 
 in the foul, isperfedly immaterial, fo long as it is an un- 
 faihng fource of a6lual fm, as Dr. C. manifcflly confiders 
 it.f In his F'lvs Dljfdrtat'ior.she is very explicit and abun- 
 dant in this matter. His words are, '^ In confequence of 
 ^^ the opsration of appetites and inclinations featcd in our 
 ^^ mortal bodies, we certainly /Ball, without the interpo- 
 '^ fition of prace — do that— the doing; of which will deno- 
 '^ minate us the ^captives of Jin and the fei~vants of corrup- 
 '' tion.''X '^H^'{ [the apoftle] '^ afcribes it to the flefjj, 
 ^' hymeiins-of'tke^dverbeamfg'^hflue'ftce of its propenfi^ 
 *' ties in this our rprefent mortal 'ftate, that — we do that 
 ^[ which our minds difapprove ;''|| and in many other pai- 
 
 fages to the fame effect.- So^triat Dr. C. really, though 
 
 it feems undefigncdly, held, that moral depravity of nature 
 corlies upon all mankind, on account of Adam's fm: and 
 his favourite conftruction of Rom. V. 12; *""^ And fo death 
 '^ paiTed upon all men,/or thaf (or as he will have it, 
 "oihefeupGn; in confequence of -which) " all have finned ;" 
 ...J' comes 
 
 f See page 190. f See page 45, &:c. J P. 277. || Ibid. 
 
|p5 Do^or C*s argument from . 
 
 comes to this only ; that on account of Adam'sfin, a dl» 
 vine fentence was denounced on the whok human race, 
 dooming it to a ftate of n^oral depravity : in cqnfequence 
 of which moral depravity all men commit atlnal lin. 
 What then has the Docftor gained by the conftruclion of 
 thrs pafTage, which he hes laboured w' hardly in this and 
 his ocher works to edabliih; and in which he claims to be 
 an originil ; and v.'hich perhaps is the only particular in 
 his v/hole book, with relpect to which he has a right to 
 fet up this claim ? It is alfo curious to fee a gentleman of 
 I^r. C's abilities, both oppollng and defending with all his 
 might, che native moral depravity of human nature ! 
 
 Reasons have been already given, why ivHlifigly ought 
 to be underftood not to mean through the fault of a perfon ; 
 but in its original proper fenfe, iv'ith the confent of a ptrfon. 
 If thofe reafons be fuincient, there is a further difficulty 
 in Dr. C's condruction of this paliage, efpecially of the 
 20th verie. According; to his conttruction of -cl/r;; crea- 
 turey the apofble declares, that mankind are iubjed: to their 
 bodily appetites, and fo to lin, not willingly, not with their 
 own confent. But is itpofTible, that men iliould be fub- 
 jecl to bodily appetites, and fnculd commit actual, perfon- 
 
 al fin, v/ithout their own confent ? If, to evade this 
 
 obfervation, it be faid, that they are however by the a61; of 
 God, without any previous confent of their own, fubjed- 
 cd to frailty, mortality, bodily appetites, and fo to lin ; 
 this would be mere trifling. Who ever imagined, that 
 God firlt: waited for the confent of mankind, and having 
 obtained their confent, eflablifhcd the conllitution, by 
 which they became mortal, frail, fubjeft to the influence 
 of their bodily appetites and \o to fin ? 
 
 Ai<TER all, Dr. C's expofition ci this paragraph in Rom. 
 VIII. is by no means, even on his own principles, a proof 
 of univerfal falvation. ^is tranHation of thofe moft im- 
 portant words in the scrti'^d 2iil: verfes, is this, ^^ The 
 ^* creature was fubj acted t6 vanity, not willingly ; but by 
 ** the judicial fentence of him, Vv'ho fubjecled it, in ccnfe- 
 '' quenc.e ff a previou/^onpc, that even this very creature 
 ^' Ihould be delivered from its flavery of corruption into 
 . ^* the gleriT5!TsTtberty of the children of God.^' . So that 
 the utmoftf which this pafTage teaches, according to his 
 own account, is, that mankind may now hopCy that they 
 ihall be dehvered from the bondage of corruption into the 
 
 gloriou& 
 
Kom. Fill, 19 — 24, confida'ed, 197 
 
 glorious liberty of the children of God. But what if there 
 be a foundation to hope that this will be the cafe ? Does it 
 thence follow, that this hope will certainly hz fulfilled ? In. 
 confequence of the death of Chriif and the proclamation 
 of the gofpel, there is a door of hope fet open to all men. 
 But does it hence follow, that all men will certainly enter 
 in at this door, and fecure the bleinngs tor which there is 
 a foundation to hope ? D. C. \vould doubtlefs grant, that 
 there is a door of hope opened to mankind in general, that 
 they may be faved immediatel}'- after death, i et he wcuid 
 not pretend, that this hope is realized. God delivered 
 the Ifraelites out of Egypt in fuch a manner, as gave hcpe 
 that even that generation v»'ould enter the promifed land. 
 Yet this hope was not fulfilled. — — There ibre, though it 
 fiiould be granted, that God hath fubjecled manldnd to 
 vanity in h'jpc, that they ihali be delivered from it, into 
 the glorious liberty of the children cf God, it wcuid by 
 no means follow, that all men will be faved : and Dr. C. 
 is entirely miftaken, when he fays, *' Mankind univerial- 
 *^ \y is expreffl}' made, in the 2ifl verfe, the fubjecl of 
 '^ this glorious immortality. ''* No fuch thing is exprefih/ 
 faid, and in thefe words he contradicts his own paraphrafe 
 of that verfe, in which he pretends no more, than that 
 there is a foundation for hope, that mankind ihrll attain to 
 a glorious immortality. 
 
 In the preceding remarks on Dr. C's conilruction of 
 this pafTage, the fenfe, whicii I fuvpoi'e to be the true one, 
 hath been fufficiently expreffed. \et it m.ay be proper 
 
 here briefly to repeat it. The earnell expectation of 
 
 the creation waiteth for the manifef^ation of the fons of 
 God. For the creation is fubjefl to that ufe to which it is 
 applied by finful men, which, as to the end cf its exigence, 
 the divine glory, is in its own natural tendency, vain and 
 unprofitable, and in many refpects pofitivelyMinful ; I fay, 
 to this it is fubjeftnot voluntarily, but on account of him, 
 for the fake of his glory, (<^i« governing the accuiV.ti\ e) cr 
 for the accompliihment of the myilerious, but v. iie and 
 glorious purpofes of him, who fubjecled the fame in hnr,s, 
 that this fame creation ihall be delivered from this u.ipro- 
 fitable ^nd flnful ufe, which mav jullly be tonfidered as a 
 ftate of bondage to it, into a liberty, in leveral important 
 refpefto, fimilar to that of the children of God ; cr at 
 
 * ^ leait 
 
 1 P- mr 
 
t9^' Do(^or Os argument fnm 
 
 kail fliall be delivered at tile time, when the children of 
 God fliall be admitted to the enjoyment of their nioft glori- 
 ous liberty. For we know, that the whole creation groaiii- 
 eth and travaileth in pain together until now, by reaion of 
 that vile abufe and perverfion, which is made of it by fm- 
 ful men, and throuf^h dellre of that deliv^erance jult mentfi^ 
 oned, and in due time to be siJ'anted it. " - ' 
 
 Beside the obfervatiohs on particular parts of Dr. C's 
 confcrudion of Rom. VIII. fome more c-eneral remarks 
 
 occur. One is, that his confcru-flion implies, that the 
 
 divine lav/ is unjuit, and cannot be executed conliitelitly 
 withjuuice. He ni3''s,* that man on the foot of Tilers' 
 la-jj, without grace, is in bondage to bodily appetites : there-' 
 fore on the foot of mere law, v/ithout grace, there is no 
 hope for him. And he fjDeaksf of the cafe of mankind as 
 remediiefs, without the grace nianifeiled in Jefus Chrift. 
 Yet in the fame page he fays, ^* Itis the thought, that 
 ^' mankind v/ere fubje6led to fufFering, not remedilefll^^, 
 ^^ but with an intention of mercy,'' and ^^ it is this thought 
 *^ only, that can reconcile the unavoidable fufferings of 
 "^ the race of m.en, as occafioned by the lapfe of Adam, 
 *^ with the perfections of God.'' So that God made a 
 law, which coald not be executed, confiftently with his 
 perfections, and he was obligated in juftice to Ihew merc^ 
 through Chrill:, to mankind. By mere law men were re— 
 niedilefs, and if they had been faffered to remain in that 
 remedilefs ftate, as they would have remained in it with- 
 out Chrift and the gofpel, fuch .a difpenfation could not 
 have been reconciled Vv-ith the perfections of God. There- 
 fore the divine lav/ cannot be reconciled With jultice, or 
 with the perfections of God. 
 
 According to Dr.- C. vanity included in it hcndags 
 to bodily appetites, as well as hond.'ige to death, I There- 
 fore, as God could not condftently with his perfecStions, 
 fubject mankind to vanity, without an intention of mercy ;|j 
 and as it would be a reflection on the Deity, ' to fuppofe, 
 that he has fubjefted mankind to vanity, without hope of 
 deliverance : II II therefore on thefe principles, God could 
 not conliftently with his perfections and character, avoid 
 giving mankind a ground of hope of deliverance from lin, 
 or he could not withhold the grace of the gofpel : but he 
 was obliged in juftice to his own character, to deliver men 
 
 from 
 
 *P, 100. t P- 122. % P. lOp. IIP. 122. 'III! P. 
 
 10 
 
 J' 
 
Rom, VIIL 19—24, confidered, 19^ 
 
 from both Tiiii and the fuiFerings of this life, and It may be 
 prefumed, that I>r.C. would have confented to add, and 
 from the fuiFerings of hell too. Where then is the grace 
 .of the gpfpel, and of the gift of Chriil? In the gift of 
 Chriit, in the inftitution of the -gofpel, and in every thing 
 pertaining to it, fo far as Vv^as neceiTary to our deliverance 
 from lin and punifament, God has done no more than was 
 neceffary to fave his own character from reflexions and re- 
 proach. 
 
 It may be further remarked, that Dr. C* argues, that 
 becaufe men are fubjected to a ftate of fufFering, not 
 through their own perfonal difobedience ; *^ it is congru- 
 *^ OU3 to reafon to think, that they ihculd be fubjeded to 
 ^' it, not finally .^^ But why does he fay,. *'not firxally"? 
 He might with the fame ftrength of argument have faid, 
 not at all. The calamities of this hfe, with temporal 
 death, are inflicii^d on mankind, either as a puniihment, or 
 as fovereign and v/ife difpenfations of Providence. If they 
 be inflicled as.a puniflrment, without any fm, by which the 
 fubjecTrs deferve them, they are as real an injury as endlefs 
 mifery would be, if it were in{ii6led as a puniihment, in 
 hke manner without any fm, by which it iliould be de- 
 ferved. And if God do indeed injure his creatures in a leis 
 degree, he is an injurious being : and what fecurity have 
 we concerning iuch a being, that he will not injure thcra 
 
 in the higheil polTible degree ? So that if God be a juft 
 
 being, as it is agreed on all hands, that he is, it is equal- 
 ly ' ' congruous to reafon to think," that he would not 
 fubjecT: h's creatures to a temporary flate of fufFering, as a 
 punifhment, without any lin, by which they deferved it, 
 as that he would not fubjecT; them to a ftate of iinai fufFer- 
 ing. • 
 
 If itbe faid, that death and the calamitiesof hfe are not 
 a puniihment of mankind, but mere fovereign, wife dif- 
 penfations of providence ; this fuppofition opens a door for 
 endlefs mifery. For how do we know, that the fame fo- 
 vereign wifdom„ which is now fuppofed to infiicl tempo- 
 ral evils on m.ankind, may not alfo fee fit to infiid on them 
 endlefs evils ? 
 
 According to Dr. C. ,men areby adivine conftitution 
 fubjecled to vanity including mortahty, infelicity and bond- 
 age to bodily appetites. But why was this conftitution 
 
 made I 
 
 ■*P. 10 
 
 :>' 
 
<i 
 CC 
 €i 
 <C 
 << 
 <6 
 
 *:ioo Do^or Cs argument frotii 
 
 made ? Was it made for the greater happinefs of ever|f 
 individual, or of the fj'^ftem, or of both ? Which ever of 
 thefe anfvvers be given, it will follow, that evil, both na- 
 tural and moral is fubfervient to good ; and is introduced, 
 if not in th-j firft inftance df Adam's tranfgreflion, yet in 
 every other initance, by the pofitive deliga and conftitu- 
 tion of God. Evil therefore both natural and moral, 
 makes a part of the fcheme of God, takes place by his 
 coniiitution, and is fubjecl: to his controul ? V/hat then 
 becomes of tiie fcheme of felf-determining power, for 
 u'hichDr. C, is fo zealous an advocate ? And here how 
 juftly may man)?- paffages in Dr. Cs writings be retorted ? 
 Particularly the following ; ** If men's vohtions and 
 their ccnfeq*uent elTeds, are the refult of invariable ne- 
 celuty in virtue of fome exterior caufes fo inviolably 
 connected, as that they will and mull come to pafs, 
 the author of this conneclion, which r.ccording to this 
 plan is God, is the only eiticient and real author of 
 vvhatcver has been, or ihall hereafter be brought into 
 event ; not excluding any of the moll complicated vil- 
 lanies that have been, or may be perpetrated by any of 
 *' the fons of Adam. Is this a fcheme of thoughts fit to 
 *' be embraced ov iiitellio-ent creatures ?''* 
 
 Beside, if this coniiitution were made for the greater 
 happinefs of every individual, then every individual is more 
 happy than he would have been, if he had not been fub- 
 jecled to vanity; and then there is no fuch thing aspunilh- 
 ment in the fubjedliop to vanity, or in any of its confe- 
 quences ; nor any foundation, v/ith a view to the private 
 interefl of any man, to regret any of the evils of this life^ 
 or of that which is to come. 
 
 It does not ho\vever appear to be facl, that every in- 
 dividual is in this life rendered more happy, by the evils 
 which he fiiffers here : and to fay that he will be render- 
 ed by them more happy on the v/hole hereafter, neither ap- 
 pears to be fa6l, nor to be capable of proof. How will a- 
 ny man prove, that the Sodomites v/ill on the whole be 
 more happy, tlii^n Enoch and Elijah, who never tafled 
 death? 
 
 If all men be fubje^ed to vanity, to promote not their 
 perfonal good, but the good of the fyflem, and the good 
 of individuals be given up to th:s end ; why m.ay we not 
 
 in 
 * Benevolence of the Deity, .P. 136. 
 
Col. I. 19, 20, confidered, Soi 
 
 an the fame way account for endlefs punifliment? If it 
 
 be not confiftent with the divine perfedions to fubjeO- men 
 to fuiTeringj unlefs it ifTue in their perfonal good ; then it 
 is not coniiftent with the divine perfections to punifli at allj 
 either in this world, or the future. 
 
 C H A P. Xi. 
 
 Containing remarks m Dr. Cs argumenis from Col. I. iQy 
 20. Eph. J. 10. and i Tim. II. 4. 
 
 THE firjfl of thofe texts is: '' For it plcafed the Fn- 
 *' th°r, that in him all fallnefs fnould dwell. And 
 ^' having made peace by the blood of the crofs, by him 
 ^^ to reconcile all things unto himfelf : by him, I fay, whe-^ 
 
 *^ ther they be things in earth, or things in heaven. '^ > 
 
 T)t. C's fenfe of this paffage is tliis : " *It pieafed the 
 *^ Father — by Jefus Chriit— to change back all things to 
 '^ himfelf — to change the flate of this lower world, of the 
 *^ men and of the things, whether they be on earth, or 
 '^ in the aerial heaven, that encompafTes it." It was h'is 
 opinion, that to reconcile all tliefe things, is to rechange 
 their (late, or bring- them back to that i'cate they v/ere cri- 
 ginallyin.f AVith reference to mankind, he lays,:]: '* by 
 '^ Chrift their ftate was changed back, they v/ere abfolute- 
 '^ ly brought back to the condition they would have been 
 *^ in, had it not been for the lapfe ; what I mean is, that 
 '^ they were abfolutely and unconditionally put into lalva- 
 
 *' bie circumftances." But what follows from all this ; 
 
 One v/jould think Dr. C. had forgotten himfelf. Suppc- 
 fmg -all this v/ere granted, would it follow, that all men 
 will be faved ? That becaufe they are in falvable circum- 
 fiances, therefore their aftual falvation will be eifecl-ed:' No, 
 no more than from the original ilate of Adam, it followed 
 that he would never fall, fie v/as indued v;ith a pov/er 10 
 ftand : he was in fuch circumftances, that he might have 
 continued in his original innocence. Vet he fell. 00, 
 though it be granted, that all men are hy Chrift put into 
 falvable circamftances, yet through their obfcinate impeni- 
 tence and unbelief they mav fail of jliis great falvation. — ^ 
 
 b d ' Doubtlef^ 
 
 ^ P. 127. fP- 129. t P- 132. 
 
202 Do^or Cs argument from 
 
 Doubtlefs Dr. C. believed, that by Chrift the (late of man- 
 kind isfo changed, that they are all lalvable, or may be 
 faved^ immediately after the end of this world. But this 
 notwithitanding, he beheved alfa, that a great part of 
 mankind would die impenitent, and that none oi them would 
 be faved within a thoufand years of the end of this world, 
 and fome of them not till after ages of ages. 
 
 But in aid of his argument from thispaifage, the Dodlor 
 brings in again, Rom. V. lo. ^' For if when we were 
 '^ enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of 
 ^^ his fon ; much more being reconciled, we fnall be faved, 
 ^^ by his life." I have formerly remarked on the Doctor's' 
 ufe of this pafTage; and need not repeat thofe remarks. It 
 may be obferved, however, that the manner of his ap- 
 plying this palTage to ftrengthen his argument from Col. 
 I., 20, really implies, that this lafi: text taken by itlelf, con- 
 tains no ar2:ument at all, and therefore ouo-ht never to 
 
 O ' CD 
 
 have been introduced as a proof. Whatever force there 
 is in it, to prove univerfal falvation, depends entirely, ac- 
 cording to Dr. C's ftating of the matter, on Rom. V. 10, 
 
 which has been confidered already. So that if his fenfe 
 
 of Col. I. 20, be true, it does nothing towards proving 
 the falvation of all men. 
 
 I DO not however mean to fuggeft, that Dr. C^s fenfe 
 is, in my opinion, the. true one. It is impolfible, that all 
 things fliould be brought back, in all refpecls, to their ori- 
 ginal ftate. All mankind cannot now live in the garden of 
 Eden. It cannot be again fad, that all tlie knowledge of 
 God poiTefTed by men, ihould be fuch as is derived from 
 either the works of creation and providence, or from im.- 
 mediate intercourfe of God and angels with men. Nor 
 can it be ever again true, that God is propitious to men 
 immediately, without a mediator. In thcfe, and perhaps 
 many other refpeccs, mankind cannot be changed back to 
 their original flate. But if once the advocates for univer- 
 fal falvation admit of limitations, and fay, that all things 
 will however be brought to their original ftate in many re- 
 fpecls, the believers in endlefspunifliment too muft be al- 
 lowed to apply their limitations ; and they will allow, that 
 as the original ftafe was a flate of order, regularity and 
 due fubordination, wherein every perfon and thing were 
 hi their proper places ; fo in this fenfe all things will final- 
 
Col. J. 19, 20, confidered. 203 
 
 ly be brought back to their original ftate, and order will 
 be again reflored to the univerfe. 
 
 Nor does the verb «,roy_ai.«>-^i i« fignify in general to 
 ehange any thing back to its former ftate. For inftance, if two 
 men had been long and habitual enemies to each other; 
 and if having for a while become friends, they ihould re- 
 turn to their former enmity ; I believe no critic m the 
 Greek language would think this return to their enmity, 
 would be properly exprelTed by «;ro>c«':;^xaTla', reconcile. 
 When the Jews were brought home from the Babylonifli 
 captivity, they were changed back to their former ftate. 
 But is this change ever expreffed by rtTo/.«.ijt?.«t u&-, reconcile.' 
 This verb is never ufed in the New Teftament, but to 
 fignify a change, whereby thofe who were at enmity, be- 
 come friends. This obfervation is true of all thofe words 
 of the fame derivation, on which Dr, C. cririciies lo a- 
 bundantly from page 128, to 142. It is therefore not ap- 
 phcable to all the things on this earth, and in the aerial hea- 
 ven, unlefs it. be by the figure profopopoeia. By that figure 
 ^ indeed every thing animate and inanimate may be laid 
 . to be ahenated from man, in confequence of his fm ;^ and 
 to be reconciled to him in confequence of the blood ot the 
 crofs, and of the return of man to God through Chnft* 
 3ut if this w«re the idea of Dr. C. he Ihould have given 
 up his objection to the fenfe of Rom. VIII. 19, &c, gi- 
 ven by the behevers in endlefspunifhm.ent ; and at the fame 
 time he would have virtually given up his own fenfe of that 
 palTage . 
 
 iTisflrange, that Dr. C. as well as the tranflators of 
 the bible, fliould render the Vv-ords s/c «t/1ov in Col. I. 20, 
 unto himfelf,' In the preceding verfe we have sv a^V- ; ni 
 the 20th verfe we have ^ d «t/1c»y, rVt/poi,' «6lo:, and again* 
 o'/' A^loc/. Now it feems very odd, that in this multiplied 
 ufe of ay Kc in its various cafes, one inftance only fhould be 
 feleded from the relt, and rendered himfelfy meaning the 
 Pather, ana in all the other inftances it ihould be referred to 
 Chrifl. No perfon without prepoiTefTion, conftruing this 
 palFage, would render it in that manner. It is altogether 
 unnatural to fuppofe, but that ai^lo? refers to the fame per- 
 fon in all thefe inftances, and ought to be rendered accord- 
 
 It is further to be obferved concerning arcxA^a>.x« .^^ 
 
 and )4«1«xa«>7«-», that in all inftances in which they occur in 
 
 ' "" th? 
 
oQij Do^or Cs argument from . 
 
 the New Teflament, in the Septuagint and in the Apo- 
 crypha, the perfon to whom the iabjeft of the propolition^ 
 is faid to be reconciled, is never once exprelTed in the ac- 
 cufative cafe governed by the prepofition m ; but is always 
 exprefied in the dative cafe. Hence it may be inferred 
 that *.c aiy^cv in Col. I. 20, does not mean the perfon to 
 whom all thino-s in heaven and earth are reconciled : but 
 that it means, that all things in heaven and earth -are re- 
 conciled to each other, into him : i. e. fo as to be broup-ht 
 into Chrift, to be united under him as their head, and be 
 intcrefted in the common advantages and blefTmgs of his 
 glorious kinQ-dom. 
 
 To be in Chr'ifl is a common phrafe of the New Tefta- 
 ment to exprefs fubjeclion to Chriil, and an interelt in the. 
 bleihngs of his kingdom ; and to be reconciled into Chrifty 
 may mean to become united to him by faith, to become 
 fubjecl to him in obedience, and to be interefted in all the 
 blelTmgs of his kingdom.* 
 
 By iin anp-els and men. Tews and Gentiles, became 
 alienated from each other ; and men in general, by the pre- 
 dominancy of felf-love, became virtually enemies to each 
 Other. Nov/ it pleafed the Father to reconcile by Jefus 
 ChFiil:, angels and men, Jews and Gentiles to each other, 
 and to diffufe by his grace a fpirit of benevolence among 
 them, whereby they ihould love their neighbour as them- 
 felves. 4nd as to the univerfal term all things, we cannot 
 take it in its literal and utmoft extent, unlefs by the figure 
 before mentioned, which Dr. C. cannot admit, without 
 'giving up what he mofl earneftly contends for, in his corn- 
 inentonRom. VIII. 19, «Scc. But if we once admit a 
 limitation of that univerfal term, every one muft be al- 
 lov/ed to propofe his own limitation, and fome doubtlefs 
 Vv^ill infift, that it extends to angels and to believers only 
 from among men : as it is faid, that all Judea, and all the 
 region round a,bout Jordan, were batized by John : all 
 men counted John that he was a prophet : all men came to 
 Chrift, John III. 26. 
 
 But if we il-ould allow, that ^//things in heaven and 
 earth include all mankind ; (lili even in this extent it is 
 
 true. 
 
 * 
 
 Whether ills criticifra on the: ivords ?;? tt^V.v^ b^ j'^'fi ^^ 
 mfy it affccss not the main quefiionof the falvatlon of all 
 men* 
 
Col, L 19, 20^ confiderecL 205 
 
 true, that it pleafed the Father to reconcile all things ; but 
 in fuch a fenle, as not to imply the ialvation of all men. 
 This is true in the fame fenfe, in which God hath no plea- 
 fure in the death of the wicked, Ezek. XXXIil. 1 1 ; or 
 in the death of him that dieth, Chap. XVIII. 32 ; in the 
 fame fenfe in which God was unwilling to give up Eph- 
 raim, Hof. XI. 8 ; and in the fame fenfe in which Chrift 
 was unwilling to give up the inhabitants of Jerufaiem, and 
 would have gathered them together, as a hen gathereth 
 her chickens under her wings ; though they would not. — 
 The deflruction of the fmner is not in itfelf agreeable to 
 God ; as the puniHiment of a child is not in itfelf agreeable 
 to a good parent. Yet as a good parent may, to fecure 
 the general good of his family, puniih a difobedient child ; 
 fo God, to fecure the general good of his kingdom, may 
 puniih a rebellious creature. As the good parent who, 
 to prevent that punifhment to which his difobedient and 
 apoftate child mull, going on in his difobedience, be fub- 
 je6led, ufes all proper means to reclaim him ; may be faid 
 to be pleafed with the idea of his impunity ; £0 the Deity 
 who ufes all proper means to reclaim all mankind, and to 
 reconcile them to one another, may be faid to be well plea- 
 fed with the idea of this reconciliation, or to choofe to re-, 
 concile all men to one another, and to brino- them into 
 Chrift. In itfelf it is -the object of his choice and com- 
 placency. In this fenfe it pleafed the Father to recon- 
 cile all things : it was what pleafed him. 
 
 On the whole it appears, that if Dr. C's fenfe of this 
 palFage be'the true one, it affords no proof at all of uni- 
 
 verfal falvation ; That his conftruclion of it is far lefs 
 
 favourable to, that do'frrine, than that v/hich feems to be 
 
 holden forth by our tranflation ; That if this lail ccn- 
 
 ftruction be adopted, ftili it would be no real proof of uni— 
 verfal falvation, for two reafons ; (i) That the univerial 
 term muft be limited, and therefore may be fo limited as 
 to comprehend angels and believers only of all nations. (2) 
 That even if the univerfal term be extended to all mankind, 
 ftill the text is capable of a conllru6lion both rational and arr- 
 alogous to other p.iffages of fcripture, which yet does by no 
 means imply univerfal falvation.. And the fequel of the apoC 
 le's difcourfe favours thislafl conflru6non, implying, that it 
 pleafed the father, or was in itfelf pleaimg to the father, to 
 reconcile all men^ onthe terms of the gofpel, amiliot alifolute- 
 
 ^7 
 
2o6 Dodor C^s aj'gu7nent from 
 
 ly, as Dr. C. fuppofes. The fequel is, '^ And you that were 
 *' fometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked 
 
 '^ works, yet now hath he reconciled to preient you 
 
 ^^ holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his fight : if 
 ^^ ye continue in the faith grounded and fettled, and be not 
 " moved away from the hope of "the gofpel.^^ — ' — Will a- 
 ny man pretend, but that this implies, that if they did not 
 continue in the faith, they would not be prefented unblam- 
 able in the fisht of God l But this is far from the doc- 
 
 trine which teaches, that all mankind, whether believers 
 or unbelievers, whether they continue in the faith or not, 
 Ihall be faved. 
 
 Bffore I quit this part of the Doctor's bock, I fliall 
 add one remark more. In his comment on this, Col. I. 20, 
 and on Rom, V. 10, he takes great pains to make out a dou- 
 ble reconciliation to be taught by the apoftle Paul. *^ The 
 ^^ one," he fays, ^^ means that change of ftate ail men 
 ^' ar^ abfolutely brought into by the death of Ghrift ; and 
 *' is oppofed to the condemnation through the lapfe of the 
 '^ one man Adam. The other is that change of ftatC;, 
 '^ which is connected with an actual meetnefs for, and pre- 
 '^ fent intereii: in, eternal life.*'' But thefe two reconci- 
 liations are really but one ; for the definition which the 
 Doftor himfelf gives of the latter, perfectly agrees with 
 the former. He abundantly holds, that ^^ that change 
 *' of ftate, into ^¥hic]l all men are brought by the death of 
 " Chrift,'' *^ is connecled with an actual meetnefs for, 
 ^' and prefent intereft in, eternal life ;" and his whole 
 fcheme implies this : otherwife there is no certainty, that 
 all men will be faved, in confeq\ience of the death of 
 Chrift. The Do£i:or himfelf, in the very next fentence to 
 that juft quoted, allows, that the former reconciliation is 
 connecled in the fcheme of God, with the latter, and ivUl 
 finally iffiie in it. Now, if his lirit kind of reconciliation 
 be connecled, with that kind, which is conne6ted with ac- 
 tual meetnefs for, and prefent interefl in, eternal life ; then 
 that firft kind of reconciliation is itfelf connected with ac- 
 tual meetnefs for, and prefent interefhin, eternal life. If 
 Jacob be connecled with Ifaac, and Ifaac be connected with 
 Abraham, then Jacob too is connefted Vv'ith Abrnham. 
 
 Let 
 
Eph. J. 10, confidered, 207 
 
 Let us now attend to the Do^lor's argument from Eph. 
 [. 10 ; '^ That in the difpeniation of the fuUnefs of times. 
 
 *^ means of the lapfe, and what has beenconfequent there- 
 *' upon, all things in heaven and on eart!i,were got into a 
 *' broken, difjointed, diforderly ftate ; and the good plea- 
 *^ fure of God -.o reduce them from their prefent fepara- 
 *' ted, diforderly ftate, into one duly-fubjeded and well 
 '' fubordinated whole, may very fitly be fignified by the 
 '^ phrafe, «v«y.5eaAa;/i>ir«<r£«/ 'irt rrav'*, to gather together 
 '^ in one all things. And this I take to be the thing in- 
 *' tended here.''* But what is this to the purpofe of the 
 falvation of all men ? It is granted on all hands, that by 
 the lapl'e, all things relating to men, got into a broken, 
 disjointed, diforderly ftate ; and that it is the good plea- 
 fure of God to reduce them from their prefent feparated, 
 diforderly fiate, into one dnly-fubjected, well fubordinated 
 whole, under Chrift as their head ; and that this is the 
 thing intended by the apoftle in this paffage. But if the 
 Doctor fuppofed, that this implied the repentance and fal- 
 vation of all men, it was but a mere fuppofition without 
 proof. 
 
 Suppose a rebellion be excited in the kingdom of a moft 
 -wife and p-ood prince, and this rebellion extend far and 
 wide, fo as to throw the whole kingdom into confufion. 
 At length the king's fon, at the head of his armies, fub- 
 dues the rebels, pardons the generality, ientences the 
 leaders, fome to the gallows, others to perpetual imprifon- 
 ment ; and thus reftores peace, tranquility, good order 
 and government. Is not a well lubjecled and duly fubor- 
 dinated ftate of things in that kingdom nov/ reftored and 
 eftablifhed, although thofe rebels who are confined m pri- 
 fon, fti'U retain their rebellious tempers, and are not in a 
 ftate of happinefs ? 
 
 Nor does Dr. C. pretend to point out how a well fubor- 
 dinated ftate of things proves the falvation of all men; 
 unlefs it be ,in the following and other pailages not more 
 conclufive : ^' If God created all men — by Jefus Chrift, 
 •"' we may eafily colleft hence, how he comes to be their 
 
 *' common Father and if they are his children, how fit, 
 
 *^ proper and reaibnable it is, that they fliould be fellow 
 
 * P. 144. ' " heirs 
 
Cc8 jD^. C^s Argument from 
 
 ^' heirs to, and joint partakers in, that happy ftate, which 
 *' he has propoicd ihall take place /^ &c.* It feems then 
 that Eph. I. JO, proves that all men will be laved, not 
 by any thing contained in the text itfelf, but becaule all 
 men are the creatures of God. The argument is this : 
 All men are the crej,tures of God, therefore that well fub- 
 jeded and duly fubordinaled Itate of things, which is to be 
 tfFe^ed by Jcfas Chrift, implies the falvation of all men. 
 It fcems then that that well fubjecled and duly fubordinated 
 Hate of things, does not of itfelf imply the final falvation 
 of all men, and therefore this text is introduced with no 
 force of arp-ument. Dr. C. might have argued juft as 
 forcibly thus. All men are the creatures of God, therefore 
 all men will be faved. But as to this argument it is en- 
 tirely different from Epli. I. lo, and liadi been already 
 confidered. 
 
 We are, in the lafl place, to attend to Dr. C's argu- 
 ment from I Tim. II. 4 ; '^ Who w^ill have all men to be 
 *' faved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.'' — 
 The querdons concerning the m.eaning of this text, are, 
 as Dr. C. jufily obferves, two ; (i) Who are meant by all 
 men ; whether all men individually, or generically. (2) Is 
 there a certain conneclion between God's willing, that all 
 men Ihould be faved, and their actual falvation. 
 
 I. Who are meant by all men, whether all men indi- 
 vidually, or generically. Dr. C. gives two reafons, why 
 
 this expreirion faould be underilood of ail men mdividu- 
 aily.. 
 
 (i) '^ That God's wiilingnefs that all men fhould be 
 '^ laved, is brought in as an argument to enforce the du- 
 ^' ty of praying for all men,'-'f mentioned in the iirfc and 
 fecond verfes. The Doctor takes for granted, that it is 
 our duty to pray for all men individually ; and then con- 
 cludes, that all men individually are thofe, vdiom God 
 wills mould be faved. But it is by no means true, that 
 we are to pray for all men without exception. The a- 
 poftle John expreffly mentions a lin unto death, and for 
 thofe who commit that fin v/e are not to pray ; i John 
 V. 16, 17. Our bleiTed Saviour not only did not in facl 
 pray for the ^^"orld, but openly and in the moil iblemn 
 manner avowed the omiihon ; John XVII. 9. And the 
 prophet Jeremiah was forbidden by God, to pray for the 
 
 Jews 
 * P. 160. I P. 164. 
 
Jews, for their good ; Jer. XIV. ii. So that when, the 
 apoftle in the firfi: verfe of the context now under conil- 
 deration, exhorts to pray for all men, we muft of neceiiity, 
 as we would not fet the fcriptare at variance with itfelf, 
 Underlbnd him to meaii not all individuals without excep- 
 tion. / 
 
 Beside, if it were our duty to pray for all individuals, 
 it may not have been the delir^'u of the apoftle in this pafu 
 fage to inculcate this duty. The Jev/ilh converts to chrif- 
 tianity were full of prejudices againfl the Gentiles, and a^ 
 bove all, againlt the Gentile kings, and thofe, under whofe 
 authority they were ; and v/ho, in their opinion, had no 
 right to exercife authority over their nation. Therefore 
 with the utmoft propriety does the apoltle give the exhor- 
 tation cantained in the lirit and lecOnd verfes of this con- 
 text, though he me^nt no more, than, that Chriifians 
 ihould pray for the Gentiles of every nation, as v/ell as for* 
 the jews, and efpecially for kin*s and rulers amono- the- 
 Gentiles. 
 
 (2) The other reafon given by Dr. C. wlvf all vien 
 ihould be underftood of all men ijidhiduully^ is the reafon 
 given, why God de fires the falvation of all men, viz. that 
 there is one God, and one mediator between God and men. 
 ^^This,'' he fays, '^ is a reafon, which extends toallmen" 
 mdividually, *"' v.'ithout limitation." V^ery true ; and it is 
 a reafon, v/hich extends to all men generically too : and 
 therefore is a very good reafon, why we Ihouid pray 101* 
 the falvation of men of all nations ; nor is there any thing 
 in 'this reafon, which proves, that the apoftle meant, that 
 all men individually would be iaved. 
 
 As to' Dr. C's reafoning in the follcv/ing pafTage ;*•' 
 *' God is as truly the God of one man, as of another ^ 
 ^^ and there js therefore the fame r'eafon to think, that he 
 *^ fliould be defirous of the falvation of every man, as of 
 **^ any man ;'' it is by no means allowed to be conclufive. 
 It depends on this poftulate, v\'hich is a begging of the 
 queftion : That God cannot give exiftence and other com- 
 mon benefits to a man, and not fave him. I might with 
 the fame force argue thus ; God is as truly the God of one 
 man, as of anot,her; therefore there is the lame reafon to 
 think, that he fhould be defirous of the temporal profpe- 
 rity of every man, as of fome men. It is no more grant- 
 
 E c ^^ 
 
 "^ P. 164. 
 
fi& Dot^or Os argument from 
 
 ed, and therefore ought no more to be aflerted, without 
 proof, that falvaiion is connected with this circumflance, 
 that God is a God to every man, in the fcnfe in which it is 
 granted, that he is a God to every man, than that tempo- 
 ral profperity is connected with that circumdance. 
 
 Further, that all men individually are intended, Dr. 
 C. argues from this, that the apoftle fays, '* There is one 
 ^^ mediator between God and men, theman Chrifl Jefus." 
 The Doctor fays, that the mnn Jefus mediates betv/een 
 God and men univerfally. If by the mediation of Jefus, 
 the Doclor meant fuch a mediation as will certainly iilue in. 
 the f^dvation of all men ; this again is a mere humble beg- 
 ging of the quefl-ion. But if he meant a mediation of the 
 following defcription, that Chrift hath made atonement fuf- 
 ficient for all men ; is now offering the virtue of that a- 
 tonement to all men ; and is ufmg a variety of means to 
 perfuade all men to accept and truft in that atonement, and 
 to return to God, feeking his favor and eternal life, for the 
 fake of Chriil alone ; it follows not at all from fuch a me- 
 diation of Chrift, that all individuals will be faved. It no 
 more follows, than from the fads, that God led the Ifra- 
 elites out of Egypt by the hand of a mediator ; that he 
 gave them opportunity to enter the land of promife ; and 
 that that mediator vras the mediator of that whole gene- 
 ration individually ; it followed, that that whole generation 
 individually, would certainly enter the land of promife. 
 
 TiK. C. fays,* ** No good reafon can be alTigned, why 
 *' the man, Chrift Jefus, lliould mediate between God and 
 '* fome men only, to the exchifion of others.^'* Can a gobd 
 reafon be afiigned, why Chrift leads to repentance in this 
 life, fome men only, to the exclufion or derelidion of o- 
 thers ? When fuch a reafon ihall be alhgned, doubtlefs wc 
 fhall be fupplied with a reafon, why Chrift fliould efFedual- 
 ly and favingly mediate in behalf of fome men only. 
 
 2. The other queftion concerning the meaning of this 
 text, which alfoDr. C. notices/f is, Whether there be a 
 certain connexion between God's willing in the itn^e of 
 this text, that all inen diould be faved, and their adual 
 
 falvation. Dr. C. grants that men as free agents have 
 
 power to oppofe thofe means which God ufes with them for 
 their falvation ; and yet holds that God has a power to 
 
 \ counteract 
 
 ^' P. i6s. i i66 
 
I Th7. II. 4, conjidered. ^if 
 
 <;ountera!?l, in a moral way, this oppofitlon of men.* Of 
 this and ocher remarkable things in Dr. C. on the fubjecl 
 of free agency, particular notice v/ill be taken hereafter. 
 
 In the mean time it may be obferved, that it appears 
 
 from various pailages of fcripture, that God is frequently 
 faid to ivUl things which do not in facl come into exiitence, 
 or with reipeft to which his will is not efficacious : as in 
 the following psiTages : Matt. XXIII. 37. *< O Jerufa- 
 '* lem, Jerufalem, thou that killeft the prophets and 
 '* flioneft them Avhich arc fent unto thee ; how often would 
 *' I J w.-.r-ATo.^ have gathered thy children together, even 
 *' as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings ; and 
 '' ye vj^Aild not /" Hof. XI, 8 ; " How fhall I give ihee 
 *' up Ephraim ? Kow /hall I deliver thee Ifrael I How 
 *' /hall i make thee as Admah? hovv' /hall I let thee as Ze- 
 ^^ boim ? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings 
 *"' are kindled together.'' Deut. V. 28, 29 ; ^* They 
 '^ have well faid all that they have fpoken. O that there 
 ^' were fuch an heart in them, that they would fear me 
 ^^ and keep my commandments always ! " Chap. XXXII. 
 28, 29; *^ For they are a nation void of counfel, neither 
 ^' is their any underftanding in them. O that they were 
 ** wife, that they underltood this, that they v/ould con- 
 " fider their latter end !" Pfal. LXXXI. 13; '' O that 
 '^ my people had hearkened unto me, and Ifrael had walk- 
 '' ed in my ways ! '' Ifai. XLVIII. 18; '' O that thou 
 '^ hadfl hearkened to my commandments! Then had thy 
 '^ peace been as a river, and thy righteoufncfs as the v/aves 
 ^^ of thefea.'' Luke XII. 47; '^ And that fervant which 
 '^ knew his Lord's -ojilly and prepared not himfelf, nei- 
 '^ ther did according to his lu///," &:c. Matt. XXI. 31 ; 
 ^' Whether of them twain did the will of his Father ? 
 '^ They lay unto him, the firft.'' 
 
 Now what right had Dr. C. to fuppofe, that the uv// 
 of God in i Tim. II. 4, is not ufed in the fame lenfe as 
 in the pa/Tages juft quoted ? And if it be ufed in the fame 
 {^w^^f there is no more abiurdity in fuppofing that the will 
 of God /hould be relifted in the one cafe, than in the other : 
 no more abiurdity in the fuppolition, that God ihould will 
 the falvation of all men, and yet all fliould not be iaved ; 
 than that he /houldwill to gather together the inhabitants of 
 
 Jerufalem, 
 
 f P. 166, i6f. 
 
<^i^ Bo^or Cs sr^nment from 
 
 Jerufaleni, as a hen gathereth hsr chickens under her 
 wings ; and yet that they IbouM not be thus gathered. 
 
 Beside the texts quoted above, I may further refer to 
 Ezck. XVIII. 32; ** I have no pleafurc in the death of 
 ^^ him that dieth, faith the Lord God. ^' Yet his death did, 
 py the words of this text, tidce place in fricl. So that here 
 ;s a mofl: plain inftance of an event v/hich takes place con- 
 trary, in fome fenfe, to the pleafui'e or will of God.— 
 
 Dr. C's reafoning is this ; Whatever God wills, will 
 come to pais. God wills the falvation of all men ; there- 
 fore this will come t-p pafs, To apply this reafoning to 
 the text lafl quoted, it will iland thus ; Whatever God 
 wills, comes to pafs. But God wills the continued life of 
 him that dieth ; therefore it comes to pafs, that he "who 
 dieth, does not die. 
 
 The truth is, God Vv'ills the falvaticn of all men, in the 
 fame fenfe that he wills the immediate repentance and 
 fandification of all men ; or as he wills them to be asper- 
 feCc, in this life, as their heavenly Father is perfect. He 
 nov/ cpmm.ands all men every where to repcnt,to believe the 
 gofpcl and to comply with the neceilary conditions of fal- 
 vation : and complying with thofe conditions, they fhall be 
 faved immediately after the prefentilate. — — So that God^s 
 v/iliing that all men ihould be fiived, no more proves that 
 all men vvill be faved, than his willing that all men Ihould 
 immediately repent, proves, that all will imm.ediatcly re- 
 pent ; or than his willing that all men jQiould be perfect in 
 this world, and comply with, his law as perfectly as the 
 angels do in heaven, proves that thefe things will adually 
 take place in this world. 
 
 It is prefumed, that Dr. C. would not have denied, 
 that it is the will of God in fome fenfe, and that a proper 
 fenfe too, that all men be brought to repentance in this 
 ilate, and that they be faved immediately after this ftate. 
 Yet God does not efficachujly will either of thefe things. 
 
 Was it not in a proper fenfe the will of God, that our 
 
 firft parents fhcuid retain their original innocence, and not 
 by their apoftacy deluge the world in fin and mifery ? I 
 prefume this will not be denied. It was^his will, if it was 
 his command. But if it was the will of God, that Adam 
 fhould ftand and not fall ; the will of God in this cafe was 
 not erficacious. And if it was not e/Hcacious to prevent 
 ^he entrance of fin into the world, how can we know, that 
 
vTlm, IL 4. conjldered. 
 
 ■21"* 
 
 it win be cfUcricious to extirpate it out of the vvorld, or 
 from among the human race ? If Gcd was not in any pro- 
 per fenfe wiUing that (in and raifery ihould enter and pre- 
 dominats in the world ; then it feeras, that infinite power 
 and wifdom were in this infcance baffled. And if thefe 
 divine perfections have been baffled once^ they may be 
 baffled a fecond time, and notwithltandinp- all their at- 
 tempts^ (m and mifery may continue without end, in fome 
 of tiie hun-ianrace. If on the other hand, although God 
 commanded and in a proper fenfe v/illed, that man fl-iould 
 Itand ; fiill in another fenfe he confented, or v/illed, that 
 he lliould fall : in the fame fenfe God may confcnt, that 
 fome men fhail be the fubjec^s of fm and mifery to an end- 
 :fs duration. 
 Dr.. C. *^ readilv owns, that men, as free anrents, have 
 ^he power of rejijr'ing and oppojing thofe means, v/hich 
 )d from his delire f f their falvation, may fee fit to nfe 
 witi^them."* '^ Yet it appears" th him *' a grofs re- 
 iBeclimt on that being, who is infinitely perfeft, to fup- 
 ^fe hjtn unable finally to crjimteraci, and in a moral 
 Vv'ayirbo, the weaknefs, folly and obfl:inacy of fuch poor 
 inferior creatures, as men are.f " How thefe twopro- 
 pofitions, which in the Doctor's book occur within a page, 
 can be reconciled with each other ; how man can liave a 
 povv'er to refill all the means which God ufes to effect his 
 falvation, and at the fame time God can have a pov.er to 
 counteracl, in a moral v/ay, this obflinate reiiftance of man, 
 mufl certainly be fet down among the things hard to bs 
 under flood in Dr. C. 
 
 But perhaps ths \\ox(\ finally in the fecond quotation is 
 cmphatical, and Dr. Cs meaning is, that though the povv'- 
 er of refifling in man cannot confiilently with free agency 
 be counteracted even by God, at once^ or in 2.fi?ort thne ; 
 yet it may be counteracted in a very long time. This how- 
 ever will not agree with Dr. C's own language, fie fays, 4: 
 *^ The power in men of reiifting the means, vrhich Gcd 
 '^ from delire of their falvation fees fit to ufe with them, 
 '^ ought not to be overruled, nor indeed can be in coniif- 
 '^ tence with moral agency." Now to counteract or over- 
 rule in a long timxe this power of refifting, is as really to 
 overrule it, as to overrule it in a fhort time. But accord- 
 ing to JDr. C. it cannot be overruled in confiitency with 
 
 moral 
 
 f P. 166. t P. 167. iP. 166. 
 
214 Bi'' C*s argwmnt from 
 
 moral agency. It feems then, that if the damned iliall be 
 finally brought to repentinice by God counterafting their 
 obilinacy, they are llripped of their moral agency. 
 
 O 'I if it be pleaded, that this connteracling is not an 
 «'^c'/^.v^/ overruling ; but fucli an influence of means and 
 motives, as isconiiilent with moral agency : flill this gives 
 no fatisfaction. Is it fuch a counteracting, as will certnh?- 
 ly and ** InfalUhly^^ be foliov/ed by the repentance and fal- 
 vition of the linner ? This is holden by IJr. C.§ If this 
 be fo, v/hat moral power of ftill refirting has the linner at 
 the time of his repentance? And if he have at that time 
 no moral power of further refiftance, then this power is 
 overruled effeclnally^ and of courfe, according to Dr. C's 
 fcheme, the finner is deprived of his moral agency. 
 
 If on the other hand it be faid, that the counteracting 
 be not fuch as v/ill certainly and ^' infallibly" be followed 
 by the repentance of the fmner ; then there is no certainty 
 that the linner will ever under the moft powerful means 
 which God fliall ufe with him, be brought to repentance 
 and be faved. Thus the certainty of univerfal iklvation 
 at once comes to nothing. There is no certainty, no 
 ground of alTurance, that all will be faved ; and all the 
 truth is, that God will ufe means with fmners hereafter, 
 as he does in this Itate^ to prepare them for falvation ; but 
 as in this flate, fo in the future, fmners may, or may not, 
 comply with thofe means. 
 
 To Dr. C. '' it appeared a grofs refledion on that be- 
 '* ing who is infinitely -perfect, to fuppofe him unable /?- 
 *' nally to counteracl, and in a moral way too, the obfti- 
 nacy of men."* But is it no reflection on God, to fuppofe 
 him not to have been able in a moral way, to prevent the 
 entrance of fin into the world ? Is it no reflection on him 
 to fuppofe, that he is not able in a moral way to counterad 
 the ooillnacy of men in this life > Is it no reflection to 
 fuppofe, that he is not able, by the powerful means ufed 
 in hell, to counterad it, in a fmgle infbance, for the fpace 
 of a thoufand years ?f How long muil: God be unable to 
 counteract human obftinacy, before the imputation of luch 
 inability becomes a reflection on him ? How long may he 
 confiitently with his perfections be unable to counteracl 
 that obilinacy ? and what duration of that inability maybe 
 imputed to him, without a reflection on him, and what 
 
 duration 
 
 5 P. 167. * P. 167. -^ See p. 402; 403. 
 
I Tim, IJ. 4, conjidere^, ii^j 
 
 iluration of it cannot be imputed to him without a reflec- 
 tion ? If it be no reflection on God, to fay, that he is 
 unable to counteraj^ that obftinacy within a thoufand years; 
 is it a reflection to fay, that he is unable to counteract it in 
 two thoufand, in ten thoufand, or in an hundred thoufand 
 years > If not, why does it become a reflection to fay, 
 that he is \m2AAe finally to counteract it ? Let any be- 
 liever in Dr. C's fcheme anfwer thefe quefliions. 
 
 Doctor C's reafoning in the following; palTage, is 
 worthy of notice ; X ** ^^ ^^^ defires the falvation of all, 
 *^ and Chriir died that this defire of God might be 
 '^ complied with, is it credible that a fmall portion of 
 
 '* men only Ihould be faved in event ?" This rea-- 
 
 foning may be retorted thus : If God defires that 
 all men be faved immediately after this hfe, and Chrill 
 died that this defire might be complied with ; is it credible, 
 that a fmall portion of men only flaould be then faved ? 
 
 The advocates for univerfal falvation, one and all, 
 bring in the text now under confideration, **' Who will 
 *' have all men to be faved," as a proof of their doctrine. 
 Therefore I wilh to alk them, from v.hat they belie v^e all 
 men are, according to thefe words, to be faved ? From 
 an endlefs punifliment ? Then they were by a divine con- 
 ftitution expofed to an endlefs punifhm.ent ; then an endlefs 
 punilhment isjufl:; then fin deferves an endlefs punifli- 
 ment ; then fin is an infinite evil ; which to them is an in- 
 finitely horrible doctrine. Butletthem, if they can, avoid 
 it, once allowing that allmenaretobe faved from an endlefs 
 punifirment. Or are all men, according to thefe words, to be 
 faved from a temporary punifliment ? What temporary 
 puniihmem ? Not that which is to continue for ages of ages : 
 fome will fuiFer that. Not from a longer temporary pu- 
 nifhment ; becaufe none fuch is threatened ; and finners 
 are not .expofed to a punifbment greater than that which 
 is threatened in the divine law. On the whole, accord- 
 ing to univerfaiifm, thefe words mean, that all men fhall be 
 faved indeed, but ihall be faved from Nothing. 
 
 CHAP. 
 $ P. i68. 
 
<< 
 
 jiz6 Dr. C's argument fror/i 
 
 CHAP. XII. 
 
 Do^or Cs arguments from PfaL VIII. 5, 6. Heh. II, 
 6 — 9. PhiL II. 9, 10, II. I Cor. XV. 24; — 29. 
 and Rev. V. 13; conjidcrsd, 
 
 TIS argument from^Pfal. VIII. 5, 6, and Heb. IT, 
 6 — '9, is biiik on thofc v/ords, ** Thou hall put all 
 
 things under his feet." lie was of the opinion, that 
 thofe words mean, by the univerfahty of the terms, that 
 tven fin itfelfihall be fubjcded to Chrift ; and that fni can- 
 not be fubjecled to Chrifl in any other way, than by the de- 
 flrutrrion of it.* But this is to fuppole what is by no means 
 granted, and ought not to have been alTerted without 
 proof. An enemy may be overpowered, taken, im.prifon- 
 ed, and put entirely under the power, or under the feet 
 of the conqueror ; and yee not be put to death or annihila- 
 ted. Vv'^hen it is faid Chriit's enemies JJmll be made his 
 foot/tool^ Pfal. ex. I, Heb. X. 1.3 ; No one will pretend, 
 that this means either a cordial fubmiiTion to Chrifl, oran- 
 .nihilation. When the captains of Ifrael put their feet on 
 the necks of the C.maanitifh kings, Jofh. X. 24, as this 
 was no token of cordial fubmiflion or reconciliation ; fo it 
 is certain, that thofe kings were not then annihilated. 
 The fame idea is naturally fuggefled by that expreflion^ 
 Put under his feet. Not any of thefe phrafes is allowed 
 to be ufed in fcripture^ to exprefs either a cordial fubmif- 
 iion, or annihilation. Sin is fuch an enemy, as never can 
 in its nature be reduced to a cordial fubmilhon to Chrifl., 
 Nor needs it to be annihilated, to anfwer the exprellion of 
 being put under the feet of Chritt : Nor indeed does that 
 expreiiion naturally fuggcflthe idea of annihilation ; but na- 
 turally, if not necelTarUy implies the contrary. An enemy 
 may be under the feet of his conqueror before he is anni- 
 hilated, but after he is annihilated, he' is neither under 
 his feet, nor in any other place. To be under the feet there- 
 fore implies exiflence : and fm may properly be faid to be 
 put under the feet of Chrill, when it is fo retrained and 
 exemplarily puniilied, that on the w^hole no diihonour is 
 done by4t to Chrill, or to the Deity ; no evil refults irom 
 
 it 
 
 * P. 179. 
 
Pf. VIII. 5, 6, and Heb, IL 6—9, confidered %if 
 
 it to the univerfe, or td any of Chrift's real followers : 
 but on the other hand it is made, contrary to its own teh- 
 tlency, the instrument of promoting the glory of God and 
 of the Saviour, and of increafing the happinefs of his uni- 
 Verfal kingdom, and of all his true fubjeftsi 
 
 T)k. C. makes a diftinclion between God's government 
 of power and his moral government; by which it is fup-^ 
 pofed, that he meant to fhow, that fm cannot be brought 
 into fubjedion to Chriil, but by the willing fubmifTion of 
 the fmner. ^^ *Men by fmning oppofe the government 
 *' of God; not his government of /oiufr ; for this ever 
 '^ was, and ever will, and ever muft be, fubmittcd to ; 
 *' but his moral o-overnment which he exercifes over intel- 
 *^ li<»ent and free agents. Here is room for oppofition. 
 '^ Men may refift that will of God, which requires their* 
 ** obedience/' &c. It may be prefumed, that the paf- 
 fage now quoted was entirely out of the Doctor's mind, 
 when he wrote the following : '^ 'Tis readily acknowledg- 
 *' ed, the glory of Chrifl's />.i?w<fr, as head of the govern- 
 ^' ment of God, \vi\\hs 2 1 luflriou fly difplayed, if hy fores 
 " only he finally fubdues ©bilinate fmners.'' By this it ap- 
 pears, that it was Dr. C^s opinion, that men do oppofe 
 the prnver of Chriil:, and the power Chrift as the head of 
 the government of God too ; and that his pov/er may be il- 
 luflrioudy difplayed, if it be employed to fubdue hy force 
 their obflinate oppofition. But to fay, that power and 
 force are employed to fubdue obftinate oppofition, and yet 
 that this oppofition is no oppofition to that power and force, 
 is as abfurd, as to fay, that a prince exerts his power and 
 force to fubdue the oppofition of an army of rebels, and 
 yet thatthofe rebels do not at all oppofe his power ; or it 
 is as abfurd as to fay, that oppofition can be fubdued Vv here 
 there is no oppofition. 
 
 It .is by no means clear what Dr. C. meant by God's 
 government o^ power, as oppofed to his moral government. 
 Can there be any government without power ? It is plain 
 by the laft quotation, that Dr. C. did not imagine, that 
 God's m.oral government is without eixh^T po^uer or force^ 
 and that both power and force may be employed to fub- 
 due linners, who asfinnersare fubjects of God's moral go- 
 vernment only. But let the Doftor have meant by this 
 
 diftinclion what he will, it is by no means true, that fin- 
 
 F f ners 
 
 * P. 179. ■ 
 
^i§ DoSior Cs argumsni frorri 
 
 ners are always fo far reftrained and fubjecled by Gocl^i 
 moral government, that in the pre fen t ftate of things, and 
 if all things were to remain as they now are, no difhonour 
 would be done to God, no injury to his kingdom, to his 
 chofcn people, or to the inteiledlual fyftem. There is 
 room therefore for fm and finners, in this fenfc, to be fub- 
 jecled and reiirained by the government of God. When 
 ^^ the wrath of men Ihall praife God, and the remainder 
 *' of v/rath fliall be retrained, ^' then will fmners be 
 brought to that fubjection to Chrifc, of which I am fpeak- 
 incr. But Dr, C. would not pretend, that in this fenfe, 
 finners ever have been, ever\\\i\ be, and ever mi(fr be fubject 
 
 to God. In one v/ord, to be fubjecled to Chrifl is to be 
 
 made either actively or pafTively fubfervient to his purpofe* 
 and to his glory. 
 
 When the enemies of a prince are overcome, and in 
 chains and prilons are retrained from interrupting the 
 peace and happinefs of his faithful fubjefts ; then they .arc 
 put under his feet and are fubjecled to him, and all their 
 *^ rule, authority and power, are put down or aboliflied." 
 So when all the enemies of Chrifl:, all *^ obftinate finners" 
 Ihall be, to ufe H^r. C's own words, ^' by force finally fub- 
 *^ dued,*' /but up in prifon, bound with chains, and pre- 
 vented from doing the leaft mifchief to the difciples and 
 kingdom of Chriil ; then thofe enemies will be put under 
 the feet of Chnii ; then *^ an end will be put to the do- 
 ^' minion of fm ;^'' then the works of the devil \v\\\ be de- 
 ftroyed ; then the ferpents head will be bruifed, and tho 
 devil's kingdom will be overthrown, as really and effe^lu- 
 ally, as the power of a rebel can be overthrown by an en- 
 tire conquefl of him and his adherents, by his perpetual 
 inaprifonment and other proper punifliment according to 
 the laws of the kingdom, though he and fome of his parti- 
 zans be permitted to live, and though they retain a rebel- 
 lious fpirit.— — The verb LTro^Ta^) in Rom. VIII. 20, fig- 
 nifies, as Dr. C. holds, an involuntary fubjeclion. It may 
 therefore mean the fame in Heb. II. 8, and i Cor. XV. 
 27, &c. 
 
 Doctor. C. infifls on the words in i John, III. 8, 
 *' For this purpofe was the Son of God manifefted, that 
 ^' he might dellrcy the works of the devil.'' By the works 
 of the devil, he underftands all (in : by deftroying he un- 
 derflandsan entire abolition. On the other hand; by de- 
 
 ftroying 
 
TfaL VIII. 5, 6, andHeh, IL 6—9, confidered, 219 
 
 ilroying the works of the devil, fome underftand a perfed 
 defeat of every attempt in oppofition to the pccice, happi- 
 nefs and glory of God's kingdom : ^^ The devil will be 
 '^ moft effectually fubdued, his works will be deftroyed and 
 '^ his head bruifcd in the liighelt fcnfe and degree, when 
 '* he fliail be perfectly defeated ajad difappoijited in all his 
 ^' defigns, and every thing he has attempted againft Chrift 
 ^' and his intereft, liiall be turned againil himfelf, to anfwer 
 '' thole ends which he conflandy fought to defeat by all 
 ^' his attempts ; and Chrift (hail be more honoured, and 
 '^ his kingdom more happy and glorious forever, than it 
 ^' could have been, if Satan had never oppofed him, or 
 
 *^ ibduccd and deftroyed any of mankind. ^^"^ As th3 
 
 text now under confideration is capable cf the fenfe juft 
 given ; until it fliall be proved, that the Dcclcr's is the 
 true fenfe, it proves nothing to his purpofe. 
 
 Doctor C. grants, f I'hat by deftrudion the fcrip- 
 tures mean the mifery and puniihment of finners. There* 
 fore Tinners are in the fenfe and languap-^ of fcrinture de- 
 uroyed, when they are fent to the place of reftraint, im- 
 prifonment and mifery prepared for them. And as fniners 
 will be deftroyed \yithout anmhilationy fo may Jin and the 
 works of the devil. 
 
 That God has always pov/er to fubdue or to fubject to 
 himfelf his enemies, is one thing: aftuaily to fubjedl them, 
 by reftraining them from doing any damage to his king- 
 dom or his fubjeds, is another. In the prefent ftate, the 
 enemies of Chrift tempt his fubjeds, obftrud his caufe, 
 and do many things, which if they were to remain as they 
 now are, ^vould b^ an everlaftinp- diflionour to Chrift. But 
 they Ihall be made his footftool, they fnall no more do any 
 ef thofe things. 
 
 Whe-n Chrift puts his enemies under his feet, he treads 
 them down in his anger and tramples them in his fury, a- 
 greeably to Ifai. LXIII. 3. But this furely is not to bring 
 them to a cordial reconciliation. 
 
 Therefore, as Pfal. VIII. 5, 6; Heb. II. 6 — 9, are 
 fairly capable of a conftrudion entirely dilferent from that 
 on which Dr. C's whole argument from them depends ; 
 they prove nothing to his purpofe : efpecialiy as they are 
 »ot naturally caoable of his conPa-uclion, 
 
 * Hopkins^ s Inquiry inie the Future State* 
 t P- 224. 
 
1^ 
 
 ^20 Do^or C-s argur.ienl fram 
 
 We are now to attend to Phil. II. 9, ic, 11 ; <^ Where-. 
 <' fore God aljo hath highly exalted him, and given him a 
 ^* name v/hich is above every name : that at the name of 
 *' Jefus every knee fliould bow, of things in heaven, and 
 *' things in eai-th, and things under the earth ; and that 
 ^^ every tongue Ihould confefs, that Jefus Chriil is Lord, 
 
 *^ to the glory of God the Father.''^ The queftion 
 
 concerning this text is the fame as that concerning the 
 text lafc under confideration ; What are we to underitand 
 by that fubjection, to which Chrllt in confequencs of his 
 exaltation, was to reduce mr.nkind ? Is it a free and vo- 
 luntary fubjection in all men ? Or in fome men a fubjec- 
 tion to which they fliall be reduced by the power and au- 
 thority of Chrin, in cppQiition to their own inchnations ? 
 Dr. C. afferts that the former is the i-noft plain and na- 
 tural fenfe, and that the latter is evidently too low and re^ 
 drained an interpretation. But politive aflertions prove 
 
 no tiling. 
 
 As to the Doctor^s reo.fons to prove that the fubjeclioii 
 in queftion is a free and voluntary one, they are as fol- 
 lows ; That Chriit is now endeavouring to reduce man- 
 kind to a voluntary fubjection to himieli* That though 
 
 Chriil; do not in this ftate, prevail on all men voluntarity to 
 fubjecl: themfelves to him, y«t he may prevail on them inr 
 
 the next ftate. f That if Chrifc was exalted for this 
 
 end, that every knee fhould bow to him, &:c. he will fail 
 of his end uniefs all men be reduced to a voluntary fub— 
 jectionj- — r— That the genuflection in this Phil. II, 10, evi- 
 dently means a voluntary ad Ij- That a' compelled fub- 
 jection is a poor, low kind of fubjedion in comparifon with 
 that which is voluntary ; therefore the reward of Chrift's 
 humiliation, uniefs it imply an univerfal voluntary fubjedion 
 of mankind, is low and fmall in coitipariijon with what it 
 would have been, had it implied a voluntary fubjedion.||!| 
 
 I. Chriit is now endeavouring to bring all men to a vo- 
 luntary fubjedion to himfelf; and thefe endeavours will 
 fooncr or later be fuccefsful : therefore Phil. II. 9, &c. 
 
 means a voluntary fubjedion. Anfwer : Chriit is now 
 
 in no other fenfe endeavouring to bring all to a voluntary 
 lubjedion, than in the days of his incarnation he endea- 
 voured to gather the inhabitants of Jerufalem together, as; 
 7H. hen gathereth her chickens under her wings ; or than he 
 
 always 
 
 :? p. 190. t p. 191. ± P". 192. !| Ibid. |j!| p. 192, if>3, 
 
Phil. II. 9 — 12, conjidered. 12f 
 
 always has endeavoured to prevent the death of him that 
 tiieth. But as thole endeavours have not been efficacious ; 
 lb his endeavours to bring all men to a voluntary fubjec- 
 tion, may not be. Therefore this argument proves no- 
 thing. 
 
 2. Though Chrift do not in this ftate prevail on all men 
 voluntarily to fubjecl themfelves to him ; yet he may pre- 
 vail on them in the next (late : therefore in the next ftate 
 all will infaclhe brought to a voluntary fubjeciion : there- 
 fore Phil. II. 9, &c. means voluntary fubjection. An- 
 
 fwer : It does not follow from the power of Chnil to re- 
 duce all men to a voluntary fubjeclion, that he wlUinfacf, 
 reduce them to thatfuhjeclion. 
 
 3. If Chrift were exalted for this end, that every knee 
 fliould bow to him, &:c. he will fail of the end of his ex- 
 altation, unlefs all be reduced to a voluntary fubjection. 
 
 Anfwer : The confequenccby no means follows from 
 
 the antecedent. For though it be allowed that Chrift nas 
 exalted for the end, that every knee lliould bow to him ; 
 yet it is not allowed that this bouing of the knee is a vo- 
 luntary fubjection. So that Chrift may obtain the whole 
 end of his exaltation, without efPecling a voluntary fubjec- 
 tion of ail men. This argument takes for granted, that 
 the bowing of the knee mentioned in Phil. II. 10^ is a 
 voluntary fubmidion. 
 
 4. Tlie genuflection in Phil. IT. 10, evidently means a 
 
 voluntary acl. Anfwer : It does not evidently mean a 
 
 voluntary a6l.-— A mere contradidtion is a fuihcient anfv/cr 
 to a mere alTertion. 
 
 5. A'compelled fubjeclion is a poor, lov/ kind of fub- 
 jection in comparifon with that which is voluntary. I'here- 
 fore the rey/ard of Chrift's humihation, unlefs it imply a 
 voluntary fubjection of all mankind, is lov/ and fm.ail in 
 comparifon with what it v/ould have been, had it implied 
 a voluntary fubjeclion. Therefore it does imply a volun- 
 tary fubjection ; therefore a voluntary fubjection is intend- 
 ed in Phil. II. 10. ^ ^ 
 
 Answer : We are very improper perfons to determine 
 a priori what is the proper reward of Chrift, or v/hat re- 
 ward is the greateft, and moft honourable to Chrift. Some 
 may imagine it would be moft honourable tO' Chrift, to re- 
 duce all men to a voluntary fubmillion in this life ; as m 
 yxn cale they v/ould be faved from all future punifhrnent ; 
 
 and 
 

 'ilK Do^or Cs argument from 
 
 nnd thus might the grace, power and wifdom of Chrifi 
 in theh' opinion be more glorified. Hence they might ar- 
 gue juft as forcibly as Dr. C. does in the other cafe, That 
 undoubtedly Ghrift will in this life reduce all men to a vo» 
 iuntary fubjeclion to himfelf> On the fame principle it 
 might alfo have been proved, before the fact Ihewed the 
 contrary, that ail men would be reduced to a voluntary fub- 
 jedlion to Chriit, in a veiy fhort time, long before the 
 time of their ordinary departure out of life. On the fame 
 principle too it might hav6 been proved, that God would 
 
 never permit fm and mifery to enter the Vvorld, Thus 
 
 it appears, that Dr. C's argument, if it prove any thin^, 
 proves too much, therefore proves nothing. 
 
 The Do6lor was not infeniible, that the fame words 
 are quoted by the Apoftle Paul, and applied to the general 
 judgment ; at which time Dr. C. does not pretend, that 
 all men will be voluntarily fubjcd to Chrifl.* See Rom. 
 XIV. lo, II, 12. ^' Fer we fliall all ftand before the 
 
 judgment feat of Chriit. For it is written, as I live, 
 
 faith the Lord, every knee fhall bov/ to me, and every 
 ** tongue ihall confefs to God. So then every one of us 
 *^ Ihall give account of himfelf to God." Therefore we 
 have clear evidence, that thefe words do fometimes mean 
 that fubjedion which is not voluntary. And that in Phil. 
 II. ID, they mean a voluntary fubjeftion and that only, 
 we mufl have good evidence, before vv^e are obliged to be- 
 lieve it. The utmoft evidence which Dr. C. gives us, re- 
 specting that matter, I have exhibited above ; and con- 
 cerning the fuiliciency of it, the reader wiil judge. 
 
 Doctor C. acknowledges, f that the words are perti- 
 nently applied by the Apoftle, to that fubjedion which Ihall 
 take place as to all, at the general judgment : but fays that 
 his thus applying them is no argument that they mean no- 
 thing more. To which it may be anfwered, that it is an 
 argument that they mean nothing more in Phil. II. lo, 
 unlefs good reafon can be given to Ihow, that in this paf-^ 
 fage they do mean more : and whether the reafons which 
 Dr. C. gives, be good and fatrsfactory, is fubmitted as 
 before. 
 
 We come at length to the confideration of that pafTage 
 of fcripture, which Dr. C. ^^ coniiders as dicUive of itfelfy 
 *' were there no other text in the Bible of the like im- 
 
 '' port/' 
 
 f P. 196. t Ibid^ 
 
< ^or. XV. S4 — 2^, confukred, 22 '> 
 
 " port.'* it is I Cor. XV. 24—29 ; << Then cometh the 
 *' end, when he ihall have delivered up 'the kingdom to 
 '^ God, even the father ; when he fiiall have put dowa 
 '' all rule, and all authority and power. ' For he mud 
 •' reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The 
 *' laft enemy that fliail be deftroyed is death. For he hath 
 '^ put all things under his feet. But when he faith all 
 ''* thing.? are put under him, it is manifeft, that he is ex- 
 *' cepted which did put all things under him. And when 
 *' all things ihall be fuhdued unto him, then fhall the foa 
 '* alfo himfelf be iubjedt unto him, that put all things un- 
 '^ derhim, that God maybe all in ail." 
 
 The Doclor prefaces his cricicifm on this text, with 
 fome obfervations on the previous context, which demand 
 
 our firfl attention. He quotes the 21ft and 22d vcrfes ; 
 
 *' For fince by man came death, by man came alio the re- 
 *' furredion of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even 
 '* fo in Clirifl fhall all be made alive :" and adds, " It is 
 '^ with me beyond all controverfy evident, that the apof- 
 '^ tic is fpeakmg here, not of a partial, but univerfal re- 
 *^ furrection, not of the refurreclion of the righteous on- 
 
 *' ly, but of the whole race of Adam. The fam.e all 
 
 *' who fufFer death through Adam, fhall through Chrift 
 '' be made alive. The compariion between the damage 
 '^ by Adam and the advantage by Chriit, lies in this very 
 '^ thing.*'' Here we have the Doctor's opinion, and his 
 reafon for it. His opinion is, that in the -22d verfe the a- 
 poflle is fpeaking of all mankind : his reafon for this opi- 
 nion is, that otherwife there would be no proper compari- 
 fon of Ad^m and Chrifl, But the truth of this obfervati- 
 on is by no means conceded. The reader may have fcen 
 my ideas of tljis cafe in the remarks made above, on Rom. 
 
 V. 12, .&:c. If an army under one general be all killed 
 
 or taken, and afterwards the furviving part of the fame 
 army, nov/ liberated, and under the command of another 
 general, return every one in fafety from a dangerous bat- 
 tle ; it may be juftly faid. As under the former general 
 all the army was killed or taken, fo under the latter ge- 
 neral all the army returned from the battle in fafety. There 
 would in this cafe be a true and proper comparifon. \ et 
 the very fame all would not be intended in both parts of 
 ihe com.parifon. Dr. C's reafon therefore is not fufficient 
 
 to 
 
 ■^ p. 201. 
 
2^4 Do^or Cs aj-gumitit from 
 
 tofupporthis conflruction. There is a proper comparifois 
 of Adam and Chrifr, if the apoltle fay, and intended to 
 lay, As in Adam all his {qqiX die, even fo in Chrift all his 
 feed ihall be made alive. 
 
 It is indeed a truth granted on all hands, that all man- 
 kind will be raifed at the lail day ; but it dees net hence 
 follovv', that the apoftle in this verfe is fpeaking of fuch 
 an univerial refurreclion. 
 
 Beside, if itfliouldbe granted, that the 22d verfe re- 
 fers to the refurrection of all men, it would not follow, 
 that all will be faved. For Dr. C. grants, that had the 
 apoille *^ nowhere ^\(e opened his mind more fully and 
 ** particularly upon this matter, the utmoft we could have 
 ** argued from his words, would have been, that as all 
 '^ men die in Adam, fo in Chrift they fliould all be deli- 
 ic vered from, this death, by a refurrection to life.f * 
 How then does this text prove univerfal falvation? And 
 eijpecially how is this verfe, or even the whole pafTage ** of 
 '* itfelf decifiveV^ Although Dr. C. in page 197, declares 
 his opinion, that this palTage is *^ deciiive of itfelf, was 
 ** there no other text in all the Bible of tlie like import-/^ 
 yet he himfelf in page 207, gives it up as decifive, in the 
 fcllowino- words ; '- This parenthefis, comprehended with- 
 *^ in the 24th and 29th verfes, was parpofely interpofed 
 
 '^ to bring us to a paufe— and give us opportunity 
 
 *^ to relied upon — ^ — the truths here revealed ; pur- 
 
 *^ fuing them in their jull tendency, neceffary conneclion 
 '* and final refult : In the doing of which, we fnould v'lr-^ 
 '^ tiially continue the difcourfe,, and finifii it with re- 
 
 '' fpecl: to the wicked, as the apoille had done v/ith 
 
 '^ refpecl to the righteous." Thus it appears by the au- 
 thority of Dr. C. that this portion of fcripture does not 
 contain any thing plain, or pofitive concerning the falva- 
 tion of thofe who die in wickednefs ; but to inveftigatc 
 that which to him vv'as fo important and favourite a doctrine, 
 we muit virtually continue and finifh the difcourfe our- 
 felves. Hov\^ then is this pafTage decifive of itfelf? ^Unlefs 
 we virtually continue and finifh the difcourfe ourfelves w^ith 
 refpeft to the wicked, as the apoftle had done with refpei^ 
 to the righteous, we fhall never, even in Dr. C's opinion 
 come to the fame conclufion concerning the wicked, to 
 which the apoftle came concerning the righteous, that 
 they fliail be faved. TH£ 
 
 f P. 201. 
 
s C^r, XV, 1A — 29, conJicUrecl 21 -^ 
 
 ■' The chief thing, which Dr. C. endeavours by this paf- 
 fxige to prove^ with a final view to the eftablilhment of u- 
 niverfal falvation, is, that the mediatory fcheme will not 
 be finilhed at the fecond cominp; of Chrift; but a great 
 deal will then remain to be done before the plan of God, 
 for the accomplifliment of which the mediatory kingdom 
 is entrufted to the fon, fhall be com^lieted.* By the ^* fi- 
 '• niihing,'' ^- the completing," &c, of '* the mediatory 
 ^^ fcheme/' the mediatorial kingdom, &c, Dr. C. muifc 
 have meant the finifhing of the work of falvation^ or of 
 delivering iinners from fin and miiery : otherwife he meant 
 nothing to the purpofe of proving the falvation of all men. 
 What if the mediatorial kingdom be not finilhed at ChriiVs 
 fecond coming? Yet if after that period, Chriii. will never 
 more deliver any of mankind froni lin and from wrath ; 
 thofe who iliall at that time remain in iln, and under the 
 wrath of God, will never be faved. 
 
 That in the fenfe now explained, the mediatorial fchema 
 will not be finiflied at the fecond cominfr of Chriii, is in- 
 deed a point in difpute, and the Dottov^ proofs of 
 this point are to be candidly weighed. They are thefe 
 
 two -(i) ThispalTage of fcripture teaches, that an uni- 
 
 vei*fal fubjection to Chrift is to be efFecl:ed before the iinifli- 
 ing- of the mediatorv fchem^e ; but this univerial fubievflion 
 to Chrift is not effected at the fecond coming of Chriit. — 
 (2) The reward of the good and faithful fubje^ts of Chriit: 
 is to be beitowed on them in the kino-dom of Chriit, and 
 therefore Ciirift's kingdom will not be at an end, till after 
 they fhall have enjoyed that reward for foms time at lealt. 
 
 1 thirjc thefe two are all the reafons which Dr. C. has 
 
 given to fupport the propolition in queftion. He has in- 
 deed divided his long and complicated difcourfe on the text 
 now before us* into five heads : but for v/hat reafon is not 
 manifeft. 
 
 I. It was the opinion of Dr. C. that i Cor. XV. 24-20, 
 teaches us, that an univerfal fubjection to Chriit is to be 
 effected before the finiihinf]; of the mediatorial fcheme, 
 
 which is not effected at Chrift's fecondcoming. dv Iud- 
 
 jeftion to Chriit Dr. C. meant with refpect to intelligent 
 creatures, a cordial, willing fubjection. By fubjection to 
 Chriit, with ref\iect to lin and death the hrfi and I'econd, 
 he feems to have meant aholk'nn. But though it h agreed 
 
 G g ''■I 
 
 « P. ac8. 
 
226 DocJor C^s argument from 
 
 0:1 all hands, that there will be an univerfal fubjeftion tcr 
 Chrilt eiteded;, before the iinifhing of the mediatorial 
 icheme ; yet it is not agreed that this fubjedion, with re- 
 ference to all intcUigent creatures, will be 3. willing fub- 
 jeclion or iubiniirion. Concerning this particular;, fome ob- 
 fervations have been made in the former part of this chap- 
 ter. That the text n3\v under coniideration does teach a 
 willing fiibjeclion, muil be fliown, or the text will not ap- 
 pear to be to the purpofe. — — Now to fliow, that all intel- 
 ligent creatures w ill be cordially fubjecled to Chrilt, and 
 -will be faved, the Doctor infills, that both fm and the fe- 
 cond death will be deflroyed. 
 
 I. That (in will be dellroyed. With reference to thofe 
 words, ^' he mull reign till he hath put all enemies under his 
 feet'' — ^^Aii thing-s fhall be fubdued unto him'' — The Doc- 
 
 tor a&s, " Is fin an eneryjyV^ Suppoiing it is an enemy, 
 
 what follows? Not what the Dodor alferts, ^^ Then it 
 will be dfftroyedy^ meaning abolilhed, extirpated by uni- 
 verfal obedience and virtue. For the apollle does not fay, 
 that all enemies Ihall be dcjh'oved, aboiiihed, extirpated o?*- 
 annihilated : but that all enemies fhall be fuhdued and -put 
 under Chrift's feet. So that the true and only confequence 
 from the fuppolition, that fm is an enemy, is, that it fhalt 
 be fubdued, refLrained and put under Chrift's feet ; which 
 may be done in a fenfe true, proper, and as Dr. C. grants,* 
 o-lorious to Chrifl, without the abolition of it. 
 
 lN[Df:F.D the apoille lays, that ^^ the laft enem.y, death, 
 '• fhrdl be dellroyed ;'* which by no means implies^ thar 
 all other enemies ihall be dellroyed. It may mean, what 
 our trandators evidently underilood by it, that the lafl in- 
 llance which we ihall have of the deftrudtion of any enemy, 
 will be in the defiruclion of death. The words literal- 
 ly, and according to the order of the original, are thus tranl'- 
 lated ; the lall enemy is deilroyed death '5 and they may 
 mean, and may very properly be rendered thus, Death is 
 deilroyed the lafl enemy. Now fuppofe an hiflorian, in 
 the account of a battle, fliould fay, The general was killed 
 the lad enemy : mufl we neceftarily undcrfland him ta 
 mean, that all the enemies of the whole army were kil- 
 led, and the general was killed after all the refl? 
 Might not his words be juflly taken in this fenfe, that 
 the general was the lafl enemy who fell, and many others 
 liiight efcape r Or 
 
 *P. 193. 
 
I Cor. XV. 24--<t9, atifidcrcd. '2.2 j 
 
 Or death may by the apoftle be called the hift enemy 
 proverbially and with reipecl to this liie only ; as it is now 
 fometimes called the lafl: debt due to nature. Since the 
 exprellion, *' the laft enemy that fljall be defcroycd is 
 '^ death/' is capable of this lenle ; and fince it does not 
 appear, that it imphes, that all other enemies will be de- 
 ftroyed ; therefore it is no proof of univeru;! falvation ; 
 as both fm and mifery may ftill be allowed to be enemies 
 and yet may be in exigence, after the deitrudion of 
 death. 
 
 But it may be alTerted In a true and proper fenfe, that 
 fm, in the damned;, is not an enemy. It docs no damage 
 to Chrift, to his kingdom, or to the peace and happinefs 
 of his fubjccls. It is to be fure, an enemy in no other 
 fenfe, than the damned themfelves are enemies: and if 
 from that exprefhon, '' the hH enemy that is r^rjlrr.yedy 
 *' abnl'ifijed,:'.'j.'.*iyiA'-".^ is death/' it follow, that all Chrift's 
 enemies will be abolidied or annihilated ; it v/ill aifo follow, 
 that all the damned will be annihilated. So that if this ar- 
 gumicnt prove any thing, it proves too much ; lo much 
 that it entirely overthrows univerfal falvation. 
 
 But fm in the damned, and the damned themfelve?, 
 inftead of doing any damage to Chriil or his fubjedls, v/ili 
 be the means of increaiins the glory of the former and the 
 happinefs of the latter, to eternity. 
 
 It is obfervable, that the verb '.'.a.^,'iiyu,^ is never in all 
 the New Teftament, applied to exprcfs the deiirucTiion of 
 all vv'icked men^ of the enemies of God in general, or of 
 all fni. Therefore as neither fin itfelf, nor all the enemies 
 of God, are faid ^A':«p7'£/«r-S^«/, to be ahoV/bed, we have no 
 right, even on the fuppofition that iin is an enemy in eve- 
 ry fenfe, to fay that it will l)e cihoUJhed, or extirpated from 
 the univerfe.-^^ — The peculiar phrafeology of the paifagc 
 now under coniideration, is worthy of particular notice. 
 In the 24th verle it is faid, that Chrift will ' UilmliJ}}, y.<*.y -crjf , 
 ^' ail rule and all authority and power." But he is faid to 
 put all his enemies under his feet, ^-a irro "oic tt'Jxk st'^-.i, 
 verfe 25th ; and to pur. all things under his feet, 
 '.'Ti'l^'^v, vTz y.-j: rTv/«; u-j^,^-j^ verfe zjx\\. AhJiougli there- 
 fore all the raky and all x\ic authority and )><;u'dr of Chrilt's 
 enemies fnall be aboliilied, and the apoRlc is careful to in- 
 form us of that ; yet he is equally careful to inform us, 
 that his enemies themfelves i'hnU be ovXy fuhjcclcd to hinu 
 
 and 
 
!Z2S Dr. C's j^rgimir/it from 
 
 find put under his feet ; as it feems, defignedly iliifting the 
 phraieology and avoiding the application of the verb 
 ::a''tfr^ ?.Y to them. What right then have we to apply it to 
 them ? Is not the application of words to perfons or things, 
 to which the spoPdc delignediy did not apply them, a grofs 
 perveriion of fcripture ? 
 
 Doctor C*s argument that lin will be deftroyed, de- 
 pends wholly on this general propofition, That all Chrift's 
 enemies will be deftroyed. Now the word deilroycd in 
 this cafe, doubtlefs means either ahoUtlon, or rejtra'int and 
 fitn'ijhment . If it mean ahclitio^:, extirpatlony annihilat'iGn ', 
 then as was before obferved, all the enemies of Chrill: will 
 be annihilated, and the dodrine of univerfai falvation falls 
 to the ground at once. If it mean refiramty pumfnment, 
 -preveniing jro7n doing imfchiefy &c, then fm may be laid to 
 be deftroyed, and yet have an endlefs exiftcnce in the uni- 
 verfc. 
 
 If then thefe words, '* The la ft enemy death fhail be 
 *' dellroycd,'' do certainly imply, that all Chrift's ene- 
 mies ihall be deftroycd ? and if it be alfo certain, that iin 
 /;; the damned is, in every proper fenfe, an enemy, thofe 
 ^vords are equally inconliftent with Dr. C's fcheme, as 
 Aviththe oppoiite. They either imply an univerfai annihi- 
 lation of all Chrift's enemies ; and io are equally inconlift- 
 ent with univerfai falvation, as with endlefs torment ; or 
 they are not at ail inconfiftentwith it, and therefore are 
 no argument againft it. If they imply an univerfai anni^ 
 hilation of the enemies of Chrift, as they are equally a- 
 gainft Dr. C's fcheme, as againft the oppofite ; it equal- 
 ly concerns him, as his opponents, to provide an anfwer 
 to them, and it is abfurd in him to object them to the doc- 
 trine of his opponents. 
 
 The fum of what has been faid on this head of the de- 
 ftruction of fin is (i) That it does not appear, that ftn in 
 the damned is properly an enemy to Chrift and his king- 
 dom ; as it does no harm to that kingdom. (2) If it be 
 xlctermined that fm in the damned is an enemy to Chrift^ it; 
 .will not follow, that it will be defiroyed.^ meaning by de- 
 ftruclion annihuathn or abolliicn ; becaufe it is no v/herc 
 ,fa:d, that ail Chrift's enemies v/ill be deftroyed, )c*1'-f7 ^ire*/, 
 
 , Or even if this were afferted concerning all Chrift's 
 
 enemies, and the verb "^^"^"^f^?-'' were applied to them all, 
 k would not certainly determine, that they will all be ai^v 
 
 nihilatcd,, 
 
I Co?-. XV. 24 — 20, ccjifidered. zin 
 
 riihiiated, cis that verb is capable of anotjier fcnfe. iind is 
 doubtlefs ufed in another lenTe, Heb.lT. 14; ^''iliat throuo-h 
 *' death he mi^w. defiroy^ x«.>.cvncrM, him that had the power 
 *^ of death, thst is the devil.'- Dr. C. did not believe, ihut 
 the devil will be annihilated. Therefore if that vei'b were 
 applied to all Chrift's enemies, and fin in the? dan:ncd 
 were allov/ed to be an enemy to Chrift ; ilill it rriight mean 
 fomething elfe befide annihilation: nay, it miifl; neceflarily 
 mean fomething elfe, or it would equally difprove univcr- 
 fai falvation, as endlefs rnifery. 
 
 In Dr. C's difcourfe on this fubjeci:, it is implied, that 
 when a fmner is broup-ht to repentance and cordial rccon- 
 ciliation to Chrift, he is deffroyed. His v.ords arc/* 
 *' Chriil fhall continue vefted with regal power, till he 
 
 ** has brought all enemies ivAo/iwjesJion to him Chriil 
 
 ^' will continue head of the kinpdom of Qoi}t till he 
 
 *' has 3LQbid\\y fuhdufd all enemies Is im an enemy ? — 
 
 ." then it Ihall be deftroyed for Chriil" mure dc/hoy all 
 
 *^ enemies/' By tliefe feveral exprejlions it appears, tha,t 
 it was Dr. C's opinion, that all Chrift's enemies v/ili be 
 fubjeeied to him, that they all will be fuhdiied under hini, 
 and that they vv^li ail be ^V//-ro_)/<f^ by him. Now it is a- 
 ■ bundantly evident, xSi^X-hy fnhje^xion, fubduingy Szc, when 
 applied to thofe, who die in impenitence, Dr. C. mcaiu a 
 cordial reconciliation to Chriil : and lie by no means 
 ]ield, that thefe enemies thus reconciled, will be deftroyed 
 by annihilation. It follows therefore, that as all Clirift's 
 enemies are to be deftroyed, to be dejiroycd, and to be re^ 
 concilcd to Chnft In true repentance, arc, according to Dr. 
 C. one and the lame thing. Therefore, w hen Paul was 
 (Converted' he was r/<^/?/-o>'f^ ; and as he will eternally be 
 the fubjeci of repentance, he will fulTer an eternal deftruc 
 tion. The puniflmient of God's enemies is, that they iiiail 
 be deftroyed ; they ihall be punifned w ith everlafting de- 
 ftruaion. But what puniflimcnt are everlafting repentance 
 ;ind complacency in God? they are among the greateil 
 bleJUnp-s \vhich Deity himfelf can confer on a creature. 
 Endleis deftruaion and endlefs falvation lu'c throughout 
 the fcriptures oppofed to each other. But accordmg to 
 Dr. C's fchem.e, they perfedly harmonize and mutually 
 
 jmply each other. Now whether this fchem.c lianno- 
 
 nize with the fcrioturcs is fabniittcd to the reader. 
 
 ?^P. 214, 215, 
 
^20 ^o^or C's xn^mnent from 
 
 Whether this icheine harmotiize with the fcriptares or 
 not,, it doer, not harmonize with other parts of 13r. C's 
 book. He fays,** that by the deilradion of the wicked, 
 mentioned in 2 Thei\ I. 9, and in various other texts, *^ we" 
 '•' are very obvioufiy led to nnderftand mifcry,''^ Surely 
 converllon from fm to hohnels, and cfpecially the everlaft- 
 ing holinefs of the prints in heaven, is not m'lfery. 
 
