tem requires the final happiness of every individual, and they will indeed have gone far toward the establishment of their scheme. But until they shall have done this, their argument from this topic is utterly inconclusive. It is no more inconsistent with the goodness of God, that he should create men with a foresight and an intention, that they should suffer that endless punishment which they should deserve, and which is subservient to the general good; than that he should create them with a foresight and intention, that they should subserve the same important end, by suffering the torment of ages of ages, or the pains of the stone or the cholic; provided these temporary pains are not subservient to their personal good. And to say that temporary pains cannot consistently with the divine goodness be inflicted on the sinner, unless they be subservient to the personal good of the patient, is to contradict the plain dictates of reason, of scripture, and of Dr. C. himself. But this subject has been largely considered in Chapter III.

These, I think, are Dr. C's principal arguments from the divine goodness, to prove universal salvation; I presume, that in his whole book there are none more forcible than these. His arguments of this kind generally, if not universally, depend on taking for granted what is as much in dispute as any point in the whole controversy, that endless punishment is not consistent with the greatest good of the universal system, or the greatest general good. If it be true, that any man will be punished without end, no doubt it is so ordered because infinite wisdom and goodness saw it to be necessary to the general good. If it be not true, it is equally certain, that infinite wisdom and goodness saw endless punishment to be inconsistent with the general good. But which of these is the truth, is the main question.

IV. That endless punishment is consistent with the divine goodness, not only is implied in various sentiments and tenets of Dr. C. but appears to be a real and demonstrable truth. To evince this, I shall now, as was proposed, mention several considerations.

1. All arguments against endless punishment, drawn from the divine mercy, grace or goodness, imply a concession, that endless punishment is just. Were it not just, there would be no occasion to call in the aid of goodness. Stern, unrelenting justice would afford relief. Nor is there the least goodness, as distinguished from justice, exercised by a judge, in delivering a man from an unjust punishment attempted to be brought upon him by a false accuser. If therefore the salvation of sinners, and of every sinner, be an act of goodness, mercy or grace, as Dr. C. VOL. I.

15

abundantly declares; then endless punishment is just. And if it be just, it appears by Chap. III, that it will be inflicted, and inflicted by God too. Therefore it is consistent with divine good

ness.

It is hoped it has been made manifest in Chap. II. and III, that the end of future punishment is not the personal good of the patients, but to satisfy justice, and support the authority and dignity of the divine law and government; as both Dr. C. and the scriptures abundantly hold, that the wicked will be punished to the utmost extent of their demerit. Now if the end of future punishment, whether temporary or endless, be to satisfy justice, and to support government; then the general good is promoted by the satisfaction of justice; otherwise God would not inflict such punishment. And if the proof in Chap. VI, that endless punishment is just, be valid, then justice is not satisfied by any punishment short of endless. But by Chap. II. and III. it appears, that all that punishment, which the wicked deserve, will actually be inflicted upon them by God. Therefore endless punishment is perfectly consistent with divine goodness.

2. If the divine law may be in any one instance executed consistently with divine goodness, endless punishment is consistent with the divine goodness. But the divine law may, in some instances, be executed consistently with divine goodness. I have before endeavored to show, that the penalty of the law is endless punishment. If this be true, then when the law is executed, endless punishment is inflicted. And who will dare to say, that God has made a law, which he cannot in any one instance execute consistently with his own perfections; and that if he should execute it in any instance, his goodness and mercy must be inevitably given up? Nay, he delights in cruelty? If the law cannot be executed without cruelty, it is a cruel unjust law; and to make a cruel and unjust law, is as irreconcilable with the moral rectitude of God, as to execute that law. If the infliction of endless punishment be cruel, the threatening of it also is cruel. But this runs into the former question, whether endless punishment be just.

If it be said, though the law is just, and the execution of it would not be cruel; yet it cannot be executed consistently with the divine goodness, because the divine goodness seeks the greatest possible good of the system. But the greatest possible good of the system requires the final happiness of all. As to this I observe:

(1) That it is giving up the argument from divine goodness in the light, in which Dr. C. has stated it. It appears by the quo

tations already made, that he held endless punishment to be so inconsistent with divine goodness, that if that punishment be inflicted, it will prove God to be destitute of goodness, and to delight in cruelty.

(2) That the question as now stated comes to no more than this, Whether endless punishment be consistent with the greatest possible display of divine goodness? For a system, in which there is the greatest possible good, and the greatest possible display of the divine goodness, are one and the same thing. But if it were granted, that endless punishment is, in this sense, inconsistent with the divine goodness, it would by no means follow, on Dr. C's principles, that all men will be saved. Because it established principle with him, that divine goodness is not and cannot be displayed, to the highest possible degree, or so but that there is room for higher displays and further communications of it. "Neither is it to be supposed, because God is infinitely benevolent, that he has in fact made an infinite manifestation of his goodness. Infinity in benevolence knows no bounds, but there is still room for more and higher displays of it. This perfection is strictly speaking, inexhaustible, not capable of being displayed to a ne plus."* Therefore, it would be absurd for Dr. C. or any one, who agrees with him in the sentiment expressed in the last quotation, to state the argument from divine goodness, in the light in which it is exhibited in the objection now under consideration. This stating of the argument runs entirely into the question, whether the present system of the universe be the best possible; which Dr. C. has sufficiently answered in the negative, in the passage last quoted, and in many other passages of his writings. If it be true, that divine goodness does not adopt and prosecute the best possible plan of the universe in general; what reason have we to think, that it will adopt and prosecute the best possible plan with regard to any part of the divine system; for instance the future state of those who die in impenitence?

