nothing is done to prove universal salvation, from the use of the words all men, verse 18th. To say, that they which receive abundance of grace mean all mankind, because that expression is equally extensive as the words all men in the 18th verse, is a mere begging of the question. It is in the first place to suppose and not to prove, that the words all men mean all mankind; and then by them to prove, that also they which receive abundance of grace, mean all mankind.

The universal term all men, verse 18th, is by the former part of the chapter limited to those who are justified by faith, who have peace with God, and who joy in God, through Christ, as having received reconciliation. Dr. C's opinion was, that the 18th verse is but the full expression of the sentence left imperfect in the 12th verse, and that the therefore in the beginning of the 18th verse "is the same which began the 12th verse.”* The 18th verse then is an immediate conclusion from the verses preceding the 12th, especially from the 11th. Now the believers in endless punishmeut hold, that in all that part of the chapter, from the beginning to the 12th verse, the apostle had been speaking of the privileges of believers only, and not those privileges which belong to all mankind. And to infer from those privileges which are peculiar to believers, that all mankind will be saved, is to infer a consequence, which is by no means contained in the premises; and such reasoning ought never to be imputed to any man of Paul's sound judgment, much less to him, an inspired apostle.

To illustrate this matter, permit me to descend to particulars. Verse 1st, believers are said to be justified by faith and to have peace with God; verse 2d, to have access by faith into the grace of the gospel and to rejoice (or glory) in the hope of the glory of God; verse 3d, to glory in tribulations; verse 5th, to have the love of God shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost; verse 8th, it is said that God commendeth his love towards believers, in that Christ died for them; verse 9th, that believers are justified by Christ's blood, and saved from wrath through him; verse 10th, that believers are reconciled to God by the death of Christ and saved by his life; verse 11th, that believers glory in God through Christ, by whom they have received the atonement or reconciliation. Now what is the consequence really following from these premises, ascribing to believers these peculiar and exclusive privileges? Is it that by the righteousness of Christ the free gift unto justification of life, is come upon all mankind, believers and unbelievers? By no means; any man, without the aid of inspiration, would be ashamed to draw such a Page 67.

consequence from such premises. The only just consequence of these premises, is that which has been generally taken to be the meaning of the 18th verse; viz. That as by the offence of one, Adam, judgment to condemnation came upon all mankind who were his seed; even so by the righteousness of one, Jesus Christ, the free gift unto justification of life, came upon all his seed, who are believers only, and who are the only persons of whom the apostle had been speaking in the premises. May I not now adopt the same bold language which Dr. C. often uses concerning his comments on scripture, that no other sense than this, can be put on this 18th verse without making the apostle argue inconclusively?

I know very well that the Doctor understood differently the whole passage from the beginning of this chapter to the 12th verse. But as his whole argument from Rom. 5: 12, to the end, in the present view of it, depends on his different construction of verse 1-12; it is not sufficient to say, that the Doctor understood that passage differently, or that it is capable of a different construction. It must be shown that it is not capable of the construction which is given above; and that the Doctor's construction must be the true one. Let us therefore attend to his construction and his reasons in support of it.

The construction is, that the last verse of the preceding chapter, the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th verses, and the latter part of the 11th verse of this chapter, are spoken of all mankind. The reasons which he assigns for such an understanding of those verses are:

(1) That in the 6th verse Christ is said to die for the ungodly. But if we should assert, that by the ungodly here are meant those only, who afterward and during this life become godly or believers, though Christ died for them while ungodly or considering them as ungodly, the Doctor has given no confutation of such a construction. Therefore he had no right to expect, that it would be rejected by any one who should choose to adopt it. Or if we allow, that Christ did die for all men in this sense, that he died to introduce a dispensation of grace which should offer salvation to all, and invite all to it, and to use Dr. C's own expression, to put all into salvable circumstances; nothing will hence follow favorable to the actual salvation of all men, or to the Doctor's argument from Rom. 5: 12, etc. It will not follow, that all will accept the invitations to salvation and act upon them. Still the we and us, which occur so often from the 1st to the 12th verse, and particularly in verse 6th, may mean believers only.

* Page 35.

(2) "It is a gross mistake to think, that the apostle in this 9th verse is speaking of that justification he had in the 1st verse connected with faith; and for this decisive reason, because-as salvation from wrath is one thing essentially included in that justification which is the result of true faith; it would be ridiculous to argue, much more being justified, meaning hereby this justification, we shall be saved from wrath."* But did Dr. C. entertain the opinion, that justification and salvation are one and the same? Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness; he was then justified; but he did not then receive complete salvation. Believers being in this life justified by faith, have peace with God, according to the 1st verse of this chapter, as Dr. C. allows. Yet they are not in this life saved from wrath in the sense they will be, at the day of judgment. Therefore, however Dr. C. asserts it, it does not appear to be ridiculous to argue, that believers being in this life justified by faith in the blood of Christ, shall at the day of judgment, much more be saved from wrath through him. Is it ridiculous to argue, that Abraham being justified by faith here, will much more be saved from wrath hereafter?

(3) "The particle vov, now, connected with the justification here treated of, is emphatical, making it clear, that the apostle is not to be understood of justification at the great day; but of justification that had at that time been completed."* Nobody pretends, that the apostle means a justification at the great day. It is allowed on all hands, that he means a justification which had at that present time been completed. But what follows hence? Did Dr. C. imagine, that believers are not in a proper sense completely justified in this life? And that the justification of Abraham, Rahab, etc. was in no proper sense completed before their death, or before the great day? Concerning the former, it is expressly said, that he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness-that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, etc., and concerning the latter, was not Rahab the harlot justified, etc.? Nor is it material to the present purpose, whether this justification of Rahab mean a justification by God, or a manifestative justification, proving, that she was justified in the sight of God; because the latter, equally as the former, implies that she was then justified in the sight of God.

That believers are in this life justified in a peculiar sense, is further taught in 1 Cor. 6: 11, "And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God." I

# Page 37.

presume it will be granted, that pardon or forgiveness is an essential part of justification, and that when a man is forgiven by God, he is justified by God. But that believers are forgiven in this life, is evident from the following texts, Matt. 9: 2, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." See also, Mark 2: 5, and Luke 5: 20. Col. 2: 13, "And you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." 1 John 2: 12, "I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you, for his name's sake."

But why need I produce proofs of what Dr. C. grants, though it seems in his comment on the 9th verse, he had forgotten it? In his comment on the 1st verse, etc., he speaks of "the justified by faith, as glorying in hope of the glory of God-and in their sufferings because they knew that tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope." The Doctor, as the apostle did before him, evidently considers these things as taking place in this life. Indeed the contrary cannot be pre.tended without the grossest absurdity. He also considers these views and affections as peculiar to the justified by faith. Therefore some men are completely justified by faith in this life; at least so completely, as to render the 9th verse properly applicable to them. Therefore his argument from vuv, now, that the justification spoken of in the 9th verse is not peculiar to believers, proves nothing.

Beside, Dr. C. could not, without the most glaring absurdity and inconsistency, understand this 9th verse of all mankind; because the persons here referred to shall be saved from wrath. But according to the Doctor some men will not be saved from wrath, they will suffer all that wrath to which they are liable on the footing of strict justice; they will suffer according to their sins, according to their crimes, and their deserts, and so that the whole threatened penalty will be executed on them.

(4) Doctor C. argues, that because it is said in verse 10th, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God; by the we here, we must understand, not believers only, but all mankind; or because, as the Doctor paraphrases the words, while they were enemies, they were reconciled; therefore this reconciliation cannot mean the cordial reconciliation of true believers. The force of this argument wholly depends on this supposition, that the persons here intended, were reconciled, and yet after the reconciliation was effected, they still remained enemies. But what necessity of this gloss of the text? Why may it not mean this * Page 38.

merely, that when the persons here intended were going on in their enmity, they were arrested by the grace of God, reclaimed from their enmity, and reconciled to God? There appears to be nothing absurd or unusual in this expression understood in this sense. If it should be said, When a subject was waging war against his sovereign, and was in actual battle with the troops of his sovereign, he was reconciled to him; the expression would not naturally imply, and no man would understand it to mean, that notwithstanding the reconciliation, he still continued a fixed and malicious enemy to his sovereign. No man would understand the expression in any other sense than this, that in the midst of the war and battle, he was struck with conviction of his wickedness, and became cordially reconciled to his sovereign.

If the Doctor depended on the original words ἐχθροὶ ὄντες κατηλλάγημεν, to make out that the reconciliation here intended took place, while the persons spoken of remained enemies; he might as conclusively have argued, that the person mentioned in John 9: 25, (ruglo's ŵv Blinw) had his sight restored to him, while he remained perfectly blind; and that Saul went to Damascus, with the expectation of bringing certain persons to Jerusalem, who at the same time should still remain at Damascus, (aşov Tous ἐκεῖσε ὄντας) Acts 22: 5.

At length we come to the Doctor's exposition of the 11th verse, to which his criticism on all the preceding verses refers. He tells us, The meaning plainly and briefly is, "We believers glory in God of our interest, and relation to him, as our covenant God, through Jesus Christ, by whom we were so changed in our state, while enemies-in common with the rest of mankind, as to be capable of-final justification upon the foot of faith." On this it may be remarked, That if by "interest in and covenant relation to God," Dr. C. meant anything different from that state of reconciliation, which is obtained by Christ, and which is mentioned in the latter part of this verse, it does not appear that the text gives him any warrant to insert that interest, etc., in his comment, as a ground of rejoicing or glorying. I appeal to the reader, whether the most natural sense of the text be not this: We believers glory in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, as having by Christ received reconciliation; or for this reason, that of God's rich grace through Christ, we have obtained reconciliation with God. Otherwise, why is the circumstance of our receiving the reconciliation by Christ mentioned in this connection with our glorying in God? Beside, to glory in God as our covenant God, and to glory in him on account of our reconciliation with him, is one and the same thing.