 Oil. C. Iiolds, that ail enemies v/iil be fubdued and fub- 
 jecled to Chrill, and that fm vv-ill be fubje6ted to him, 
 when it is aboiilhed or annihihited. But if lin be fubjed:- 
 ed to Chriib, when it is annihilated, then the fmner would 
 be fubjedsd to Chrift were he annihilated. But this kind 
 of fubjeclion is no more a cordial fubje^tion, than that 
 which is effected by mere power, and which confifts in re- 
 
 ilraint and punifliraent. Belide, according to Dr. C. 
 
 there arc two ways of fubjecting to Chrift intended in 'this 
 paflage ; one is by cordial rcconcihation, the other is by 
 annihilation. This then will keep in countenance the op- 
 ponents of Dr. C. who believe, that there are two ways 
 of fubjecling to Chrid: ; one by cordial reconciliation^ which 
 refpecLS the elecT: only ; the other by rcilraint and punilh- 
 nient, which rcfpecls the reprobate. 
 
 On the whole, vvhether this pafTage be fufficient to 
 prove an univerj'al abolition of fm, is now left to the judg- 
 ment of the reader. 
 
 2. Doctor C. was of the opinion, that i Cor. XV. 
 24 — 29, teaches, that before the iinifliing of the media- 
 torial fcheme, the fecond death will be deilroyed. He 
 
 fa3's,* ** The fecond death may with as, much propriety 
 
 be called an enemy, as the fir ft death.- Let any fenl'e 
 
 be aifigned, in \Vhich the Jirit death can be properly 
 fpokefi of as an enenw, audit will at once be eai'y to 
 make it appear, that the fecond death is, in the fame 
 ^Qn£e, as truly an enemy, and much more fo.'^ — '^ Isf 
 death, the I'econd death, an enemy ? Then this ene- 
 my ihall- be deilroyed ; for Chrifl muit deilroy all ene- 
 *^ mies.^' This is the Doctor's argmnent ; in anfwer 
 to which two obfervations may be made- That the fe- 
 cond death is not an enemy, in the ^Qn^e which the Doc- 
 tor's argument implies That if it were in every fenfe 
 
 an enemy, it would not follow, that it ihall be deilroy- 
 ed, i. e. ahol'ijhed. 
 
 Tiii: 
 
 **^'P. 224, * P. 210. t p. 215. 
 
1 dr. AT. 24 — 29, confickvecl, 231 
 
 The reader hath feen the obCervations made above con- 
 cerning fin as an enemy and concerning the deftruciion of 
 lin : iimilar obfervations may be made concernino- the fe- 
 cond death. 
 
 (i) The fecond death is not an enemy in the fenfc 
 
 which Dr. C^s argument im.pHes and requires. If ihc 
 
 Doctor meant, that the fecond death is an enemv to thofe 
 who are the fabjects of it, as it deftroys their happinefs 
 and prevents their admiilion to a glorious inimortahty ; 
 this is granted. But it is not granted, that therefore it 
 v/ill be deflroyed ; and for the Dodlor to take it for grant- 
 ed, that tlierefore it v/ill be deilroyed, is the fame thinp- as 
 to take for granted that all mankind v/ill finally be adm.it— 
 ted to a glorious immortality, which is the grand fubjccL of 
 
 tlie prefent controverfy. But if the Doftor meant, that 
 
 the fecond death is an enemy toChrift, as it prevents the 
 brightefl: diiplay of his glory, the greateft profperity of 
 his kingdom, and the greateil happinefs of his lubjeccs ; in 
 
 this fenfe it is denied to be an enemy. This is a fenfe in 
 
 which the firft death is an enemy, and notv/ithfianding 
 what Dr. C. fays, it does not feem '^ eafyto make it ap- 
 " pear, that the fecond death is, in the fame fenfe, as 
 *^ truly an enemy.'' The firil: death, while it continues, 
 prevents the brighteft diiplay of the glory of Chriit, the 
 greatefc profperity of liis kingdom, and the greateft hap- 
 pinefs of his fubjecis : if it Ihould continue, it would be 
 inccnfillent wiih the promifes of Chriit, with the complete 
 falvaticn of the eledt, and would defeat the gofpel. Novxt 
 to make it aouear, that in this fenfe the fecond death is au 
 enemy, it niay be prefumed, is not a more eafy tafc, than 
 
 to prove the falvation of all men. The fecond death is 
 
 no more an enemy to Chrift, to his kingdom, or to his 
 faithful fubjecls,* than the execution of fome mod attro- 
 cious and ungrateful rebels, whofe Hves cannot be fparcJ 
 confifrently with the glory of their king, the profperity of 
 his kingdom, or the happinefs of his faithful fubjec^s; is 
 an enemy to the king, to his kingdom, or to his faithful 
 fubjecls. 
 
 Doctor C. further urges, that '^ the fecond death is 
 '' the Jail enemy, and the only one that is i'oJ'* If it 
 be no enemy, it i's neither the lafl- nor the //y? ^enemv. 
 Therefore, '^ itfeems" 7j5if <^ r,eaibnable, w f«n tiie apof- 
 
 '• tie 
 
 % P. 210. 
 
2^^ ' ■' i^r. Cs argument front 
 
 *' tie fays, the la ft enemy ^jjhlch Is death y ft} all he deftroyect, 
 ^^ to nnderitanci him to mean by deaths the fecond dsath,'^ 
 The firit death is in the fenJe before given, the lafl enemy ; 
 the lalt who prevents the complete difplay of Chrift's glo- 
 ry, the lafc who prevents the perfeftion of his kingdom, 
 the laft Vv'ho has power to hurt the faints. After the de- 
 ftrudion of this death, they immediately receive the adop- 
 tion of fons. Althougli the devils and thofe who have 
 been perfecutors in this world, will ilill be in exiftence af- 
 ter the dePcruciionof the firll death, they will no more have 
 it in their power to difhonour ChrirL, or to interrupt the 
 happinefs of his fubjefls, than if they were annihilated. 
 
 (2) If the fecond death were in every fenfe an enemy, 
 it would not foliov;, that it Ihall be deftroyedy meaning aho- 
 iijhed. All t]ie enemies of God or of Chriit, are nowhere 
 fciid to he (d)oifted y-u",ttfyi.TUeti^ meaning annihilation. To 
 be ftihdued, fuhjecledy put under feety is by no means the 
 fame as to be annihilated. If therefore the fecond death 
 h'z ever fo truly and properly an enemy, the utmoft that 
 v/ould thence follow, is, that it would be fo retrained and 
 fuhjected to Chriil, us to be prevented from doing mifchief, 
 apd to be made an inilrument of promoting the glory of 
 God, and the happinefs of his kingdom. In this fenfe it 
 may be granted, that the fecond death will be deftroyed; 
 yet the i'alvation of all men would no more be. implied in 
 the conceffion, than -it is implied in the deftruftion of the 
 devil, mentioned, Keb. U. 14, that he will be annihila- 
 ted. Nor can we hold, that all Ghrift's enemies will be 
 deftroyedm the fenfe nov/ oppofed, without holding the 
 annihilation of the wicked, and giving up univerfal fal* 
 vation. 
 
 T}k. C. endeavours to make out, that if death, the lafl 
 enemy, do mean temporal death, iiill the deftrutlion of this 
 death implies univerfal fal vation. ^* Simple reftoration 
 *^ to life,-"' fiys he,* "'^ is not the thing the fcripture means 
 *' by death deftroyed. To be fure the apoiUe Paul had 
 ^^ quite another notion of it. — Whst is the idea he leads 
 *' ii3 to entertain of it ? Plainly not a bare return to life, 
 ^^ but inch an one as is connected with a g-lorious immor- 
 '^ Laiity.'' That in this chapter the apollle fpeaks of luch 
 a return to life, as is connected with a glorious iminortality, 
 IB granted ; becaule in this chanter he is fueakina of the 
 
 relurreftion 
 
 P. 211, 
 
3 Cor. XP\ J4~29, mfidercl J3^ 
 
 ^^furreaion of the faints only. The Dodor indeed ^c\h 
 us that It was .ui//; him -beyond a]I controverlV evident, 
 that theapoftle is fpeaking here, not of a partial, bu 
 • univerfal refarreaion.^> To others however it is be- 
 yond all controverfy evident,, that the apoftle is fpcal ir^ 
 here of the refurre Aion of the righteous only. Even the 
 JJoctor acknowledges, that after the 28th verfe the apof- 
 tie_ confines his difcourfe to the righteous, v/ithout fay- 
 *' mg any thing of the wicked. f" Now this affords fome 
 ground of prefumption at leaft, that in the former part of 
 the chapter too, he confines his difcourfe to the refurrec- 
 tion of the righteous. Nor has Dr. C. given any reafon/ 
 behde that v/hich has been already examined, viz. That 
 the comparifon between the damage by Adam, and the ad- 
 vantage by Chriil, lies in this very thing, that the fame 
 all men are meant in both parts of that eSprefiion, - as in 
 '.' Adam all die, even fo in Chrifl fnall all be made alive.'' 
 So that Dr. C's argument,t that from the refurrcction of 
 all mankind, it follows, that all will be faved, depends on 
 principles, which are neither granted nor proved, and 
 therefore is utterly inconclufive: 
 
 He further lays, *- TK^sfecond death, ftrictly and pro- 
 " perly fpeaking, is the last -enemy, and the only 
 '' ONE, that is fo.'' Then furely there will not be ^iihird, 
 3. fourth de^th, &c, &c, for ages of ages. Yet this is taught 
 in other parts of his book ^ as in the following paflage, 
 
 *#.< They may all- — i^be doomed -to a fcate of mi- 
 
 fery, which ihall laft for an age : In which il'diefnnie 
 
 -may^be wrought upen to fubmit themlelves to God 
 
 •Others may die in this ftate ftupid And thole 
 
 €( 
 
 (i 
 (( 
 
 ^^ who thus died in their obfdnacy may again be put 
 
 *^ into 'a place of fuffering for another age ; in \s'\\\c\\ fow.e 
 '' may be reduced and others fcand'itout Itill. Thefe 
 
 others may, in yet another form of exigence, be i'ent 
 ^' into a place of difcipline for another age ; and fo on, till 
 '^ there has been torment for ages of ages.'' Here the 
 Doctor diftindly mentions three future ftatcs of fuifcring, 
 and fuppofes there maybe others continued in liicceliion 
 for ages of ages, which are fo many difiint^t deaths, as 
 really as the firft ftate of fuffering after this life, is the f^-- 
 Gond death, with refped to temporal death. What right 
 then had the doctor to fay, and with what confillency could 
 
 H h ' iic 
 
 t P. 2.07. }P.2ii. * P. 210; 211. **P. 309, 310. 
 
^34 DoSIor Cs argument from 
 
 he fay, that xhefecond death is the loft enemy, and the m» 
 ly one that is fo ? 
 
 II. The other argument of Dr. C. is, that the reward 
 of the good and faithful fubjecls of Chrift is to be beftow- 
 ed on them in the kingdom of Chrift ; and therefore Chrift' s 
 kingdom will not be at an end, till after they fhall have en- 
 joyed that reward for fome time at leaft ; and therefore 
 will not be at an end, at the fecond coming of Chrift^ or 
 immediately after the general judgment.''* This argu- 
 ment w^holly depends on the fuppofition, that at the time 
 at which the work of falvation ihall be completed by Chrift 
 he will entirely abdicate all government of fuperin tenden- 
 cy over thofe who fhall be favedby him. If otherwife ; if 
 he fhall ftill retain a fuperintendency over thofe who fliall 
 be faved by him ; if he fliall ftill be their immediate head 
 or ruler, and the fource of their happinefs ; though he 
 ihall not be the fupreme ruler of the univerfe, nor even 
 of the redeemed ; but in this refped he /hall refign the 
 kingdom to the Father : he may be faid yet to have a king- 
 dovn, and to lit on his throne ; and to reign, &c. Before 
 the refignation of the mediatorial kingdom, the govern-* 
 ment of all thhigs is in the hands of Chrift, being delega- 
 ted by the Father to this government. Or as Dr. C. ex- 
 preffes it, '^ he will be head over all ; he will govern all ; 
 *' he will be all unto all."f Chrift during that period a6ts 
 as the fupreme head of the univerfe. But when he fhall 
 have refigned the mediatorial kingdom, the Father will 
 act as fupreme head. Still Chrift may, under the Father, 
 be the head and governor of his redeemed and faved peo- 
 ple. The Father will be fupreme ruler, and Chrift with 
 his Church united to him, and dependent on him, will re- 
 ceive the benefits of his government. This does not im- 
 ply, but that Chrift himfelf, in fubordination to the Fa- 
 ther, will have a government over his faints. 
 
 Nor does it imply, l:4at that the fon as one with the Fa- 
 ther, as being in the Father, and the Father in him, fliall 
 reign after the refignation of the delegated fovereignty o- 
 ver all things. It may be prefumed, that no man will fay, 
 that the Father does not reign now while the adminiftra- 
 tion of univerfal government is in the hands of the Son. 
 If he did not now reign, there would be no propriety in 
 fpeaking as the fcripture often does, '^ of him that fitteth 
 
 « on 
 
 * P. 222, 223. t P. 2I7« 
 
I Cor, XV. 24 — 29, confidered. 2^r 
 
 ^^ on the throne, and the Lamb ;• ' nor any propriety in 
 the promife, Job. XV. 16; ** That whatibever ye /liall 
 *' aflv of the Father inmy name, he may give it you j^' 
 nor in thofe Vv'ords of James, Chap. I. 17 ; '^ Every good 
 ^^ gift, and every perfed gift is from above, and cometh 
 '^ down from the Father of lights.'^ But I need not add 
 
 texts, to prove this. For the fame reafon therefore that 
 
 the Father now reigns in and with the Son ; fo after the 
 relignation of the general delegated adminiilration, the 
 Son will ftill reign in and with the Father. Now the go- 
 vernment is conducled in the name and by the immediate 
 agency of the Son : then it will be conduced in the name 
 and h}'- the immediate agency of the Father. Yet as now 
 the Father reigns in and with the Son ; fo then will the 
 Son reign in and with the Father. Chriit now reigns with 
 fupreme Sovereignty by delegation from the Father. Af- 
 ter the refignation of this fovereignty, he will flill reign 
 over the faints by delegation from the P'ather, but with 
 dominion, which fhallbe fubordinate to that of the Father. 
 He will alfo at the fame time reign in and with the Father, 
 in the exercife of a dominion, which fhall not be delegated, 
 but which is elTential to him as a divine perfon, and one 
 with the Father ; as the Father, by virtue of his divinity, 
 now neceiTarily reigns in and with the Son. So that al- 
 though Chriit fhall immediately after the general judg- 
 ment, refign the fupreme delegated fovereignty, which 
 he now poffefTes ; ftill he will reign in thefe two refped:s, 
 by a delegated fubordinate authority over his faints ; and 
 by an undelegated, efTential authority, which by virtue of 
 his divinity, he polTeires neceiTarily with the Father. 
 
 But whether the true idea of Chrifl's dehvering up the 
 kingdom to the Father, concerning which Divines have 
 repeatedly differed, have been now precifcly exhibited or 
 not ; ftill the fcriptures necelTitate us to believe, that in 
 feme fenfe Chrift will reign to an abfolute eternity. Heb. 
 I. 8 ; *< Unto the Son, he faith, Thy throne, O God, 
 '' is forever and ever." Rev. XXII. 5; '' They""' [the 
 faints] '^ (liall reign forever and ever." 1 Pet. V. 4 ; 
 '^ When the chief fhcpherd fliall appear, ye fhall receive 
 '^ a crown of glory that fadeth not away.'' i Cor, IX. 
 0,1^ 'y " We do it to obtain an wcofruptUIe crown." Heb. 
 Xll. 28 ; *^ We receiving a kingdom ikat cannot be 
 
 <' move J" 
 
a§6 -O'"* C'j" argument from 
 
 <^ mover^.^^ Both ihefe laft texts are quoted by Dr.C.*' 
 to prove that the righteous fhall live and be happy without 
 end : and they equally prove that they Hiall reJgn without 
 enrL — But the fsints are to lit down with Chrift on his throne 
 and reign v/ilhhirn : and it is abfurd to imagine, that they are 
 to reign after the ceuation of his reign ; that they are to wear 
 crowns vvhlch are incorruptible and fade not away ; but that 
 his crown is corruptible and fadeth away. Befide ; the king- 
 dom v/hich the apoffles and primitive chriftians received, ac- 
 cording toHeb. Xli. 28, was not the kingdom of the Father, 
 as diitinguii'hed from that of the Son, but was the kingdom 
 of the Son, which he himfelf had then lately fet up. This 
 kingdom \. faid to be incapable of being ihaken or diuolved ; 
 and therefore is endlefs, as Dr. C. himfelf believed : other- 
 "wii'e it was abihrd for him to quote that text to prove, that 
 
 the righteous will live and be happy without end. -Dan. 
 
 VII. 14. 'f His" [the Son of man's] ^' dominion is an 
 *' everlafiing dominion, which ftjall not pafs away, and his 
 *' kingdom that which /bail not bs dejrroyed.^^ Ifai. IX. 
 7 : *' Of the increafe of his government and peace there 
 ** iliall be no end.'^ Liike I. 33 ; **He lliall reign over the 
 *^ houfe of Jacob /brf7;<?r, and of his kingdom xherefiall he 
 ** no end.'''' — ?*lore determinate language could not be ufed, 
 to exprefs the endlefs continuance of Chrill's kingdom. 
 
 It is therefore granted, that the kingdom of Chrill: will 
 continue, after the general judgment, and even without 
 end. Yet it does not thence follow, that he W'il] not at 
 that time have finifhed the niediatorial work, or rather the 
 work of faving fnmers. I make this dillinclion, becaufe 
 though Chrifl; will at the general judgment, have finijhed 
 the work of faving fmners from wrath ; yet he will with- 
 out end be the mediator betv/een the Father and the faints, 
 and will be the medium of all divine communications to 
 them, whetlier of knowledge, of happinefs or of honour. 
 It by no means follows from the circumllance, that Chrift 
 will, after the general Judgment, retain a kinglv power 
 and dominion, that he will exert that power in dtlivcrinn- 
 (inners from lin and mJfery. 
 
 The whole of Dr. C's difcourfe on this fubjedl implies, 
 that the kinG;dom of the Father, in which he Ihall be all in 
 all, will not begin immediately after the general judgment. 
 But how can this be reconciled with Malt. XIII. 40 — 44; 
 
 ^ p. ity. 
 
I Cor. XV. 24 — 29, co'tifidcred, 237 
 
 *' As therefore the tares are gathered and burnt in the fire; 
 f' fofnall it be in the end of this ivorld. The Son ci Man 
 *' fliall fend forth his angels, and they /hall gather our of 
 *' his kingdom all things that offend, and them ihat clo ini- 
 '^ quity ; and (hall caft them into a furnace of lire ; there 
 *' ihall be wailing and gnafhing of teeth. Theiu >>"/', ut 
 '^ that very time, fliall the righteous fliine forth as the fun 
 *' in the k'rngdom of their Father/' Thisfmgle text proves 
 that the kingdom becomes the Father^s immediately after 
 the end of this world, and therefore entirely overthrows 
 all Dr. C\s labour to prove, that the kingdom doc-s not 
 become the Father's till ages of ages after the end of this 
 world ; and equally overthrows his great labour to fix a 
 conftruction on i Cor. XV. 24, confident with his 
 fcheme. 
 
 Beside; the Do6lor's conftruftion of the lad paHage 
 mentioned feems to be abfurd in itfelf. For he '* connects 
 '^ the end,'' as to the tim^e of it, " with Chrill's delivery 
 *^ of the kingdom to the Father. '*f And by the inJ 
 he in the fame page explains himfelf to mean the ** ihutting 
 ** up of the fcene of providence with refpect to the fons 
 '^ of Adam :" which is and can be no other than tlic cnJ 
 of ChrilVs mediatorial kingdom. According- to Dr. C. 
 therefore, the apollle, imder the infpiration of the Holy 
 Ghoft, gravely tells us, that the end of Chrill's kingdi^iu 
 will be, when he fhall dehver up his kingdom to the Fa- 
 ther : or the end of it fliall be at the very time, at wli^h 
 the end of it ihall be ! But what is this, but the molt 
 childifli tautology ! Who ever imagined, that Chrilt v/ould 
 ftill retain hi*s kingdom, after he fnould have delivered it 
 up ? Surely that fcheme muit be in diitrels indeed, whicii 
 requires fuch conftruction as this to be put on ilie iacrt J 
 fcripture { 
 
 Doctor. C. fays, *' The reward promifed, under the 
 '' adminiflration of ChrifFs kingdom, in this prefcnt fuie, 
 '* in order to perfuade men to become his good and laith- 
 '' ftil fubjecVs, is not the final happinefs God iiitends to 
 *' beflow upon them ; but the hcippinefs of that date \\\\\d\ 
 ^' intervenes between the refurrecTion and God's being 
 '' all in all."; But all the promifes of the Bible are p- 
 v^n in this prefent fiat e ', therefore there cT re no promilcs 
 In all t\\Q Bible of find happinefs. How then decs FV. 
 
 t p. 198. X p. 222. 
 
538 Do^or Cs argument from 
 
 C. know that all men, or even any man will be finally 
 happy ? This is at once giving up his lavourite doctrine^ 
 to eilabliih which he wrote his whole book. 
 
 Doctor C. calls out,* *^ What a poor, low, lean 
 *' idea the common explanation of this text gives us of the 
 *' final effeds of Chrift's reign — in comparifon with that, 
 *' the above interpretation ku us into ! '* Such excla- 
 mations occur in almoft every argument of his book. I 
 obferve therefore concerning them once for all, that they 
 feem better luited to work on thepafhons and imagination, 
 than on the reafon ; that at leaft they are attempts to de- 
 termine v/hat is moft for the general good and the glory 
 of tiie Deity, not from revelation or from fact ; but a 
 frirjri, by our own imagination concerning what is befl 
 and moft ehgible. Now that we are in this v/ay utterly 
 incapable of determining what is moft eligible, and moft 
 for the divine glory, in a thoufand inftances ; every man 
 of refteclion muft grant. 
 
 I HAVE now finifhed mv remarks on Dr. C's ^^ decifivc" 
 argument from i Cor. XV. 24, &c. Whether it be in- 
 deed *^ decifive ♦," whether it be '^ unanfwerably ftong,"f 
 is fubmitted to the reader. 
 
 We are next to confider the Doi^lor^s argument from 
 Rev. V. 13 ; ** And every creature v»'hich is in heaven, 
 '* and on the earth, and under the earth, and fuch as are 
 *' in the fea, and all that are in them, heard I, faying, 
 *^ Blelling and honour, and glory and power be unto him, 
 '" that fitieth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for- 
 
 ** ever and ever." The main queftion concerning thefe 
 
 words is, whether they '' look forward to a completion of 
 ** the fcheme of God,'' and affert a faft which is not to 
 take place, till that fcheme fhall be completed. This is 
 Dr. C's idea : he fays, they *' they evidently look for- 
 *' ward to the completion of that fcheme ;'' he fays it 
 merely ; he gives no reafon to prove it. The context 
 gives rio fuggeftions of fuch an idea. It may be prefuined, 
 that Dr. C. himfclf did not imagine, that the fong cf the 
 four beafts and four and twenty elders, contained m verfe 
 9th, &:c. looked forward to the completion of the fcheme 
 of God. It was evidently fung on occafion of the Lamb's 
 taking the book fealed with feven feals, and before any of 
 thefe feals were opened. Nor is there the leaft hint, 
 tut that what is defcribed in the 13th verfe, took place 
 
 ^ P. 125. I P. 211, on 
 
I Cor, XV* 24 — 29, confidered. I36 
 
 tm the fame occafion : but the narration naturally imph'es 
 that it did then take place. The 14th verfe confirms the 
 conflrudion now given. <^ And the four bcafts faid, 
 ** Amen. And the four snd twenty elders fell down and 
 *' worfliipped him that liveth forever and ever." Thefe 
 words are evidently a part of the ibng mentioned in the 
 9th verfe, as it v/as fung by the fame four beafts and 
 four and tv/cnty elders. Whereas according to Dr. C's 
 conflrudion of the 13th verfe, they are either a fong 
 which is to be fung after the completion of the fcheme of 
 God ; or though they are apart of the fong mentioned in 
 the 9th verfe, the apollle's account of that fong is inter- 
 rupted by inferting in the midft of it, a fong to be funo- by 
 all mankind, after the completion of the fcheme of God. 
 
 To afFert therefore, that the fact of the 13th verfe 
 
 did not take place on the occafion of the lamb's taking the 
 book ; but is to take place ages of ages after the end of 
 this world ; and to fupport this alTertion by no proof or rea- 
 fon, is to act an unreafonable part: efpecially confidering 
 the context and the difficulties attending that conftruclion. 
 
 ThfsE words appear to contain a figurative reprefenta- 
 tlon of all creatures joining in joy and praife to the Father 
 and the iamb on occaiionof ChrifPs takinfr and beine: about 
 to open the fcals of the book fealed with the itven feais ; 
 the book of providence toward the church. That fuch re- 
 prefentaiions are common in fcripture, we have already 
 feen, v/hiJe we were coniidering Rom. VIII, 19, &c. 
 Therefore no argument in favor of univerfai falvation 
 is afforded by this pafTage. 
 
 Dr. C. mentions feveral other texts as favouring hia 
 fcheme ;.but fays himfelf, that he does not '* depend on 
 '* them as proofs,'* or as ** conclulive in themfelves." 
 We need not therefore fpend time to remark upon them. 
 The r«ader of himfelf will eafily conceive from the anfwcrs 
 given to thofe on which he does depend as conclufive, what 
 anfwers would be given to the reft. 
 
 Toward the dofe of that part or his book, whidi con- 
 tains the direct evidence of univerfai falvation. Dr. C. 
 comes down wonderfully, feems to relent, and to be fea- 
 red at the refult of his own reafoning. He owns, that af- 
 ter all, he may be miftaken ; that concerning the ftatc 
 which he fuppofes will fucceed the next ftate, neither the 
 prophets, Jefus Chrift, nor the apoiUes, have fpoken hi 
 
 plain 
 
i40 Dt,. C-s Scheme confidered 
 
 j)Ialn and explicit language, leaving no room for doubt.*' 
 How thefe mikl coiifpinons are recoucileable with his many 
 ])reviQUs ^Pclara-tipjiS; tjiat his arguments are at leail in his 
 opinion, ^^ evident,''- '■ydecifive,'^ ^^ unanf'^erahly flrong \'''* 
 that it 15 y pojhiyely affirmed" (in P^om. VIII. 19, he) 
 
 ^* that they -liiail be inftiited in immortal glory ;'' that 
 
 '^ it is ^hfolutely declared in this palTage of fcripture/* 
 (Horn. V. 12, kc,) '' that trhey'' (mankind miiverfally) 
 *' ihall be made righteous," kc, kc. remains to be point- 
 ed out. 
 
 *P. 252, 253. 
 
 CHAP. Xlil. 
 
 Jfi ivhlch D?'. Os fckf?ne h confidered ^ vAth a reference it 
 his ideas of human liberty and moral agency. 
 
 TTis an elTential part of the fyllem of Dr. C. and of the 
 JL generality of the advocates for: univerfal falv^ation;l that 
 all fixed certainty of any acVicns of i men, whether exter- 
 nal or internal, is inconfiHent with liberty and m.oral agen- 
 cy in thofe actions. Ihat this is really a tenet of the 
 
 l)o6lor may appear from the following quotations. 
 
 He fays,* ^* Such exertions of the Deity, as fliall be 
 *'' certainly f^^W;t6 reftrain them" [free agents] *^ from 
 *^ perverting their facultJes, look like a ?noraHnipoffibilityy 
 *' or a method of conducting towards free agents, which 
 *' is unfit, in the reafon of thincis,' a!s not beino; fuited to 
 'f the nature of.fuch kind- of bjeino-s.V; He confiders it 
 asf '* inconfifteni vjiththe powers hefiowed'^'* on free agents, if 
 *' by any cxtrinfic power, their faculties are unavoidably put 
 " -into exercifc in one certain way' only.". He alks, ^' If 
 *\ motives fliould in^ all cafes .be fet in fuch a flrong and 
 '^ powerful light, as that no wrong choice could be made — 
 *' -hoNV could fuch a method of operation confifl with the 
 '* proper powers of free agents? It does not appear to the 
 *^ liuman mind, a thing fit, that they" [free agents] 
 ** fhoalJ he thus irrefiiribly guided by any fA'/^7«//cpow- . 
 " er, though it v/ere even divine." And much more 
 to the fame cffecl is to be found in various parts of 
 
 our 
 
 ''■■ Benev. of the Deity ^ P. 219. f Ibid. 
 
with reference to his ideas of human liberty, -242 
 
 our author^s v/ritlngs. Indeed it Is indifputably his fcheme 
 of liberty and moral agency, that if any power or caufe 
 extrinfic to the will itfelf, iiiould either certainly and ef- 
 fe^ually reftrain free agents from perverting their facul- 
 ties to lin and vice ; or certainly and effeSJually influence 
 them to exercife their faculties in repentance and virtue, 
 or in any one way ; it v/ould be entirely inconuftent ^Yith 
 liberty and moral agency. 
 
 That Do6lor C. alio held, that the future repen- 
 tance and falvation of all men, is certain, and that this 
 certainty is caufed and eirabliihed by a caufe extrinfic to 
 the will of all men, is evident in the foJlowing palTages 
 out of many,* *^ God — really meant — an engcgtment , that 
 *^ mankind univerfally Ihould, in due dme — refemble Abra- 
 '^ ham in his moral temper — which is the fame thing with 
 ^^ their beinc? bleffed in Chrift, or being reduced ey him 
 '^ under moral fubjeftion to the government of God/'f 
 ''- They'' (all men) ** will be -jurought upon fooner or la- 
 '^ ter in a moral way, fucli an one as is adjulted to moral 
 *' aaents, to become righteous perfons/':|: ^' It is abfo* 
 '^ lu'tely declared in this pafiage of fcripture, that they 
 *' ihallbe /?z<^i^ righteous,'' — ** Unlefs they are thus made 
 '' righteous"&c. — ''God— has f.hfokteiy 2Lnd unconditionally 
 *^ determined— th^t all men, the whole race of lapfed Adam 
 '' fiiail fmaily reign in life, and be prepared for that flate, 
 *' by being /6rw(f///w/o righteous perfons." I! '' It is the 
 ^' purpofe of God — that mankind univerfally— ihvll cer- 
 '^ tainly and finally be faved." He fpeaks§ of fome per- 
 
 fons as *' infaUihly feleciied for falvation." In thefe 
 
 paffages it is manifelt, that Dr. C. Iield, not onVf an ahfi- 
 lute infallihle certainty of the falvation of fome, yea of all 
 men ; but that tliis certainty is eilabhlhed.by God, and is 
 the effecl of his determination, and alfo, that all men 
 will finally be brought 10 repentance, to '^ the moral teni- 
 '^ per of Abraham,'' *' to a moral fubjefcion to the go- 
 '* vernment of God;" and tbat they faall be *' made , 
 *' righteous," and ^' /brmc^// ?Vz2'o righteous perfons :" all 
 which exprefhons imply a caufe extriniic to the will of 
 man, which caufe effectually and certainly operates to 
 lead him to repentance, or to an '' exercife in one certain 
 *' way only.'^ How thefe things can be reconciled with 
 
 1 i'' the 
 
 * P. 244. t P- 85. X P. 86. i| P. 22. § P. 231. 
 
241 Di' Os fcheme cfinjldcredy 
 
 the Doctor's avowed principles of liberty and moral agci* 
 cy, is hard to be conceived. 
 
 Nor was it through inattention, that the Doctor helvi 
 an extrinlic caufe certainly operating on the minds of men. 
 It is a doctrine elTential and important in his fcheme, that 
 all the damned will be finally and certainly brought to re- 
 pentance, and brought to repentance by the torments of 
 hell too. Are not thofe torments a caufe extrinfic to the 
 human will? If that caufe be certainly effeclual to lead the 
 damned to repentance^ what, on the Doclor's plan, becomes 
 of their moral agency ? If that caufe be not certainly ef- 
 fectual to lead them all to repentance ; it is not certain that 
 all men will be faved So that on the plan of the Doc- 
 tor's book, either his grand doclrine of the final certain 
 falvation of all men, by a difciplinary punifhment, mud be 
 given up, or it muft be fuppofed, that all who are in that 
 way faved, are diveiled of their moral agency and are re- 
 duced to mere machines. 
 
 Indeed if the falvation of all men be certain, and it be 
 certain that all men v/ill repent ; it is by fome caufe or 
 other made certain. That which is how a certam futurity , 
 was a certain futurity from the beginning ; yea fr©m eter- 
 nity. As it is now a certain futurity, that Chriit will come 
 to iudoment, fo it was certain from the bepinninp-. There- 
 fore if it be now a certain futurity, that all men will re- 
 pent and be faved, it was a certain futurity from the be- 
 ginning ; and that certainty was efrabiiihed by fome caufe : 
 and that caufe muft have been extrinfic to the wills of 
 men ; becaufe both the certainty and the caufe of it ex- 
 ited before the cxiitenceof men or their v/ills. — So that 
 if it be a real and certain truth, that all men will be faved, 
 to prove which. Dr. C. wrote his whole book, it is equal- 
 ly certain on his plan, that all men are diveiled of their 
 moral agency. 
 
 Should it be flill pleaded, that this certainty of the fal- 
 vation of all men, is not efiecced by any caufe extrinfic to 
 the wills of thofe, who arc to be laved, but by their wills 
 themfelves ; the abfurdity of this fuppofition mull be gla- 
 ring to every man on the flighteit relieclion. A great part 
 of thole who arc to be i'avcd, are not as yet in exiftence : 
 and it will not be pretended that their wills can have pro- 
 duced an cffecl:, or eflablilhed a certainty, before they 
 ^xift. And doubtlefsDr. C. and other univerfalifts would 
 
 allow. 
 
^ifh reference to his Ideas of human liberty. 243 
 
 allow, that the falvation of thofe who are in exiftence, 
 was as certain before tl^ir exiflence, as the falvation of 
 thofe is^ who are in future to come into exiftence. But 
 chat certainty could not, for the reafon already mentioned, 
 jbe the effefl of any exertion of their own wills. 
 
 Beside ; if it were not for this abfurdity, a certainty 
 eflabliflied by the will of man with refpedl to the will it- 
 {t\^, as efieclually binds that will, and is equally incorfifl- 
 ent with its liberty, as if that certainty were cftablilhed 
 by any other caufe. Suppofe the will of any man iball 
 eflablilh in itfelf a certain and unfaiUng bias to any particu- 
 lar adion or feries of aclions ; it cannot be pretended that 
 this fixed bias already ellablifhed, is any more confident 
 <with liberty and moral agcnc)'^, in the man in whom the 
 bias exiits, than if it had been eftabliflied by any other 
 caufe. If a man were to cut off his own leg, though he 
 snight be more blamable for the ad; of cutting it off, than 
 lie would be for the fame aft performed by another ; yet 
 the effeft, as to his fubfequent inabihty to walk, would be > 
 the very fame. 
 
 Therefore whatever be the caufe of the certainty and 
 fixed futurity of the repentance and falvation of all men ; 
 the do6lrine of the certain falvation of all men, is on Dr. 
 C's plan of liberty, wholi}'' inconfiftent with human liber- 
 ty, and implies that all men are, and ever have been, mere 
 -anachines. 
 
 In vain does Dr. C. endeavour to relieve this difficulty, 
 hy obferving in various paffages, as in one of the quota- 
 tions above. That this repentance is brought about ^* in 
 *' a moral way, fuch an one as isadjufled to moral agents. '* 
 For he ha^told us that fuch exertions of the Deity, as 
 fhall be certainly effe^ual to reftrain free agents from per- 
 verting their faculties, and fuch an influence of any ex- 
 trinfic power, 'motives or whatever, as fliall unavoidably- 
 put their faculties into exercife in one way only, iire not 
 adjufted to moral sgents ; but are inconfillent Vv-ith iheir 
 proper powers. Therefore, according to the Doctor, it ' 
 is not in the power of the Deity himfelf, certainly and in- 
 fallibly to lead all men, in a moral way, to repentance. It 
 is a diredl contradiftion. And though he obferves,* That 
 that being who is infinitely perfeft will be able, in a moral 
 way, finally to counteract human obftinacy ; he is utterly 
 
 iiiiflaken, 
 ^' P. 167. 
 
144 ^^' ^^-^ fcheine conjidered 
 
 miflaken, if there be any truth in his idea of liberty. If 
 God were to overcome hunmn oblbnacy, an extriniic caufe 
 would effeftually and certidnly incline the human faculties 
 to an exercife in one way ; which the Dodlor fays is incon- 
 nUent with moral agency. 
 
 The Doctor tells U5;,f that to '' reprefent hell to the 
 '•' view of ilnners in fuch a linking light, as that they Ihould 
 '' be irrefifliibly liopped in their wicked purfuits, v>^ould 
 '' not comport with their free agency." Yet he fuppofes, 
 that to be in hell, and to feel its torments fo ftrikingly as 
 to be certainly and i}ifuil:!>Iy {[op]yed in wicked purfuits, and 
 thus to be brought to repentance, is to be brought to re- 
 pentance in a moral v/ay, entirely comporting with J&:ee 
 agency. 
 
 Ui'ON' Dr. C's plan of liberty, there not only is not, 
 and cannot be, any certainty, that all men will be faved ; 
 but there is nor, and cannot be, any certainty that any 
 fiwf man will be faved. The Divine Beino- himfelf cannot 
 make it certain, without deflroying moral agency. Not 
 any of the promifes of the gofpel give us aiTurance of the 
 falvation of any man : nor is it in the power of God to 
 give a promife of falvation which fhall infure the event, fo 
 long as men remain moral agents. Therefore it was to no 
 purpofe that Dr. C. quoted fo many promifes and fcrip- 
 tural declarations to prove the falvation of all men. 
 
 On the fame hypotheiis concerning liberty, even though 
 all men were delivered from hell and admitted to heaven, 
 there would be no certainty that they would continue 
 there. They would be conftantly liable to fm anew, and 
 hnn(.r on themfclves a fecond damnation. To deny this, 
 would be, to allow that their faculties inight confiflently 
 with moral agency, be certainly and ^jce*^/)/ inclined, to 
 '' exercife themfelves in one way only.'^ 
 
 TiiAT the inhabitants of heaven are liable to fin and 
 damnation, is actually allowed by honel-t Billiop Newton. 
 *^ This life is indeed a llatr of trial, J but not a trial to fix 
 " our fate forever, without any poffibility of changing 
 *' for better or for worfc, in the world to come. For if 
 *' the righteous can be but righteous, and the wicked can 
 *' be but wicked, and Cannot act otherwife ; there is an 
 *' utter end of all freedom of will and morality of aftion. 
 
 '' Their 
 
 t P. 34.4, 2^5' t Se^ Ncwlon's works, voL VI. p. 361. 
 
'With reference to his ideas nf hianaji Uheriy, 245 
 
 *' Their virtue ceafes to be virtue, and their finis no longer 
 
 ^< fin.'' " The fcripture ^alTures us, that in the next 
 
 *^ hfe ii:ien will be made (Luke XX. 36.) equal unto the 
 '^ angels ; but aneels, we know, have apoilatizcd and 
 ^^ and fallen ; and why may not men, even when made 
 
 '^ equal unto the angels ? If righteoufnefs f fliould 
 
 *^ degenerate and become wickedneis ; or if Vy-ickednefs 
 ** fhould amend and become righteoufnefs; the tables 
 *' would then be turned, and wdth the change of their 
 ** nature, their ftate and condition would be changed too." 
 How then is it certain that all men will be finally holy and 
 happy ? It neither is, nor can poiUbly be certain ; be- 
 caufe certainty in this cafe would imply that ^' the 
 *'■ righteous can be but righteous;" and fo ^' there would 
 ^' be an utter end of all freedom of will and morality of 
 " adion." 
 
 What then becomes of the bcaftcd evidence of the 
 final falvation of all men ? There is no certain evidence 
 of it. There is not, nor can be, on this fcheme of liber- 
 ty, any certain evidence but that all men will finally apof- 
 tatize, and of courfe be doomed to mifery correfpondentto 
 their wickedncfs. 
 
 It is true, the Biiliop abundantly contradicl:s this fenti- 
 ment concerning liberty, and holds that the damned miufi: 
 repent, and cannot but repent, as in the following paiTa- 
 ges ; '^ It is jmpoffihlc for any creature to live in eternal 
 
 *' torments If nothing elfe yet his own fenfations and 
 
 *^ feelings mufi bring him one time or other, to an ac- 
 '' knowledgement of his fin and of his duty.'' J — ** The 
 '^ fire miffi: in time purge av/ay and confume the drofs and 
 *' leave o^nly the gold behind. No creature can he {o totally 
 '^ depraved and abandoned, as to holdoutunder the mod 
 ^^ exquifite tortures, obfiiinateand obdurate to all eternity. 
 
 *' In ihort, if they have any {cn^e. or feeling, any rea- 
 
 ^^ fon* or underfi:anding, any choice or free-will, they rmift 
 '^ one time or other, Iboner or later, he brought to repent- 
 '^ ance.''^\ *' Tortures upon tortures, tortures without 
 ** end, no creatures of the leafl: fenfe or feeling can fup- 
 <* p'jrt ; hut jvuj? all be brought to fuhm'ijjion at lad : and 
 *<■ they had much better make a virtue of necefflty^-^j — 
 Virtue then is confident with necefiity. Hov/ is this 
 
 idea 
 
 * P. 362. t P- 3<^o- X ^' 3^2. li P. 364. j P. 366. 
 
44- EvcrlnJJing, forever ^ forever tend evsr^ 
 
 idea confident with what has been before quoted from this 
 fame authqr ? But inconfillence and felf co>itradidion re- 
 lieve no difficulty. 
 
 From the fame h^^pothefis it follov/s tliat God himfelf 
 does not and cannot poihbly govern mankind with certain- 
 ty; that there is no foundation to pray for any event 
 whicli depends on the volitions of our own minds, or 
 thofe of other men ; that there is no crround for confidence 
 in the divine providence ; and that it is impoffible that any 
 future free adion$ of men, or any events depending oa 
 thofe actions, fhould be certainly foretold, or even fore- 
 known by God himfelf ; becaufe what is abfolutely un- 
 certain, caiuiot be certainly known, and what is certainly 
 known is certainly fined and determined. Ijut it is not 
 con*i(l:ent with my defign to enlarge on the endljfs atfurd- 
 ities of thisTcheme of human liberty, abfurditi':s from 
 which, though long hnce poinded out to belong to that 
 fcheme, the ablell advocates for it, have not been ablc^ 
 and it is prefumed never v/ill he able, to clear it. 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 
 
 ^A rH-ly to Dr, C's anpwsrs to the argtimeitts in favour of 
 endlrfs p'unlfhment, drawn from thofe texts, "jjhich declare 
 
 , ihs punrfhmtnt of the damned to be everlailing, forever, 
 forever and ever, and the fire ^f hell to be unquenchable , 
 
 DOCTOR C. fays,* that the mifery of the damned is 
 faid to be eternal or rjsrlafting, in five texts only in 
 all the New Teftament. Whatever was intended by this 
 ambiguous propofition, the facl doubtlefs is, that many oi 
 his readers have been grolily deceived by it, as they have 
 been led to believe, that the dodrine of endlefs punifiiment 
 is apparently taught, in no more than five texts in all the 
 New Tcftament ; or that no more than five texts can be 
 produced, the words of which feem to import an endlefs 
 punifiiment^ Whereas, all that Dr. C. or any man can 
 pretend is, that the puaiihment of the damned is in five 
 
 texts 
 * P. 258. 
 
^f/r« endlefs duratioic. 2.47j 
 
 «cxti orily, in the New Teftament, aiTerted to be eterna!^ 
 by the ufe of the adjective «/«?/«,-, commonly traniiatcd 
 tternal or ivsrlafting. It cannot be pretended, but that 
 the texts in which the punishment of the damned is in Tome 
 manner or other declared to be eternal, and in words as 
 determinate, as the adj«aive, *«v.o?, eternal, far exceed 
 the xvMTahtv five. The live texts now referred to^ do not 
 comprife itny of thofe, in which the damned are laid to be 
 punifned forever, forever and ever ; to be punifhed by a 
 worm that dieth not, and a £re that is net quenched ; to 
 be confined by an impalTable gulf ; to be (liut out from the 
 iingdo.n cf heaven; not to fee life, &c. &c. occ. 
 
 Nov.- \^harfoilov/3 from this circumilance, tiiat the pu- 
 niihmen: of the damned is in five texts only, in the New- 
 Teilament, declared to be eternal, by the application of 
 the Greek adjective, »:iu>uti ? It may ftiil be declared to be 
 eternal, by other v/ords equally determinate, in above five 
 hundred texts. 
 
 Or if there wsre no other texts, cxpreifing in other 
 words, endlefs puniihment ; are not five divine alTevera- 
 tions of any truth, fufficient to bind our faith ? If five be 
 Xiot fuiTxient for this end, neither are five thoufand. 
 
