than that which seems to be holden forth by our translation;that if this last construction be adopted, still it would be no real proof of universal salvation, for two reasons: (1) That the universal term must be limited, and therefore may be so limited as to comprehend angels and believers only of all nations. (2) That even if the universal term be extended to all mankind, still the text is capable of a construction both rational and analogous to other passages of scripture, which yet does by no means imply universal salvation. And the sequel of the apostle's discourse favors this last construction, implying, that it pleased the father, or was in itself pleasing to the father, to reconcile all men, on the terms of the gospel, and not absolutely, as Dr. C. supposes. The sequel is, "And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled-to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight; if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel." Will any man pretend, but that this implies, that if they did not continue in the faith, they would not be presented unblamable in the sight of God? But this is far from the doctrine which teaches, that all mankind, whether believers or unbelievers, whether they continue in the faith or not, shall be saved.

Before I quit this part of the Doctor's book, I shall add one remark more. In his comment on this, Col. 1: 20, and on Rom. 5: 10, he takes great pains to make out a double reconciliation to be taught by the apostle Paul. "The one," he says, " means that change of state all men are absolutely brought into by the death of Christ; and is opposed to the condemnation through the lapse of the one man Adam. The other is that change of state, which is connected with an actual meetness for, and present interest in eternal life."* But these two reconciliations are really but one; for the definition which the Doctor himself gives of the latter, perfectly agrees with the former. He abundantly holds, that "that change of state, into which all men are brought by the death of Christ," "is connected with an actual meetness for, and present interest in eternal life;" and his whole scheme implies this; otherwise there is no certainty, that all men will be saved, in consequence of the death of Christ. The Doctor himself, in the very next sentence to that just quoted, allows that the former reconciliation is connected in the scheme of God with the latter, and will finally issue in it. Now, if his first kind of reconciliation be connected with that kind, which is connected with actual meetness for, and present interest in eternal * Page 135.

life; then that first kind of reconciliation is itself connected with actual meetness for, and present interest in eternal life. If Jacob be connected with Isaac, and Isaac be connected with Abraham, then Jacob too is connected with Abraham.

Let us now attend to the Doctor's argument from Eph. 1: 10, "That in the dispensation of the fullness of times, he might gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him." On this text the

Doctor says, "By means of the lapse, and what has been consequent thereupon, all things in heaven and on earth, were got into a broken, disjointed, disorderly state; and the good pleasure of God to reduce them from their present separated, disorderly state, into one duly-subjected and well subordinated whole, may very ftly be signified by the phrase, ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα, to gather together in one all things. And this I take to be the thing intended here."* But what is this to the purpose of the salvation of all men? It is granted on all hands, that by the lapse, all things relating to men, got into a broken, disjointed, disorderly state; and that it is the good pleasure of God to reduce them from their present separated, disorderly state, into one duly-subjected, well subordinated whole, under Christ as their head; and that this is the thing intended by the apostle in this passage. But if the Doctor supposed, that this implied the repentance and salvation of all men, it was but a mere supposition without proof.

Suppose a rebellion be excited in the kingdom of a most wise and good prince, and this rebellion extend far and wide, so as to throw the whole kingdom into confusion. At length the king's son, at the head of his armies, subdues the rebels, pardons the generality, sentences the leaders, some to the gallows, others to perpetual imprisonment; and thus restores peace, tranquillity, good order and government. Is not a well subjected and duly subordinated state of things in that kingdom now restored and established, although those rebels who are confined in prison, still retain their rebellious tempers, and are not in a state of happiness?

Nor does Dr. C. pretend to point out how a well subordinated state of things proves the salvation of all men; unless it be in the following and other passages not more conclusive: "If God created all men-by Jesus Christ, we may easily collect hence, how he comes to be their common Father; and if they are his children, how fit, proper and reasonable it is, that they should be fellow heirs to, and joint partakers in that happy state, which he * Page 144.

has proposed shall take place," etc.* It seems then that Eph. 1: 10, proves that all men will be saved, not by anything contained in the text itself, but because all men are the creatures of God. The argument is this: All men are the creatures of God, therefore that well subjected and duly subordinated state of things, which is to be effected by Jesus Christ, implies the salvation of all men. It seems then that that well subjected and duly subordinated state of things, does not of itself imply the final salvation of all men, and therefore this text is introduced with no force of argument. Dr. C. might have argued just as forcibly thus: All men are the creatures of God, therefore all men will be saved. But as to this argument it is entirely different from Eph. 1: 10, and hath been already considered.

We are, in the last place, to attend to Dr. C's argument from 1 Tim. 2: 4, "Who will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." The questions concerning the meaning of this text, are, as Dr. C. justly observes, two: (1) Who are meant by all men; whether all men individually, or generically? (2) Is there a certain connection between God's willing that all men should be saved, and their actual salvation?

1. