ture: such as, That God will render to every man according to his deeds, and according as his work shall be; That every one shall receive according to the things done in the body; That the wicked shall not come out of the place of punishment, till they shall have paid the uttermost farthing, and the very last mite; That he shall have judgment without mercy, that showed no mercy, etc.

2. It was equally necessary, that he should hold that the punishment of the damned is a discipline, necessary and happily conducive to lead them to repentance, and to promote their good. Otherwise he must have holden, that future punishment is vindictive and intended to satisfy the justice of God; which kind of punishment is, according to his own account, inconsistent with the salvation of all men.* And otherwise he must have given up all his arguments from the divine goodness, mercy, compassion and grace, which are the arguments on which he himself depended most for the support of his cause, and which are the most popular, and the most persuasive to the majority of his readers. Otherwise too, he could not have pretended, that his scheme of universal salvation is a scheme of such benevolence, of such boundless and inexhaustible goodness, of such tender compassion and grace, of such infinite indulgence and love; and must have given up all the principal texts of scripture from which he argues universal salvation; as they are inconsistent with the idea, that the damned will be finally admitted to happiness, having previously suffered the whole punishment, which they deserve.

3. Nor could he make out his scheme of universal salvation, unless he held, that all men are saved in the way of mere grace and favor through Christ. If he had not holden this, what I observed under the last article, would be observable under this too, that he must have given up all arguments drawn from the divine goodness; and also all arguments drawn from what the scriptures say of the extent of Christ's redemption; particularly those texts from which Dr. C. chiefly argues in support of his scheme. Every one of those texts holds forth that all who are saved, are saved by grace, through Christ. He must also have given up all arguments from scripture. The scripture knows of no salvation, but that which is founded on the mere favor of God forgiving the sins of men, according to the riches of his grace, and justifying them freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.

Thus Dr. C. was compelled by necessity to associate in his scheme, principles which will wage eternal war with each other.

* Page 11.

SECTION II.

In which objections to the preceding reasoning are considered.

I. If to some part of the preceding reasoning, it should be objected, that though the sinner, having suffered a punishment according to his deserts, has a right on the footing of justice to subsequent impunity, and therefore cannot be delivered from further punishment by grace, or through Christ; yet, as he has no right on the footing of justice, to the positive happiness of heaven, he may be admitted to this, entirely by grace, and through Christ; this would by no means be sufficient to reconcile the forementioned inconsistences; as may appear by the following observations.

1. That Dr. C. asserts, not only that all men will be admitted to the positive happiness of heaven, by free grace; but that they will in the same way be delivered from the pains of hell. As in these instances: "The gift through the one man Jesus Christ, takes rise from the many sins which men commit, in the course of their lives, and proceeds in opposition to the power and demerit of them all, so as finally to terminate in justification,—justification including in it deliverance from sin, as well as from death, their being made righteous, as well as reigning in life."* "By the righteousness of the one man Jesus Christ the opposite advantageous gift is come upon all men, which delivers them from death, to reign in life forever." "It seemed agreeable to the infinite wisdom and grace of God, that this damage should be repaired, and mankind rescued from the state of sin and death-by the obedience of one man." "Salvation from wrath is one thing essentially included in that justification which is the result of true faith." He speaks to the same effect in many other places. Indeed he never gives the least hint implying, that he imagined, that the introduction of the sinner to the positive happiness of heaven is more an act of grace, than his deliverance from the pains of hell; but all that he says on the subject, implies the contrary. Nor do I state this objection, because I find it in his book; but lest some of his admirers should start it, and should suppose that it relieves the difficulties before pressed upon him.

As Dr. C. allows, that the deliverance of sinners from the pains of hell, in all instances, is as really an act of grace, and as really through Christ, as their admission to the joys of heaven;

* Pages 25, 26.

† p. 27.

+ p. 30.

§ p. 37.

Gal. 3:

so the scriptures are very clear as to the same matter. 13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Rom. 5: 9, "We shall be saved from wrath through him." 1 Thess. 1: 10, "Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come." And pardon or forgiveness, which is a discharge from deserved punishment, is, in its very nature, an act of grace, and is, in scripture, always spoken of as such, and as dispensed through Christ only. Nor is anything more clear from the scriptures, than that every person, who is saved, is saved in the way of forgiveness.

2. There would be no propriety in saying, that a person who has suffered all the punishment which he justly deserves, who is on the footing of law and justice released from all further punishment, and is placed in a state of mediocrity in which he is the subject of no misery; is admitted to the positive happiness of heaven, by mercy, by pity or compassion; much less by "tender compassion," and "wonderful mercy," and by the "utmost bowels of the divine compassion." A being who has by his personal sufferings, satisfied the law, stands as right with respect to that law, as if he had never transgressed it; or as another person, who retains his original innocence. Now, does any man suppose, that Gabriel was admitted to celestial happiness, in the way of mercy, pity or tender compassion?-That he was admitted to it in the exercise of goodness, is granted. The same may be said of his creation, and of the creation of every being rational and animal. But no being is created out of compassion. With no more propriety can it be said, that an innocent being, or, which is the same as to the present purpose, that a being who has indeed transgressed, but has in his own person made satisfaction for his transgression, and on that footing is delivered from all punishment and misery, is admitted to high positive happiness, by mercy, pity or compassion. And how much more improperly are the strong epithets used by Dr. C. applied in this case? Is it an instance of tender pity, of wonderful mercy, of the utmost bowels of the divine compassion, to admit to the happiness of heaven, an innocent creature, or one who, in his own person, stands perfectly right with respect to the divine law, and is not the subject of any misery?