 Besides; al! that Dr C. fays on this head, may be 
 jufdy retorted ; and if his obfervations in paae 259, 260, 
 be of any force to ihow, that the dodrine of endlefs pu- 
 nifnment is not taught in the fcriptures ; jufk as forcibly 
 may it be proved, that the damned v/illnot be punifiied for 
 an apre. SuppoiinG:, as Dr. C. does, that the words 
 *i/«v, «/<vy/cf, &c. do not mean an endlefs duration, but ttie 
 duration of an age ; I might fay, '' The mifery of the 
 ** wicked is faid to be for an age^ in only five texts, in all 
 '* in all the New Teltanaent : Upon v.hich I cannot help 
 ** making a paufe to exprefs my furprize to find the facred 
 *' wrijters fo very fparing in the ufe of this word age, as 
 *^ referring to future torments. It is ufed but three times 
 *' by Matthew ; but once by Mark ; but once by Paul ; 
 ^' and not once by the other v.riters of the Nev/ Tefla- 
 *^ ment. All which is very extraordinary, if it be a doc- 
 *' trin£: of ChrilViunity, that the wicked are tobepuniihed 
 
 '' fir an &gc. And the omiffions of the facred writers 
 
 '■' upon this head, are a Ifrong prefumptive argument, 
 ^'- that they knew nothing of this doarine, which has been 
 i' fo reheaicatly pleaded for in thefs latter days,-' by Dr. 
 
 C. and 
 
248 Everlajllngy forever j forever and ever] 
 
 C. and fome others. Tlierefore, whenever it fliall be 
 proved, that notwithftanding the rare ule of the word age, 
 with a reference to the pnniihment of the wicked, that 
 punilhment will really laft for an age ; it is prefiimed, that 
 it can be proved from the lame topics, that it will laffc witk-^ 
 
 out end. If a word, iignifying an age, applied five 
 
 times to future punilhment, prove that punifhment to con- 
 tinue for an age ; why will not a word iignifying an end- 
 lefs duration, applied five times to that punilhment, prove 
 it to be without end ? Nothing therefore can be concluded 
 from the number of times, a/«v;5c, eternal, is applied to 
 future puniflnnent. The whole queftion, in thisftate of it, 
 depends on the proper meaning of the word ; not at all on 
 the frequency of its ufe. 
 
 T)k, C. fiiys,* '' That «.'av and tf;a.'v/oj may fignify a 
 " limited duration ;-" and that *' from this remark it fol- 
 ** lows, that the preceding evidence in favour of univer- 
 *•' ial falvation, remains flrong and valid/' It is acknow- 
 ledgsd, tj|atif thofe Vv'ords may iignify, and all things con- 
 fidered, do as probi.bly Iignify, a limited, as an unlimited 
 duration, when applied to the punifliment of the wicked ; 
 nothing either for or againil: endlelis punifhment, can be 
 concluded from the ufe of thofe words. It is alfo, on the 
 Time luppofitions, acknowledged, that by that application of 
 thofe words, the evidence which Dr. C. has exhibited in 
 favour of the falvation of all men, is not at ail impaired. 
 But it is not granted, .that thofe words, when applied to 
 r.\\Q punilhment of the wicked, do as probably fignify a 
 limited as unhmited duration. Nor is it granted that Dr. 
 C's evidence of univerfal falvation is vahd. Though we 
 ihoald grant that it remains uninipaired by the words «>«ir 
 and *.:.v;oc, eternity and eternal; yet it may be utterly 
 invalidated by other confiderations : and that this is in fad 
 the cafe, I have endeavoured already, and fnali further en- 
 deavour to fliovv ; how fuccefsfully, is' fubmitted to the 
 reader. 
 
 Ti^E Doctor manifeRly argues, on this head from pof- 
 fi[)ility to probability, and even to faft. He fays,t -' If 
 « «<;6v,of fyiciy fignify a period of time only, there is not a 
 •' /hadow of an interference between its connexion with 
 *' the punilhment of wicked men, and their being finally 
 *' idwec y i. e. If it may pollibly fignify a period of time 
 
 only, 
 
 ♦ P. 260. t P. 261. 
 
^tan endkfi durathn. 24^ 
 
 ©nly, it is abfolutely certain, that when it is applied to fu- 
 ture punifhmtmt, it does lignity a period of time only. 
 7'he inconcluiivenels of fuch argumentation rauil be mani- 
 fefJ: to every reader. In the fame manner it is eafy to 
 prove, *' that there is not the fliadow of an interference 
 <^ between the connection of «/«y/oj, eternal,'* with the 
 life and happlnefs of the righteous, and their final damna- 
 
 tion. 
 
 The Dbftof* fays, '' Thefe words, «.'«v and «/«vf?c ar^ 
 
 <' evidently more loofe and general in their meaning, than 
 " the Englifh words eternity ^ everlajt'in^ — If it were not lb, 
 '^ how comes it to pafs, that ^^^i-and a.^y^i; will not alvvays 
 *' bear being tranflated eternity, everlafting?" By, the 
 fame argument it may be proved, thar the Vvords eternity 
 and everlaj}'ing in our language, are more loofe and gene- 
 ral in their meaning, than the Greek «»^v and «;«'/.';:. Vv^e 
 frequently fay, fuch a man is an everlafting talker, or he 
 talks eternally ; he is eternally flandering and quarreilmg 
 with his neighbours. Bat according to Dr. C's fenle of 
 the Greek words •'-.a;v and a^tv/c, the Engliih phrafes juil 
 mentioned cannot be properly tranflated, by the ufe of 
 thofe Greek ' words. The Doctor fays, they properly- 
 mean the duration of an age. But when it is faid, a man 
 talks eternally, the meaning is not, that he talks for att 
 
 age. The truth is, there are idioms in all languages, 
 
 which will not bear a literal trandation into any other 
 
 language. The circumftance that "-.f v, *L:u,i.f.i, will not 
 
 always bear to be rendered eternity and eternal, no more 
 proves, that they do not properly lignify the lame 
 with our words eternity and eternal, than the circumftance 
 that they^vill not alwa^/s bear to be rendered an age, and 
 during an age, proves that they do not properly lignify 
 the duration of an age. It is faid, P.om. XVI. 26. *' Ac- 
 *' cording to the commandment of the ever hfiing God, a:ccvnu 
 0:-ot/ ;*' but no man would render this, according to the 
 commandment of the God -who lives for an ^ge. 
 
 The Doctor thinks that *^ before eternal times isanimpro- 
 ^^ priety in Englifh,'' and hence infers, that rco Xpcy«v A/a-v.-av 
 Tit. I. 2, means a limited duration. It is prefumed, 
 that the Do:ror would not have objected to the propriety 
 of expreflinp- a prober eternity, by faving*, Frort eternity, 
 from everlaJHng, from etarnal ages. Yet in reality there 
 
 * P- 261. Kk 
 
^50 EverJafrmgy forever ^ forever and ever, 
 
 is as great an impropriety in thefe exprefPions, as in thaf 
 which the Doctor pronounces an impropriety. tJnderfto'od 
 ftridly and literally they imply, that there is a point at 
 which eternity began, and from eternity is from that point. 
 The very nle of the prepoiition/rom implies this. It im- 
 plies, that the computation is made jrom fomething, at 
 which eternity began. This fomething muft ftr icily be 
 fome time, or fome point in endlefs duration. So that 
 fr'j.n eternity taken ftridly, is as real and as great an im- 
 propriety as before eternity or before eternal times. The 
 fame is obfervable of to eternity. Yttfrum eternity and 
 to eternity y are in fad: ufed among us to exprefs an abfo- 
 lute eternity ; and how does it appear abfurd, that the 
 apolile fhould exprefs the fame idea by a phrafe, in which 
 no greater impropriety is naturally im^plied, and which may 
 as well, and in the fame way, as the phrafe s />"6777 eternity 
 and t'j eitrnityy be made properly to fignify an abfolute e- 
 ternity > The impropriety fuppofed to be in the expref* 
 fion, Before eternal times, is, that it implies a beginning 
 to eternity. The fume is implied in the expreffion from 
 eternity.' and in the phrafe to eternity it is implied that there 
 is an end to eternity. But I mean not to infill on this : I 
 do but jufl mention it, to fhow, that Dr. C's mod: fa- 
 vourite proof, that «.&v-cf means a temporary duration, 
 is Hot demonflrative. 
 
 Thffc Doctor further obferves,* '* The particles tli and 
 <( «,T5-:«.:*, are fo'uetinies added in the Septuagint, to the 
 '' word tti(,:v. Whereas, fl;'.ould we add the Englifh words 
 *' anfv/erable to thofe Greek particles, to the term eter^ 
 '' nity, it would make evident nonfenfe.''^ The Dodor 
 was miftaken : we do fay forever77/crf , forever and ever, 
 forever and/or aye. Yet no man will h^nce infer, thatin 
 our language the words forever do not properly mean 
 an endlefs duration, or thtit ferever and ever implies an ad- 
 dition to eternity. 
 
 Doctor. C. infifcs, f that '* ^ic-y and a/«v>of fignify no- 
 '' nothing more than an age, difpenfation, -period of conti- 
 '' nuance, either longer or fl.'crter ;'' That ^* it is cer- 
 ** tain, this is the fenfe in which they are commonly, 
 *' if not always ufed in the facred pages ;'' That this is 
 *^ , the frequent and almoil perpetual ufe of the v/ords — 
 '• in the facred v/ritings.'' It is by no means granted, 
 
 nor 
 
 *" P. 263. f P. 264 and 267. 
 
mean cndlefs duration. 251 
 
 Bor has the Doftor made it evident, that this is almoil: 
 the perpetual ufc of thofe words, efpecially in tlie New 
 Teftament. A/ay reckoning the reduplications of it, as 
 *t a.,cdvt; 'icit ct.,uMo>v^ to be but ifngle inilances of its ufe, oc- 
 curs in the New Teilament in one hundred an^d four in— 
 ^ftances ; in thirty-tv/o of which;, it means a temporary du- 
 ration.* In feven, it may be taken in either the tenipo- 
 rary or cndlefs fenfe.f In Ijxty-five, including ux inftan- 
 ces in which it is appHcd to future punifhraent, it plainly 
 fignifies an endlefs duration,:!: Kow then could Dr. C. 
 fay, that it is cnmmor.iy if not (ikvays ufed in the facred 
 pages, to Tignify an age or difpenfation only ? and that 
 this is alniojt the perpetual ufe of it t 
 
 But if <t^u: ufed abfolutely did generally Hgnify a mere 
 temporary duration ; it would not thence follow, that it 
 has the fame reitrid;ed llgniiication, when governed by 
 the prepoiition »';• It is never applied to future puniih- 
 
 ment, 
 
 * The places arc, Matt. XII. 32. XIII. 22, 39, 40, 
 49. XXIV. 3. XXVIII. 20. Mark IV. 19, Luke I. 70. 
 XVI. 8. XX. 34, 1^^. ka.% III. %i. Rom. XIL 2. 
 I Cor. I. 20. II. 6, tv/ice, 7, 8. Ill, 18. X. 11, 2 Cor. 
 IV. 4. Gal. I. 4. Eph. I. 21. II. 2. VI. 12. I Tim. VI. 
 
 17. 2 Tim. l\. 10. Tit. II. 12. Heb. I. 2. IX. 26. 
 XI. 3. 
 
 't The places are, Mark X. 30. Luke XVIII. 30, 
 John IX. 32. Eph. II. 7. III. 9. Col. I. 26. Heb. 
 VI. 5. 
 
 % The places arc as follows ; Matt. VI. 13 . XXL 19. Mark 
 XI.14. LnkeL33,55.JohnIV. 14, VI. 51, 58. ViiL's^;, 
 twice, ^i, 52; X. 28. XL 26. XIL 34. XIII. 8. XIV. 16. 
 Afts XV. 18. Rom I. 25. IX. 5. XI. 36.XVL 2-'. i Cor. 
 VIII. 13. 2 Cor. IX.-9. XI. 31. Gal. 1. 5. Eph. IIL* 
 11,21. Phil. IV. 20. I Tim.l. [7, tv/ice, 2 Tim. iV. 
 
 18. Heb. 1. 8. V. 6. VI. 20, VIL 17, 21, 24, 28. 
 XIII. 8, 21. I Pet. 1. 23, 25. IV. II. V. II. 2 Pet. 
 HI. 18. I John 11. 17. 2 Tohn 2. P.ev. 1. 6, iS. IV. o, 
 10. V. 13, 14. VIL 12. X. 6. XL 15. XV. 7.XXIL 
 
 5 The fix tnftances in vjJnch it is applied to future pu- 
 
 nifimerit, arir, Mark IIL 29. 2 Pet. IJ. 17. lud. n. 
 Rev. XIV, II. XIX. 3. :\X. 10, 
 
252 'Everlafling^ forever, forever and ever, 
 
 nicnt, but in this conftructicn. In the whole New Teila- 
 ment, it is ufed in this roni^ruftion, fixty-one times, in 
 lix of which it is appHed to iature punilhriient.'* That in 
 all the remaining iifty-iive it is ufed in the endlefs fenfe, I 
 appeal to the reader. If in thole fifty-five inftanccs it be 
 ufed in tiis endiels fenfe ; this lurely is a ground of flrong 
 prciumption, that in the fix inflances^ in which it is ap- 
 plied to future punilhment, it is ufed in the fame fenfe. 
 
 The adjsctiv^e « e-.cf is Itill more unfavourable to Dr. 
 C'sfyftem^ than the fubilantive a/^v. It is found infeventy- 
 one places in the whole New Teftament ; fixty-lix, be- 
 fide the iive in which Dr. C. allows it is applied to future 
 punifjimcnt.f In every one of the nxty-fix infcances. ex- 
 cept two, 2 Tim. i. 9: and Tit. 1. 2 ; it may, to fay the 
 leaf!:, be underftocd in the endlefs fenfe. If befide the 
 two inflances juft mentioned, Rom. XVI. 25. Philem. 15. 
 Heb. VI. 2 ; and Jude 7, Ihould be 'pleaded, which!' 
 think are all that any univerfalill will pretend do contain a 
 
 limited 
 
 "^ hi this confi ruction it is found in ell the texts mentioned 
 in the hijl marginal note, except Acti XV. 18. Eph. III. 
 II, 21. Once in i 71m. I. 17, and 2 Pet. III. 18. 
 
 I have been thifs particular in noting all the texs, in ivhich 
 «;«v ocrtirs in the Nem Teftament, that the reader nray ex- 
 ar.vDie the?:! and judge for himfelf^ ivhether I have given a jvfl 
 repreftntatton of the ufe of that ".vord by the infpired writers, 
 
 t The places are, Matt. XIX. 16, .29. XXV. 46. 
 Mark X. 17. 30. Luke X. 25. XVI. "9. XVill. 18, 
 50. John III. 15., 16, 36. IV. 14, 36. V. 24, 39. VI^ 
 27, 40, 47, 54, '68. X." 28. All. 25, 50. XVII.' 2. 3. 
 Ad-s Xlii. 46, 48. Roin. II. 7. V. 21. VI. 22, 23. 
 XVI. 25, 26. 2 Cor. IV. 17. i3. v.- I. Gal. VI. 8. 
 2l'hcfr. II. 16. I lim. I. 16. VI. 12, 16, 19. 2 Tim. 
 I. 9. II. 10. Tit. I. 2, twice. III. 7. Philem. 15. 
 Heb. V. 9. VI. 2. IX. 12, 14, 15. XIII. 20. I 
 Pet. V. 10. 2 Pet. i. II. I John ). 2. If. 25. III. 
 
 15. V. II, 13, 20. Jud. 7, 21. Rev. XIV. 6 
 
 Thefive texts in which Dr, C. allows a'^<M'/o? to be applied te 
 future pimfhment are, Matt. XVIll. 8. XXV.. 41, 46. 
 Mark 111. 29. a ThelT. I. 9. To -vjhkh is to ke added ^ 
 Jude 7, 
 
mean endlefs duration. 75^5 
 
 limited fenfe ; itmaybe obferved concerning Rom. XVI. 25, 
 that y.ji^'lr.^tnv Xo/oic a.&<;;o/; T*y lyyiy.ivau may, With at Icaft as 
 great truth and propriety, be rendered ^^ myflery kept 
 *' fecret during the eternal or unlimited pail ages, orfrora 
 *' eternity,'' as, ^^ myftery kept iecret fmce the world 
 
 '' began." The literal conltruclion of Philem. 15, 26, 
 
 is, " That thou mighteil receive him eternal, no longer 
 '^ as a fervant, but above a fervant, a brother ;" or more 
 briefly thus ; " That thou mighteil receive him as an 
 ** eternal brother.'' That Onefmius Vvas, in the endlefs 
 fenfe, become an eternal brother to Philemon^ and that 
 as fuch he ought to be received by Philemon, cannot be 
 difp^jtcd; provided they both Vv-eie, as the apoille iup- 
 
 pofed them to be, real Chriilians. The final judgment 
 
 intended in Heb. Vi. 2, may with the fame^ propriety be 
 called an endlefs judgment, becaufe it refers to an eiidiefs 
 duration to foHow ; as it may be called the judgm.ent 0/ 
 an age cr dtfp^nfatkny becaufe it refers to an age or di\i'- 
 
 pcnfation v/hich fliall thei> have been pall.-- As to the 
 
 fire fuffered by the Sodomites, if the text mean the fire 
 of hp]I, then |ude 7, is to be added to the five texts, in 
 which it is acknowledged «.-«:'/o: refers to future puniih- 
 inent. If it mean the fire in which they and their city 
 were confumed in this world, it can be called eternal, or 
 */'fv;o-, withrefpe^- to the eifecl onl/ : and to fay that this 
 eiFetl is to lafl for a hmited tim.^ only, is the lame as to fiiy, 
 that the Sodomites are finally to be faved ; which is to beg 
 the grand queflion. 
 
 As to 2 Tim. 1. 9, and Tit. I. 2, without infifting on 
 what has been obferved in page 249, 250, if i'. fhouid be 
 granted, that in thefe two mitances «/«••• oe is ufed in a li- 
 mited fenfe, I conceive no injury would reiult to the doc- 
 trine for which 1 plead. It will not be difputed that the 
 words eternal' znd everlaffing in our language, are fomjC- 
 times ufed in a limited fenfe : and perhaps no book written 
 in the Englifh language, efpecially written by fo many dif- 
 ferent authors, and at I'uch diilant times, as the New Tef- 
 tament, can be found, in Vvhich the word eternal is ufed 
 feventy times, and not twice at lead in ihe limited fenfe. 
 
 As the proper meaning of the word et/^""/'?: is lo much 
 infilled on by Dr. C. and sshe triumphs in the idea, that 
 It is almofl . perpetually, by the facred writers, ufed in 
 the Hmited fenfe, I muil beg the patience of the reader, 
 
 while 
 
/i^4 Kverlafl'ing, forever , forevsr and ever, ^ 
 
 while I defcend to the confideration of the particular texts, 
 in which it occurs. In fort3^-ibur of the forementioned 
 lixty-fix texts, «.«••/:: is applied to the future life of the 
 righteous, and therefore is ufed in the endlefs fenfe. If 
 this be not allowed, it will follow, that there is no pro- 
 niife^ no feeurity of s.n endlefs life to the righteous, or to 
 any of mankind, and of courfe univerfal faivation muft be 
 given up ; as fiiall be more particukrly fhown prefenily. 
 In Luke XVI. o, it is applied to the celeiHal habitations 
 of the righteous : in 2 Cor. IV. j;^ to the future glory 
 of the righteous : in 2 Cor. V. i, to their houfe in hea- 
 ven : in 2 TheiT. II. 16, to their confolaticn : in 2 Tim. 
 II. 10, to their future glory : in Kcb. V. 9, to their fai- 
 vation : in Ileb. iX. 15, to their future inheritance. 
 That in theic feven inftances it is ufed in the endlefs fenfe, 
 \vill doubtlefs be granted, by all thcfe who allow this to 
 be the fenfe of it in the preceding fcrtj-four. in Pleb. 1 X. 
 22, it is applied to the redemption of Chrid : in Heb. 
 Xlll. 20, to the covenant of grace : in Rev. XlV. 6, 
 to the gofpel. That in thefe three inftances, it is ufed in 
 the endlefs fenfe, it is prefumed, there can be no difpute 
 among Chriftians. The fenfe is frill more determinate, 
 when it is applied to the Deity or his perfeftions, as it is to 
 God himfelf, in Rom. XVI. 9: to the divine povrer, in 
 2 Tim. VI, 16: to the divine glory, in i Pet. V. 10; to 
 
 the Koly Ghoft, in Heb. IX. 14 In 2 Cor. IV, 18, it 
 
 is applied to things unfeen, as oppofcd to things feen : and 
 to fuppofe, that in this inftance it means the duration of 
 an age or difpenfation only, would dcftroy all oppofition 
 between things feen and things unfesn ; bccaufe many of 
 the former continue for an age or difpenfation, as well as 
 the latter. The bare writiufr of this pafTage, fo as to ex- 
 prefs a limited duration, fumcicntly confutes that fenfe : 
 thus, *^ The things which are feen, are temporal ; but 
 '^ the things which are unfeen, continue for an age or dif- 
 
 ^' penfation.'*' In 2 Pet. I. 11, «irrvt.f, is applied to the 
 
 kingdom of Chrilt. I am aware, that the believers in 
 Dr. C^sbook, will hold, that in this inilance, it is ufed 
 in the limited £erS(tf becaufe according to that book, the 
 kingdom of Chrift is of mere temporary continuance. To 
 aflert this however is a mere begging of a quefliion in dif- 
 putc. Tkjt tHis kingdom is not of mere temporary con-- 
 
 tinuance 
 
vie an endlefs iuraimt, *J5_J 
 
 tinuance, feme reafons have been urp-ed to fhow.* How 
 forceable thofe reafons are, is fubai^itted to the reader.-— 
 Nov/ thefe texts, together with 2 Tim. I. 9. Tit. I. 2. 
 Kom. XVI. 25. Philem. i^. Heb. VI. 1, and Jude 7,whiGh 
 were before confidercd, m:ike up the whole fixty-lix. 
 
 FoK. the truth of this account cf the ufe of «/&5»«cc in th© 
 New Teilament, I appeal to all who are acquainted with 
 the Greek teflainenr, or are capable of examining it. And 
 if «/f- v«5f be ufcd feventy one times in the whole ; fixty- 
 fix times befide thofe iiiiiiances, in which it is allowed to 
 be applied to future punifiiment : and if in all thofe fix- 
 ty-lix iuiiances, except two, it certainly mean, or at leall 
 may fairly and mcf^: naturally be underftood to mean, an 
 endlefs duration : if in all, except {ii;., it muft ncceflarily 
 be underilood in the endlefs fenle; what are we hence na— 
 turally, and n;ay I not fay, necelTariiy, led to conclude, 
 concerning thofe inflances, in which it is applied to the 
 punifhnient of the wicked ? Doubtlefs that in thofe inftan- 
 ces too it is ufed in the endlefs fenfe. 
 
 But what arc we to think of Dr. C's faying, that this 
 word is, in the {acred pages, moft frequently and almoft 
 perpetually J ufed in the limited fenfe ? With all his parade 
 of Greek learning, and oi a thorough acquaintance with 
 the Greek teflament, was he in reality fo little acquainted 
 with it, as to fall into fuch an egregious miilake? If it 
 fhould be here pleaded in defence of Dr. C. that he fup- 
 pofed «t./iiy-sj to be "jfed in the limited fenfe, in all thofe 
 inftanccs in which it is applied to the future hfe of 
 the righteous ; and that on this iuppofition, it is almoft 
 perpetually ufed in the hmited fenfe : it may be obferved, 
 that Dr. C. did m^tedfuppofe this; and he might as well 
 hs-wtfiippofed, that the fame word applied to future punifh- 
 ment is ufcd in the limited fenfe. This latter fcppoiition 
 would have been no more a begging of the queftion than 
 the former. But of this more prefently. 
 
 Dr. C.f thinks ^^ it is evident from the very texts that 
 ** are brought to prove the flritfi: eternity of hell-tor— 
 *^ ments, that they contain no fuch dodrine.''' This pro- 
 pofition is fupported by the following coniiderations — That 
 in two texts the word vverlajring is applied to the fire of 
 
 hell, hot to the punishment or mifery of t\iQ wicked 
 
 That fire in its own nature tends to an end, and will by 
 
 the 
 
 * See Chap. XIL P. 234, &c. f P--272. 
 
S5^ i^verlaflwg, forever, forever and ever, 
 
 the laws of nature necejTarily in time come to an end — — ^ 
 Tiiat fire powerfully tends, to bring on a diiToluiion of thofs 
 bodies that are call into it. 
 
 1. That the word everhfing is applied, in two texts, 
 to the frc, not to the pumfh?:itnt, of hell ; hence the E'oc* 
 tor infers, in words which he quotes with approbation 
 from Nichol Scoty that though ^' the fire be without end, 
 *' it will not follow, that every individual lubject^ v/hich 
 '' is caft into it, muft be fo too.'** Did the Doitor 
 then believe, that fome of the fubjeils of heil-firc >vili not 
 exiit without end, but will be annihilated ^ This ig to give 
 
 up tiie falvation of all men. Befides ; that the hie of 
 
 hell will be kept up without end, and therefore eternal 
 acres after all the fubi eels /hall be either annihilated or de- 
 livered out of it, is a mere conjeclure, unfupported by any 
 evidence from fcripture or reafon. As well might the 
 Doflor have faid, The faints will indeed be received to 
 eyerlafcinp- habitations ; the habitations will be flri^dy with- 
 out end : but th.Q Joints will, after a while, be ail either 
 annihilated or fent to hell. — What if the word everlaiting 
 be in t-n'o inilances applied to the j^r<? of hell ? In other in- 
 fiances it is appliedto the pumfiment j to the dejtrui^ton. to the 
 fm')ke of ihc'. torment y and to the torment itfelf of the damned. 
 
 Rev. XX. 10,^' And"' [they] ^^ fiiall be torrasnted, day and 
 '* night, forever and ever,'* And if, v/hen applied to the 
 fire^ itprove that to be without end, doubilefs when applied 
 to the p-jr.ifjmcnt , to .the dejhu^lon, to the tor-ment, it e- 
 qiu'illy proves them to be without end. 
 
 2. That "■ fire as fuch naturally tends to an end, and 
 '^ v.'iil, in time," by the laws of nature,'-*^ actually come 
 *' to an end.''-]- — This, like many other of Dr. C's argu- 
 ments, if it prove any thing, proves too much, and there- 
 fore really proves nothing. It depends on this very falfe 
 principle, that whatever, according to the lav/s of nature, 
 eflabliilied in this world, would, without an immediate di- 
 vine interpofition, come to an end, will certainly come to 
 an end in the future world. Now according to this prin- 
 ciple, all the bodies of both fmners and faints, in the fu- 
 ture world, as v/ejl as this, will be diilolved. Nay, as 
 their fouls too are conllantly upholden in exiilence by the 
 agency of God, and would in their own nature immedi- 
 ■Jiicly ceafc to exifl:, were it not for that continued agency ; 
 
 it 
 * P. 272. , -|- P. 273. 
 
mean encUefs duration; 31^7 
 
 it follows, according to the principle now under confide-, 
 ration, that all the Ibuls of both fmners and faints will ac- 
 tually come to an end, in the future world. But as this 
 confequence will be rejected, arid as it will be granted, 
 that the fouls of all men will, by the agency of God, be 
 npholden without end ; fo the fair.e agency wUl be fui5ci- 
 ent, to continue the lire of hell without end ; and that 
 y/hether it be material fire or not. If it be not material 
 fire, it does not, _ in its own nature, more tend to an end^ 
 than the fouls of men, or the faculties of thofe fouls. lif 
 it be material fire, ftill it may, as was juft now obferved, 
 be perpetuated to an abfolute eternity. 
 
 If tliis argument from the tendency of fire to an end, 
 be of any force, it will overthrow Dr. C's fcheme, equal- 
 ly as the contrary. For it is equally the tendency of all 
 the fire, of which we have any experience, to come to 
 an end, in a fhort time, as to come to an end at all. No 
 fire in this v/orld will, without new fupplies of fuel, bit for 
 ages of ages, or even for one age. But with a proper 
 fuppiy of fuel, any fire may be kept up without end. If 
 therefore we are to conclude, that the fire of hell will 
 come to an end, becaufe the fire of which we have know- 
 ledge, will without a new and ccnftant fuppiy of fuel, 
 com.e to an end ; w^ are aifo to conclude, ihat the fire of 
 liell will come to an end, before the expiration of one age. 
 
 -Indeed God can make the fire of hell lafl for an age : 
 
 and he can witli equal eafe make itlafl; without end. Nay, 
 he can make our comm.on fire lafl withoiat end. The fame 
 power which fhall make our bodies immortal, can make our 
 common fire ftriclly eternal. To this end the nature of 
 that fire n^eds no p-reater alteration, than the nature of 
 our bodies needs, to render them im.mortal. 
 
 THEDoclor informs'^ us, that he ^^ fees not but an age, 
 *^ diipenfation or period, for the continuance of this lire, 
 '• will very v/ell anfwer the full import of the v/ord ^.r.?-/ - 
 ^' c;, everlafiing ; efpecially, if we fuppofe this age to 
 '^ laft till the fire has accom.plifiied the end, for which it 
 '^ was enkindled..": — —But it is not allowed by the oppo- 
 nents of the Doclor, that the fire v^'ill ever have accom- 
 plifhed the end, for which it v/as enkindled : and to argue 
 on that fuDDofition, is to tnke for rranted, what is a-; mAich 
 Jn diipute, as any fubjedl of this whole controverly. — k^^ 
 
 L 1 adds, 
 
 * p. 274- 
 
25 S Everlaflingy forever, forever and ever, 
 
 adds, The words concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, ''They 
 '' are fet forth for an example, fuffering the vengeance 
 *'' of eternal fire," *' import no more than this, that this 
 *' fire laiied till it had accompliflied the defign of heaven, 
 <' in the defti-uction of thofe cities, for a Handing exam- 
 '' pie of the divine vengeance'\ to after ages. And the 
 fire of hell is *^ doubtlefs called everlafting for the hke 
 '* reafon." According to this then, the word everlaflingy 
 &c, applied to future punifhment, gives no evidence, that 
 that punifliment is to lail: longer, than the time, during 
 which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were in confu- 
 ming, or longer than one day : and the flood of Noah, as 
 it laited till it had accomplifhed the defign of heaven in 
 the deiiru'5lion of the old world, for a ftanding pubhc ex- 
 ample of the divine vengeance to after ages, was an eter- 
 nal flood : The deaths of Korah, Daihan and Abiram, of 
 Nadab and Abihu, of Zimri and Cofbi, &c, &c, were for 
 the fame reafons dernp.1 deaths. — But how is this fenfe of 
 everhifting confiiient with that for which Dr. C. abundant- 
 ly contends, that it fignifies the duration of an age ? And 
 if " the fire of hell be doubtlefs called everlafting,'' in 
 the former fenfe, how does it appear, that it ever is, or 
 that it can confiflently be, called everlafling in the latter 
 fenfe ? 
 
 3, '* Fire powerfully tends to bring on a folution of 
 *' continuity, in thofe bodies, that are caft into it ;" there- 
 fore the punifiiment of hell is not endlefs.** So fire tends 
 to brfncr on a diifoiution of the human body in a very fhort 
 time, in one hour, or in a much fliorter time : therefore 
 the punifliment of hell will not laft for ' ages of ages, or 
 for one age, or even for one day. This argument is juft 
 as conclulive, as that now quoted from Dr. C. He who 
 can make an human body endure the fire of hell for an age, 
 can make it endure the fame fire, for an,endlefs fucceflion 
 of ages. Therefore though fire does powerfully tend to 
 bring on a difTolution of thofe bodies, which are caft into it, 
 it by no means thence follows, either that fuch diflblution 
 will be effected in the wicked ; or that their torment will 
 ever come to an end. 
 
 The 
 
 -f- Let it he remembered, that Dr. C. is a hitter enemy to 
 vindictive ptmlfJmient, 
 ** P. 276. 
 
msan endlefs duration, 259 
 
 The Doftor proce8ds+ to argue, that future puniflir 
 ment will not be endlefs, becaufe ^' the wicked are not 
 '* faid to live always in tor?nent ivithout dying ; or that their 
 <^ bodies ihali be immortal, or incorruptible, or indifiblu- 
 *' ble : but that they fhali reap corruption, be dellroyed, 
 " perifh, undergo death.'' On this paiFage it may be re- 
 marked, 
 
 1. That by dying, corruption , drftru^ion, perifiing, the 
 fecond death, he evidently means fomething different from 
 
 torment ; as he fets thofe terms in oppofition to Lorment or 
 mifery. Yet he tells us in the very fame page, that '^ the 
 *^ fecond death, v/hich wicked men iliall pafs through, 
 '^ and their being call into the lake of fre, mean — one 
 *^ and the fame thing.'* In other parts of his book^ he 
 declares, that everlaliing deftruction evidently means mife- 
 ry ^\\ — that *' the being cafl into the furnace of fire, v/here 
 ^^ there ihall be wailing and gnalhing of teeth, means the 
 *' fame thing, in the facred dialed:, with the fecond 
 '* death,'* §— that the fcripture expreiles going through 
 the torments *' of hell, by being hurt of the fecond 
 *^ death."* 
 
 2. If by death, defiruSlion, &c, Dr. C. mean any 
 thing different from the torment of the damned, it feems 
 he muft mean, either annihilation, or a dilTolution of the 
 connection of the fouls and bodies of the damned, and 
 their tranfition from the ftate, in which they are to be im- 
 mediately after this life, to the next fucceeding ftate. if 
 he mean the former, it is indeed oppofed to their endlefs 
 mifery, and equally oppofed to their final falvation. If he 
 mean a tranfition of the damned to fome other ftate, this 
 is no proi)f againft endlefs mifery ; becaufe the Doctor 
 liimfelf fuppofes, that the damned, or lome of them at 
 leaft, will pafs through feveral fucceeding ftates of mifery. 
 And let them pafs through ever fo many fucceedmg ftates, 
 there is no evidence ariling from this bare tranfition, that 
 they will ever be faved. So that let the Do6lor mean, in 
 this cafe, v/hat he will, by death, dejfruftion, &c, thofe words 
 are either not at all oppofed to the endlefs mifery of the 
 wicked, or they are equally oppofed to their endlefs hap- 
 pinefs. Whether they do mean annihilation or not, has 
 been already conlidered in Chap. V. The truth undoubt- 
 edly is, what Dr. C. hirnfelf abundantly holds, though 
 
 in 
 
 iP. 277. IIP. 224. 5 P. 210. ?P. 337' 
 
<( 
 
 a 
 
 << 
 
 ado Everlajlmgy forever .forever mid ever, 
 
 in writing thispafTage, he feems to have forgotten it ; tliat 
 the death, deilrudion, corruption, fecond death of the 
 damned, is their mifery or torment, the imoke of which 
 fhall afcend forever and ever, and in which in Rev. XX. 
 ic, they are expreilly faid to he tormented forever and" 
 ever. 
 
 1,. If the exprefs words ^'^ The wicked fiiall ^/ou/j^'j- /zVe 
 in tormtnt, vjkhout dyhig,'*^ he not written in fcripture, 
 yet it is there written, that ^' they fiiall go into everlailing 
 ■' ppnifhment •/' that ''thefmoke of their torment fiiall 
 afcend forever and ever," ** that they ihzWhQiormaiied 
 forever and ever,"' ^c. In Rev. XX. lo, it is faid. 
 The devil that deceived them, was cali: into the lake of 
 fire and briniilone, where tb.e bead: and the falfe pro- 
 phet are, and they fi all be tormented daj^ and night for- 
 ever and ever ;" F«rrt!i(r6«rcvV/, in the phiral number. 
 Kow fo long as a perfon is tormented, he lives in torment 
 Without dying ; and to be tormented forever and ever, is 
 tq live always in torment without dying. What right then 
 had Dr. C. to fay, that the wicked are not faid to live al- 
 ways in torment without dying > And if the very words juft 
 quoted from Dr. C. had been infertedin the facred volLm.e, 
 they might have been explained away as eahiy as the ex- 
 prei'iionsjuilnQw quoted from fcripture, and as the many o- 
 ther declarations of endlefs torment Vv hich are there to be 
 found. It might have been faid, The vvicked, while fuch, fhall 
 indeed always live in tormenp ; but no fooner fiiail they re- 
 pent and beccme righteous, than they fnall be delivered 
 from their torment, into endlefs blifs. The riphteousare 
 no more in the very words faid to be immortal in happinefs, 
 than the wicked are laid to be immortal in mifery ; and 
 fnall we therefore deny, that they are to be immortal in 
 happinefs? If it had been faid, that the Vv'icked fhall be 
 incorruptible or indiilbluble in mifery, it might have been 
 pleaded, with as much plauhbility, as attends many of 
 Dr. C's pleas, that this meant, that while they are in 
 mifery, they arc incorruptible, ccc, not that they Ihall 
 without end remain in miferv. 
 
 The Doftor tells us,* that ^' the texts v/hich join «/«- 
 '^ v-'.f, everlajlir.g^ with the mifery of the wicked, are ve- 
 '^ ry few in comparifon with thofe, which join v/ith it a 
 *■'■ dinblution_, deitruction, or death. '^ That this obferva- 
 
 tion 
 
 ^ P ^ 
 
 79- 
 
mean endlefs duration, 261 
 
 tion may be at all to the purpofe, it ought to be fiiown — - 
 I. That dellruftion^ death, kc, as applied in Icripttire to 
 the damned, are inconriitent with their endlefs mileiy, 
 and are not at the fame time, eqnaliy inconfiflent with 
 
 their final falvation. 2. That whenever there is a feem- 
 
 ing inconullency between feveral paiTages of fcripture, and 
 to relieve the difficulty, we are neccihtated to underfland 
 fome of them in a figurative fenfe ; we are to determine, 
 that the truth is according to the literal tenor of the grea- 
 ter number, and that the minority, as in popular aiTemblies, 
 is always to give way to the majority, and complaiiantly 
 fubmit to a figurative conllruclion. 
 
 A VIEW has now been taken of Dr. C's arguments to 
 prove, that a/- y eternity and ^/av/ic, eternal^ do not in the 
 facred writings properly mean an endlefs duration. Con- 
 cerning the validity of thofe arguments, it is the province 
 of the reader to judge. 
 
 We are next to attend to the Doclor's anfwer to the 
 argument drawn from the circumftance, that the iame word 
 in fcripture is ufed to exprefs the duration of the mifery of 
 the wicked, as is ufed to exprefs the duration of the hap- 
 pinefs of the righteous, and that in the fame text ; as Mat. 
 XXV. 46 ; *' Thefe (hall go away into eternal punishment, 
 but the rip-hteous into eternal life.'' 
 
 The Doctor's firft anfwer to this aroument is, that the 
 irate next fucceedhig the prefent, is not final, either with 
 rcfpect to the wicked or the righteous : and therefore the 
 word eternal f even when applied to the life of the righteous, 
 means not an endlefs duration.* For this hypochefis he 
 gives no new reafons, but refers us to v/hat he had faid be- 
 fore, which we have already confidered,-]- and the fnni of 
 which is, that Chrifl's kinrrdom'is not to continue without 
 end, but is at laft to be delivered up to the Father ; that 
 the .reward promifed in fcripture to the righteous is to 
 be beflowed upon them in this kingdom of Chriif ; that 
 that reward therefore cannot be Vv'ithout end. — In oppofi- 
 tion to this, i^ has been ihown, that the fcriptures abun- 
 dantly affure us, that the kingdom of Chrift is to be without 
 end ; and that whatever is i'aid in fcripture concerning 
 Chriit's refignation of the kingdom to the Father, mufc be 
 imderf^ood in a confilfency with the endiefs duration of 
 Chriil's kingdom: and an attempt was made, .to fnov.^ in 
 what fenfe of refigning the kinf^dom.; a coniiflency can be 
 preferved. 
 ■ 5 P. 282. t P- »34? ^C. FURTHER;, 
 
262 Evcrlaftingy forever y forever and ever. 
 
 Further ; the idea now advanced by Dr. C. cannot 
 be admitted, in a conliilency either with the fcriptures, nor 
 'vvith Dr. C. hinifelf. 
 
 I. Not with the fcriptures. For if Mat. XXV. 46, 
 and the many other texts, vvhich promife eternal Ufe to. 
 the righteous, do not promife thera an endlefs hfe and hap- 
 finefs, there is no promife of i'uch happineis to the righ- 
 teous in all the fcripture : and with at leaft as much plau- 
 fihiiity, as the Doctor evades the force of Mat. XXV. 46 ; 
 mz-Y the force of any text be evaded, which can be brought 
 to prove the endlefs hfe of the righteous. Let us confider 
 thofe, v/hich the Doclor fuppofes determine the future hfe 
 and happinefs of the righteous to be endlefs.* Luke XX. 
 36 ; ^^ Neither can they die any more.'' This may be eva~ 
 ded two ways ; it may be faid to mean no more, tlian that 
 they fliall not die during the -continuance of Chrifl's king- 
 dom ; and the original happily favours this conilrucVion. 
 o^Ai »Too«v*/v i''\i Jv\ct/,Ai, Neither can they die as yet ; their 
 death will be deferred till the end of Chrift's kingdom. — 
 It may alfo be evaded thus, If they cannot die any more 
 they may //V^ inm'tjery. — -i Cor. IX. 25; " But wean 
 '* incorruptible crown." True, the crown may be incor- 
 ruptible indeed ! but the poiTellor may be very corrupti- 
 ble : as Dr. C. fuppofes the ^rc of hell may be endlefs^ 
 though the wicked Ihall all be delivered out of it in time. 
 
 And when the bodies of the faints are faid to be rai- 
 
 fed incorruptible y to put; on incnrruption, immortality , &c, 
 this may m.ean indeed,- that they Ihail exift and live, but 
 not that they fliall be happy without end. — '•' We receiv- 
 *' ing a kingdom, which cannot be moved,'' Keb. XII. 
 28; the ^/;7^i/ow may indeed be immovable ; yet a great 
 
 part of they/^^/Vc?/ may be removed. 1 Pet. I. 4; -^He 
 
 *^ hath begotten us — to an inheritance incorruptible, un— 
 " defiled, and that fadeth not away." All this may be 
 true concerning the inheritance, yet all the heirs from a- 
 mong men, of that inheritance, may be removed from the 
 poiTemon of it, and in that fenfe,may fade away. — R.ev. II. 
 II; '^ He that overcometh, ihall not be hurt of the fe- 
 <^ cond death.*' He may however be hurt of the third, 
 fourth or fifth death. — Chap. xxi. 4; '^ God fhall wipe 
 '^ away all tears from their eyes, and there Ihall be no 
 *' more death." Here alio I avail myfelf of the original : 
 
 it 
 
 * P. 286, 
 
mean ejidlefs duration* C163 
 
 it may be literally rendered, '^ The death fliall not be as 
 « yet.''' — I ThefT. IV. 17; '' So ftiall we be ever with 
 '^ the Lord." The word fver, tt^vIoIs, properly fignifies 
 not encllefsly, but conflantly, conihiually , uninterruptedly. 
 In thiS fenie it is manifefljy ufed in every other inftance 
 in the New Teftament, Nor is it in anv inflance, befide this 
 I ThefT. IV. 17^ applied at all to the future flate. There-, 
 fore I Their. IV. 17, means no more, than that the faints, 
 while they are in heaven, (hall be uninterruptedly .with 
 Chrift; as John XII. 8^ means, that while v/e are in tlie 
 world, we uninterruptedly have the poor with us. 
 
 Thus by admitting Dr. C's fenfe of Mat. xxv. 46, we 
 erafe from the fcriptures every promife of endleis life and 
 happinefs to the righteous, and overthrow the golpel. — 
 Indeed Dr. C. exprellly holds, that there is no promife in 
 the gofpel of endlefs happinefs to any man ; how confii- 
 tently with himfelf, the reader will judge. § '^ The re- 
 ^^ ward promifed, under the adminiilration of Chrifl's king- 
 '^ dom, in the prefent ftate, in order to perfuade men to 
 *■ ^ become his good and faithful fubjecls, is not the final 
 " happinefs God intends to beftov/ upon them ; but the 
 '^ happinefs of that ftate, which intervenes between the 
 *^ refurreclion and God's being all in all.'' Yetf he quotes 
 the texts remarked on in the lait paragraph, and fays they 
 determine^ that the happinefs of the righteous is to be end- 
 lefs : and were not thofe texts funpofed by Dr. C. to be 
 promifes, gi^^'en under the adminiitration of Chrift's king- 
 dom, in this prefent liate, in order to perfuade men to be- 
 come his good and faithful fubjecls ? 
 
 2. Nor is Dr. C'sconlfruclion of Matt. XXV. 46, any 
 more confiftent with his own fcheme, than it is with the 
 Bible. His whole fcheme fuppofes, that all men will be 
 finally happy j and he beheved that the doftrine of final 
 happinefs is taught in fcripture. He profelTes to ground 
 his Vv'hole book immediately on fcripture. But if there be 
 no promife in fcripture, of endlefs happinefs, as is implied 
 in his conftruflion of Matt. XXV. 46 ; and as heexpredly 
 holds, in page 222 ; his v/hole Phenie fall's to the ground. 
 
 That Dr. C. does in other parts of his book, hold that 
 there are promifes o' endlefs happinefs, does not relieve 
 the matter. To be inconiillent and to ccntradid one's felf, 
 clears up no difhculty. Who is anfwerable for that incon- 
 
 fiflence, 
 
 § P. 222. t p. 286,&c. 
 
a(J4 Everlaft'tng, forever ^ forever and eiverl 
 
 lulence, I need not inform the reader. It is manifeft, thff 
 Doctor v/as driven inio this inconfiilence, by the preffure 
 of the argument from Matt. XXV. 46, That the punifli- 
 raent of the wicked is of the fame duration with the hap. 
 pinefs of the righteous, becaufe in the very fame ientencei 
 it IS faid, Tiie n icked fhall go away into everlafting pu- 
 niihmcnt, and the righteous hito everlailing life. 
 
 If there be no promife in fcripture, of final happinefs, 
 then all thofe texts from v/hicli the Doctor argues univer- 
 ial ialvation, are altogether impertinent; and prove no- 
 thing to the purpofe for which they are brought. A pro^ 
 mife is an aiTurance of tlie beftowment of fome future 
 good. If therefore, Rom. V. 12, &c, Chap. VIII. 19, 
 &c, I Cor. XV. 24, &;c, &c, be no prcmifes of endlefs 
 happinei.s, they afford no aiTurance nor evidence, that ali 
 will be finally faved. 
 
 In the lame planner in which Dr. C. reftricts Matt. 
 XXV. 46, to a limited duration, may every text from 
 which he argues univerfal falvation, be reflrifted. If the 
 life promiled in the laft quoted text, be a limited life ; a 
 life to be enjoyed before the kingdom" is delivered up to the 
 Father ; what reafon can be given why, in Rom. V. 18, 
 *^ The free gift came upon ail men to jufLification of /i/'^/* 
 the life proip.ifed is not the fame, and of the fame limited 
 
 duration? If life for a limited duration only be pro- 
 
 mifed in Matt. XXV. 46 ; then the deiiruction of death 
 for a limited duration only^ is of courfe all that is promifed 
 in the f\im.e text. And if the deftrudion of death for a li- 
 mited duration only be all that is promifed in Matt. XXV. 
 46 ; hov/ does it appear, that a deftrutJiVicn of death for 
 any more than a limited duration , is promifed in i Cor. 
 XV. 26, "• the laft enemy that Ihall be deflroyed is death f 
 
 And how flrange is it, that .Dr. C. fhould from B.om. 
 
 VlII. 21, *' The creature fnall be delivered from the 
 '^ bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the 
 *' children of Cod,'^ argue the certain falvation of all 
 men, when he himfclf holds, that the glorious liberty 
 promifed the children of God, does not mean final falva- 
 tion. 
 
 The Doctor's fecond anfwcr tothe argument from Matt. 
 XXV. 46, is founded on the fuppolition, that the iiext is 
 the final Hate with refped: to both the righteous and the 
 
 wicked; 
 
 * P- 282. 
 
mean endkfs duration, 265 
 
 kicked. II If the next i1;ate of the wicked be final, 
 
 the Doflor abundantl7 declares, that all men v/ill 
 not be faved.§ ^^ i^ the next flate is a ftate of pu- 
 nishment not intended for the cure of the patients them- 
 felves, — it is impollible all men iliould be finally laved.''* 
 If — the wicked are fent to hell as fo many abfolute incu- 
 rables, the fecond death ought to be confidered as that 
 which v/ill put an end to their exiitence, both in foul 
 *^ and body." Thus this fecond anfwerof Dr. C, whol- 
 ly -depends on the iuppofition, that the wicked are to be 
 annihilated ; and to evade the argument from ?Aat. xxv. 
 46, to prove er.dlefs punifiiment, he is neceihtated to adopt 
 thefchei-n'i of i;.nnihiIation, and thus to irive ur> his whole 
 fyfrenx of univeirfal falvacion. 
 
 Thz Doctor 7 Ives hs three reaibns to fhovv'', that even on 
 the luppoiltion, that the next is the final ilate, it v.ill not 
 foilov/, fro;n the endlefs happinefs of the righteous, that 
 the v/icked will fufter endlefs niiferv. 1 he hrll reafon is. 
 That the word evdrlcjilng, <t.a)v.ofj when applied to the 
 righteous, is rnoftly joined with the word I'^Je : whereas tiiis 
 word, when applied to the vvickcd, is never connected with 
 their Ufe, but always with the frrc', or with their dcmnatvjn, 
 
 punlfhment or deJn-uf}ion.-\ Now this obfervation is 
 
 whody impertinent, on any ether fuppofition, than that 
 the wicked are to be annihilated : for Dr. C. himfelf makes 
 this obfervation, fuppofmg that the next flate of the wick- 
 ed v/ill be final. And if it^be final, the wicked muil be 
 without end in that iiate, which is allowed by all to be a 
 
 flate of mifery ; or they mult not exifl at alL Thus 
 
 flill the Doclior is obli;red to ^rive up his favourite fchemei 
 of the falvgtion of all men. 
 
 His fecond reafon is, that it perfe6lly falls in with our 
 natural notions of the infinite benevolence of the Deity, 
 that he fhouid reward the rip-hteous \/ith endlefs life ; but 
 not that'he Ihould punifh the wicked Vv'ith endlefs mifery. t 
 But our notions of the benevolence of the Deity, are to be 
 conformed to divine revelation ; and only when they are 
 conformed to that (landard, are they right. And to fup- 
 pofe, that the endlefs mifery of thofe, who live and die in 
 wickednefs, is not agreeable to fcriptural reprefentaticns 
 of the benevolence of the Deity, is a mere begging of the 
 
 quefdon.' 
 
 M m 
 I'V, 2S3. §P. II. * P. -8:. t P. tS^. + ?. -.'^S^ 
 
a€6 EverU/Iing; forever ^ forever and roeVy 
 
 queflion. This fubjedl has already been largely confi^ 
 
 dered in Chap. VIII. 
 
 Thp: Doftor's laft reafon is, ^' That we are naturally 
 '^ and obvioully led to interpret «'«v/C5^ everlafting, wh^w 
 '^ joined with the happinefs of the righteous, in tlie> 
 *' endlefs fenfe, from other texts which detcrji:ine tliis to- 
 
 *^ be its meaning."— '' This'' adds the i^oftor, '^ I 
 
 <^ call a decifive anfwer to this branch of the objection,, 
 *' uponfuppoiition, that the next is the fmalilate of man.''* 
 Now all thofe his determinate texts iiDve been slrcady con- 
 fidered in page 262, kc ; and in view of the obferva- 
 tions there made, the reader will judge; whether thofe 
 texts do any more decifively, than the word aiu-vioc^ ever- 
 lajllr.gy prove the future liappincfsof the righteous, to be 
 without end. 
 
 To confirm his conftruction of Matt. XXV. z]6, Dr. C. 
 mentions two texts in which he fuppofes the word «.-^>v/c.f, 
 everlajthig, is in the fame fentence ufed both in the limit- 
 ed and endlefs fenfe. One is Rom. XVI. 25, 26 ; '* Ac- 
 <^ cording to the myfiery which was. kept fecret [Xroyo/f 
 
 '< «/£ov.t./c] Jincc the world began but is nov/ made ma— 
 
 <f nifeft according to the commandment ['/oy tf/«*v«oy 
 
 ** Gto!.] of the everiafling God.'' Concerning this text 
 it was before obferved, that X/^ovc/c c:/av/o;c is perfecliy ca- 
 pable of the endlefs fenfe. The myilery was kept I'ecret 
 from all eternity, or during the eternal ages which prece- 
 ded creation; or through the eternity a parte G7ite, as fome 
 call it. So that this text anfwers not the Doftor's pur- 
 
 pofe. The other text produced by the Doclor, is Tit. 
 
 I. 2, *' In hope [^A'«f -f/av/ov] of eternal life, which God 
 *' that cannot lie, promifed [^/>6 Xcovfi^v «/av/wv] before the 
 *' world began.'* On this text, it has been obferved,t 
 that there is no abfolute certaint3^, that it means a hmited 
 duration. But fuppolhig that this indeed-is an inftance to 
 the Doctor's purpole : when it fnali be made as evident 
 from the very nature of the cafe, or from any other fource 
 of evidence, that the wicked cannot be punifhed without 
 end, as it is, that God could not give a promife before 
 eternity ; doubtlefs we Ihall all give up the Doctrine of 
 endlels punifiiment. 
 
 At length we come to the Doctor's criticifm on the ex- 
 j^ve^ion forever and ever.' — —-He feems to fuppbfe, that 
 
 fixprelfion 
 
 *^ P. 287, 288. t P. 249. 
 
wean endkfs duration, 167 
 
 CxprefHon in fcripture does not refer to the future puniih- 
 mentof all the wicked, but only of '^ the worihippers of 
 '* the beail/' and to a certain ** rabble rout of men," as 
 he calls. them. Be this as it may, it equally overthrows 
 the Doclor's fcheme, as if it ever fo confefiedly referred 
 
 to the puniihment cf all the wicked. But on the fup- 
 
 pofition, that forever and ever refers to the punifnment of 
 the wicked in common, the Doctor thinks that that ^^phrafe 
 *^ is obvioudy capable cf being underftood of a limited du- 
 *^ ration."* His reafons are, That */6.y in the fingular 
 number almoft perpetually fignifies an age, or a limited 
 
 duration, § That though this word in the plural 
 
 is to be met with in feverai places in the Septuagint, yet 
 in them all it fignilies a limited duration, f -^^ like man- 
 ner the plural of «.-«•/ is mod commonly, if not always, 
 ufed, in the Kew Teftament, to point out a limited dura- 
 tion;:}: Thatf/f Ici/? «t/vv«i(r 1&-v'«/':i)v6>v is applied in R.ev.Xl. 15, 
 to the kingdom of Chriil, and therefore muit mean a. li- 
 mited duration;!} — That «/- «/«/« <«/iJvoc, and s/c l^yj AtccvxH-m 
 9;f 'oy *;av« isf a;A)vo- are alwavs in the Septuagint, to be 
 underftood in. the limited fenfe.]!!] 
 
 I. hic^v in the fmgular number almoft perpetually figni- 
 fies a hmited duration. Anfwer : It is by no means 
 
 granted, that*/-Mn the lingular almoft perpetually fignifies 
 a limitted duration ; efpecially when governed by the pre- 
 pofition £/?. In p. 250, &c, the ufe of « «^ in the New 
 i eftament, was traced, both in the fmgular and plural, 
 and it was found, that it is much more frequently ufed in 
 the endlefs, than in the limited ^en'ie. If the ufe of the 
 fingular number only be traced, in even this number it is 
 ftill moft frequently ufed in the endlefs fenfe, as the learn- 
 ed reader may fee, by. examining the texts, in which it is 
 ufed in the Greek Teftament, all v/hich have been already- 
 noted.- Dr.' C's afiertion therefore, that it almoft per- 
 petually fignifies a limited duration, is a ?7iere afertion, 
 and ftands for nothing until it fhall be proved : and to make 
 a mere affertion aground of an important confequence, is 
 not warrantable by the lav/s of reafoning and philofophy. 
 
 But if the alTertion v/ere' ever fo true, the confequence, 
 which Dr. C. thence draws, would by no m.eans follow. — 
 If *»;«v in the lingular did almoft perpetually (ignify a limi- 
 ted duration, 1% v.'culd not follow, that 0/ hk^mz Iw ffiwu- too 
 
 figniiies 
 
 * P. 295, § P. 295, t P' ^P^- t P- '2-97' !i P- 298. 
 
l68 Everla/rlngy forever, forever and ever, 
 
 figniSes a limited duration. Language is not ma'de mttii 
 phyiically by philcibphers, but by the vulgar, without me- 
 taphyilcal reaiOuing : and the meaning of particular phra- 
 fes is wholly determined by ufe, not by metaphyfical rea- 
 loning en the natural force of the words. If' therefore 
 ufe have determined «/ «/4;v«c l^v a/o-vuv to mean generally 
 or univerlally an endleis duration, this is enough to fettle 
 the prefent cueftion, let «;av mean in the fmgular what 
 it may. 
 
 Or if we muH reafon metaphyfically on this fubjedu, it 
 may be auerteu, that o a.cuv "^.v* a<feVu)vor."i«''!-y*j ''^v«/a>y&M'isno 
 abfurd or unintelligible mode of expreffing an endlefs du- 
 ration. If «;a)v fignify ^;; age, and^he phrafes juil menti- 
 oned be rendered, the age of the ages and tkc ages of the a- 
 ^^•r,^ thellriaeftphilofbphy vvill juitify ihoie "phrai^s, as 
 applied to eternity. V/chaVe no idea of eternity, but as 
 an endicfs fuccellion of ages. Therefore, that age, thofe 
 ages, or that duration, which comprehends all thofe ^^azz^i^ 
 live ages, is a proper eternity. ^i\\^ Doclor undertakes 
 to reaibn metaphyucally on this rabjed1,t and obferves, 
 that '^ a duration for eternities cf eternities, is a ve- 
 ry uncouth inoce of expreffion."- But it is not 
 
 more uncouth, thcin the exprsliion of /m tterniiy added to 
 an eternity^ or an etirnity and an tterniiy. Yet this is the 
 itnCc an.i]j/fii oi j,.rt'uer and ever^ an expreliion rendered 
 abuiiuantly proper by ufe. 
 
 One thing more ought to be obfeived, that ^/av, whe- 
 ther in the fingular or plural, governed by the prepofition 
 *'f, invariably in chc Kcw Tci-tamcnt, figniiies an endlefs 
 Ciuration. But hi the phrai'e in quemon, f^f ']ey? aiava; '/av m^ 
 yir it is governed by that prepolltioh. 
 
 2. That though «;..f£e, the plural, is met with in fe- 
 veral places in the Septu.igint, yet in them all it fignifies 
 
 a limited duration.*- Anf. i. It does not appear, that 
 
 Aiu^iii in the Septuagint always fignifies a. limited durati- 
 on ; nor is it ufed in this fenfe in all the inftances, vv hich 
 Dr. C. produces to prove, that it always means a limited 
 duration ; as Pfal. CXLV. 13. '' Thy kingdom is an e- 
 *' verlafling kingdom ; /2*(r/>.i.ct ^r^y^ajv I-a.v c^tc^uev,^' Dan. 
 II. 44; *^^ In the days of thefe kings, the God of heaven 
 
 " Ihall fet up a kingdom and it fiiail fband forever, «/f 
 
 '}kvc a.a/a;.'' Tliough the Dovftor endeavours to prove^ 
 
 that 
 t P. 297^. 298. * P. 2c;6. 
 
mean endlefs duraihn* 5169 
 
 that in tliefe texts a limited duration muft be intended, be- 
 caufe in i Cor, XV. 28, Chrift is reprefented as delivering 
 Up his kingdom to the Father ; yet it is at ieaft as clearly 
 proved by Luke I. 33, '' Of his kingdom there is no end/' 
 and the other texts before quoted,?;: that the texts now in 
 
 queftion are to be taken in the endlefs fenfe. BefideSj 
 
 how does it appear, that Pfal. CXLV. 13, refers to the 
 kingdom of Chrift, as diftinguilhed from the kingdom of 
 the Father? And the kingdom of the Father Dr. C. al- 
 lows, is without end. 
 
 Theiie are other texts, in which «t/«v«? feems beyond 
 difpute to be ufed in the endlefs fenfe ; as Pfal. lxxvii. 
 7. ^' Will the Lord caft off forever, «/c >^c */«ra^{ ? and 
 ^^ will he be favourable na moreV^ The latter exprelfion 
 explains the former to mean an endlefs duration. The 
 
 next verfes further confirm this idea. Dan. iv. 34 ; '* I 
 
 *' praifed and honoured him, that liveth/Vc'i;^r, «k Ic^j «/- 
 '< ^ivo.f.''* Chap. VI. 26 5 '^ For he is the living God, and 
 *^ Itedfaft fot^ever, ui loiy? «;«»«;.'' If Atuyn be not in 
 thefe inftances ufed in the endlefs fenfe, it is in vain to 
 fearch for inftances, in which it is ufed in that fenfe ; and 
 it maybe prefumed, that it is incapable of any applicati- 
 on, by which it fhali appear to be ufed in that fenfe. 
 
 Ans. 2. But if it w*ere ever fo true, that «/»v?c is never 
 ufed in the Septuagint, but in a limited fenfe ; it by no 
 tneans thence follows, that ♦*? ^t^^i */«»«; lav a.itiiu>y is in 
 general, or at all, in the Neiu Tffiarndnt, ufed in a limited 
 ienfe. 
 
 2. In like manner the plural of «;«?, is commonly, if 
 not always, ufed in the New Teftam.ent to point out a li- 
 mited duration.* The anfwers to this argument are the 
 very fame, with thofe given to the preceding. — (i) The 
 plural of rt/«v, in the New Teftament, even when it is 
 not redoubled, is not commonly, much lefs always, ufed 
 to point out a limited duration ; but is generally ufed to 
 point out an endlefs duration, as the reader may fee by the 
 texts in which it occurs, all which are noted in the mar- 
 gin. f Dr. C> quotes Luke I. 33, <^ He ihall reign over 
 
 <* the 
 r^i m 2 
 
 tP.235, &c. * P. 297. 
 
 t In the endlefs fenfe. Mat. VI. t§. Luke I. 7t. Rom. 
 I. 25. IX. 5. XL 36. XVI. 27. 2 Cor. XI? 3^- ^P^^- 
 lIL II, 21. *i Tim. 1. 17, and Heb. XIII. 3. In the 
 
*lj^ Everlaflingy forever^ forever and ever, 
 
 '^ the hoiife of Jacob forever/' as an inftance^ that -t/^t^tj 
 means a limited duration. But if he had quoted the whole 
 verfe, the latter part would have effeclually confuted his 
 ^enic of the former part. The words are, *' and of his 
 
 ^^ kingdom there fhall be no end.'' (2) If ^tavuhy it- 
 
 felf did commonly point out a limited duration, it would 
 not follow, that -the fame limited fenfe l3elonp-s to 
 
 o 
 
 4. E;e loc? «e;«vitc l«y a/^-rav is applied to the king- 
 dom of Chrirt, in Rev. XL 15 ; and therefore muft mean 
 
 a limited duration. f Anfwer : The application of that 
 
 phrafe to the kingdom of Chrift, is no proof at all, that it 
 is ever ufed in the limited fenfe : becaufe it appears by 
 Luke I, 33, Dan. VII. 14, Ifai. IX. 7, and more large- 
 ly by what was faid, page 235, &c, that Chriit's kingdom 
 is without end. 
 
 5. 1 he phrafeS £/? eticaytt a/wyo;, and s/f lev «,'&•(/* jt^?, n^ 'iny 
 
 */av* '/o!.' «/<-.'y6c are always in the Septuagint, to be under- 
 stood in the limited ^en^Q.t 
 
 Anfwer i. It is by no means a .conceded point, that 
 thofe phrafes in the Septuagint are always to be undcrftood 
 inalimited fenfe. The contrary appears even from tfhe in- 
 ftances quoted by Dr. C. to prove that they are ufed in 
 the limited fenfe ; as Pfal. GXIX. 44, ^' So fiiall I keep 
 *^ thy law continually forever and ever." Pfal. CXLV/ 
 2, *^ I will praife thy name forever and ever." To fnp- 
 pofe, that thefe texts contain no more, than a profelTed in- 
 tention of the pfalmiflj to obey and to praife God, as 
 long as he fhould hve in this world, is as arbitrary a fup~ 
 pofition, as to fuppofe, that when the fcriptures fpeak of 
 God as living forever and ever, they mean no more, than 
 .that God will live as long as men live in this world. 
 
 Anfwer 2. But if thofe phrafes in the Septuagint did 
 ever {o certainly mean a limited duration, it would notfol- 
 low, that alio the very different phrafe ?;^- lovj «/6>r«(: '/w? Aixvav 
 in the New Teftament, means a limited duration. The 
 truth is, this lafl: phrafe is not to be found in the Septua- 
 gint, thoup-h it frequently occurs in the New TeftamxCnt. 
 
 Be 
 
 l^i mi ted fenfe, i Cor. II. 7. X. 11. Eph. II. 7. Heb. I. 
 
 a, IX. 26. XI. 3. In Eph. 111,9. and Col. 1.-6, 
 
 it is capable of cither fenfe. 
 ;i^ P. 298. i; P. 301.; 
 
mcdn cndkfi duraimt, ti'ji 
 
 Be it fo therefore, that thofe phrafes in the Septuagint, 
 mean a limited duration ; is it not very fingular argunien-r 
 tation, thence to infer, that a very different phrafe found 
 in the New Teflament, means a Hraited duration toe I 
 This is juft as if Dr. C. had argued, that becaufe the word 
 lion in the Septuagint means a four-footed beaft, therefore 
 the word man in the New Teflament means a four-footed 
 beaft too. 
 
 The Do6lor|| holds, that '' it is of no ilgnincancv, 
 '* that this phrafe is fometimes applied to God :" becaufe, 
 if from this application merely, we argue the abfolute e- 
 ternity of God ; we may argue the abfolute eternity of the? 
 land of Canaan, and of the fucceflive generations of men^ 
 from the application to them, of the fame or an equivalent 
 
 plirafe. But the fame phrafe is never applied, either i<j 
 
 the land of Canaan, or to the fuccellive generations of men: 
 and whatever other phrafe is applied to them, is by that 
 very application proved not to be equivalent : Becaufe we 
 have no other poflible way to know, that any phrafe is equi- 
 valent, than by its application to thofe fubjects alone, 
 Avhich are of equal duration with thofe, to which alone the 
 
 phrafe in queftion is applied. The Doctor proceeds ; 
 
 *^ Reafon aiTures us, that the duration of God will have no 
 ** end'' — for this caufe, ^' not from the force of this 
 '^ phrafe, we interpret it when applied to God, as mcan- 
 '' ing a duration without end.'' But is not the eternity of 
 God revealed in fcripture, as well as known by reafon ? 
 If fo, where and in what words is it exprelTed ? Let any 
 more determinate expreffion of it be pointed out in the 
 fcriptures. If the divine eternity be clearly revealed in 
 fcripture/ and this phrafe be as determinately exprefTive of 
 it, as any in the bible, doubtlefs it determines the future 
 puniihment of the wicked alio, to be without end, becaufe 
 it is repeatedly applied to that. 
 
 Finally, the Dodor obferves,* *"' That it is as certain, 
 *' that the phrafe £/c ']o:/c «.■«?«■? l«v st,«vft)v, ouQ;ht to be con- 
 ^^ ftrued/ar ages of ages, as that the %vicl;ed in the re- 
 *^ furreclion ftate, will not be incorruptible, but fiiall die 
 '^ a fecond time." That the wicked fliail reap corruption, 
 andfliall fuffer the fecond death, is not in the leaft incon- 
 ffftent with their endlefs mifery, unlefs corruption and the 
 fecond death mean either annihilation or final Iiappinefs. If 
 
 tk?y 
 
 II P. 303. * P. 304. 
 
272 Chfct-vatloris concermng the fire 
 
 they meaii the fame with the deftruflion of the wickedj 
 they mean mifery, as Doclor C. himfelf allovv's ; f and 
 no man will fay, that the declarations of fcripture, that the 
 \vicked iiiall reap m'fsry^ or fulTer mifery, are a proof, that 
 that mifery is not endlefs. Or if corruption and the fecond 
 death mean a tranfirion from the refurrection ftate, to the 
 next fucceedingftate, if ariy fuch there be, ftill thatfucceed- 
 ing ftate, or the final ftate of the wicked, may be a flats 
 of mifery. But if corruption and the fecond death mean 
 annihilation, they overthrow the falvation of all men. Is 
 it not therefore furprizing, that Dr. C. ihould over and 
 over again, inlifi: on an argument, as fully demonftrative 
 of his fcheme, which argument either wholly overthrows 
 his fcheme, or is utterly impertinent to the fubje^l I 
 
 On the whole, it is left with the reader to determine^ 
 ■whether the reafons offered by Dr. C. prove, that 
 2-f '?ovf fli/tfivxj lay tf.iu>ia>t meaus a limited duration. — 
 That the reader may judge concerning the true force of 
 that expreffion, every place, in which it is ufed by the in- 
 fpired writers, is noted in the ^largin. J 
 
 Next Occurs Dr. C's anfwer to the argument from 
 Mark IX. 43 ; '^ The fire that never Ihall be quenched 5 
 *' where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.'' 
 
 ■ The Doflor's anfwer conlifcs of thefe particulars—* 
 
 That the fire of hell may never be quenched ; yet the 
 
 wicked may not live in it endlefllyif That in hell, of 
 
 while the wicked are in the next ftate of exiftence, theii* 
 worm indeed ihall nqt die, and their firefliall not be quench-* 
 ed ; but their tor:-nent fhali be continued during their ex- 
 iftence in that ftate. 1| — ■ — As to the firft obfervation, That 
 the fire of hell may never be quenched, though the wick- 
 ed fnall be delivered out of it in time, by either falvation 
 or annihilation ; it has been obferved to be a mere wild 
 conje6lure, and probably would never have been thought! 
 of, had not the fcheme been in diftrefs, and muft be re^ 
 
 iievcd 
 
 f P. 224. 
 
 § Gal. I. 5. Phii. IV. '10. 1. Tim. I. 17. 2 Tim, 
 IV. 18. Heb. Xill. 21. I Pet. IV. n. V. 11. Kev, 
 I. 6, 18. IV. 9, 10. V. n, 14, VII. 12. X. 6. XL 
 15. XIV. II. XV. 7. XIX. 3. XX. le. yXI.I. 5. 
 
 ^ P. -II, fj Ibid. 
 
i^at nsvsrfiail he quenched, 273 
 
 iieved by fome means or other. Other remarks have 
 been made on this conjedure, to which 1 refer the reader. 
 Nor does the latter obfervation, efpecially as connect- 
 ed with the former, appear to be more rational or perti- 
 nent. According to thefe two bbfervations, the fenfe of 
 Mark IX. 43, 44, is merely this ; It is better for thee to 
 enter into life maimed, tlian having tv/o hands, to go into 
 the fire v/hich never Ihall be quenched, though thou mayeit 
 foonbe delivered out of it; and in which while thou con- 
 tinuell:, thy torments will' not ceafe. But where is the 
 evidence of the truth of this proportion ? How does it ap- 
 pear to be better for a man to cut ofFhis right hand, and be 
 Forever after maimed, than to go into a lire which is in- 
 deed endlefs, and in which while he continues, he will be 
 uneafy, and even feel torment : though he may not con- 
 tinue in it two minutes or two feconds ? Vv ho would not 
 choofe to fuiFer even a very painful torment, for a few fe- 
 conds, or minutes, rather than to lofe an hand or an eye? 
 Thus th^ fenfe which Dr. C. puts on Mark IX. 43, &:c. 
 utterly frnllrates the manifeft deiign of our Lord, which 
 was in that pafTage to exhibit a moft powerful motive to 
 the greateft felf-denial. But according to the Dcftor's 
 conftrucliori, the palTage contains no powerful motive to 
 felf- denial^ or any thing al^t. 
 
 Befides ♦ is it not flat and infipid, to tell a man, that he 
 fhall go into a fire which never Ihall be quenched, though 
 
 he may be immediately taken out again?— Yet this is the 
 
 fenfe which Dr. C. puts bn thofe v/ords of our Saviour ! 
 But how is it to the purpofe ? or how does it concern any 
 man, if he be not in the fire of hell, that that fire fhall 
 
 never be quenched? Suppofe a man is to be burnt at 
 
 the ftake. It ^would be a matter of indifference to him, 
 whether the fire, in which he fliould be put to death, be 
 continued burning for five hundred years^ after his deaths 
 or be extinguiihed immediately : and to tell him by way 
 of threatening, that that fire fhall be kept up five hundred 
 years after his death ; or to threaten a criojiucd wbo is a- 
 bout to be executed on the gallows, that the gallow^s on 
 which he ihall die, ihall fcand a thoufand years after his 
 execution ; would be perfcdi; impertinence. 
 
 Doctor C. feems to inlift much on this. That in 
 Mark IX. 43, &c, a reference is had to the punifhment of 
 thofe whofe bodies were either burnt in the valley of Hin- 
 
 N n noin, 
 
274 Ohfcrvailons concernmg 
 
 nom, or permitted to lie upon the ground, to be fed upo!l 
 by worms. But it does not thence follow, asDr. C. fup- 
 pofes, that as the fire of the valley of Hinnom went out, 
 when the bodies were confumed, and the worm died, 
 when the bodies were eaten up ; fo the fire and worm of 
 hell ihall ceafe. The fenfc may be, that as thofe bodies 
 in the valley Hinnom, were confumed by fire and worms, 
 which after a while ceafcd ; fo the v/isked in hell fliall be 
 tormented by fire and worms, whicli fliall not ceafe. — 
 Indeed this is expreflly aflertcd : and as Mr. Hopkins jufl- 
 ly obfervee, *' It cannot be granted, that our Saviour^ 
 *^ by thofe words, " Where their worm dieth not, and 
 *' their fire is not quenched/' means a worm that dieth, 
 ** and a fire that is quenched xcvy fbon. For this would be 
 ** to fuppofe, he means d^Tt&Sy contrary to what htfays,^^*" 
 
 Ti'iE Deftor argues againfl endlefs punifliment from the 
 fmallnefs of the number of thofe v.-ho are faved in the next 
 ftate.f That *' only a few of mankind'' fhculd be faved 
 final'y, and *' the greater part eternally pcrifV he thinks 
 not reconcileable with the great mercy of the Chriflian 
 difpenfation ; or ^with the glad tidings of great joy, and 
 the divine good will celebrated at the birth of our Savi- 
 our. This argument is built on the fuppofition, that it 
 would not be difhonorary to Chrifl, that a minority of 
 mankind be loft. But this would be equally inconfiflient 
 with Dr. C's fcheme^ as that a majority be loft. 
 This argument, as .it grants that fome will not be faved, 
 ^ives up the grand qucftion, and difputes concerning the 
 number only, v/hich is to be faved. But this is no fubjedt 
 of difpute in this controverfy. 
 
 Is it then no infrance of great ^nd glorious mercy, to in- 
 ftitute a fcheme, by which faiv.ation may be offered to eve- 
 ry creature ; by which whofoever will, may take the wa- 
 ter of life freely, and no man fliall perifli, but in confe- 
 quence of his ov/n voluntary rcjedlion of that inftitution ? 
 Is not the certain information of this infdtution indeed glad 
 tidings of great joy to all people ? Is not the inftitution a 
 clear proof of the abundant o-ood Vv^ill of God to men, even 
 though flnners, through then* voluntary oppofition, obtain 
 no good by it ? It certainly is, if we may believe Dr. C. 
 ' for it is a maxim v/ith him, ^' th:it Vv-e mufl: not judge of 
 
 the 
 
 * Future /late of thofe who dis in their fins. -}- P. ^22* 
 
the number df thefaved* 27J 
 
 ^^ the divine goodnefs, by the a6lual good, v/hich we 
 *^ fee produced, but muft take into view the tenden- 
 *' cy of the divine adminiilration/' &c, fee the quoiati- 
 ons made page 139. 
 
 The Doctor fays, '^ It is incredible, that God fliould con- 
 ^' flitute his Son the Saviour of men, and the /n.'/(- of them 
 */' be ymally damned."* But why is it incredible? Is it 
 not an undertaking worthy of Chrift_, in a way moil hono- 
 rary to God, to open a door of mercy and falvation to all 
 mankind, though by the wicked and ungrateful rejeclioii 
 of Chrift by the majority, a minority only will adlually be 
 faved ? If it be not credible, that God fiiould conilitute his 
 fon the faviour of men, and ^' the bidk^' of them be final- 
 ly damned, is it credible, that Chrift fnould be conflituted 
 the faviour, and a hire majority of mankind be faved ? If 
 jict, how large mufi; the majority be ? 
 
 As to the obfervation, *' That it is a grofs refleclion on 
 '^ the faviour, v/hofe proper bufmcfs it is, to deitroy the 
 *^ works of the devil, and refcue mankind out of his hands; 
 ^^ to fuppofe, that the devil fnould finally get the better 
 '■^ of Chrift, by eftecling the evcrlafting damnation of the 
 *^ greater part of men ;''f there are fome particulars '\\\ 
 it, which v/ant explanation. Firft ; v/hat is meant by de- 
 ftroying the works of the devil > If this mean to abolifli all 
 (in, and all the mifery confequent on fm to any of the hu- 
 man race ; it is not granted, that this is the proper hufinefs 
 of our Saviour, nor is this the proper meaning of the ori- 
 ginal in I Joh. III. 8, the text to which Dr. C. refers* 
 The verb is xi/ct-h^ dl[pjhe, take to pieces, and thus prevent 
 theilleffed of the works of the devil. But if deftroying 
 the works oT the devil mean, to defeat and to prevent 
 the ill confequences of thofe works, fo that no final damage 
 fnall thence arife to the intereft of God's kingdom, or of 
 the univerfe ; it is granted, that this is the proper bufmefs 
 of Chrift. But it is not granted, but that this may be ef- 
 fected, without the faivation of all men. Again, what 
 
 is meant by ''' the devil's getting the better of Chrift?'' 
 This doubtlefs means, that he defeats Chrift more or lefs, 
 as to fome objed of his mediatorial undertaking. But Dr. 
 C. has no more made it appear, that the final faivation of 
 only a part, and a fmall part of the human ra(re, iniphes 
 
 iuch 
 
 * P, 323. t Ibid, 
 
fi:ch a defeat ; or that it w;is net the original intention of 
 Chriil to Uve a Imillpirt only ; than he has made it ap. 
 pear, that it was die intention of Chriit t© fave all men. 
 
 Dr. C. feemsnot to have refiected, \vhile he was urging 
 this aro;ument. tliatit equally militates againll his o\\"n laft 
 refort/ai:rihilation. For if an ** end be put to the exift- 
 *' ence, both in louland body,'^ of all who die impeni- 
 tent, as the Doclor allows will be the cafe, if miiverfal 
 falvation be not true ;§ then on his principle*, the devil 
 will not be vanquilhed by Chriil ; tlic works of the devil 
 -w ill not be deRroyed, but '* he will get the better of Clirift, 
 ** bv eiteciing the everlafting delb'ucnon of the greater 
 •' part of thofe whom Chriir can.e from heaven to fave."'* 
 
 So that when this objedion Ihall be anfwered, fo far 
 
 as it lies aeainfl Dr. C's lafl refort, doubtlefs an anfwer 
 will be fupplied to thofc who believe in tndleis mifer}-. 
 
 After all. it is not an article of my faith, that only a 
 fmall part cf the human race w ill be foally faved. But 
 my faith in this particular is not built on abflract reafcn- 
 ino-s from tlie divine gcodnefs and the mhlion of Chrift. 
 That divine goodnefs which fuftered all the apoftate angels 
 to perilh finally, might have fuiicred all. or a greater part 
 of the apoitate race of men, to perilh in like manner. My 
 faith is built on feveral reprefentations and prepiiecies of 
 fcripture, particularly concerning the millennium, and the 
 general and long prevalence of virtue and piet\' in that pe- 
 riod. Therefore in this view, the foundation of the objec- 
 tion from the Imallnefs of the number faved,, is taken a- 
 wav. 
 
 CHAP, 
 < P. 282. * P. ^2^. 
 
^r. Cs remarks tn Mark XT/. 21, c:nfid:red, ijy 
 
 CHAP. XV. 
 
 fn which are Cjnfidered Dr: Cs ar.f'j:srs to the crgwner^ts 
 drarjjn frrjm what Is J cad c.r.cerning Judas, Mark XIV * 
 1\ ; — frzm. the unpard'jn^'zl: fin ; — ar.dfrzm the tsyidtr.' 
 cy %f the d'iclrlne ^jf unrverful fal'jati'in t^ l^centhufr^fs , 
 
 THE Do£;or anfv.ers to the arg^unient frcm Z^Iark 
 XIV. 21, '* Vt'o to that man by -vboni the Son of 
 '* Man is beiravecl. Ccc<i v.ere it for that man, if he 
 ** had never been born ;'^ That perhaps it may be a pro- 
 verbial expreflion, no: l::era]!v true ;* That if the li- 
 teral feni'e were the moft reafonable, coniidering this text 
 by itfelf ; yet cccCcering the many paiTagei brought by 
 Dr. C. v.hich declare the final falvation of all 3>en, we 
 muft not underiland this Daface in the literal fcfe, as in 
 that cafe weihall fet the fcripture at variance vnth itfelf ;f 
 — That the real nzeaning of this paiTAge may be propheti- 
 cal, as if our Lord had 'aid, *' The man who ihali betray 
 me *• ihall pradically declare, that in his apprehenlicn. it 
 
 '^ were good had he not been brought into being.^'i 
 
 As to the firft of thefe anfwers, it is a mere unfupported 
 conjecmrc, and therefore is to be fet dovm for nothii;-. — 
 As to the fecond, it is not allowed that the Doctor ha* 
 produced any one paiTage of fcriptnre which declares the 
 final falvation of all men : but this in view of whkt has 
 been faid on the pafTages produced by the Dod:or, i* foh- 
 
 mittcd to the reader. As the Dodor contends that this 
 
 paiTage cannet be underwood in the literal feine, without 
 fetting the icripture at variance with itfelf; fo it is contend- 
 ed by the advocates for endiefs puniihment, that it can be 
 underitood in the literal fenfe, vsithcut fetting the fcriptnre 
 at variance with itfelf in the ^eaft degree ; and that the ge- 
 neral tenor of the fcriprare points out the literal fenfe to 
 be the true fenfe. . As to Dr. C's third anfwer, it is, 
 in th« hrCt place, a mere unfapported ccnjeonre : fecond- 
 I7, it may be noticed, that it is manifeft, that the text 
 
 pronooDces 
 
 * ? ^z'^ ■?- P -^-^-^ t P o-*! 
 
t7% Dr, €*s rtmarks on the 
 
 pronounces the proper wo or curfe, which iliould fall oa 
 the man who fhould betray our Lord. *^ The Son of Man 
 ^' indeed goeth, as it is written of him ; but wo to that 
 ^* man, by whom the Son of Man is betrayed : good 
 ^* v/ere it for that man, if he had never been born.'' — 
 But according to Dr. C. all the curfe which this text de- 
 nounces, is fuch a wearinefs of iife and impatience of ex- 
 iilence, as has fometimes befallen ev«n true faints •, as in 
 the inftance of Job. And is it credible that this was the 
 proper and fnll curfe of betraying the Lord of life and 
 glory ? Or that if this be but a very fniall part of the 
 curfe of that abominable wickednefs, our Lord would 
 have mentioned it in fach a manner, as naturally to 
 communicate the idea, that it is ihe proper and full curfe 
 of it? 
 
 After all the ingenuity of Dr. C. and other univer- 
 faliits, in torturing this palFage to a meaning confident with 
 their fcheme ; it remains ar plain, direel-, and pofitivc tefd- 
 mony againll it. 
 
 Next follows Dr. C^s anfwer to the argument from 
 what 5s faid concerning the fm againft ' the Holy Ghofi:^ 
 Matt. Xn. 331 ; *' Whofocver fpeaketh againft the Holy 
 '' Ghoft, it fiiall not be forgiven him, neither in thi^ 
 *^ world, neither in the v/orld to eome.'' Mark TIL 29; 
 '^ He that Ihall blafphcme againfl the Holy Ghofl hathne- 
 " ver forgivenefs, but is in danger of eternal damna- 
 *' tion.'^ Luke XIL 10, *' Unto him that blafphemeth 
 ^' againfl the H®ly Ghoft', it fliall not be forgiven." 
 
 The Docftor'sfirft anfwer to this argument is taken froi^ 
 Croiius — he tells us th2.i Grotius ''looks uponthe words as 
 •* an Hebraifm intended to fignify, not Jo much the par- 
 *^ donablenefs of fome fnis, and the unpardonablenefs of 
 *' others ; as the greater diiKculty of obtaining pardon for 
 " blafphemy againfl: the Holy Ghoft, than for any other 
 ^^ blafphemy." It is wholy immaterial whether the words 
 were intended to fignify n^tfo ynuch the unpardonablenefs 
 of fome fins. If they were intended to fignify at all the 
 unpardonablenefs of fome fins, that is fufficient for the pre- 
 fent purpofc. So that both Dr. C. and his favourite author 
 CrottuSy virtually concede all that is demanded in this in- 
 ftance . 
 
 CoNCERNiNO this conflrudlon of GroiluSy which is but 
 a mere conjedure^ brought in to help over an argument 
 
 which 
 
zwparJenahIc /in, cortjidcrsd. Vf^ 
 
 ^hich crouds, hardly on Dr. C's fchcme ; the Doclor fays, 
 '< Whoever goes about to prove, that there is no truth in 
 ^' it, will perhaps find, thvit he has undertaken a very 
 '' hard tafe.'^ The fame may be faid of any man, who 
 fiiould undertake to prove, that there are not a dozen pri- 
 mary planets belonging to the folar fyflem ; or who fhould 
 undertake to diiprcve any one of a thoufand other conjec- 
 tures. 
 
 After all, the Do6lor does not depend much on this 
 conflruclion of Grotius, and proceeds to give us his own 
 fenfe of the paffages above quoted ; which is. That it is 
 indeed true, that ^' the blafphemy agairxft the Holy Ghoft 
 '- is abfolutely unpardonable ;''* that the divine law fhalJ 
 take its courfc on thofe who are guilty of that blafphemy, 
 and no intervening pardon v.'ill prevent the full execution 
 of the threatened penalty on them : and forgivenefs ftrid- 
 ly and hterally fpcakiug will not be granted to them ;f yet 
 that they will be finally faved, and admitted to heaven, 
 after they ihall have fuffered the full penalty threatened in 
 
 the law. On this idea of Dr. C. fome remarks have 
 
 been already made m Chapter I. Nor can it cfcape the 
 notice of the attentive reader, that it implies, that fome 
 men are faved, not only without forgivenefs ; without 
 the exercife of divine grace, in the fcriptural fenfe of 
 grace ; without any aid from the merit or atonement of 
 Chrift ; and therefore not ^^ on the account, on the ground, 
 " or for the reafon of Chrifl's obedience and death ;'*t 
 but wholly on the footing of the law. But the idea that 
 aay of mankind are to be faved without forgivenefs, is 
 wholly foreign from the fcriptures, nor can it be pointed 
 out- to be contained in any part of fcripture. Every chapter 
 of the gofpel is inconfiftent with it ; to refer to parti- 
 cular texts -would be endlefs and needlefso And 
 
 what' divine grace is there exercifed in the falvation 
 of one, who has by fuiFering the whole threatened penalty 
 
 of the lav/, made full fatisfaclion for his own fms ? 
 
 There is manifeftly no more grace in faving luch a 
 man, than there is in faving;- one v.'ho has ne- 
 ver fmned. Nor is he who has fuffered the full penalty cf 
 the law, faved on account of the death or obedience of 
 Chrift. On the account of Chrift's obedience or death hs 
 isreleafed from no punifnment: and to fuppofe, tint God 
 
 has 
 
 * P- 334- t '^' 33^' t P- 20. 
 
^So Dt\ Cs fcheme tends 
 
 has not goodnefs enough, without an atonement, to i-At 
 a creature to heaven^ who in the eye of the law is per- 
 fedly innocent, is a fuppofiticn utterly inconfiftent with 
 
 the divine goodnefs. Laftly, he who is faved in confe- 
 
 quence of fuifering the whole penalty threatened in the 
 law, is faved on the foot of law. Yet it is utterly and a- 
 bundantly deniedjby Dr. C. to be polFible, that any fmner 
 fliould be faved on the foot of law. 
 
 In view of thcfe oblervations, the reader will judge, 
 whether Dr. C's conftruclion of the paflages, which fpeak 
 of the iinagainft the Holy Ghoft, be adniilJible : and whether 
 thofe pailages and the argument deduced from them, do 
 not remain in full force againfl unirerfal falvation. 
 
 We come at length to Dr. C^s anfv/er to the laft argu- 
 ment of thofe in the oppoiite fcheme which he conliders^ 
 which is drawn from the tendency of Dr. C's fyilem to li- 
 ce ntioufne fs and vice. 
 
 On this the Doctor cbferves ; '^ To difprove the final 
 *' falvation of all men, it muft be plainly fhown, that this 
 *' doftrine does naturally and directly tend to encourag© 
 '^ men in vitious practice.*'' In this it is implicitly grant- 
 ed, that if the doi^rine of univerfal falvation do indeed na- 
 turally and directly tend to encourage men to perfift in vi- 
 tious practice, it is not true. On this we may join iflue 
 with him. That that doctrine does comparatively encou^ 
 rage men to pcrfilt in vice, Vvill appear perhaps from the 
 
 following confiderations. It will not be denied that if 
 
 there were no puniflnnent threatened to the wicked, it 
 would naturally and directly encourage them to perfifl in 
 vice. This is granted by Dr. C.-— ** Had. we attemptedf 
 '^ to introduce mankind univerfally into a ftate of happi-. 
 ** nefs, upon their leaving this v/orld, whatever their mo- 
 *' ral conduct had been in it, the argument,'' that Dr. C's 
 fcheme tends to hcentioufnefs, '^ would then have held 
 *' ftrong." But if the argument holds Itrong, provided 
 there be no future puniihment, it holds proportionably, if 
 that puniihment be very fmall and far lefs than is deferved 
 by the wicked ; and efpecially if at the fame time that pu- 
 niihment be fuited to their perfonal good. Now that the 
 future puniihment of the wicked is, on Dr. Cs fcheme, 
 very fmall, compared witli v/hat it is on the oppofite fcheme, 
 is manifeft at firit fight ; 'it is infinitely lefs. And that it 
 
 P. 341. t P. ->- 
 
 13 
 
fj Itcentioufnefs , &|^ 
 
 is far lefs, nay infinitely lefs than the wicked deferve, is 
 manifeft by what Do6tor C. as well as his oponents, al- 
 lows, that all who are faved, are faved by unbounded grace o 
 Therefore, if the damned be finally faved, as they are 
 fared by unboundsd grace, they are punilhed infinitely 
 lefs than they deferve. Alfo, that according to Dr. C's 
 fcheme, the wicked are to be punilhed with a difciplinary 
 punifhment fuited to the good o; the fubje^ls, is manifeft 
 
 from his whole book. Mow that this punifhment of thSi 
 
 wicked does comparatively encourage vice, may be illuf- 
 trated by an example. It is generally agreed tliat murder 
 deferves death. But fuppofe a law ihould be made, by 
 which no murderer fhould be punifhed with death, or with 
 any other puniiliment to be continued longer, than till he 
 fhould repent. Would not fuch a law as this, compared 
 with the law as it now ftands, naturally and diredly tend 
 to encourage murder ? I need not make the applica^^ 
 tion. 
 