(3) On the supposition, that God does adopt and prosecute the best possible plan, both with regard to the universe in general, and in every particular dispensation of his providence; still we shall never be able to determine a priori, that the final salvation of all men is, in the sense now under consideration, most subservient to the general good.. It must be determined either by the event itself, or by revelation; and whether revelation do assure us of the salvation of all men, is not the subject of inquiry in this chapter, but shall be particularly considered in its place.

3. If divine goodness without respect to the atonement of * Benevolence of the Deity, p. 40.

Christ, which is foreign from the subject of this chapter, require the salvation of all men; it either requires that they be saved, whether they repent or not; or it requires, that they be saved on the condition of their repentance only. If it require that they be saved, whether they repent or not, it follows, that they have done no damage to the universe or have committed no sin. For the very idea of sin is a damage to the universe, a dishonor to God, and an injury to the creature. Now whenever a damage is done to the universe, the good of the universe, or which in the present argument comes to the same thing, the divine goodness requires reparation. But if the good of the universe require, that the sinner be saved without even repentance, the good of the universe 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 universe; and if no damage have been done to the universe, no sin has been committed. No wonder then, that the divine goodness requires the salvation of those who have committed no sin or no moral evil.

If on the other hand it be allowed, that by sin damage is done to the universe, and yet it be holden, that divine goodness requires the salvation of all men, on the condition of their repentance only; it will follow, that repentance alone makes it consistent with the general good that the sinner be saved. Repentance then repairs the damage done to the universe by sin, and so makes satisfaction or atonement for sin. The very essence of atonement is something done to repair the damage done by sin to the universe, so that the sinner can be exempted from punishment, without any disadvantage to the universe. And as repentance is a personal act of the sinner, he does on this supposition make atonement for his own sin by his personal virtue. Therefore, if after this he be saved from wrath, he is but treated according to his personal character, or according to strict justice; not according to goodness or grace. So that while Dr. C. professes and supposes himself to be arguing from the divine goodness, the salvation of all men from the wrath to come; his arguments are really drawn from the justice of God only. They imply either that the sinner who is by divine goodness to be saved from the wrath to come, is no sinner, deserves no punishment, and therefore is incapable of being saved from wrath, as he is exposed to none; or that though he be a sinner, he has in his own person, made full satisfaction for his sin, and therefore merits salvation from wrath, and is incapable of it by an act of grace or goodness.

4. To argue the salvation of all men from the goodness of

God, without regard to the atonement of Christ; and yet to allow that endless punishment is just, is a direct contradiction. If it be allowed or proved, that endless punishment is just, it follows of course that it is consistent with the general good, and which is the same thing, with the divine goodness, and is even required by divine goodness, on the supposition on which we now proceed, that no atonement is made for sin. The very idea of a just punishment of any crime is a punishment which in view of the crime only, is requisite to repair the damage done to the system by that crime. Any further punishment than this is unjust, and any punishment short of this, falls short of the demand of justice. At the same time that this is demanded by justice, it is demanded by the general good too; because by the definition of a just punishment, it is necessary to the general good; necessary to secure it, or to repair the damage done to it, by the crime punished. So that a just punishment of any crime is not only consistent with the general good, but is absolutely required by it, provided other measures equivalent to this punishment be not taken to repair the damage done by sin, or, which is the same, provided an atonement be not made. And if the endless punishment of sin be just; it is of course, on the proviso just made, perfectly consistent with the general good of the universe, and absolutely required by it, and equally required by the goodness of God. And to say that though it be just, it is not reconcilable with the divine goodness, is the same as to say, that though it be just, it is not reconcilable with justice.

Objection. Divine goodness does not admit of the endless punishment of the apostle Paul; yet his endless punishment would be just. Answer. Divine goodness, or the general good of the universe, considering the sins or the personal character of Paul by itself, does both admit and require his endless punishment. But considering the atonement of Christ, which, as I have repeatedly observed, comes not into consideration in the present argument, it does not indeed admit of it.

I beg leave to ask the advocates for universal salvation, whether if Christ had not made atonement, it would have been consistent with the general good of the universe, that sinners be punished without end. If they answer in the affirmative, then endless punishment is in itself reconcilable not with justice only, but with goodness too, as goodness always acquiesces in that which is consistent with the general good. For if only in consequence of the atonement, endless punishment be inconsistent with the divine goodness, it becomes inconsistent with it, not on account of anything in the endless punishment of sin,