3. To grant that those who shall have suffered a punishment according to their deserts, will on the footing of justice, be delivered from further wrath or punishment, and yet to insist that their admission to high positive happiness, is truly and properly an act of grace; would be only to raise a dispute concerning the proper meaning of the word grace, and at the same time to grant, VOL. I.

3

that the deliverance of the sinner from wrath, is no fruit of forgiveness, or of grace, even in the very sense in which the objector uses the word grace. It is no act of favor, or of goodness, as distinguished from justice, to deliver a person from wrath, who is innocent, or who in his own person has satisfied the law, and therefore now stands right with respect to it. But the idea of delivering a sinner from wrath, without forgiveness, and without grace, is as foreign from the scriptures, as that of the admission of a sinner, without grace, to the positive joys of heaven.

II. Perhaps it may be objected to part of the preceding section, that by punishment "in proportion to their deserts," and "according to their evil deeds," etc. Dr. C. meant not a punishment equal to strict justice, or satisfactory to the justice of God; but one in which a due proportion to the deserts of the various persons, with respect to one another, who are the subjects of the punishment, is observed. But to this it may be answered, Dr. C. doubtless meant to use the expressions, "in proportion to their deserts," "according to their evil deeds," etc. in the same sense in which the scriptures say, "according to their works;" "according to the fruit of their doings," etc. This is manifest not only by the similarity of the expressions, but by his own reference to those phrases in scripture, as in the following passages: "Which is plainly inconsistent with that difference the scripture often declares there shall be, in the punishment of wicked men, according to the difference there has been in the nature and number of their evil deeds."* "Under the prospect of being condemned by the righteous Judge of all the earth-to positive torments awfully great in degree, and long in continuance, in proportion to the number and greatness of their crimes." Here he undoubtedly refers to those passages in which the scriptures assure us, that the judge "will render to every man according to his deeds;" "according as his work shall be," etc. Now these phrases of scripture are clearly explained to us, by those representations, in which the punishment of the wicked is illustrated by the imprisonment of a debtor, till he shall have paid the uttermost farthing, the very last mite, etc. and by the passages, in which it is declared, that the wicked shall have judgment without mercy; that God will not pity, nor spare them, etc. Whereas, if they suffer less than they deserve according to strict justice; so far they are the objects of mercy and pity; so far God does spare them; so far they have mercy mixed with judgment. Nor can it be said, that they pay the uttermost farthing of the debt. Again; Dr. C. allows, that the wicked will in the second death † p. 350.

* Page 320.

receive the wages of sin. But the wages of a man are not merely a part, or a certain proportion of what he deserves, or has earned, but the whole. No man who has faithfully done the work, which he contracted to do for ten pounds, will allow, that five pounds are his wages for that work.

III. It may also be objected to a part of the former section, that though "the law shall have its course" on some men, and "the full penalty threatened in the law, be executed on them;" still this does not imply a punishment equal or satisfactory to strict justice; as the divine law itself does not, nor ever did threaten all that punishment, which is deserved according to strict justice; and therefore, though the damned shall suffer all which is threatened in the law, yet they will not suffer a vindictive punishment, a punishment which shall "satisfy the justice of God."-Concerning this objection it may be observed:

1. That by the law is meant, to use Dr. C's own words, "the moral law," "the law of nature, the law of reason, which is the law of God;" and to say that this law does not threaten a penalty adequate to the demands of justice, is to say, that it does not threaten a penalty adequate to the demands of reason. If s So, it is not the law of reason; which is contrary to the supposition. Therefore to say, that the law of reason does not threaten a penalty adequate to the demands of justice, is a real contradiction.

2. That Dr. C. neither does nor could consistently make this objection; because if the objection were just, men might be justified, " on a claim founded on mere law." On the principle of the objection, the law threatens a punishment far less than we deserve; and a man having suffered this punishment, may be justified on the foundation of mere law;-the law would be satisfied, and the man would stand right with respect to it, nor would it have any further claim on him, in the way of punishment, more than on a person who had never transgressed. Therefore he thenceforward obeying the law, might as truly be justified on the foot of mere law, as if he had rendered the same obedience, without ever transgressing.

But Dr. C. holds, "that mankind universally have sinned, and consequently cannot be justified upon a claim founded on mere law."* And that "the whole world had become guilty before God, and were therefore incapable of being justified upon the foot of mere law." That all men are "incapable of justification upon the foot of mere law, as having become guilty before God."‡ To the same effect in various other passages. So that according to Dr. C. if future punishment be intended to satisfy the law, it * Page 43. † p. 34. p. 36.