 Doctor C. feems to think that his doclrine of future 
 punifhment even more powerfully reflrains fromfm, than 
 the dottrine of endlefs punifl^iment, becaufe his dodrine is 
 more credible to men in general. But are we to inquire 
 what is moll: likely or moft eafy to be believed by men in 
 general, to determine what is mofl likely to reflrain from 
 fm or to be the real truth of God I Then certainly the 
 doctrines df the divine character and million of Chrift, of 
 his miracles, refurredion, afcenfion, &c, &c, in fliort the 
 dodtrines of chriftianity in general, are not fo hkely to re- 
 ftrain men from fin as the do6lrines of mere natural reli- 
 gion. Or if it be faid that thofe doctrines are capable of 
 fuch proof; as will fatisfy and convince all candid inquirers; 
 the fame is faid of the dodrine of endlefs punifiiinent. 
 
 I HAVE now finilhed my reply to Dr. C's anfwers to the 
 argume,nts in favour of endlefs punifliment ; and having 
 before confidered his arguments in favour of his own 
 fcheme ; I fliall proceed to fome arguments in confirmaticn 
 of the doclrine of endlefs puniiliment. 
 
 9 C H A 
 
 t> 
 
tf^ Pcfitivt cvtdetfc^ 
 
 CHAP. XVI. 
 
 In luhiehfome dire^ arguments are propofed, to prove the 
 endlefs pumJJ)ment of the wicked. 
 
 A M fenfible that my book is already protracted to a 
 coniiderable length. Therefore to relieve the patience 
 of the reader, I (hall endeavour to crowd this part into as 
 narrow a compafs as poflible. Indeed if the anfwers already 
 given to the objc6tion« to endlefs puniihment, be fufficient, 
 the lefs needs be faid in way of direft proof. 
 
 The various texts always brought in difcourTes on this 
 
 fubjedl, come now v/ith full force, in proof of this dodrine. 
 
 As Mntt. XVIII. 8 ; 'Mt is better for thee to enter in- 
 
 ' to life halt or maimed, rather than having tv.'o hands or 
 
 ' tv/o feet, to be^c-fl into everlajling fire.^* Chap. XXV, 
 
 41 ; *' Then fliall he fay unto them on the left hand, de- 
 
 ' part from me, ye curfed, into everlafling fire prepared 
 
 ^ for the devil and his angels." Verfe 46th ; " Thefe 
 
 ' fhall go away into everlajVing pumJJnricnt.^^ 1 ThclT, 
 
 I. 9 ; *' Who ihall he puniihed with everln/ling dedruc- 
 
 tion from the prefence of the Lord and the glory of his 
 
 power.'' 2 Pet. II. 17 ; '^ To whom the niift of 
 
 darknefs is referved /crfT^^r." Jude 13: *^ To whom 
 
 is referved the blacknefs of darknefs forever.'^ Rev. 
 
 XIV. 10, II ; *' And he fliall be tormented with fire and 
 
 ' brimflone, in the prefence of the holy angels, and in 
 
 ^ the prefence of the Lamb : And the fmoke of their 
 
 * torment afcendeth up /o;r7;(fr ^w^ <?Z/rr." Chap. XIX. 
 [ ; ^^ And again they faid, Alleluia : and her fmoke rofe 
 
 * up forever and ever.^^ Chap. XX. 10; '^ And the 
 ^ .devil that deceived them, was caft into the lake of fire 
 ' 'and brimflone, where the beaft and the f^lfe prophet 
 ' are, and [they] fhall be tormented day and night, /or- 
 ' ever and ever P 
 
 The evafions of thefe texts have been particularly con- 
 fidcred, and it is hoped, fuiliciently anfwered. 
 
 THi^ 
 
c/" endlefs puntfttmsnt* 285 
 
 The Greek words ufcd in thcfe texts are, «t/<i)y/«?, in 
 «/tty« and «/c 1«i'c «;6irn/c lav •t;6)v*!v. From an infpedlion of 
 every text in which thefe words and phrafes are ufed in 
 the New Teftament, it has bien found, with regard to 
 the firft, that quite contrary to Dr. C's account, it '' is 
 *' almoft perpetually/' i. e. in the proportion of 66 to 2, ufed 
 in the endlefs fenfe ; fetting afide the places in which it is 
 applied to the punifhment of the wicked. With regard to 
 the other two phrafes, it has been found, that they ar« 
 without exception ufed in the endlefs fcnfc. Nor does 
 the Greek language furnilh any word more dcterminately 
 exprelfive of endlefs duration : and notwithftanding what 
 Dr. C.'fays to the contrary, it appears that they do as 
 properly and dcterminately exprefs an endlefs duration, as 
 the Englifli words eternal and etcnuiy. If therefore thefs 
 words be explained away to mean a mere temporary dura- 
 tion, it is impoifible that any words be ufcd, wliich would 
 not fuifer the fame treatment from the fam^ hands. 
 
 The texts concerning the fm againft the Holy Ghofl ftill 
 remain a clear proof of endlefs punilhment. They arc 
 Matt. XII. 31, 32; ''The blafphcmy againft the Holy 
 
 '' Ghofl, ihall not be forgiven unto men Whofoever 
 
 *' fpeaketh againft the Holy Ghoft, it fiiall not be forgiven 
 ^' him, neither in this world neither in the world to come." 
 Mark III. -29 : '' He that ihall blafpheme againft the 
 *' Holy Ghoft, hath never forgivcnefs ; but is in danger 
 *' of eternal damnation. '^ Luke XII. 10 ; Unto him that 
 '* blafphemeth againft the Holy Ghoft, it ihall not be for- 
 *' given.'' 
 
 So long as the gofpel rejecls every idea of the falva- 
 tion of men without foro-ivenefs, fo lono; will thefe texts 
 confute the falvation of all men. 
 
 To thefe I may add the following texts ; i John V. 
 16 ; " If any man fee his brother lin a fm which is not 
 ^' unto death, he ihall afic, and he fnail give him life, for 
 '^ them that iin not unto death. There isaftn unto death, 
 '^ I do not fay that he fh all pray fsr ii.^^ So that we are 
 not to pray for thofe who fm unto death. Vs/"hy not? evi- 
 dently becaufe their falvation is impoifible. If their fal- 
 vation bepofhble, I prefume no lufiicient reafon can be gi- 
 ven, why we fhould not pray for it. If it fliould be laid 
 that we are not to pray that the falvation of fuch ilio'uld be 
 immediately accomplifhed, but that it may be accompliih- 
 
^84 Pofitive evidence 
 
 cd in due time : the anfwer is at hand, that v/e are nqt 
 at liberty to pray that any man may be faved out of due 
 time ; and in this fenfe we are prohibited ro pray for the 
 falvation of any man. 
 
 Heb. VI. 4 — 6 ; '' For it is impofTible for thofe who 
 *' were once enlightened, and have tailed of the heavenly 
 *' gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghoft, and 
 '' have tailed the good word of God, and the powers of 
 ^^ the Yvorld to come ; if they fliail fall away, to renew 
 '^ them again unto repentance.'* Since it is impoflible to 
 renew fuch to repentance, it is according to Dr. C. as 
 well as the fcipturc, impolhble that they be faved. Of 
 like import is Chapter X. 26, 27 ; '^ For if ^yc fm wil- 
 *' fully after that wc have received the knowledge of x)a^ 
 '^ truth, there rcmaiiieth no more facrifice for fms, but 
 *' a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery in- 
 '^ dignation, which fliall devour theadverfaries.'' If there 
 remain «o more or no longer 3. {cLcnfice for fms ; then neither 
 will the man whofe charader is here defcribed, be ab^e 
 by his own fufFerings to make a facrifice or fatisfaclion for 
 his fins, nor will the facrifice of Chrlft be longer of any 
 avail to him. And if the judgment and fiery indignation, 
 which ih all devour the advcrfaries, remain for him ; he 
 inufl fufFer them without a pofilbility of efcape, either by 
 the facrifice of Chrifl or in confequence of his own fufFer- 
 
 mo-s. 
 
 The .wo denounced by Chrift on Judas alfp fecms to re- 
 main a demonftrative proof of endlefs punifliment. Matt. 
 XXVI. 24, and Mark XIV. 21 ; '' Wo to that man hj^ 
 ^^ whom the Son of Man is betrayed : good were it for 
 *' that man if he had never been boa'n.'' Let Judas fuifer a 
 temporary mifery of ever ^q great duration, it muftbe in- 
 finitely lefs than an endlefs duration of happinefs. So that 
 if Judas were finally to enjoy endlefs happinefs, he would 
 be an infinite gainer by his exiilence, let the duration of 
 his previous mifery be what it might. It was therefore on 
 the fuppofition of his final falvation, not only good, but 
 infinirely good, that he had been born : which is a direct 
 contradidlion to the declaration of our Saviour. 
 
 In connexion with this paiTage, I ihall introduce the 
 following; Luke VI. 24; *^ W o unto you that are rich : 
 '* for ye have received your conjolatinn,'^ On the fuppo- 
 (Jtipn of the falvation of all men, the rich do hy no means 
 
 :(eceive 
 
«/* endlefs pun'ijbmint, 1^^ 
 
 receive in this life their confolation ; but they are to re- 
 ceive infinitely the greateft confolation in the future life.— ^ 
 Pfalm XVII. 14; ** From men of the world, wiio have 
 *' their portion in this life;'' Plainly implying that they 
 are to have no portion in the future life. Luke XVI. 25 ; 
 *^ Son, remember that thou in thy life time receivedft thy 
 *' good things.'' If all fhall be faved, the rich and the 
 men of the world in no other fenfe have their portion in 
 this life, than the reft of men. — They have fome good 
 things in this world, but infinitely the greateft part of their 
 happinefs is to be enjoyed in the world to come, and what 
 they enjoy here, is nothing in c«mparifon with what they 
 are to enjoy hereafter. More than this, cannot be faid of 
 any man. 
 
 Mark IX. 43 — 49; ^' If thy hand offend thee, cut it 
 '* off: it ift better for thee, to enter into life maimed, than 
 '^ haying two hands, to go into hell, into the fire that ne« 
 *' verfhall be quenched : where their worm diethnot, and 
 *' the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, 
 *^ cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, 
 than having two feet^ to be caft into hell, into trie fire 
 that never fliall be quenched ; w^here their worm dieth 
 not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine tye: 
 offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter 
 into the kingdom of God, with one eye, than having 
 two eyes, to be caft into hell-fire : where their worm 
 dieth not, and the fire is not quenthed." Mat. III. 12; 
 Whofe fan is in his hand, and he fliall thoroughly purge 
 *^ his floor ; and gather his wheat into the garner ; but 
 *' he will burn up the chaif with unqu::nchablefire." 
 
 John III. 36. *' He that believeth on the Son, hath e- 
 ^^ verlafting life : and he that believeth not the Son, fiiall 
 *' not fee life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." If 
 all are to be faved, then all will fee life and enjoy it. 
 Should it be faid, that the meaning of this text is barely^ 
 ^hat he that believeth not, fhall not fee life, while he remains 
 an unbeliever ; it may be obferved, that this fenfe of the 
 text will admit the idea, that unbelievers may all become 
 believers, at death, or at fome future time in life; as it 
 holds forth no more, than that a man while an unbeliever, 
 fiiallnot be admitted to life ; and fays nothing but that all 
 unbelievers may become belieixrs in this life, or at death ; 
 and therefore may attain to life and falvation in heaven, 
 
 jiift 
 
21 86 Pofitlve evidence 
 
 juft as foon as thofe, who are now believers. But can any 
 man bring himfelf to believe, that this text was not de- 
 figned to teach us, but that unbelievers will attain to the life 
 and ialvation of heaven as foon as believers? If that be 
 the true fenfe, this text teaches us no more concerning un- 
 believers, than is true concerning all faints in this ftate of 
 imperfeiftion. It may on this fuppofition be faid, with e- 
 qual truth, and in the fame fenfe, that no imperfefl: faint 
 fiiall fee life, as that no unbeliever fliall fee life. It is 
 plain, that this text was meant to exhibit fome privilege 
 of the believer above the unbeliever. But if the con- 
 flruftion, now under confideration, be the true one, and u- 
 niverl'al falvation be true, what is that privilege? The be- 
 liever has the promife of an endlcfs life ; fo has the unbe- 
 liever in common v/ith all mankind. The believer cannot 
 perhaps be admitted to the inheritance of that promife, 
 \vithin lels than ten or twenty years. Within the fame 
 time the unbeliever may b« admitted to the fame inherit 
 tance, whether he be admitted to it at death, or in con- 
 sequence of fome difcipline in hell, by which he is led to 
 repentance and faith. The believer has the prefent com- 
 fort of anticipating his future happinefs ; there is on the 
 plan of univerfal falvation, abundant foundation for the 
 fame anticipation to the unbeliever. It is true, the unbe- 
 liever is not yet prepared for the poiTefrion of heavenly hap- 
 pinefs : neither is the believer during his prefent imper- 
 fedtion. 
 
 Luke XVI. 26 ; "Andbefides all this, between us 
 ^' and you, there is a great gulf fixed : fo that they which 
 ^' would pafs from hence to you, cannot ; neither can 
 *^' they pafs to us, that would come from thence. '' Mat. 
 VI. 15; ^' If ye forgive not m.en their trefpafTes, neither 
 '' will your Father forgive your treipaffes. Chap. XXIII. 
 34, 35 ; " And his Lord was wroth, and dehvered him 
 ^* to the tormentors, till he fhould pay all that was due un- 
 ^' to him. So likewife ihall my heavenly Father do alfo 
 ^^ unto you, i' ye from your hearts forgive not every oud 
 ^^ hisbrother their trefpalTes." Heb. VI. 8 ; *' That which 
 ^' bearcth thorns and briers, is rejected ^ and is nigh unto 
 ^' curfiiig ; whofe cndi% to be burned." — How is the end 
 of any man to be burned, if all fhaii finally be faved ? Luke 
 XIV. 24; '^ For I fay unto you, that none of thofe mea 
 *-' wiip \yerc bidden, fhall taile of my flipper.'^ Chap. XIH . 
 
if indlefs punipnne-ni, aS/ 
 
 "15,26, 17 ;^'When once theinafleroftlieliourcisrifenup, 
 ** and hath iliut to the door, and ye begin to ftand without, 
 "^ and to knock at the door, faying, Lord, Lord, open un- 
 *' to u«^ and he fhall anfwer and fay unto you, I know 
 
 ** you not, whence you are 1 tell you, I know you not, 
 
 ** whence you are, depart from me, all ye workers of ini- 
 quity.'' — Rev. XXn. II, 12; *' He that is unjufl, let 
 him be unjuft flill : and he which is filthy, let him be 
 fikhy ilill : and he that is righteous, let him be righte- 
 ous ftill : and he that \% holy, let him be holy ftill. And 
 behold, I come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to 
 
 ^^ p-ive to every man according as his v/ork lliall be.'' 
 
 Thefe lail Vv^ords, with verie loth, determine this text to 
 refer to the general judgment. — The words of the tenth 
 verfe are/ *^ Seal not the fayings of the prophecy of this 
 *^ book ; for the time is at hand." But a period ages of 
 ages after the general judgment cannot be faid to come 
 quickly, and to be at hand. 
 
 If to thefe texts it Ihould be faid, that they mean no 
 more, than that they cannot as yet be faved, though they 
 will be fa ved in proper time; I anAver, (i) That there 
 is no appearance in the texts thcmfelves, of fuch a fenfe ; 
 (2) That if that vv'-ere the true fenfe, they would mean no' 
 more, than might be faid, mutatis mid and: Sy of all real 
 faints, v/ho are not about to die immediately; (3) That 
 that fenfe would imply, either that the future punilhment 
 of the wicked is a mere v/holcfome difcipline, or that thofe 
 Vv'ho die impenitent do net deferve endlefs punifiment. If 
 they pafs the great gulf as foon as they repent, their pu- 
 nilhment is a mere wholefome difcipline : but that it is not 
 a mere wi^.olefome difcipline, I have endeavoured to fhow 
 in Chap. II. and III. If they fuffer the full punifhment, 
 which they deferve, and then come cut, they are faved 
 without forgiven efs, and they never deferve d an endlefs 
 punifliment, the contrary to which I have endeavoured to 
 prove in Chap. VI. To thofe chapters I beg leave to refer 
 the reader, for what might he faid here in further anfwer to 
 this objection. — If becaule the damned cannot pafs the great 
 gulf at prefent, it be faid. There is a great gulf fixed, {o 
 that they cannot pafs thence to heaven, then becaufe a 
 faint is not about to die at' prefent, it might with propriety 
 be faid, there is a great gulf £xed between him and hea- 
 ven, fo that he cannot pafs it. — If thofe fcriptural ex- 
 
 prelfions^ 
 
i8S Pojltlve evidence 
 
 preffions, ^^ Let him be unjuft ftill/' — " Great gulf fixed^ 
 ^' io that they cannot pafs/^ — '^ Depart, I know you not/' 
 *^ Shall not talle of my fupper," — &:c, mean no more, than 
 that they fliall remain unjuft &c, for the prefent : why 
 may not the following expreOTions — ** Shall not come into 
 ^^ condemnation/' — '' Are juftified from all things/' — ^' Is 
 ^' pafTed from death unto life*' — &c, mean no more, than 
 that the faints fhall not come into condemnation for the pre- 
 fent, or for fomc time to come? — Are for the prefent 
 juftified from all things ? Is for the prefent palTed from 
 death unto life ? 
 
 Rev. III. 5 ; '^ He that overcemeth, the fame fhall 
 ^' be clothed in white raiment ; and I will not blot out his 
 *^ na-nis out of the book of life", but I w'lW confefs his name 
 '' before my Father, and before his angels." Docs not 
 this text plainly hold forth, that the names of all who do 
 not overcome, fhall bs blotted out of the book of life ; and 
 that Chr/ft will not confefs their names before the Father, 
 and before his angels ? Chap. XIII, 8 ; *' And all that 
 ^' dwell upon the earth fhall worfliip him, whofe names are 
 *^ ivritten in the book of life of the Lamb, (lain from 
 '^ the foundation of the world." Chap. XXI. 27 ; 
 *' And there fliall in no wife enter into it any thing 
 *^ that defileth, neither whatfoever worketh abomination, 
 ^* or maketli a lie ; but they which are ivritten in theLamb^s 
 '* book of life:' Pfal. LXIX. 27, 28; '' Add iniquity to 
 ** their iniquity, and let them not com.e into thy righteouf- 
 ^^ nefs. Let them be blotted cut of the book of the living^ and 
 ^^ not be vjriiten vjith the righteous :* Now will any be fa- 
 ved, v/hofe names are not written in the Lamb's book of 
 life? In the quotation from Rev. XXL 27, it is expreflly 
 alFerted, that no one who defileth, worketh abomination, 
 or maketh a lie, Ihall enter the heavenly city ; but they on- 
 ly who are written in the Lamb's book of life. There- 
 fore not only will not all men be faved, as fome will be 
 excluded the heavenly city ; but fome men have not their 
 names written in the Lamb's book of life, and this is a fur» 
 ther evidence, that all will not be faved. 
 
 It is laid, that ^' fniners fliall not ftand in the congrega- 
 '^ tion of the righteous," (Pfal. I. 5,) and the reprcfen- 
 tation in the parables of our Lord, is, that after the ge- 
 neral judgment, the tares and chafF fliall be no more mixed 
 with the? v. heat 5 nor the good with the bad iilh. Nor 
 
 is 
 
%f tndlefs Pumjhmsnii 28^ 
 
 Is there any intimation that the tares or the chaff will be-» 
 come wheat, or the bad putrid lifli become good ; but the 
 contrary is plainly implied in the parables themielves. Be- 
 (ides, the judgment is faid to be ef'^rnal, « av.sv^ "^ doubtlefs 
 with refpecL to the endlels and unchangeable confequences. 
 But if the judgment be ftrictly eternal with refpecl to its 
 confequences, the puailhment of the damned will be with- 
 out end. 
 
 The parables before mentioned further prove endlefs 
 punilhment, as they reprefenc, that the bad fifli are cafi 
 azuay ; that the tares and chaif are burnt up. How is this 
 confiilent with their final fah'ation and happinefs ? 
 
 All thofe texts which declare, that thofe who die im- 
 penitent (hail pertjhj fliall he ccjt aiuay, iliall be reje^ed, 
 be defiroyed he loft^ &:c, difprove univerfal falvation ; as 
 I Cor. I. 18; '* The preaching of the crofs is to them. 
 ** that per'ijh, foolifhnefs ; but unto us who ar« Caved ^ i% 
 
 is the power of God." 2 Pet II. 12; ** T'hefe ihall 
 
 utterly periJJj in their own corruption.'' Lu]\e iX. 25; 
 
 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the Vv'hole 
 
 world, and lofe himfelf, or be caj} azvay.''^ Heb. VI. 
 8 ; '• That which beareth thorns and briers is reje^ed.^' 
 2 Cor. IV. 3 ; ^^ If our gofpel be hid, it is hid to them 
 '' that are /yr.'' iTheff.'l. 8; '' Who fliall be punilh- 
 ^' ed with everlafting defiruiTlion.'' Mat. XXI. 44 ; '^ On 
 '^ whomfoever it Ihall fall, it fliall ^r/W him to poiuder ;'' 
 &;c. Sec. Now with what truth or propriety can thofe be 
 faid to peri f/y^he cajl avjay, be rejeSled^ iejiroyed^ loft; who 
 are all finally faved ? Perdition, deftrurfion, &c, tire ever 
 in fcripture fet in oppofition to falvation, and are repre- 
 fented to be inconliltent with it. But where is the oppo- 
 fition, if thofe who perifli, be faved too? 
 
 Acts III. 21 ; ^* Whom the heaven muft receive un- 
 ^^ til the times of the reftitution of all things, which God 
 *' hath fpoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets fince 
 *^ the world becran." This text which has been often 
 cjuoted as a proof of univerfal falvation, is, I conceive, a 
 clear proof of the contrary. The heaven will receive and 
 retain our Lord Jefus Chrifl^ until the time fliall corns 
 
 P p when 
 
 * Which word, I hope^ from, iv-mf has been already dlf- 
 <:^vered in the hrueflgaiion of lis true fenfe, I hsive a right 
 to Qonpder asufedin ths endlefs finfe. 
 
290 Pojiilve evidence 
 
 when all thofe things fhall be reflored, which God, by tlfO 
 mouths of all his prophets, hath declared, t^vIoj* »t^ «Attx»3-«y^ 
 fliall be reftored, which things doubtlefs comprehend alf 
 things which ever fliall be reftored. But our Lord Jeius 
 Chriii will not be retained in heaven longer than till the 
 general judgment. After that time therefore, nothing will 
 be reftored. But it is granted on all hands, that after 
 that time the wicked will be in mifery. Therefore they 
 fhall never be recovered from that mifery. 
 
 2 Pet. III. 9 ; ^' The Lord is not flack concerning his 
 *' promife (as fome men count flacknefs) but is long fuf-. 
 ^^ fering to us ward, not willing that any Ihould perifh, 
 *^ but that all ihculd come to repentance," alfo hath been- 
 quoted to prove univerfal ialvation. It is however im- 
 pertinent to that purpofe, but upon tke fuppofition that 
 the word ptr'ijh means endlefs perdithn. Not even any 
 univerfalili will fay, that God is unwilling that thofe who- 
 die in impenitence ihould perifh /</r a luhile, until they are 
 brought to repentance, or until they fliall have fuffered 
 the juft punifnment of their fms. But if perifh in this 
 pafTage mean endlefs perdition, it doubtlefs means the 
 fame in all thofe texts in which the wicked are pofitively 
 faid to perilh, as i. Cor. I. 18, ^^ For the preaching o£ 
 ** the crofs is to them that perilh foolifhnefs.'' 
 
 Luke XX. 35; ^' But they which fliall be accounted 
 ^' worthy to obtain' that world, and the refurre^lion from. 
 '^ the dead, neither marry ner are given in marriage." — 
 Some then will not obtain that world, and therefore will 
 not be laved. John XVII. 9; *' I pray for them : I pray 
 *' not for the w^orld, but for them which thou haft given 
 ** me, for they are thine." But are any to be faved, for 
 whom our Lord does not make inter ccflion ? Heb. XII. 
 15 ; ^^ ^^ Looking diligently left any man fail of the grace 
 *^ of God." Some then will fail of that grace. 
 
 Prov. I. 2^ — 29 ; ^' I alfo will laugh at your at your 
 *" calamity and mock when your fear cometh : when your 
 " fear cometh as defolation, and your deftruftion cometh 
 ^' as a whirlwind : when diftrefs and anguifli come upon 
 '^ you. Then (hyll they call upon me, but/ luill not an- 
 ^^ fiver ; they fhall feek me early but they Jhall not find 
 ^' mey If God fhall never anfwer their calls, and they 
 iliall never find God; they will never be faved. — Pfalm 
 CXII. 10 ; '■'' The defire of the wicked fliall perifh."— 
 
df endlefs puriifloment, 5i^x 
 
 Job VIII. 13, 14; ^^ The hypocrite's hope fliall pe- 
 '* rifh : whofe hope fliall be cut off, and whole truft fliall 
 *' be a fpider^s web." Prov. X. 28 ; ^* The expec- 
 tation of the wieked iljallperifh.'^ Chap. XI. 7; '^When 
 a wicked man dieth, his expeclation fliall perifii, and the 
 hope of unjuft men perifheth." Chap. XXIX. i ; 
 He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, fliall 
 ^* fuddenly be deftroyed, and that without remedy j"^ If 
 all men arc to be faved, the hope and expeftation of the 
 wicked are not cut off, do not perifh, in any other fenfc than 
 that in which the hope and expeftation of the righteous pe- 
 rifn and are cut off. The wicked may expect to obtain hap- 
 pinefs before they are fufficiently difciplined, or beforq a 
 certain period. So may the righteous expect to make their 
 tranfition to heaven before it will come. This expectation 
 of both will be cut off. But the expeclation which the 
 \vicked have of final happinefs, will never, according to 
 Dr. C^s fyftem, be cutoff. Nor, according to the fame 
 fyftem, can it be true, that the wicked fhall be deflroyed 
 
 -without remedy. Prov. XIV. 3a; ** the Vv'icked is 
 
 '^ driven away in his wickednefs ; b;3t the righteous hath 
 ^'^ hope in his death." But according to the univcrfal 
 fyftem, the wicked hath in his death as real and well 
 founded a hope as the hope of the righteous. Job XI. 
 20, *' Their hope fhall be as the giving up cf the ghoft." 
 Chap. XXVII. 8; '<■ For what is the hope of the hypo- 
 " crite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away 
 '' his foul?" Phil. in. 19 ; '' Whofe end is deflruc- 
 *^ tion." ^But if all men be finally f^ived, the endo'iwo man 
 is deftru^lion. Heb. VI. 8; ^* Whole <f;;^ is to be burn- 
 
 «ff ejd." 2 Cor. XL. 15; '^ Whofe <f;?(^ is according to 
 
 ^' theii' works." This is laid of the minifters of fatan, 
 whofe works are certainlyevil. Their end therefore being- 
 according to tlieir works mufl be evil too. How tlien can 
 they be finally faved? If it Ihould be faid, that thefe 
 texts do not mean the /^/? end of the wicked; this would 
 be a mere affertion. As v. ell might we fay that Rom. VI. 
 22 ; ^' Ye have; your fruit unto holinefs and the end everlaft- 
 *' ing life," means not the laft end of the righteous. 
 
 The fcripture reprefents, that at the end of this world, 
 all things are brought to ^;^ end. i Pet. IV. 7; ^' But 
 the end of all things \s at hand,^^ n-^yiy.?. Surely this can- 
 not mean that the end of all things will take place after 
 
 ^^ 
 
 es 
 
1292 Pojiiive evidence 
 
 ages of ages to facceed the end cf this world. A period 
 fo diftant is never in Icripture faid to be at hand', nor 
 
 coaid this with propriety, be faid of fuch a period.-- 
 
 Matt. XXT¥. 14; *' I'his gofpel of the kingdom fhallbc 
 *' preached in all the world, for a. witnefs to all nations : 
 
 ^^ PAidthen. ^y<f, fiiall the end come.'' But when all 
 
 things fiiall have come to their ejtd. they will be in a fixed, 
 imalterabie Hate, and after that, there can be no pafTing; 
 from hell to heaven. Nor can there be any fuch paifing 
 ^fter Chrift fhall have delivered up the kingdom to the Fa- 
 ther. '1 o this Dr. C. agrees. But I have already gi- 
 ven my reafons for believing that Chrid will deliver up the 
 icingdom to the Father, ai the end of this ^vorld -^ and for 
 believing that i Cor. XV. 24, muft be undeHtood in this 
 fenfe, and that according to Dr. C's explanation cf that 
 text, it cannot be reconciled with Matt. XIII. 40 — 44, 
 and other paflagcs of fcripture. 
 
 2 Cor. VI. 2; '* Behold no'w is the accepted time ; be- 
 ^' hold, now is the day of falvation./' Heb. III. 7 ; ^^ Tq 
 ^' dayy if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.'' 
 But if the greater part of mankind ihall be faved out of 
 hell, and the means of repentance in hell be far more con- 
 ducive to the end, tkan the beft means ufed in this world, 
 it fliould have been faid, In the future ftate is the accept- 
 ed time, and in hell will be the day of falvatien. 
 
 2 Cor. IV , j8 ; ^^ -The things which are feen, are tem- 
 ^' poral ; but the things which are not feen, are eternal.^* 
 Ji all the unfeen things of the fiitrfre ftate be eternal, the 
 punifliment of the damned is eternal. And eternal, a.r.>v;«^ 
 mult in this inftance mean endlefs : otherwife all oppofiti- 
 on with regard to duration, between things feen, and 
 things unfeen, is loft ; and things unfeen are as truly tem- 
 poral, as tilings feen. At moft, on Dr. .C's principle of 
 conftruing fcripture ; the apoifle's propofition comes to 
 this merely: The things which are feen, are temporal, 
 but the things which are unfeen are to continue for an age. 
 But this is true of many prefent feen things. 
 
 The promifes of tlie gofpel in general afford an argu- 
 ment in favour of endlefs punifhmcnt. K.ev. II. 11 ; 
 
 ^^ He that overcometh, ihall not be hurt of the fccond 
 ^^ deatli." I jDrefume all will grant, that this prOmife im- 
 plies, that all wlio do not overcome, fiiall be hurt of the 
 fecorid death. Therefore, by parity of reafon, when it is 
 
 proi 
 
 \m 
 
 fed 
 
t)f endlefs fiimjl?ment , 293 
 
 prom ife dill the fame chapter, '^ To him that overcometh, 
 ** I will give to eat of the tree of life, v hich is in the 
 *' midil of the paradiie of God ;'' it implies, that thofe 
 who do not overcome, fhall never eat of that tree. *' To 
 *' him that overcometh, will i give to eat of the hidden 
 *' manna, and will give him a white (lone," &c, im- 
 plies, that he who does not overcome, fhall never eat o^^ the 
 hidden manna, fhall never receive the white flone, kc. '^ Him 
 '^ that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temfie of my 
 '* God, and he fliall go no more out,'' implies, that he 
 who does not overcome, fliall not be a pillar in the temple 
 of God. '^ To him that overcometh, will 1 grant to fit 
 *' with me in my throne," implies, that he who doei not 
 overcome, fliall never fit in Chriit's throne, 'i hefe I give 
 as a fpecimen only of the proraifes, and of the argument 
 which they afford. 
 
 Finally, if all fliall be faved, why have not Chrifr, 
 and thofe who wTote by the infpiration of his fpirit, been 
 cxphcit in the matter .^ Why have they ufed fo many ex- 
 preiFions, which in the literal fenfe aflert the contrary doc- 
 trine? and which apparently obfcure the truth, and blind 
 the eyes of the readers of the New Tt^itament ? Efpeciul- 
 ly, if, as Dr. C. holds, univerfal falvation he fo glorious to 
 God, the main fubjecl of the gofpel, and fo necc'lfary to 
 vindicate the divine character? Surely this of all doctrines 
 ought to have been indifputably revealed, ^x\d not one hint 
 given to the contrary. 
 
 Besides thele arguments drawn directly from texts of 
 fcripture ; I fliall mention one drawn from the general na- 
 ture of the gofpel, or from the particular doctrines of the 
 gofpel, acknowledged by both parties in this contj-overfy. 
 
 Those who die impenitent, deferve an endlefs punifli- 
 ment. The proof of this hath been attempted, Chap. VT. 
 It is briefly this : If endlefs punifliment be not the penal- 
 ty threatened in the law, and juftly deferved by the fin- 
 ner, no account can pofiibly be given of the penalty ol the 
 law. It cannot be the temporary punifl[iment actually fuf- 
 fered by the damned ; becaufc then the damned would be 
 finally faved without fbrgivenefs. It cannot be a tem|-o- 
 rary punifliment of lefs duration, than that which is fuiTcr- 
 ed by the damned ; becaufc on that fuppofitiorrthe damned 
 are puiiiflied more than they deferve. It cannot be a tem- 
 porary punifliment of longer duration, than that which the 
 icriptures abundantly declare the dajiined flijill fulilr ; be- 
 
 caufe 
 
^94 Pojitlve evidence. 
 
 caufe no fuch puniilament is threatened in tKe law, oi* i» 
 any part of fcripture. It nmVi therefore be an endlefs pu- 
 
 niihment. This endlefs punilhment threatened in the 
 
 law, is not annihilation, but endlefs inifery ; becaufe if it 
 vere annihilation, none of the damned, on fuppofition, 
 that they are all iinaliy faved, will be punifhed with the 
 curfe of the law, or which is the fame, with the puniiliment 
 which they jaftly defervc. But both the fcripture and 
 Dr. C. abundantly hold, that the damned will be puniflied 
 as much as they delerve, as hath been fhewn Chap. III. 
 But for the full proof, that the punifhment of hell is not 
 anaihikition. 1 muil refer the reader to Chap. V. If the 
 €ndlefs punifhment threitened in the law, and defervedby 
 the v/icked, be not annihilation, it muft be endlefs mifery. 
 But whatever puni/liment the wicked juftly defervc, they 
 will in fad fulfer ; they will have to pay the uttermoil 
 farthing ; they will fuAer judgment without mercy. There- 
 fore, thsy will faffer not only an endlefs punifhment, but 
 an endlefs mifery, or torment. 
 
 1 -TE fame argument is a little diiFerently ftated thus ; 
 Dr. C. allows, that if the puniihment of the damned be in- 
 tended to fatisfy /niiice, it is impolTible all men ihould be 
 faved.* He aifo holds abundantly, that it is impollible,, 
 that any flnner fliould be jufliiied or faved *^ on the foot of 
 " law.'' He equally holds this with regard to the moral 
 law, ^^ the law written in men's hearts," ^^ the natural 
 ^' law,"' and the law as prornulged in the gofpel by Jefus 
 *' Chrill and his apoftlcs," as with regard to the ^^Mo- 
 " faic law."f He alfo holds, that ^' the lav/ of God is 
 ^' a perfect rule of righteoufnefs." Now if it be impodi- 
 ble that an}'' linncr be juftined by the moral law, then eve- 
 ry flnner is, and muft be condemned by it, and from that 
 condemnation he can never be acquitted by the law. If it 
 be impofhble that any finner be faved by that law, then on 
 the footing of that lav/, every finner muft be excluded 
 from falvation. 
 
 But this law is '^ a perfect rule of righteoufnefs." 
 Therefore perfed righteoufnefs, or ftrict diltributive juf- 
 tice, will never admit of the falvation of any finner; but 
 every finner juftly deferves to be er.dlefsly excluded from 
 
 falvatioi-i. Again, a puniUnnent which fatisiiesjuftice, is 
 
 one which is perfectly juft and deferved by the finner. 
 
 Therefore^ 
 
 5' P, II. f See 12 ferm. P. 4, &c» 
 
o/ endkfs Punijhmenf, ip^ 
 
 Therefore, if the fmner be puniflicd accordino- to his de- 
 fert, he can never be faved. — But both the fcriptures and 
 JDr. C. hold, that the damned will be puniihed according 
 to their deferts ; therefore they will never be faved. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 1HAVE now finifhed a work which has been attended 
 with confiderable labour to me, and with fome to the 
 reader v/ho has perufedthe whole. I am fenfible that con- 
 ti-overfial writers often mifunderftand each other, and 
 therefore often fpend their own time and labour, and the 
 time of their readers for nought. I have been aware of 
 the danger of this, and have endeavoured to my utmoft: 
 to avoid it: how fuceefsfully, muft be fubmitted. I 
 have often wiTned for an opportunity of converfation with 
 fome fenfible and thorough believer in Dr. C^s fcheme^ 
 that I might obtain explanation of fome things, to me un- 
 accountable. But I have not been favoured with fuch an 
 opportunity. I have endeavoured to meet the Doctor's 
 chief arguments, and not to carp at particulars which are 
 of no importance to the fcheme, and have no-t delignedly 
 Ihunned any argument which appeared to me to be import- 
 ant, and not implied in other arguments particularly 
 noticed. I hope that whoever fliall undertake the confu- 
 tation of what is now* offered to the public, will treat it with 
 the fame candour. In a work of this length, and on a 
 fubjecl of fuch intricacy, it would be flrange indeed if there 
 were not fome flips which would give advantage to an an- 
 tagonifl; yet thofe flips may not aifedl the main queftion. 
 If any man fliall write to point out fuch errata, it will 
 hardly be worth while for me to trouble either myfelf or 
 the world with a reply. But if any y-entleman will can- 
 didly point out the fallacy of the main argUif.ents, on which 
 I have refted what I fully believe to be truth ; however I 
 aiay be affefted by it, I doubt net but that the public will 
 have the candour ingenuoufly to acknowledge it. If on 
 the contrary his reply Ihall confift chiefly of declamation 
 and warm addrelTes to the paiTions and imaginations of 
 
 mankind, 
 
t^6 ConcluJiQUf 
 
 3>iankind, patlietical and frightful reprefentatlons of the 
 to! intents of the damned, interlarded with farcaftic fleprs 
 and other effays at wit ; I doubt not the fame candid pub k 
 lie will properly notice it, and draw an inference not very 
 favourable to the caufe which is to be fupported by fuch 
 auxiliaries. Such artifices are unworthy of theologians, 
 
 philofophers and any inquirers after truth. 1 hope 
 
 whoever undertakes a reply, will tell us what punifhment 
 lin jullly deferves; what is the penalty of the moral 
 law ; or that curfe of the law from which Chrift hath re- 
 deemed us.* I hope he will further inform us whether all 
 men (hall befaved in the way of forgivenefs. If they be, he 
 will reconcile that mode of the falvationof allmenwiththofe 
 declarations of fcripture which aflert, that the wicked fliall 
 be puniflied according to their works, ihall have judgment 
 without mercy, and ihall pay the uttermofl farthing. If 
 it Ihall be his opinion, that the damned will be punilhed ac- 
 cording to their demerits, and then be faved without for- 
 givenefs, it is to be hoped he will reconcile this idea with 
 the whole New Teftament, which every where reprefents, 
 that all who are iaved,are faved in the way of forgivenefs. 
 If he Ihall hold, that *;ft)Cicc, eternal^ «/« Isy ^^lav^.^ forever, 
 and f.; '(5^: ctioDvsL^ '^av Aiuiuiy J forever and ever, generally in 
 the fcripture mean a limited duration, let him point out 
 the inllances of that uie of them, that they may be com- 
 pared with thole inilances in which they are ufed in the 
 
 endlefs fenie. But- I need not enumerate the various 
 
 particulars, which ought to be minutely and diftindly con- 
 lid;n'ed, in a candid and judicious difcuflion of this impor- 
 tant qneftion. 
 
 I HAV^. no apprehenfion, that the doftrine of endlefs 
 punilhment will fuffer at all by a thorough difcuflion. In 
 the courfe of the difquiiition many may be perverted to 
 fatal error ; yet the final refult will be the more clear elu- 
 cidation of the truth. However ^* many may run to and 
 '* fro, yet knowledge ihall be increaied." 
 
 Finally, if any man, after a careful perufal of what 
 has been, or may be offered, on both ildes of this im- 
 portant 
 
 * Dr. C, explains Gal. Ill, lo, to mean the curfe nf 
 the mural law, or the lavj under -which ail ".neii are; I2 
 Sermons, p. ij. 
 
Conclujiorti 13,0/ 
 
 portant queftlon, fhall be in doubt on which fide the truth 
 lies ; it will certainly be moft prudent and fafe for him tb 
 ad as he would, if he fully believed endlefs punifhment ; 
 it will be moft prudent and fafe for him to yield a cordial 
 compliance with the gofpel, in repentance, faith and obe- 
 dience. Then he will be fafe on either fuppofition. But 
 if he truft tcj the flattering doctrine, that all are finally to 
 be laved, and in this prefumption fhall neglect the gofpel, 
 its invitations and requirements ; and it fliall finally prove^ 
 that that dodtrine is a mere imagination of men ; alas ! he 
 is loft ; irrecoverably loft : while thofe who receive the 
 gofpel with ^^ the obedience of faith," fliall through the 
 blood of atonement, ^' have right to the tree of life, and 
 *"' ihall enter in through the gates into the City.'^ 
 
 APPENDIX; 
 
 O q 
 
aqS Remarks on Bijhof Newton,' 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 Containing re^narks on fever al authors. 
 
 I. "O EMARKS on Bifliop Newton's DiiTertation oi* 
 x\. the final State and Condition of Men, contain- 
 ed in Vol. Vl. of his works, page 325, &c. 
 
 N. D. In page 24 this dijjertation luas referred to, as 
 quoted in the Monthly Reviezu. The reafon luas, I had not 
 then feen the Difj^ert aiion iifelf 
 
 The Bilhop held, that all the damned will be punifhed 
 acconling to their demerits ; as may appear by the follow- 
 
 ng palTages : '* There will be different degrees of 
 
 happinef's ormifery, in proportion, to their different ccn- 
 diic^ and behaviour in this world. As nothing is jufter 
 and more equitable in itfelf, fo nothing is clearer and 
 more demonlirable from fcripture. Shall not the judge 
 of all the earth do right, in every fingle inflance, as 
 well as in the general account ? It is not only agreea- 
 ble to the iirft principles of reafon, but may alfo be c©n- 
 linned by the mcA:- exprefs teflimonies of revelation.''^ 
 — <^ Our Saviour threateneth diiterent punifliments to 
 the v.'ickcd, as he promifeth different rewards to the 
 righteous, greater cr lefs, according' to the nature and 
 qualities of their aliens J' ^ ^' It is evident then and 
 undeniable, that every man fliall receive his own reward 
 or puniihinent, according to that he hath done, whether 
 it he good or bad. ''.J: ** It muft be then admitted, that 
 God hath threatened everiafiing mifery to the wicked, 
 as plainly and poiitively as he hath promifed everlafting 
 happinefs to the righteous. He hath fairly fet before 
 us life and death, bleffmtr and curhng, eternal happinefs 
 as well as everlallln.o- miferv, the one to balance the o- 
 ther. Is there any injullice in this ? Are not the terms 
 and conditions equal ? And if men will choofe curfmg 
 
 '^ rather 
 
 ■■■^ P. -L\i, t P. 347. 1 Ibid. 
 
Remarks 0)1 Bijhop Newton loa 
 
 ^^ rather than bleiTmg, and voluntarily incur evcrlafting 
 '* milery, when they might as eafily attain eternal hanpi- 
 i' nefs, whom have they to complain of, cr whom c?.n 
 *'' they arraign of unequal proceeding but themfclves ? 
 ^' (Ezek. XVIII. 29.) Are not my ways eqnal? Are not 
 *• your ways unequal, faith the Lord ? You cannot then 
 ^' complain of injuiiice, for the rewards and puniflimcnts 
 '* are equal : and it was really neceiTary, that thefe rewards 
 *^ and puniihments fliould be cverlaflmg.'*^ — Would any 
 ^^ thing lefs than everlafting rewards and punilhinentj; be 
 ** fuiScient to encourage the good, to deter the bad, and 
 ^^ fecure obedience to the divine commands :-|--- — —How 
 ^^ then can you complain, that God is a-j arbitrary gover- 
 ^' nor, and annexeth greater penalties to his laws than 
 
 *' are necelliiry. xou cannot then complain, that the 
 
 '^ fandion of eternal penalties is unreafonable, for you fee 
 ^' plainly, that it is no more than is abfolutely neceffary. 
 *' But poflibly you may think, though it m.ay be necelTary 
 ^' in the government of this world for fuch things to be 
 ^' denounced by God, and believed by man, yet there 
 '' may not be the like neceuity for infiiding them in the 
 '* world to come: God is not obliged to execute his 
 '^ threatenings, as he is to make good his promifes. But 
 '• v.'hy is he not obliged to perform the one as well as the 
 ^' .other ? Kis threatenino-s are never, like tliofe of men, 
 ^^ maderadily, never founded in pallicn cr caprice, that 
 '' it iliould be better not to execute, than execute them, 
 
 '^ If God will not execute as well as threaten, why 
 
 ^^ doth he threaten at all?-^ Is it not more fuitable to 
 
 ^^ the character of a God of truth, and becoming the {im- 
 *^ plicity and fincerity of a divine revelation, to declare 
 '^ the truth, and nothing but the truth, and leave it to 
 ^' work upon men as it can, rather than denounce in the 
 ^^ moil jblemn m^anner v/hat was never intended, and ne- 
 '' ver fliall come to pafs, and fo endeavour to alarm them 
 "'• with falfe fears, and to work upon them with falfe per- 
 
 *• fuaiions, which have nothing to anfwer them?"§ 
 
 *' Gcd mufc be juft as well as merciful. Ke can never ex- 
 '• ercife one of his attributes fo as to craih or interfere with 
 *^ another/' II 
 
 On thefe quotations it may be reninrked, that the Bi-- 
 ihop plainly held, that endlefs mifery is threatened ; ioi- 
 
 ne 
 
 *P. 356, iP:35;. U'. 357. 358- li P- 3?8 
 
^®c Remarks on Bijloop Newton. 
 
 he always ufes the word everlafting in the endlefs fenfe, 
 and believed this to be the fcriptural fenfe of it, when 
 applied to future puniihment.* He alfo rejected the doc- 
 trine of annihilation, f Now then his opinion was either,, 
 that endlefs mifery is unconditionally threatened to all who 
 die impenitent; or that it is threatened to them on condi- 
 tion of their continued impenitence in the future world. 
 If it be threatened unconditionally, it follows, (i) That 
 endlefs mifery is the juft puniHiment of the fins committed 
 in this life. For who will pretend, that God hath made 
 a law, which contains an unjuit penalty? This would be 
 equally inconfiilent wath the divine moral reftitude, as to 
 make a law containing unjuft or unrisalonable precepts; or 
 to execute the unjuit penalty. But if this were the opi- 
 nion of the Bilhop, to be confiftent he muft have given up 
 the doftrine of univerfal falvation, to eflabhfn which he 
 '^vrote his Differtation. For he not only declares in the 
 paiTages already quoted, that ^^ God muft be jufi: as well 
 '^^ as merciful, and can never exercife one of his attributes 
 *^ fo as to interfere with another ;^' and *' that his threat- 
 ^^ enings are never like thofe of men, made railily, never 
 ^^ founded in pafTion or caprice, that it fhouid be better 
 '^ not to execute, than execute them ;'^:{: but ||according 
 to Mat. V. 26, and XVIil. 34, he acknowledges, that 
 the damned fliall pay the uttermoit farthing, and all that 
 
 is due, (2) It will follow, that fm is an infinite evil. 
 
 Certainly that moral evil which deferves an infinite natu- 
 ral evil to be infiifted by v/ay of puniihment, is an infinite- 
 ly ili-deferving moral evil ; this is plain by the very terms : 
 and a moral evil, which is infinitely ill-deferving, is all that 
 is meant by the infinite evil of fm. Yet this lentiment he 
 reprobates in the ftrongeft terms. 
 
 But if thofe who die impenitent be threatened with 
 endlefs mifery, cu conditmt of their coniimied impenitence 
 only ; then a mere falutary diicipline is all the puniflimcnt 
 -svhich any fmner deferves according to Uriel jaftice. The 
 law is the rule of righteoufnefs ; the penalty of that is 
 adequate to the demand of jufcice : and if the penalty of 
 that be an endlefs punishment unlefs the linncr Jhall re- 
 pent, the penalty in reality is fo much punifnment only as 
 ihail lead the linner to repentance ; and this falutary and 
 
 necelTary 
 
 ^ 5<»eP. 355. i Sec P. 349- ? P- 358- I! P- S^^. 
 
Remarks on B'ljhop Newton. goi 
 
 necefTaiy difcipline is the whole penalty or curfc of the 
 law. ' 
 
 That this was really the opinion of the Bi (hop may ap- 
 pear from the following expreihons : '* If God v ill not 
 *•' execute as well as threaten, why doth he threaten ac 
 *' all? It muft be faid, to reclaim a fmner ; and it is ai- 
 '• lowed that if thelinncr be reclaimed, tiie end is obtain- 
 ^' ed, and the threatening is voided of courfe."*-*— 
 *^ Several of the fathers conceived the fire of hell to be a 
 
 ^' purging as well as a penal fire But this penal purg- 
 
 ^^ ing fire is very different from the purgatory of the 
 '^ church of Pvome ; for that is not once mentioned in 
 
 f^ fcripture, but this is often repeated. '^-j- ^', If theof- 
 
 '' fender be corrected and reformed, the fu'il e«d is fully 
 '^ anfwercd, and the punifhment fliould ceafe of courfe. 
 ^' If he flill remain incorrigible, it is fitting that the pu- 
 ^' nifliment fhould be continued and increafed, till it have 
 ^^ the due efFec!.''.-!: •''' It is jult, and wile, and good, 
 
 '' and even merciful, to correft a {inner as lono; as he de- 
 
 ... ^ 
 
 '^ ferves correction, to chafrife him into a Icnfe of his 
 
 *' guilt, to whip and fcourge him, as I may fay, out of his 
 
 ** faults. ''II ^^ If tliey will not repent, why f!]ould he 
 
 *^ not execute upon them the threatenings which they 
 
 *' have defpifed ?'' ^' This is the only means of ef- 
 
 *^ caping, there is none oiher cond'itlonor refervatiiyri.^^^ — 
 
 '' This 1 conceive to be the true notion of the eternity of 
 
 ^^ rewards and punifhments. Righteoufncfs will be for- 
 
 ^' ever happy and glorified, v/ickednefs will be forever 
 
 *^ miferable and tormented. But if rivhteoufhefs fhould 
 
 *^ fliould become wickednefs, and v/ickednefs fhould be- 
 
 ^' come righteoufnefs — with the change of their nature, 
 
 ^^ their flate and condition would be changed tco."4- 
 
 BuT wher&inallthe fcriptures is any fuch condition men- 
 tioned -in the account of future puniihment ? It is not faid 
 depart ye curfed into fire which fhall be everlaftingunlefs ye 
 repent : Thefe fliall go away into puniilnnent v. jiich fliall be 
 everlafling unlefs tliey repent : Their worm fhall not 
 die unlefs they repent ; They cannot pafs the grc:;t 
 gulf unlefs they repent : The iinoke of their torment fliall 
 
 afcend up forever and ever, unlefs tliey repent. And 
 
 to fay that the meaning of the fcripture \v> thus conditional, 
 is,to aflert without any proof or evider.ce : nor does the 
 Bifhop pretend to produce r^ny. . The 
 
 * P. 358. fP, 37c>. + P. 365. '\IhlcL ^P. 559, \JhU, 
 
^c% Remarks on BiJJjop Newton. 
 
 The Bilhop argues univerfal falvation in this manner, 
 '^ He would have all men to be faved ; and whence then 
 *' arifeth the obftraction to liis good will and pleafure, or 
 *^ how rometh it to pafs, that his gracious purpofcs arc 
 
 *' ever defeated ?''(j So it may be faid, " God is not 
 
 *^ willing that any ihould pcriiii, but that all fliouid come 
 '^ to repentance, and no^\i commandeth all men every 
 ^' where to repent." It is the vv'ili of God that all-man- 
 kind ihould repent woxy this vsry day. Yet all mankind do 
 not repent this very day. Whence then arifeth the ob- 
 fcruCLion to his good will and pleafure, or how cometh it 
 to pafs that his gracious purpoi'es are defeated ? 
 
 *^ Nothing," fays the Bifnop, ^^ is more contrariant 
 ^' to the divine nature and attributes, than for God to be- 
 ^^ flow exiftence on any beings, whofe deftiny he fore- 
 '' knows muil terminate in wrctchednefs vv'ithout recove- 
 *' ry."f The truth of this propofition depends on the 
 following principle, That it is not^ nor can be, in any cafe, 
 confiftent with the general good implying the glory of God, 
 that a linner fliould be mifcrable Vv^ithout end. For if God 
 forefee that the endlefs mifery of a man will be fubfervient 
 to the general good ; there is notking contrariant to i»he 
 divine nature, t© beitov/ exiilence upon him, though he 
 foreknow that he Vv'ill fin, that he vv'ili deferve endieis mi- 
 fery, and that his delliny will terminate in wrctchednefs 
 without recovery. 
 
 We. find that there a^e in fa 61 temporary miferies in the 
 world. On what principle can thefe be reconciled with 
 the divine attributes? If it be anfwered, on the iole prin- 
 ciple, that they will ilTus in the perfonal good of the pa- 
 tients ; the reply is, (i.) That this will be facl v/ants 
 proof. It is by nq means evident, that God aims at the 
 perfonal good of every individual in all his difpenfations, 
 hov/ever diftreihng ; it is not evident that the inhabitants 
 of the old v/orld, of Sodom and Gomorrah, &c. are more 
 happy in the whole of their exiflence, than if they had li- 
 ved and died like other men.—-^ — -(2.) Efpecially it is not 
 evident, that all the fin and wickednefs which any man 
 commits will finally make him a mere happy man, than lie 
 would have been, if he had committed no im. If God may 
 without a view to promote the perfonal good of a man, 
 permit him to fall into fm, v/hy may he not without a view 
 
 tf 
 
 ilP. 367. \lhhl 
 
Remarks on Bljhop Newton. 303, 
 
 to the fame obje<ft, punifh him for that fm ? To fay that 
 God could not confiftently with the moral agency of the man, 
 prevent his falling into fm, will infer that God cannot con- 
 liffcently with the moral agency of the man^ certainly and in- 
 
 faUibly lead him to repentance. (3.) The principle new 
 
 under coniideration implies that there is not now nor ever 
 has been in the univerfe, any thing which on the whole 
 is a real evil to any man conlidered in his individual capa- 
 city : that no man ever v/as or ever will be the fubjed of 
 any curfe, or any calamity which any man, with a view to 
 his own happinefs only, ihould wifh t© avoid. 
 
 Or if temporary calamities be reconciled with the di- 
 vine attributes on this principle, that they are fubfervient 
 to the general good ; on the fame principle we reconcile 
 with the divine attributes, the endlefs mifery of the 
 
 damned, This v/hole argument depends on the fuppo- 
 
 iltion, that the final miiery of any linner cannot be fubfer- 
 vient to the general good. To take this for granted is in- 
 tolerable. 
 
 As we have feen, it is a fundamental principle with the 
 Bifhop, that-fuch a punifnment as is fufiicient to lead a (in- 
 ner to repentance, is all which is threatened in fcriprurc. 
 This then is the penalty or curfe of the divine law : this 
 is the utmoil which ftricl: juflice will admit : and he on this 
 fuppofition jufrly ailerts, ** that fome time or other fatis- 
 ** fadion may be made, the debt of iin may bedifcharged, 
 '^ and the f inner himfelf releafed out of prifon.^' f 
 — This is utterly incontiftent with the falvation of the 
 damned in the way of forgivenefs. Yet his texts to prove 
 univerfal falvation, imply laivation in the v/ay of forgive- 
 nefs only. After quoting Exod. XXXIV. 6, 7 ; *' The 
 *' Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-fuf- 
 '' fering and abundant in goodnefs and truth, keeping 
 *^ mercy for thoufands, forgiving iniquity and tranfgrei- 
 *' fion and fm /' he adds, *' But how can fuch attributes 
 ^^ contifl: with a fydem of irrevocable vengeance for thou- 
 *' fands, tranfgreilions never to be forgiven,'^ &:c ? To 
 which I anfwer, They can juft as Avell confift with fuch a 
 fyftem, as with Biftop Newton's fyftem, v/hich implies 
 that the damned fuiter all that they deferve ; for what is 
 this, but irrevocable vengeance to the highefc degree ? And 
 furely the tranfgrefTions of thofc v.'lio fuffer fuch a punifh- 
 ment are never forgiven. 
 
 P. t ^if''^. ^'^ 
 
jd4 Rernat-ki en Blfhop Newton.' 
 
 It is abfurd therefore for him to argue from grace, cohi^ 
 pafTion, the divine readinefs to forgive, &c. And equally 
 
 abfurd to argue as he does from the merits of Chrifl 
 
 For do they obtain any relief by Chrift, who themfelves 
 fuffer the whole penalty of the law, and thus make fatis- 
 fa^lion for their own fms ? Yet he abundantly holds the 
 falvation of all men by the merits of Chrift : as in the fol- 
 lowing palTages out of many : ^Mt is the declared end and 
 '' purpofe of our blelTed Saviour's coming into the world, 
 
 *' to recover and to redeem loft mankind. How ofteii 
 
 *' is hefty led the Saviour of the World in the full extent 
 
 ** and meaning of the wordsr"| *^ His very enemies 
 
 *^ are reconciled to God by the merit diVid. fufferlngs of his 
 
 *' beloved Son/'|| '' He only requires us to exert our 
 
 ** beft endeavours, and the merits of our Saviotir will 
 ^' atune for the refi.^^^ 
 
 '^ To fuppofe that a man's happinefs or mifery to all 
 *^ eternity ihould abfolutely and unchangeably be fi^-ied by 
 *^ the uncertain beliaviour of a few years in this life, is a 
 *^ liippolition even more unrealbnable and unnatural, than 
 *"' that a man's mind and manners fhould be completely 
 " formed in his cradle, and his whole future fortune and 
 '* condition fliould depend upon his infancy ; infancy be- 
 '^ ingmuch greater in proportion to the few years of this 
 *' life, than the whole of this life to eternity/'* — The fame 
 might be faid, if the time of man's probation were ever fo 
 long, but limited. Thus; To fuppofe that a man's hap- 
 pinefs or mifery to all eternity fhould be unchangeably fix- 
 ed by the uncertain behaviour of, millions of millions of 
 ^ ages, is a fuppoiition even more unreafonable, than that a 
 man's mind and manners Ihould be completely formed in 
 his cradle, and his whole future fortune and condition fliould 
 depend upon his infancy ; infancy being much greater in 
 proportion to the fewyears of this life, than-millions of mil- 
 lions of ages to eternity. 
 
 ^^ K'OPv could even his" [God's] '^ juftice for fhort- 
 *' lived tranfgreflions inliift everlafting puniihraent.'^|||| — 
 But how long' lived muft the tranfgreffions be, that juftice 
 may confent to infiift for them everlafting punifhments ? 
 Let them be ever fo long-lived, provided they are limited, 
 they are ftill innnitely Ihort-lived in comparifon with an 
 cverlaftino; duration. And v.'ill it be faid that the tranfgref- 
 
 llOA 
 
 } P. 382. II P. 383. § P. 387. *P. 361% nil P. 3^8. 
 
Remarks on Reify, n'Of 
 
 fiori muft be as long-lived as the punilhment, and that juf- 
 tice will not admit that the punilhmcnt of any tranrgreiflon 
 be of longer continuance^ than the tranfgrefiion was in the 
 perpetration ? 
 
 *' What glory to God, to fee a number of his crea- 
 *^ turespUinged in the depth of mifcry ? What good-will 
 '' towards men, to confign fo many of them to everiafting 
 *' punifhments ?''* It is dcubtlefs glcryto God, that ihey 
 be plunged into the depth of mifery, if both they defer ve it, 
 and it be fubfervient to the good of the univerfe : and the 
 gcfpel is a revelation of divine good-will towards men, 
 though many of them rejed: the infinite grace and eternal 
 falvation exhibited in that revelation, and by this and their 
 other iins juftly deferve and finally bring on themfelves 
 everlafting punilhment. 
 
 //. j4 fezo remarks on James Kelly's Treatife on Union, 
 
 He feems to hold, that all m.ankind were from eternity 
 fo united to Chrift, that he and they make properly one 
 whole or complex perfon. But it is extremely difficult to 
 determine with precifion what his ideas were. I fhall 
 therefore make feveral quotations from him, and fubjoin 
 fuch remarks as appear pertinent. ** It doth not appear 
 *^ how God — could punifh fm upon Chrilt^ without the 
 '^ concurrence of rio-hteoufnefs and truth : nor can this 
 '^ concurrence be proved^, without union betvveen Chrifb 
 ^* and thofe, for vv^hom he endured the crofs^ — —becaufe 
 *' contrary to truth, which declareth, that every man 
 *' fhail die for /r/j* oiu;? fm.'^f — ^^ Such an union between 
 *^ Chrift and his church, as gives him the right of redemp- 
 *^ tion, and brings him under that character, which is ob- 
 '^ noxious tor puniff^ment, is abfolutely neceirary."j — 
 *' Without the confideration of union, where is the juHice 
 ^' of charcrino; the black rebellion and cryinsr n-uilt ot 
 ^' man, upon the pure and fpotlefs head of Jeius.^ji " om 
 '^ is — a crime — only atoned for— -b^/ the death, yea, the 
 *^ eternal death of the fmner : which juiiice muft infii^H: 
 before it can be properly fatisiied ; nor can it poliibly 
 admit of a furety here ; becaufe it can only punifh him, 
 whom it lirft finds guilty ; and not by reckoning him, 
 to be what he is not, according to human quibbles, but 
 
 R r *^ according 
 
 * P. 3S2. \V, 3. % Ibid. iiP.-4, - 
 
3o6' Remarks on Relly^ 
 
 
 '^ according to artlefs^ reafonable, divine equity ; whick 
 can only declare fuch guilty, on whom the fault is found, 
 ^^ and can only find the fault on fuch who have committed 
 ^' it. We only committed the fault; upon us only can it 
 '^ be found. Therefore, without fuch an union betvv'een 
 ^^ Chrilt and us, as expofes us in his perfon, to judgment 
 '^ and condemnation, the ha^miony of the divine perfe(5li- 
 '^' ons doth not appear in the things which he fuffered, be- 
 *' caufe contrary to truth and juHice/'* He largely illuf- 
 trates this union betv/een Chrill and his church, by the 
 union between the head and members in the natural bo- 
 dy, and adds, '^ The union and harmony of the body 
 ^' renders it equitable to punifh and chaltife the whole bo- 
 ^' dy in one member, for its offence in another. Becaufe 
 ^^, if one member fuiFer, all the members fuffer with it. 
 *' As the union of the body makes it equitable to puniili the 
 '^ head, for the olFcnce of the other menibers ; with like 
 *' equity do the members participate with the head, in all 
 '^ its honors and glory. Thus the crowning of the head,, 
 "^ crov/ns the whole man, and every member partakes of 
 '^ the honor.*' 
 
 These quotations may ferve to give an idea of the uni- 
 on between Chriil and mankind, for which Mr, Relly 
 pleads. I now proceed to the follovv'ing remarks. 
 
 I. It appears by the foregoing quotations, that Relly 
 held fuch an union betv/een Chrilt and his church, that he 
 upon the ground of juftice became liable to puniihment on 
 account of their fins. Otherwife the fufferings of Chrift 
 were both unjuft and contrary to truth : unjuft, as he did 
 not deferve them, contrary to truth as the divine declara- 
 tion is *^ The foul that fmneth ihall die.'' But if this 
 
 be true, if Chrift Vv'as liable to punifliment on the ground 
 ofjuilice, diftributive juftice ; then Chriil deferved death 
 as m.uch as the iinner. In his fufferings the Father did 
 but treat him accordins; to his own character and condudt ; 
 he did but caufe him to eat the fruit of his own ways and to 
 be filled with his own devices : and no more thanks or praife 
 are due to Chrift on account of his fufferings, than are 
 due to the damned fini;er, on account of his enduring the 
 
 pains of hell. Befide ; how contrary is this to the icrip- 
 
 ture ! That declares, that '' Chrift fuffered the ju/I for 
 '* theunjuft;-' that * Mae was holy, harmlefs, undefiled, 
 
 " and 
 * P. 4. * 
 
Remarks on Relly. ^07 
 
 «• 
 
 nd feparate from finners ;'* That «' he did no fin, nei- 
 
 *' ther was guile found in his mouth." Now if Chrift 
 
 was a *' character obnoxious to punifirment'' on the foot 
 of diftributive.juftice, he was very far from being yzr^?, and 
 from being holy^ hannhfs, iindefded ; he did jin, and guile 
 vjas found m his mouth. Indeed t!iis is no more than R.el- 
 ]y ailerts in the above quotation.;, when he fays^ '* thatjul- 
 *^ tice can only puniih him whom it finds guilty ; not by 
 '^ reckonnig him what he is not, but according- to artlefs 
 ^^ divine equity, which can only find the fault on fuch as 
 ^* have committed it." Therefore, according to this, 
 Chriffc as one with fumers, committed the fault, and there- 
 fore defervedly fufFered for it. 
 
 If it fhould be granted, that Chrift did not himfelf com- 
 mit the fault or iin, for which he fu-iered, but that by a 
 v/ife, fovereign, divine conftitution, to which he himfelf 
 fully confented, he fuifered for the fms of others ; this 
 v/ould be to give up all, and toacknov/ledge, that Chrift did 
 not fuifer for fm on the footing of diftributive juftice. 
 
 2. It appears by the fame quotations, that Reily was 
 TiOt of the opinion, that Chrift fuifered in confequence of 
 the imputation of lin to him, or becaufe he was the furetv 
 of his church : but on the ground of his proper union v.'ith 
 men. This appears by thefe words : '^ Sin is a crime only 
 ^^ atoned for by death, which juftice muft infiicl; nor can 
 ^' it poilibly admit of 2. furety here: becaufe it can only 
 *^ punifli him whom it firft finds guilty : and not by 
 ^^ reckoning him to be what he is not." Yet he holds'*" 
 that Chrift fuifered on the ibie ground of i'rnputaiion. His 
 words are^ ^^ The doclrine of union, which reprefents 
 '^ Jefus fuiFering under the character of the tinner, doth 
 ^^ not fuppofe him fuch- in his ovv^n particular perfon ; nay 
 '^ ftroiio-ly witnefTeth the contrary, and refpects him only 
 
 ^^ thus *by fuch an imputation as is juft and true." Ir 
 
 then the fufferings of Chrift do not fuppofe him to be a {in- 
 ner *^ in his own particular perfon ;" how can this be re- 
 conciled v/ith what is quoted above from p^ige 3d, in which 
 he argues, that unlefs Chrift be one with thofe for whom 
 he died, his fufferings cannot be reconciled with the Icrip- 
 ture, which declares that every man fliall die tor his oiun 
 fm I Or with v/hat is quoted from page 4th which declares, 
 
 that 
 
 J P. 41. 
 
308 Remarks on Petitpierre, 
 
 that juflice does not admit of a furety, or of reckoning 
 Chrilt to be what he is not ? 
 
 3. It further appears by the fame quotations, thatRelly 
 confiders Chrift and mankind, as one, in the fame fenfe 
 that the head and members in the natural body are one. 
 If this be fo, then we are no more indebted to Chrifl for 
 our redemption, than a man^s hands are indebted to his 
 head for inventing means for his Uvehhood ; or his head is 
 indebted to his hands for applying thofe means. 
 
 4. It alfo appears, that on this plan Chrift is now fuf- 
 fering, and will without end fufFer, an eternal death. Ob- 
 ferve the quotation from page 4th, '^ Sin is a crime only 
 *^ atoned for by the death, yea the eternal death of xhcfin- 
 ^' ner ; which j uUice muft inflidr, before it can be properly 
 *^ fatirfied : nor can it poilibly admit of ay7^rf/j here ; be- 
 ^' caufe it can only punifli him whom it firft finds guilty ; 
 '^ and not by reckoning him to be what he is not, accord- 
 *' ing to human quibbles, but according to divine equity, 
 *^ which can only declare fuch guilty on whom the fault is 
 ^' found, and can only find the fault, on fuch who have 
 ^^ committed it." Thefe expreflions m.anifeftly declare, 
 (i) That Chrilt is a fmner, and committed the lin or fault 
 for which he fufFered, and that not by imputation and as the 
 
 furety of his people, but really and literally. (2) That 
 
 fm can be atoned for by the fufFerino- of eternal death only. 
 
 This and this only will properly fatisfy juHice.- (3) That 
 
 therefore, as Chrifl is -the propitiation for our fins, he is 
 nov/, and will without end, be fuffering eternal death. 
 
 But I need not trouble the reader v/ith any further re- 
 marks on fuch wild and confufed myfticifm ; fuch horrid 
 doctrine. 
 
 ///. Remarks on M. Petitpierre's '^ Thoughts on the Divine 
 ^^ Goodnffsy relative to the government of moral agents, 
 ** particularly difplayed in future rewards and purafJ:-^ 
 '' ments.'^ 
 
 This author is a Swifs, who was a clergyman in his 
 own country ; but falling into univerfalifm, was cenfured 
 and depofed. — After this he went to London, where he 
 publiflied the book which is now the fubjed of remark. It 
 firft appeared in French, and was publilhed in En^lifli 
 in 1788. 
 
Remarks on Petitpierre, ooa 
 
 If I miftake not, the fundamental principles of this book 
 
 are thefe two, That the fniner on the footing of ftrift 
 
 juff:ice, deferves no other puniUiment, than that which is 
 neceiTary to lead him to repentance and prepare him for 
 happinefs- That the happinefs of every individual crea- 
 ture is necefTary to the greatell happinefs of the general 
 fyflem. 
 
 In page 24th, of the preceding work, a quotation or 
 two was made to ihow, that the firil of the tv^'o propoiirions 
 now mentioned, is a principle of this author. 'I o thofe 
 quotations a great part of his book may be added to ihow 
 the fame ; but I fhall add the following fentences only. — 
 '^ The Deity being infinitely jufi:, will inflict on the wick- 
 '^ ed juil and equitable punifliments ; punifhments exaclly 
 ^^ proportioned both in degree and duration, to the nature 
 
 *' and extent of their crimes.''* ^' The fecond rule 
 
 *^ which divine juftice follows in the difpenfation of pu- 
 *^ nirnment, is, to employ rigour only fo much, and fo 
 ^' long, as ihall be necelTary to thedeftruction of {lUy and 
 
 ^* the converfion of the (inner. "f ^^ The third rule 
 
 '^ of divine juftice in the difpenfations of fuiFerings, in- 
 '^ informs us, when the Supreme Being ceafes punifhment;" 
 
 i. e. when the Imner repents. J '' We have efbblifh- 
 
 *^ ed a principle whence to form confiftent ideas of ihe 
 '^ j'^ft'^ce arid feverity of God, who puniflies tlie wick- 
 ^^ ed that he might blefs them' in turning them every 
 
 *' one from their iniquities" || Infinite juftice a- 
 
 *' dapts with the moft perfect and minute detail, rhe 
 *' refpe^live fuitablenefs of his dealing to our moral 
 *^ f/atey and confequently to our wa?its, throughout 
 '^ the wtole of our exiftence.''§ 
 
 On thefo quotations it may be remarked, 
 
 I. That -according to this plan, the moft f:c/!?^ and r/- 
 gorousjujrice, dtv'ine juftice, infi',nte]u{k\c?.y admits that a fm- 
 ner be made to fuffer till he repents, and no further. Such 
 a punifhment as this, is ^^ exactly proportioned both in de- 
 *^ gree and duration, to the nature and extent of the 
 ^' crimes" of the (inner. This then is the utmoft which 
 the divine law will admit : this is the true curfc of the di- 
 vine law ; even that curfe from which Chrift hath redeem- 
 ed us. 
 
 2. This 
 
 * P. 91. t P. 102. X F. no, II P. 1.37- § P- 7^- 
 
3IO Remarks on Pctifpierre, 
 
 1. This puniiliment inflicled on any (inner, utterly pre- 
 cludes all pardon, forgivenefs and mercy. How is he for- 
 given, who fuiTers to the iitmoft extent of juflice ? How is 
 any fparing mercy exercifed toward him, on whom the 
 
 curfe of the law is fully executed ? Yet M. Petitpier- 
 
 re^confcantly holds, that the falvation of finners is effe^lied 
 in the way oi mercy , pardon znd forgivenefs. Thus, fpeak- 
 ing of the divine good nefs, he lays,"* ^' Are men miiera- 
 '^ hie? It is termed that infinite cornpajfion he has for 
 
 '^ then' wretchednefs. =But when by a fmcere repen- 
 
 ^^ tance they turn from their iniquity, then it is his clcmen- 
 *-'■ ry, ]us pardon, his mercy, and his ^r^T.?, that is extend- 
 
 '' ed to them/' " How ftriking, how awful, and at 
 
 '^ the fame tirje how riercifid, are the reprefentations of 
 
 '•^ future torments !"f ^' He will conflantly pardoHy 
 
 *^ and receive into favour the fmcerely penitent offender. 
 '• Repentance appeafcs divine anp-er anddifarm.s its juflice, 
 *'* becaufe it accomplilhes the end infinite gocdnefs has in 
 '^ view, even v/hen arrayed in the awful majefty of aveng- 
 *^ ^^S P^fl'^'^'^ '■) which v/as fevere, becaufe the moral flate 
 ** of the Tinner required fuch difcipline ; and which when 
 *• that ft'itc is reveri'ed by converfion — will have nothing 
 '^ to beftow fuitable to it, but the delightful manifeflations 
 '^ K)^ mercy 2i\-\d forglvenefs.^^ It feems then, that not on- 
 ly is yz^4^/cfy?/f/\r;^W by the repentance of the fmner ; but 
 j'ift'tce^ even the,aivftd mcjefly cf avenging ju/nce, will he- 
 ilow mercy und forgive :rejs. But how forgivenefs can be 
 an acc of juflice, and efpec;ialiy an act of avenging jufdce, 
 remains to be explained. 
 
 3. T'he puniihment now under confideration, is utterly in- 
 confiflent with redemption by Chrift. How are they redeem- 
 ed or delivered from the curfe of the law, who in their own 
 perfons fuffer that curfe ? And if Chrift fliould deliver them 
 ironi it, he would deprive them of an ineftimable benefit. 
 
 4. If *^ infimte jufiics adapts v/ith the moft perfect and 
 ^^ minute detail, the refpe6live fuitablenefs of his dealings 
 *' to our moral ftate, and confequently to our wants, 
 '* throughout the v/hole of our exiitence ;-' then what is 
 goodnefs i and how is it diftinguiflied from juftice ? What 
 more kind arjd favorable than tliis, can goodnefs, the divine 
 gooduels, infinite and incomprehenlible goodnefs, do tor 
 usi According to this defuiiticn of infinite j^Jlice, the in- 
 
 ftitutions 
 
 * P. 6; t P. 109. 
 
Remarks on Petrlphrrc, 71 f 
 
 flitutions, promifes and fcheme of the gofpel, nay the un- 
 fpeakable gift of Chriil himfelf, are mere communicatioi;TS 
 of juflice, and not of goodnefs and grace : and according 
 to the fame definition there never has becn^ and never cm 
 be, any benefit granted by the Deity to any of his creatures^ 
 which is any more than a fruit of mere juflice, and Vvhick 
 may be withholden conliiiiently with jullice : and all that 
 God ever has done, and ever will or can do, for xlie hap- 
 pinefs of his creatures, is barely fulficicnt to farve his cha- 
 racler from a well grounded charge of injuilice. 
 
 But I mean nor to dwell on this fubject : I do but hint 
 thefe particulars. It would be an infinite labour to point 
 out the endlefs abfurdities of this fcheme of jullice andpu- 
 nifliment. I have ccniidered the point more largely in 
 Chap. II, to which I beg leave to refer the reader. 
 
 The other fundamental principle of this book is, Tliat 
 the happinefs of every individual creature is necelFary to 
 the greateil happinefs of the fyflem. This idea is cxpref- 
 fed in various palTages, particularly in the following, ^^ It 
 *' is impoirible the Divine Being fliould ever dijpenfe any 
 *• evil in this world, or in the world to come ; v.-hich is 
 '' not even to the individuals an actual exercife of perfect 
 ** goodnefs,'^* 
 
 And that this is necelTarily implied in the fcheme of 
 this author, and of all others who argue univerfal falva- 
 tion from the divine perfections, vvithout reipecc to the a- 
 tonement, mufl be manifell upon the fiightcil reflection. 
 Goodnefs will always feck the greateft good or happinefs of 
 intelligent beings. And that the happinefs of the fyflem 
 is a greater good than the happinefs of any individual or 
 individuals ot that fyflem, is a felf evident propoiition. 
 Therefore goodnefs will neve^ feek the happinei's of any 
 individuals, fo as to diminiih the happinefs of the fyfcem : 
 for this would be not to feek the advancement of happinefs 
 on the whole, but the diminution of it. If therefore the 
 divine goodnefs feeks the final happinefs of every intelli- 
 gent.creature, it mufl be becaufe the happinefs of every 
 creature promotes and is necelTary to fccure the grealefl 
 happineis of the fyftem. If it be not neceffary to the 
 greateil happinefs of the fyflem, it is no object to goodnefs. 
 
 Concerning this principle the foUov/ing flriclures are 
 fug-p-efled : 
 
 I. TliK 
 
 * p. 220. 
 
312 Rc7narks on Pethpierre. 
 
 I. The truth of it is by no means evident. Indeed 
 
 M. Petitplerre fuppofes the abfurdity of the contrary po- 
 fition to be exceedingly clear, and therefore indulges him- 
 felf in the following ardent eftuiion : ^' Can we iuppofe 
 '* that intelligent creatures capable by their nature of per- 
 '^ feclion and felicity, would be unable to attain to this glo- 
 '^ rious deitination, unlefs at the fame time a number of 
 ■^' intelligent beings exilied in eternal mifery ? Among 
 creatures of the fame nature, thence capable of the fame 
 happinefs ; mult a part be made happy at the expence 
 of a condderabie portion devoted to endlefs mii'ery and 
 defpair ? Cannot a Being infinitely perfect and happy 
 ^^ communicate beatitude to his intelligent offspring, on 
 ^^ other ajid more favourable terms ? Can he not be to 
 ** iome the inexhauftible fource of happinefs ; unlefshe is 
 *' toothers the never-failing fource of mifery? But let us 
 *^ ceafe to heap contradiclion on contradiction, horror up- 
 
 '* on horror, and end tliis difagreeable difcuffion.'* 
 
 M. P rre did notrefiecl, that if this pall'age contain 
 
 any argument, it is equally forcible againib the evils which 
 in /I/67 take place in this world, as againO: the puni/hments 
 of the future ; and that the paiTage may be retorted thus ; 
 Can we fuppofe that intelligent creatures capable by nature 
 of peace, liberty, and all the enjoyments of human fociety, 
 would be unable to attain to this excellent def[inaticn, un- 
 lefs at the fame time a number of intelligent beings were 
 rendered miferable by fines, ccnfifcations, ignominy, pri- 
 fons, chains, ftripes and the gallows ? Among creatures 
 of the fame nature, thence capable of the fame happinefs ; 
 muil: a part be made fafe and happy at the expence of a 
 confiderable portion devoted to mifery and defpair, in the 
 ways jull mentioned ? Cannot a being infinitely perfect 
 and happy communicate beatitude to his intelligent ofF- 
 fpring on other and more favourable terms-? Can he not 
 be to fome the fource of peace, fafety, liberty and hap- 
 pinefs ; unlefs he be to others the fource of mjfery ? But 
 let us ceafe to heap contradiftion on contradiftion, horror 
 upon horror, and end this difagreeable difcuffion. 
 
 To fay that God: can convert the v/icked, and without 
 endlefs imprifonment and punilhment, prevent the miichief 
 which they would do to the fyftem, affords no fatisfad:ion. 
 So God can convert the wicked in this v/orld, and prevent 
 all the mifchief v/hich they do here. The queftion is not, 
 
 what 
 
'Re'/Hcirks' on M. PetUplen'St 013 
 
 ymzt God has power to do, but what he will in fad do ; 
 and what he may fee fit to permit others to do. 
 
 M. P — rre proceeds to argue againit the polTibility, that 
 the mifery of fome intelligent creatures fhould be neceiTary 
 to the happinefs of the rell: , and urges that inftead of tliis, 
 it would fubvert their happinefs ; becaufe the inhabitants of - 
 heaven are fo full of benevolence and eompaiTion, that they . 
 cannot be happy, while numbers of their fellow creatures 
 are miferable ; and efpeciaily becaufe it muft be liill more 
 painful to them, to know that the eternal fufferings of thofe 
 their fellow creatures, were neceiTary to their ov/n happi- 
 nefs** But thefe obfervations are no more reconcileable 
 
 with fa£t and with experience, than thofe which I jufl now 
 quoted from the fame author. Are the befl of men in this 
 world, fo compafTionate, that they cannot be happy fo 
 long as thieves and robbers are conlined in work-houfes 
 and prifons, and murderers die on gibbets ? And do they 
 difdain to enjoy their lives, their lioerty, their peace and 
 their property, unlefs they can be fecured in the polTeriion 
 of them, on terms iefs ignominious and painful to fome of 
 their fellow creatures ? 
 
 Such are the arguments by which M. P- rre endea- 
 vours to prove, that the mifery of fome men cannot be ne- 
 celFary to the greatefl good of the fyftem. If thefe argu- 
 ments be not convincing, it is in vain to expecl convincing 
 evidence of the proportion now under confideration, from 
 M. P rre. 
 
 1. The reader has doutlefs taken notice that the propo- 
 fition now under confideration implies, not only that end- 
 lefs mifery, but any temporary calamity cannot be inflicled 
 on an individual, confiilently with the good of the whole, 
 unlefs that temporary calamity be fubfervient to his perfon- 
 al good. Obl'erve the words quoted above, ^' It is im-< 
 *^ poiiible the Divine Being ihould ever difpenfe any evil 
 ^^ in this world or in the world to come, which is not even 
 
 *^ t9 the individuals^ an act of perfect goodnefs." Then 
 
 all evils and calamities which have ever exiiled, or do ex- 
 ift, or ever will exifc, in this world, as v/ell as the future, 
 are no real evils, no cwrfc to the patients themfclves : but 
 they ard all fo many benefits and bleffings to them. 1 he 
 deftrudlion of the old world, of Sodom, ^zc^ were real 
 biefhngs to the patients perfonally. But hov/ does this ap- 
 pear ? 
 
 * P. 215, kc, S s 
 
 .AA^MMMft 
 
314 Remarks on M. Petltpicrre. 
 
 pear ? They certainly did not in this world operate for thfi? 
 good of the patients ; and how does it appear, that they 
 will operate for their good in the futurf: world ? To aflert 
 
 this without alhgning a reafon, is impertinent. Befide ; 
 
 on this hypotheiis, there is nofuch thing as any curfe either 
 in this world or the future ; and there is no difference be- 
 tween a curfe and a hlfjjing. What then iliall v/e make of 
 the fcriptures, which fpeak abundantly of curfes, and con- 
 fbantly diftinguifh between curfes and bleffings I 
 
 3. This, which I have called the fecond fundamental 
 principle of this author, is in reality not dilHnct from the 
 
 fird. If the good or happinefs of the fy frem require 
 
 the happinefs of every individual^, it furely cannot require 
 the niiiery of any individual : and if it do not require his 
 mifery, it is not confnleut with juftice, that he il^ould be 
 made mifsrable by punifliment ; or ir is not confiftent with 
 juilice th-it he be punifned any further than is fubfervient 
 
 to his own perfo!iai happinefs. No puniihment is con- 
 
 liittaiL withjuflice, which in view of the criminal alone, 
 without refpecl to a fubftitute, or an atonement, the pub- 
 h'c good does not require. 
 
 So that the whole fyirem of this author depends on this 
 fingle principle, That ir is not ccnliilent with juftice, to 
 punKha iinner any further, than is fubfervient to his ov/n 
 perfonal good : and this principle, as I have endeavoured 
 to fliow in Chap. II, and VIII, really comes to this, /^^/jcf/zW 
 fin he a moj-al evil. Moral evil is in its own nature odi- 
 ous, and juftly the objecl of divine difapprobation, and of 
 the m.aniieitation of difapprobation, whether fuch manifef- 
 tation of difapprobation be fubfervient to the perfonal good 
 of the iinner or not. But the manifeftation of divine dif- 
 approbation is puniihment. Therefore moral evil mayjuft- 
 ly be puniilied, Vv'hcther fuch punifnment be lubiervient to 
 the perfonal good of the iinner or not. But as fin accor- 
 ding to the principle now under confideration, cannot be 
 juftly punilhed any further than is fublervient to theper- 
 ibnal good of the iinner, of courfe it is no moral evil. 
 
 Again ; moral evil in its own nature impairs the good 
 of the moral iyii:em. Therefore God as a friend to that 
 fyitem, muit neceilaril)^, and may juftly difapprove it, and 
 manifefl his difapprobation, though it may not tend to the 
 pcribnal good of the iinner. But this maniteilation of di- 
 vine dilapprobation is punifliment, and jufl puniihment. 
 
 but 
 
 / 
 
Remarks on M. Peiliplerre, 3 j ? 
 
 But fin, according to the principle now under confiderati- 
 on, cannot juflly be thus puniflied. Therefore fin is not, 
 according to this principle, a moral evil. 
 
 It therefore M. P rre beheve, that lin is a moral 
 
 evil, and in its own nature deferves the divine abhorrence, 
 he muft, to be confiftent, give up his v.-hole fyflem oi uni- 
 verfal falvation. 
 
 As the book now before us is a later publication than 
 Dr. Chauncy^s ; and as the Doctor's book, which at its firft 
 appearance was fo highly extolled for deep learning and 
 demonftrative reafoning, did not convert the world ; the 
 zealots for univerfalifm have beenlavifn of their encomiums 
 on this work of Petitpierre, and as it feems, have great ex- 
 pediations from it. However, it requires no fpirit of pro- 
 phecy to forefee, that this book will not effect more nume- 
 rous converfions, than that of Dr. C. The author has a 
 good talent at declamation ; imd thofe who are already per- 
 fuaded of the truth of his fyftem, may be much comforted 
 by his pathetic reprefentations of the divine goodnefs and 
 univerfal happinefs. But thofe who are doubtful, and 
 wifli to fee a confiftent fyftem eibibliflied on the broad ba- 
 ils of reafon and revelation, will doubtlefs find themfelves 
 necellitated toprofecute their inquiries further, than M, 
 Petitpierre will lead them. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 i^MUl^^aiMlMlki 
 
'p6 SUBSCRIBERS NA ME S, 
 New-Hampshire. 
 
 Portrmouth . 
 
 Hopkinton. 
 
 Pembroke. 
 
 Portfmouth. 
 
 Hopkinton, 6 books. 
 
 Pittsfield. 
 
 , Hampton Falls. 
 
 Hopkinton, 
 
 do. 
 
 Concord. 
 
 Hencker. 
 
 Hopkinton, 
 
 Epfom. 
 
 Hopkinton. 
 
 Concord. 
 
 Hampton Falls. 
 
 Alftead. 
 
 Stratham. 
 
 Dartmouth College. 
 
 do. 
 
 Hopkinton 
 
 .EV. Jofeph Buckminfler, 
 Joilma Beley, Efq. 
 Richard Bartlett, Efq. 
 Mr. Samuel Bowie, 
 Rev. Jacob Crane, 
 John Crane, Eiq. 
 Col. Jonathan Crane, 
 Major Jfaac Chandler, 
 Aaron Grcely, Efq. 
 Mr. Peter Green, Phyfician, 
 Capt. Gibfon, 
 Mr. John Jevv'et, 
 Rev. Ebenezer Hazeltine, 
 Deacon Abel Kimbal, 
 Mr. Jonathan Kimbal, 
 Rev. Samuel Langdon, D. D = 
 Rev. Levi Lanktcn^ 
 Rev. James Miltimore, 
 Mr. Daniel Merril, Student, 
 Mr. Eli/lia Mofely, do. 
 Lieut. Morfe, 
 Rev. John C. Ogden, Reftor of Queen's Chap. Portfm. 
 
 Mr. George Ofborn, Printer, 
 
 Mr. Biilkley Olcott, 
 
 His Excellency John Pickering, Efq, 
 
 Deacon Samuel Penhallov/, 
 
 Rev. William Pickle, 
 ♦Mr. Chriilopher Paige, A. M. 
 'Hon. John Sullivan, 
 ■ Rev. Ifaac Smith, 
 
 Col. Stickney, 
 
 Mr. Peter Sanborn, A. B, 
 
 Mr. John Sherburn, 
 
 Mr. Daniel Shephard, StUilent, 
 
 Lieut. Ezekiel Smith, 
 
 Deacon Nathan Sergeant, 
 
 Rev. Elihu Thayer, 
 
 Hon. Ebenezer Webfler,' Efq. 
 
 Rev. Samuel Wood, 
 
 Mr. Jofiah White, 
 
 iVlr. Azel V/afhbouiTo 
 
 Portfmouth. 
 
 Charleflown. 
 
 Portfmouth. 
 
 do. 
 
 Bedford. 
 
 Hopkinton. 
 
 Durham. 
 
 Gilmantown. 
 
 Concord. 
 
 Kinoilon. 
 
 Pcrtl mouth. 
 
 Dartmouth College, 
 
 Hencker, 6 books. 
 
 Hopkinton. 
 
 Kinglton. 
 
 S:ililbury. 
 
 Bofcwain. 
 
 Pittsfield. 
 
 Puandolph, in Verntorit. 
 
SUBSCRIBERS N AM E S. 
 
 317 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Massachusett's, 
 Rev. Jofeph Appleton, 
 Rev. Solomon Aiken, 
 ,Rev. David Avery, V. D. M. 
 Mofes Aihley, Efq. 
 
 Mr. ^ N. Auftin 
 
 C Simeon Ailen, 
 Rev. Daniel Breck, V. D. M. 
 Rev. John Bradford, . 
 Rev. Jofiah Blodget, 
 Rev. James Briggs, 
 Rev. Jofeph Badger, 
 John Bifco, Efq. 
 Jofeph Browning, Efq. 
 Deacon Eliflia Bradley, 
 Capt. Offin Boardman, 
 
 Jacob Boardman, Merchant, 
 
 Edmund Bar tie tr, 
 
 William Bartlett, 
 
 Moies Brown, Merchant, 
 ^ John Brown, 
 
 Nathanael Balch, 
 
 Caleb Blake, A. B. 
 
 Jeremiah Bumftead, 
 
 David BaiTet, 
 Rev. Jacob Catlin, 
 Rev. Daniel Collins, 
 Richard Cary, Efq. 
 Parker Cleaveland, Efq. 
 Nehemiah Cleaveland, Efq. 
 Deacon Jofeph Cutler, 
 Capt. Greenleaf Clark, 
 Capt. John Coombs, 
 
 Jofliua Crofby, 
 
 William Coombs, merchant, 
 
 David CofHn, merchant, 
 
 Reuben Cotton, 
 
 Nathan Church, 
 I Gerlliom Cutler, 
 [ Hezekiah Clark, phyfician, 
 L William Caldwell, 
 Hon. Thomas Dawes, Efq. 
 Mr yJof^nDeming, 
 (^ Richard Devens^ 
 
 Ml-. . 
 
 Brookfield. 
 
 Dracutt. 
 
 Wrentham. 
 
 Stockbridge. 
 
 Charleftown. 
 
 Sturbridoe. 
 
 Topsfield. 
 
 Boxbury. 
 
 Greenwich. 
 
 Cummington. 
 
 Biandford. 
 
 Spencer. 
 
 Brimfield. 
 
 Stockbridge. 
 
 Newbury-Port. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 6 bcoks. 
 do. 
 do. 
 
 Holland. 
 
 ^ Borton. 
 
 Wrentham. 
 
 Bofion. 
 
 Ware. 
 
 New Marlborough. 
 
 Lanefborough 
 
 Charleftown. 
 
 Newbury-Port. 
 
 Topsiield . 
 
 Brookfield. 
 
 Newbury-Port« 
 
 do. 
 
 Hard wick, 6 books. 
 
 Newbury-Port. 
 
 do. 
 
 Greenwich, 
 
 Newbury-Port. 
 
 Bofton. 
 
 Lanelborough. 
 
 Newbury-Port. 
 
 Bofloii. 
 
 do. 
 
 Ch^lellown, 
 
3^' 
 
 SUBSCRIBERS NAMES 
 
 f Lucius Doolittle, phyfician, 
 Ml-. <| Afa Dana, 
 
 L Timothy Dickenfon, A. M. 
 p ' C Nathruiael Emmons, 
 ^^^'Y.Joreph Eddey, 
 Capt. Daniel Egery, 
 
 f James Freeman, 
 Jonathan French^k 
 EhiTia Fiih, 
 j Amaziah Frcft, 
 j Ehjah Fitch, 
 llaac Fofler, 
 I Daniel Fofter, 
 L Elilha Fifh, 
 Deacon M. French, 
 
 Rev 
 
 Hardwick, 
 Holland. 
 
 Amherft. 
 
 Franklin, 6 books. 
 
 Boiton. 
 
 Hard wick. 
 
 Boflon, 2 books. 
 
 Andover. 
 
 Upton, 2 books. 
 
 Milford, 2 books. 
 
 Hopkinton. 
 
 Great Barrington. 
 
 N. Braintree. 
 
 Windlor. 
 
 Braintree, 
 
 f Andrew Frathingham, merchant, Newbury-Port. 
 
 Hon, 
 
 John Fitz, 
 
 [ Robert Fowl, A. B. 
 
 Mr. <| Ptobert Field. 
 
 Danifci Farrington, A. B. 
 
 Zebediah Farnham, 
 
 Daniel Fay, Tun. 
 
 Mofes Gill, El'q. 
 
 Hon. N. Gorham, Efq. 
 
 Rev. Thomas Gair, A. M. 
 
 Deacon Richard Gridley, 
 
 Mr. Abel Greenleaf, merchant;, 
 
 Major Jofeph Gould, 
 
 r Samuel Hopkins, 
 
 T> ! Thomas Holt. 
 Kev. { rp 1 o 1 
 I Enoch Hale, 
 
 1^ William Hooper, 
 
 William Hyflop, Efq. 
 
 Mr. Daniel Hortcn, 
 
 GO. 
 
 do. 
 Greenwich. 
 Wrentham. 
 Newbury-Port. 
 Hard wick. 
 Boilon. 
 Charlellown. 
 B often. 
 , do. 
 Newbury-Pcrt. 
 Topsfield. 
 Hadlcv. 
 Hard wick, 3 books. 
 Wefl-Bampton.' 
 Berwick. 
 Brooklyn. 
 Newbury-Port, 6 books. 
 
 Mr. Benjamin Herrod, Merchant, 
 Capt. Jofeph Hale, 
 r Jofeph Hale, 
 
 IJuflus Hull, Baptifb preacher, 
 Thomas Hinckley, Merchant, 
 ] John Hamilton, 
 ^ Jos. Hurd, 
 Silvanus Howe, 
 JeiTe Haven, 
 t DaA'i^ Ingerfoll, 
 
 do. 
 do. 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Hardvv'ick. 
 
 Koofuck. 
 
 Brimiield. 
 
 Pelham. 
 
 Charleftov/n. 
 
 Greenwich, 
 
 liolliflon. 
 
 Lee, 
 
SUBSCRIBERS NAMES. 315^ 
 
 Mr. James Je wet, Merchant^ 
 Rev. David Kellogg, 
 ^athanael Kingfley, Efq. 
 Maj. Martin Kiniley, 
 Mr. Jof. Kettel, 
 Mr, Benjamin Keeler, 
 ^ Rev. Jchn Lathrop, D. D. 
 Deacon I. Larkin, 
 
 f Robert Long, Schoolmafter, 
 Mr. <j Jofeph Long, do. 
 
 t Phineas Lyman, 
 Capt. Alfred Lyon, 
 Rev. Samuel Monfon, 
 Deacon Jonathan Maion, 
 Deacon Patrick M'Mulien, 
 
 f John Mycall, Printer, 
 ty^ j Jonathan Morfe, 
 . j Thomas Moor, A. B. 
 
 t Daniel Matthews, 
 Capt. James MePen, 
 ■jv^j C James Mann, A. M. 
 
 * ^ Abraham Noyes, Trader, 
 Capt. William Noyes, 
 Mr. Silas Noyes, Merchant, 
 Deacon Stephen Nalh, 
 Capt. Nathanael Newell, 
 f Richard S. Noyes, 
 -jyr. J BiPnop Norton, Schoolmafter, 
 I John Nazro, Merchant, 
 t Afa Newton, 
 Hon. Oliver Phelps, 
 f David Perry, 
 ' Jofeph Pope, 
 I Elijah Parifh, 
 1^ John Porter, 
 Eleazer Porter, Efq. 
 •jyr C Nicholas Pike, A. B. and A. A. 
 ^ Enoch Plummer, Jun. Trader, 
 Elder Jeremy Pearfon, 
 Deacon Aaron Phipps, 
 Capt. James Paige, 
 Deacon Nathanael Paip-e, 
 Capt. Timothy Paioe^ 
 Mr. Paul Paige, 
 
 Rev; ^ 
 
 Newbury- Port. 
 
 FramiDgham. 
 
 Becket, 
 
 Kardwick- 
 
 Charleil:ov/n. 
 
 Lanelborough^ 
 
 Bofton. 
 
 Charleitown. 
 
 New bury -Port* 
 
 do. 
 
 Had ley, 
 
 -Holland- 
 
 Lenox. 
 
 Bofton. 
 
 Pel ham. 
 
 Newbury-Port, 
 
 do. 
 
 Sterling, 
 
 New Braintrec 
 
 Holliflon. 
 
 Wrenthani. 
 
 New bury -Port. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. . 
 Stockbrido-e. 
 Ne v/bury- Fort, 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 Worcefler. 
 
 Eelchertown, 
 
 Granville. 
 
 Richmond. 
 
 Spencer. 
 
 Newbury. 
 
 Bridgewater. 
 
 Had lev. 
 
 V 
 
 S. Newbury-Port. 
 do, 
 do, 
 
 Hollifton. 
 
 Hardwick. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
|2o S U B S C R I B E R S N A M E S.; 
 
 f Reed Paige, A. B. 
 
 Window Paige, 
 
 Oliver Partridge, Phyfician, 
 
 Richard Pike, merchant, 
 
 Jonathan Pearibn, 
 Mr. <j Samuel Pilfbmy, 
 
 Enoch Pond, A. M. 
 
 William Paige, 
 
 Ephraim Perkins, 
 
 Elijah Phelps, 
 ^ Mofes Paige, 
 Deacon V/iliiam Paige, 
 Capt. Seth Pierce, 
 n ^ Ezra Reeve, 
 
 ^^^* "^ John Robinfon, 
 f Auguilus Regan, 
 Mr. <J JefTe Remington, 
 I^Ebenezer Rich, 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 Stockbridge* 
 Newbury-Port, 
 do. 
 do. 
 Wrentham. 
 Ware. 
 Becket. 
 Lanesborough. 
 Hardwick* 
 do. 
 do. 
 
 Holland* 
 
 Weftborough. 
 
 Newbury-Port. 
 
 Abington. 
 
 Greenwich. 
 
 Hon. Theodore Sedgv/ick, Reprcfentative in Congrefs, 
 
 Stockbridge. 
 
 Med way, 12 books, 
 
 D. D. Bofton, 6 books. 
 
 Worthington, 6 books. 
 
 'David Sanford, 
 Samuel Stillman, 
 Joiiah Spalding, 
 
 Rev. <i Samuel Spring, 
 
 Jonathan Strong, 
 Hezekiah Smith, 
 ^ Seth Swift, ■ 
 
 John Sweetfer, Efq. 
 
 John Stone, Efq. 
 
 Samuel Savage, Efq. 
 
 Edmund Sawyer, Efq. 
 
 Afhbel Strong, Efq. 
 
 Col. Jonathan Smith, 
 
 Deacon John Simpkins, 
 
 Deacon Richard Smith, 
 
 Deacon Nehemiah Stebbins, 
 
 Capt. Simon Stone, 
 
 Deacon Ebenezer Stratton, 
 
 Lieut. Andrew Squier, 
 
 JMewbury-Port. 
 
 Braintree. 
 
 Haverhill. 
 
 Williamflown, 
 
 Bofton, 
 
 Hollifton. 
 
 Charleltown. 
 
 Newbury-Port, 6 books. 
 
 Pittsfield. 
 
 Lanesborough, 
 
 Bofton. 
 
 Newbury-Port. 
 
 Greenwich. 
 
 do. 
 
 Williamftown. 
 
 Laneiborough. 
 
 f Eraftus Sergeant, A. M. Phyficlan, Stockbridge. 
 I Edmund Swaine, Newbury-Port. 
 
 Mr. <| Afa Sheldon, New-Marlborough. 
 
 I Benjamin Skinner, * Wilhamftown. 
 
 I Oliver Smith, Hadley. 
 
SlJfeSCRXBERS NAMES. 32X 
 
 Mr. Jofcph Shed, 
 
 Hon. George Thacher, Repref. in Congrefs 
 
 r, C Peter Thacher, 
 
 2. David Tap pan, 
 Elder, Enoch Titcomb, 
 Deacon Thomas Thoinpfori, 
 
 f Michael Titcomb, 
 
 1 IfraelTraflc, Phylician, 
 
 Bofton. 
 
 Mr. 
 
 j Gideon Thompfon, Phyliciaii^ 
 t John Tirr ell, 
 f Nehemiah Williams, 
 
 BoftoD , 
 Newbury. 
 Newbury-Port* 
 do. 
 do. 
 
 Brimfield. 
 
 Lee, 12 booksi 
 
 Lanefborough. 
 
 Brimiieldi 
 
 Golhen, 6 books. 
 
 Stockbridge. 
 
 Brookiield. 
 
 Eaft- Hampton. 
 
 Conway. 
 
 Lanefborough. 
 
 Holland* 
 
 Hardwick* 
 
 do. 
 
 Lee, 6 books. 
 
 Holland. 
 
 Boftoni 
 
 Worcefter. 
 
 [D. Wood, Jun. Charleftown. 
 
 Suhfcribers not returned infeafnn to he mferted in their pro- 
 per places in the preceeding catalogue, 
 
 .The Hon. Caleb Strong, Efq. Senator of the United 
 
 States, 
 Kev. Sofomon Williams, 
 Samuel Henfhaw, Eiq. 
 
 f Ebenezer Hunt, phyfician 
 
 j Levi Sheppard, phyfiGian, 
 
 I Samuel Whitman, 
 Rev. \ Stephen Weft, 
 I Ephraim Ward, 
 LPayfon Williiton, 
 Samuel Ware, jun. Efq. 
 Gideon Wheeler, Efq. 
 Deacon David Wallis, 
 Major Gen. Jonathan Vv''arnef, 
 f Jonathan Warner, jun. 
 I Prince Weft, 
 j Thomas Wallis, phyficiari, 
 j Samuel Whitwell, 
 Daniel Waldo, merchant, 
 
 M 
 
 r. 
 
 Northampton. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 do' 
 
 do. 
 Southampton, 
 
 ] Jacob Parfons, 
 t Jofeph Clark, 
 Rev. Jonathan Judd, 
 
 Rhode-Island. 
 
 Hon. Jabez Bowen, Efq. late Deputy Governor of the 
 
 State of Rhode-Iiland, Providence. 
 
 Lemuel Baley, Efq. Tiverton* 
 
 Nicholas Brovvn, Efq. merchant^ ^ Providence* 
 
 Mofes Brown, Efq. do. 
 
 Tt 
 
322 S U B S C H I B E R S NAMES. 
 
 Mr. George Bcnfon, merchant^ 
 
 Hon. John Fofler, Efq. 
 
 Theodore Fofter^ Efq. 
 
 Mr. Abel Flint, Tutor of R. I. College, 
 
 Rev. Enos Hitchcock, D. D. 
 
 Rev. Samuel Kopkins, 
 
 Jofeph Martin, Efq. 
 
 Rev. William Patten, 
 
 Rev. Mafe Shepard, 
 
 Adam Simmons, Efq. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 do, 
 do. 
 do. 
 Newport. 
 Providence. 
 Newport. 
 Little Compton. 
 do. 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Connecticut. 
 Rev. Jafon Atwater, 
 Rev. Samuel Aiulin, 
 David Ambler, Efq. 
 
 f Oliver Ayer, A. B. 
 J Abifhai Alden, 
 J Gideon Allen, 
 [_Levi Auitin, 
 f T. Wells Bray, 
 I Charles Backus, 
 Rev. J Jo^^^.Belden, 
 * } Matthias Burnet, 
 I Joel Bordwell, 
 i^ Daniel Brinfmade, 
 Ifaac Beers, Efq. 
 Thaddeus Betts, Efo. - 
 Barnabas Bidwell, Efq. Tutor, 
 2yr, ^ Chandler Bartlet, 
 
 C. Barzillai Beckwith, 
 Capt. Abel Burritt, merchant, 
 Elifha Beebe. 
 Afahel Beebe, 
 William Battle, merchant, . 
 Mr. '<{ David Brown, 
 Martin Bull, 
 Patrick Butler, 
 Daniel Bulkley, merchant, 
 Deacon Nathanael Benedict, 
 Jonah Clark, Efq. 
 
 Mr. Daniel Crocker, A. M. Cam!. for 
 Capt. Henry Child, 
 Benjamin Chaphn, Efq, 
 Capt. V/illiam Cone, 
 
 Branford. 
 
 New-Haven. 
 
 Bethlem. 
 
 Franklin. 
 
 Stafford. 
 
 New Fairfield. 
 
 Canaan. 
 
 . N. Guilford. 
 
 Somers, 6 books. 
 
 Wethersfield. 
 
 Nor walk. 
 
 Kent. 
 
 Waflilngton. 
 
 New-Kaven. 
 
 Norwalk. 
 
 Yale Colleo-e. 
 
 Lebanon. 
 
 "Eaft-Haddam. 
 
 New-Haven, 
 
 Canaan, 
 
 do. 
 
 Torringford. 
 
 Afliford. 
 
 Farmington. 
 
 Lebanon. 
 
 Eaft-Haddam. 
 
 Norwalk. 
 
 Branford. 
 
 the mi ft. New -Haven. 
 
 Woodflock. 
 
 Mansfield. 
 
 Eaft-Haddam» 
 
S U B S C R I BE R S N A M E S. 323 
 
 Capt. Jonah Cone, 
 Deacon Ebenezer Cowles, 
 
 f Ifaac Cowles, Phyiician, 
 Mr. I Merwin Clark, 
 
 j Jabez Chapi-nan, 
 
 t Aaron Cooke, 
 Rev. Jeremiah Day, 
 John Davenport, Efq. 
 
 f John Davenport. 
 Mr. J Gordon Dorrance, 
 
 j Joihua Dov.ner, phyiician, 
 
 [ RuiTel Dutton, 
 Capt. Amafa Dutton, 
 Rev. Zebulon Ely, 
 Rev. Samuel Eells, 
 Daniel Eliwordi, Efq. 
 Mr. Gurdon Els worth. 
 
 f Daniel Farrand, 
 Rev. <[ Nathan Fenn, 
 
 t John Foot, 
 Col. Thomas Fitch, Attorney at Law, 
 Mr. Ebenezer Fitch, Tutor, 
 Rev. Elijah Gridley, 
 Rev. Nathanael Gaylord, 
 
 f }ofeph Galpin, 
 Mr. ^ Elijah Gridley, A. M. 
 
 LJofeph Griggs, 
 Col. William Gould, Phyfician, 
 
 f Levi Hart, 
 Rev. <j Rufus Hawley, 
 
 L William Hotchkifs, 
 Nathan Hale, Eiq. 
 Afahel Huntington, Efq. 
 Col. Noadiah Hooker, 
 
 f Eliphalet Holmes, 
 Capt. J Samuel Heart, 
 j Ithamar Karvy, 
 [_ Ebenezer Holmes, 
 Deacon James Hough, 
 Lieut. Amos Hosford, 
 
 f John Hall, 
 ^, J David Hale, A. M. 
 ^^'^^'' ] Jared Hinckley, 
 
 , LJapaes Hatch. 
 
 Eaft-Haddam. 
 
 Nleriden. 
 
 Hanwinton. 
 
 Farmington. 
 
 Eirmcrron. 
 
 o 
 
 Wallintrford. 
 
 Waihington. 
 
 Stamford. 
 
 Hampton, 
 
 Prelton. 
 
 Eafl-Haddam. 
 
 do. 
 
 Lebanon, 4 books. 
 
 North-Branford, 
 
 EUino-ton. 
 
 do. 
 
 Canaan. 
 
 Berlin. 
 
 Chefhire, 6 books. 
 
 Nor walk. 
 
 Yale College. 
 
 Mansfield, 6 books. 
 
 Hartland. 
 
 Berlin. 
 
 Farmington. 
 
 Union. 
 
 Branford. 
 
 Prefton, 6 bocks. 
 
 Northington. 
 
 Saybrook. 
 
 Canaan, 
 
 Norwich. 
 
 Farmington. 
 
 Eaft-Haddam. 
 
 Berlin. 
 
 Eaft-Haddam. 
 
 do. 
 
 Meriden. 
 
 Berlin. 
 
 Ellington. 
 
 Coventry. 
 
 Lebanon,, 
 
5?4 
 
 SUBSCRIBERS NAMES. 
 
 f Seth Higby, Baptift Minifter, 
 j^^„ J Dyer T. Hinckley, A. M. 
 
 { Ebenezer Huggins, merchant, 
 
 LAI van Hyde A. B. 
 Deacon Levi Ives, 
 Timothy Jones, Efq, 
 
 f James Judd, 
 Mr. <^ Jared Jones, 
 
 Wefton, 
 
 Lebanon. 
 
 New-Iiaven. 
 
 Franklin. 
 
 New-Haven. 
 
 do. 
 Farmington. 
 Branford . 
 
 L Alfred Johnfon, Candidate for the miniftry. 
 
 Capt. Naihanael B. Johnfcn, 
 Rev. Walter King, 
 Rev. Aaron Klnne, V. D. M. 
 Gol. Toliii Keves. 
 
 Meriden. 
 
 Chelfea, 6 books. 
 
 Groton. 
 
 Windham. 
 
 Coventry. 
 
 Berlin. 
 
 Waterbury. 
 
 Milford. 
 
 Eaft-Haddam. 
 
 Vr ^ Ebenezer Kinglbury, 
 C Ezekiel Kcify, 
 
 f Mc.rk ^/eivenworth, 
 R.ev. <| -.Viiiiam Lock-vcod, 
 
 t V/i;]iam Lyman, 
 Lynde Lord. Efq, SheritFof Litchfield county. 
 Capt. Samuel Lee, Guilford, 6 boooks. 
 
 Lieut. Phineas Lewis^ Farmington. 
 
 f Elijah Lyon, Woodftock. 
 
 I^li'. «{ Eliphalet Lockwood, merchant, Norwalk. 
 
 R 
 
 L Elijah Loveland, 
 
 f Jufius Mitchell, 
 ev. i Jehu Minor, 
 
 I Samuel John Millsj, 
 
 [ Noah Merwin, 
 Major Edward Mott, 
 Jedediah Morfe, Efq. 
 Mrs. Mehitabel Morfe, 
 Capt. John Mix, 
 Capt. Reuben Marcy, 
 Mr. William Fov/ler Miller, A. B. 
 Ml-. John Morgan, 
 Rev. Samuel Nott, V. D. M. 
 A'b*. Boger Newton, jun. Tutor, 
 Rev. Alien Olcott, 
 Rev. Nathan Perkins, 
 Rev. Jofiiua Perry, 
 R^v. Timothy Pitkin, 
 Rev. Mic^iah Porter, V. D. M, 
 Jar.es Potter, Efq. 
 Qjiver ParmelcCp Efq, 
 
 Berlin. 
 
 Canaan, 6 books. 
 
 South-Britain, 6 books. 
 
 Torringford, 2 books. 
 
 Wafhington. 
 
 Prefton, 
 
 Woodftock. 
 
 New-Haven. 
 
 do, 
 
 Ail] ford. 
 
 Farmington. 
 
 Preilon. 
 
 Franklin, 6 books. 
 
 Yale College. 
 
 Farmington. 
 
 Hartford , 
 
 Hampden. 
 
 Farmington, 
 
 Voluntown, 6 books. 
 
 New Fairfield. 
 
 Bethlem. 
 
SUBSCRIBERS NAMES. 32; 
 
 i^ 
 
 Major Nathan Peters, Attorney at law. 
 
 Deacon Noah Port^,- 
 
 Mr. Edward Porter, 
 
 Rev. William Robinfon, 
 
 Rev. Medad Rogers, 
 
 Rev. Noadiah Rufiel, 
 
 Rev. Ammi P».uhamah Robins, 
 
 Rev. Robert Rebbins, 
 
 Roger Riley;, Efq. 
 
 f Henry A. Rowland, 
 
 I William F. Rowland, 
 
 J Juftas Pvofe, 
 
 \ Joel Rice, 
 
 I William Robinfon, 
 
 tA?nmi Rogers. Student, 
 Hon. Roger Sherman, Eiq. Repref. m Cortg. New-Haven. 
 Hon. Jonathan Sturges, 
 Hon. Jofeph Spencer, Efq. 
 Rev. Ezra Stiles, L. L.D. 
 Rev. John Smalley, 
 Rev. Cyprian Strong, 
 Rev. Nathan Strong, 
 Rev, Timothy Stone, 
 Rev. Peter Starr, 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Prefton. 
 Farraington. 
 
 do. 
 Southington. 
 New- Fairfield, 
 Thompfon. 
 Norfolk. 
 Colchefter. 
 Berlin. 
 Wiudfor. 
 do. 
 N. Branford. 
 Meriden. 
 Preilon. 
 Yale Colleo-e. 
 
 do. 
 
 D. D. 
 
 Fairfield, 6 books. 
 
 EaltHaddam. 
 
 Prcfident of Yale C. 
 
 Berlin. 
 
 Chatham. 
 
 Kartford. 
 
 Lebanon. 
 
 Warren. 
 
 f SylvefterSage, A.B. Cand.f, the mini Jiry, Berlin. 
 
 ( Caleb Street, merchant, Vv^allingford. 
 
 Mr. ^ Titus Street, merchant, New-Haven. 
 
 I William St. John, merchant, Norwalk. 
 
 L Samuel Smith, 
 Lieut. 'Elifiia Strong, 
 Hon. John Treadwell, 
 
 f Begjamin Trumbull, 
 Rev. ' Lemuel Tyler, 
 
 J Jonathan Todd, 
 
 t David Tullar, 
 Rev. Martin Tullar, 
 ^-. C Samuel G. Tracy, 
 
 C William Townfend, 
 
 Rev \ J°^^P^ ^^^^' 
 ^^^'\ JohnWillard, 
 
 Mifs Nabby Watfon, 
 
 Wilham Williams, Efq. 
 
 Farmington. 
 
 do. 
 
 do. 
 
 North-Haven, 2 books. 
 
 Prefton. 
 
 Guilford, 
 
 Derby. 
 
 Milford. 
 
 Prefton. 
 
 Colchefter. 
 
 Eaft-Haddam. 
 
 Meriden. 
 
 Nevv'-Hartford, 
 
 Stonington. 
 
 Rev. Sam. Wales, D. D. Profeff. gf Divinity in Yale Col. 
 Splomon Wales, Ef(^.^ Union. 
 
3^6 S U B S C R I B E R S N A M E S 
 
 Solomon Whitman^ Elq. Farmington. 
 
 f Stephen Williams, Branford. 
 
 Mr I Chapman Warner, Lyme. 
 
 j Elizur Wright, Canaan. 
 
 LEzra Woodworth, A. B. Lebanon. 
 
 Capt. William Witter, Prcilon. 
 
 State of New-York. 
 
 Rev. Thomas Beveridge, Mlnljler of the Affociate Congre- 
 gation, Cambridge, Albany county, 
 Mr. David Schuyler Bogart, Student of Cojumbia College. 
 Rev. Abncr Benedict, New Lebanon. 
 
 f Samuel Campbell, bookfeller, New-\ork, 14 books. 
 
 I Matthias Crane, Hatter, do. 
 
 Mr. s Cornelius Davis, Majl ,r ^f the yffric. Free Sch. do. 
 
 j Daniel Hitchcock, Ilc^ufe Carpenter, do. 
 
 1^ Robert Hodge, bookfeller, do. 14 books. 
 
 Rev. Benjamin Judd, Pouiidridge. 
 
 Mr. John Johnfon, Student, Columbia College. 
 
 Mr. Henry Johnfon, Teacher of the Eng, Lang, N. \ork. 
 Rev. John Livingfton, D. D. do. 
 
 f Thomas Vail, do. 
 
 jVIr. <! Abraham Vanp-elder, do. 
 
 L William W. Wolfey, do. 
 
 New- Jersey. 
 Mrs. Margaret Berrien, Rocky Hill. 
 
 Mr. Jofeph Brevvfter, PHyfician, Deerfield, Cumb. coun. 
 Rev. Mathias Cazier, Orange Dale. 
 
 Mr. Abijah Davis, Student in Divinity, ,- Deerfield. 
 
 Mifs Hannah Fox, Burlington county. 
 
 Rev. Ohver Hart, A. M. Paftor of the Bap. Ch. Hopev.eli. 
 Mr. Ifaac Harris, Phyfician, Pittsgrove. 
 
 f Jofeph Grover, Hanover. 
 
 Rev J J^"'^^^-^" Jarman, ' Cohanfey. 
 
 * j Robert Keiiay, Paflor of the Bap. Church, do. 
 
 L Andrew Law, 
 Nathan Leek, Efq. Deerfield, C. c. 
 
 Recompence Leek, do* do. 
 
 f David" Lore, Cumberland county. 
 
 I David Mood, Deerfield, Cumberland c. 
 
 ■jyj j Joh" Royal, Cohanfey. 
 
 ' ' j Philip Shepard, do. 
 
 I Ifaac Shepard, do. 
 
 t John Sijgin> ,d«. 
 
SUBSCRIBERS NAMES. ^327 
 
 Ifaac Wheaton, Efq. Cumberland county. 
 
 Rev. Peter Wilion, Bordentown. 
 
 Pennsylvania. 
 P C Piobert Annan, A> M. Philadelphia. 
 
 1 John Anderfbn, Memb. of the JJfoc. Prejh. Pennf. 
 Robert Aiiken, Printer, Philadelphia, 2 books. 
 
 Major vviljiam Alexander, Carlifle. 
 
 John x\gne\v, Efq. do. 
 
 John Allen, mafori do. 
 
 1^^ C Charles Bovard, ' do. 
 
 C V/iUiam Blair, do. 
 
 Mrs Eliza Bankfon, Philadelphia. 
 
 John Creigh Efq. merchant, Carhde. 
 
 Mifs Sufanna Cheefman, ■ Philadelphia. 
 
 B.ev. James Clarkion,/lf/;2z/?^r of the J ffb date Congregation, 
 
 of Gwcenflown, in York count}'. 
 Rev. Jofeph CI arkfon, Philadelphia. 
 
 , , C Robert Campbell, bookfeller, Philadelphia. 
 
 i Matthew Carey, Printer, do. 30 books. 
 
 f Daniel Cornog, Great Valley, 6 books. 
 
 Mr. <j Stephen Duncan, merchant. Carlifle. 
 
 t David Denny, Stud, in Divin. Dickinf. Col. do. 
 Thomas Duncan, Efq. Attorney at Law. do. 
 
 Rev. George D-jffield, D. D. Philadelphia. 
 
 f Matthew Duncan. 
 yr \ Thomas Dobfon, bookfeller, Philadelphia. 
 
 \ Campbell Dick, mer'hant, 
 
 t Samuel Davis, Flatter, Philadelphia. 
 
 Rev. John Ewing, D.D. Provoftof the Univer. of Pennf. 
 Mr. Silas Engles, Foufe Carpenter. 
 John Fulton, Efq. Ealu Nottingham, Chefcer county. 
 Rev. John E. Fiuley, Pafr. of the Cong, c/ Faggs-manor, 
 * f John Fairbairn, Philadelphia. 
 
 I Samuel Gray, merchant, Carlifle. 
 
 ■Kjr \ Andrew Gwin, do. 
 
 ] Ifaac Greer, Stud, in Divin. Dickinfon College, do. 
 
 ( Jofeph S. Galbraith, do. do. do. 
 
 LJoieph Givin, merchant, do. 
 
 Rev. David Goodwillie, AI(fw/;<-r of the AJTociate Prejhytcry . 
 
 f John Gemmel, A, M. Student in Divinity. 
 Mr. <| John Hughes, merchant, Carlifle. 
 
 l^ Silas Hough, Bucks county. 
 
 John Jordan, Efq.^ Carliilc, 
 
33t8 SUBSCRIBERS NAME 1^; 
 
 Mr. Jofeph Junkin, 
 
 f William Innes, Brewer, 
 
 do. 
 
 Philadelphia, 
 do. 
 do. 
 do. 
 do. 
 do. 
 
 Eaft Pennf J 
 Philadelphia. 
 T.^ j Thomas Johnflone, Pequea, Lancafter county, 
 
 ^ ^^* I George Kline, Printer, Carliflc. 
 
 1^ James Lamberton, merchant, 
 Mr. Samuel Leacock, 
 Charles Leeper, Efq. 
 
 ' John Montgomery, merchant, 
 Robert Miller, 
 Jehn Miller, merchant, 
 Mr. <j John Morrifen, tobacconift, 
 
 Samuel A. M'CofKry, practitioner of phyfic, do. 
 I James M^Lain, jun. Stud. inDivin. Dick. Col. do. 
 (, Samuel M'Lane, Breeches -maker and Glover, Phil. 
 Jofeph Magoffin, Efq. 
 
 fjohn M^Culloh, Spruce-ftreet, Philadelphia. 
 
 I James Moyes, Sailmaker, do. 
 
 Mr. «^ Richard Mofely, Carpenter, do. 
 
 I John M' Allilter, cane & whipmaker, market-ft. do* 
 L James Muir, in Sheets, 
 Rev. William Marfhall, Mm. of the Scots Prefl-yterian Chur. 
 
 Philadelphia, 6 books.- 
 Mr 5^ J«^" M'Culloch, Printer, Philadelphia, 12 copies. 
 
 \ Thomas Napier, Planemaker, Philadelphia. 
 Rev. Charles Nifbet, D. D. Prin. of Dick. CoL Carlifle. 
 •jyT C William Petrikin, taylor, do. 
 
 \ Hugh Patten, do. 
 
 Col. Samuel Poftlethwaite, do. 
 
 f John Pardon, merchant, Philadelphia. 
 
 I Robert Patton, do. 6 books. 
 
 Mr. { James Rofs, Prof, of Lang, in Dick. Col. Carlifle. 
 I William Rynolds, Farmer, Pequea, Lancafter coun. 
 (^ Henry Rice, bookfeller, Philadelphia. 
 
 Rev. William Rogers, J, M. ProfefTor of Englifh and 
 Oratory, in the College of Philadelphia. 
 Benjamin Ruih, M. D. ProfelT. of Chemiftry, do. 
 
 f Sallows Shevvel, merchant, do. 
 
 Thomas Shields, Goldfmith, do. 
 
 James Short, florekeeper, borough of York, 
 
 IVIr. \ Conrad Shutz, Philadelphia. 
 
 Matthew Sinclair, Stud, in Div. Dick. Col. Carlifle. 
 V/illiam Speer, do. do. 
 
 ^ Nathanael Randolph Snowden, do. do. 
 
 Ephraim Steel, Efq. merchant, do- 
 
SUBSCRIBERS NAMES. 329 
 
 Mr. Robert Smith, merchant, 
 
 J^ev. James Sproat, D. D. 
 
 Mr^ Jedediah Snowden, 
 
 Rev. John Smith, 
 
 ■jyr C Ifabel Stevenfon, 
 
 ' (^ Van Solingen, 
 
 f Peter Stewart, 
 
 Tv/r ! Samuel Tate, fchoolmafter, 
 Mr. <j ^ ^ i_ _j 
 
 Philadelphia. 
 do. 
 do. 
 Middle 06lorara, 6 books. 
 Philadelphia; 
 do. 
 do. 18 books. 
 Carlille. 
 \ T. Trenchard, Philadelphia. 6 booksi 
 
 [ Archibald Tate, Marfh-Creek, YorkCounty. 
 
 Capt. Jofeph Tatem, Philadelphia. 
 
 ■ fJohnWray, merchant, Carliflei 
 
 j Mofes Williamfon, do do. 
 
 Mr. <{ Nathanael Wfeakley, do. do. 
 
 I Hugh Wilfon, do. do. 
 
 L William Watts, Buck's County. 
 
 Rev. Archibald White, member of the Aflbciate Prelby^ 
 
 tery of Penfylvania. 
 Alexander Wright, Efq. Wafliington County* 
 
 f John Wilfon, merchant. 
 
 I W. Young, Bookfeller, Philadelphia, 100 books. 
 J John Young, Sudent in Divinity, Dickenfon Col- 
 lege, Carlifle. 
 Jofeph Young, copperfmith, Carliflci. 
 t John Yeoman, merchant. 
 
 Delaware, 
 Rev. Thomas Ainger, Wilmington. 
 
 Mt, John Darragh, merchant. 
 Vincent Loockerman, Efq. 
 
 SotJTH-CAROLINA. 
 
 Mr. 
 
 <! 
 
 Mr. 
 
 " George Airs, 
 
 William Airs. 
 
 Thomas Barksdale, 
 
 Clement O. Browia, 
 
 Samuel Beach. 
 
 Samuel Baldwin. 
 < Thomas Bennet. 
 
 Gal. Capers, 
 
 Peter Darr. 
 
 Edward Darrelt, 
 
 J. Edwards. 
 i^ Lewis Fogart. 
 
 U « 
 
 Chrift's-Church Parilli. 
 
 Chriil's-ChurchParifli. 
 do. 
 
 Chrifl's-Churqh Fariih. 
 do. 
 
S3' 
 
 SUBSCRIBERS NAMES: 
 
 f James Fifiier. 
 
 I J. Hart, 
 
 I William liamlin, 
 
 t JaiTies Hibben, 
 Rev. William Hollinshcad, 
 Hon. Richard Hut ion, 
 
 f T homas Jones, 
 
 I Ifaac Stockton Keith. 
 Mr. \ Jofeph Legare, 
 
 I Ifaac Legare, 
 
 [.Nathan Legare. 
 
 Mrs. Ann Legare. 
 
 Mr. Stephen Lawrence. 
 
 Rev. Daniel M^Calla, >/. M, Pa/}. 
 
 C Daniel M'Calla. 
 Mr. S rr^, - , 
 
 C 1 homas IViartm. 
 
 Rev. Henry Parcel, D.D. Re&or 
 
 Mr. Thomas Player, 
 
 Hon. David Ramfay, M. D. 
 
 ■ Jofeph Hall Ramiay. 
 
 William Scott, jun. 
 
 Thomas Scott, 
 
 Thomas Screven, 
 
 Mr. <{ Jofiah Smith. 
 
 George Smith. 
 
 William Stevens. 
 
 Jofliua Toomer, • 
 
 James H. Thomfon, A» M. 
 
 f Elias Vanderhont* 
 
 I John W^ebb. 
 
 Mr. ] William Wilkie. 
 
 I Rd. Withers. 
 
 LEliab Wingood^ 
 
 Georgia. 
 
 Mr ^ J"^^" Bankdon, 
 
 ^ Samuel Blackburn, A. B, 
 Edward Butler, Efq. 
 
 f John Black, 
 Mr. ] Peter Bonds, 
 
 1^ Lewis Barret 
 Nathanael Coats, Efq. 
 John Darracoot, Efq. 
 Gideon Dowle, Efq. 
 
 St. Thomas. 
 Chrift's-Church. 
 do. 
 
 Charlefton^ 
 do. 
 
 Chrift's-Church Pafiih, 
 do. 
 
 6f the Ind.Ch.Ch. Ch.?, 
 
 of St. Michael's Charleft. 
 
 ChrifPs-Church Pariflj. 
 
 Charlefton. 
 
 Chrifl's-Church Parifh. 
 do. 
 
 St. Thomas. 
 
 ChrifPs-church Parifli, 
 Charlefton, 6 books. 
 
 Wilkes. 
 do. 6 books, 
 do. 
 do. 
 
 do. 6 books. 
 do. 6 books. 
 do. 
 
 do. 6 books. 
 Newport' 
 
SUBSCRIBERS NAMES. 331 
 
 Mr C John Hendly, fen. 
 
 C John Hendly, jun. 
 Lyman Hall, Efq. 
 Rev. Abiel Holmes, 
 David Hillhoufe, Efq. 
 
 f Howel Jarrett, 
 Mr. ^ Morice Kain, 
 
 L Gracy Little, 
 Major John Lindfey, 
 Mr. William Langham, 
 David Merrewether, Efq. 
 
 Mr 
 
 C Richard Milliar, 
 
 I Harrifon Mufgrave, 
 
 James Marks, Efq. 
 
 Mr. Thomas Ouarterman, 
 
 Capt. William Quarterman, 
 
 r William Strong, 
 
 I Frederic Simms, merchant, 
 Mr. «j Ifaac Staunton, 
 
 I John Town fend 
 
 t Jacob Threfh, 
 William Terrill, Efq. 
 Mr. Thomas Terrill, 
 Tj C Sanders Walker, 
 
 * C Jeremiah Walker, 
 Capt. Richard Worfham, 
 James Williams, Efq. attorney, 
 Mr. John Wingfield, jun. 
 
 Wilkes, 
 
 , 6 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 6 books. 
 
 Savannah. 
 
 
 Midway. 
 
 Wilkes 
 
 , 6 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 
 do. 
 
 
 do. 
 
 
 do. 
 
 4 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 6 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 6 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 4 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 6 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 6 books. 
 
 
 Newport. 
 
 
 do. 
 
 Wilkes, 
 
 4 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 6 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 6 books* 
 
 do. 
 
 
 do. 
 
 2 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 
 do. 
 
 
 do. 
 
 6 books. 
 
 do. 
 
 
 do. 
 
 
 do. 
 
 
 6 books. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 pjge 22, Un5 9, ihretened, read threatened. 
 
 f £gc 24. lint' 9, reafoning, read remark. 
 
 Page 26, line 32, than, read then, 
 
 Pcjgc 37, I'nc 27', difpifed, read defpifed. 
 
 P.'jge 39, lire 5S, read, o/" the infinite, &c. 
 
 Page 41, line 27, read meritorious. 
 
 Page 52, line 20, where, read were. 
 
 Page 53, in the margin, Tef. read Thef, 
 
 Page 62, line 29, draw, read drawn. 
 
 Page 63, line 22, pomote, read promOtCc 
 
 Page 105, lin^ 33, IL read 2. 
 
 Piige 132, ulc. fervent, re^id fervent. 
 
 Page 170, line 36, o re^d of. 
 
 Pege 171, line 17, ? read ;. 
 
 Page 234, line 12, of, resd or. 
 
 Page 235, line 33, lepeatecly, read greatly. 
 
 Page 238, line 33, ciele they. 
 
 Pa2e250, line 33, forever, read for ever; 
 
 Page 274, line 7, read ^Hinnom. 
 Several lefs important errata, the corredlion of which will natu- 
 rally Occur to the reader, appealed not to require a place in this 
 table. 
 
PRINTING 
 
 AND 
 
 BOOK-BINDING, 
 
 In their various Branches are neatly executed by 
 
 ABEL MORSE, in State-Street, New-Haven : 
 
 WHO HAS FOR SALE, 
 
 DOCTOR Gordon's Hiftory of the American War, 
 The CongrefTional Regifter, 
 
 An Eflay on Punctuation, 
 
 Pike's Arithmetic, Gib on the Covenants. 
 
 Newton's Rehgious Letters, Scott's Leffons in Elocution, 
 
 Hiftory of Sanford and Merton, Efop's Fables, 
 
 Fables for the Ladies, Paradife-Lofl, 
 
 Oeconomy of human Life, Father's Legacy, 
 
 Pfalm Books, Watts' and Hart's Hymns, 
 
 The Triumphs ©f Temper, 
 
 Search after Happinefs, a paftoral Drama, as it was per- 
 formed by fome young Ladies in Briftol, 
 
 Ela : or the Delufions of the Heart, 
 
 The complete Letter Writer, 
 
 The Hiilory of Gibraltar, 
 
 TheMeffiah, 
 
 Peter Pindar. 
 
 Spelling-Books of different kinds, 
 
 A great variety of Children's Books, with 
 
 A large Affortment of Superfine imported Writing Paper^ 
 
 Accompt Books of alT kinds. 
 
 Blank books and Blarjks of every kind, 
 
 A variety of Latin Books, &c. 
 
 y///o, now preparing for the Prefsy 
 
 The Hiftory of the United States in America, from the 
 time of their firf: fettlement by the Englilh, to the year 
 1790, in five volumes, by a Citizen of Philadelphia. 
 
 A Compendium of American Geography, with an Ap- 
 pendix, containing a concife geographical defcnption of 
 ail other parts of the globe : — Defigned particularly for 
 the ufe of fchools in the United States, and well adapt- 
 ed to the capacities of youth ; compiled by a Citizen of 
 Philadelphia, who has an extenfive knowledge in geo- 
 
graphical fcience, and is folicitous to facilitate the im- 
 provement of youth. 
 Alfo, a School Reading-Book, in two parts ; the firft 
 part containing reading leiTons methodized for claffes ; 
 and the fecond part a collection of the moft eminent de- 
 clamatory pieces ; compiled by an Inftruclor of eminence. 
 
 N. B. Said Morse drefTes his own leather, attends to 
 every part of his bnfmcfs himfelf, is emulous to excel in 
 his profelfion, and the public may depend upon being fer- 
 ved by him with the utmoil punftuahty. Country pro- 
 duce, or clean Cotton and Linen Rags and Sheeps Pelts 
 will be taken in payment for any of the above Articles. 
 
 i 
 
■J 
 
 s. 
 
f^^'im^:- 
 
 m:^^-'^' 
 
 ■M^'' 
 
 iV'r,- 
 
 '%i 
 
 
 
 7':-;.-.- -iR-;-: ■«'^/ 
 
 ^« 
 
 '■i.%-i 
 
 m 
 
 
 ■'if; 
 
 ''if&^, 
 
 fi'4^tA 
 
 ^\L. 
 
 '*^'^ 
 
 mm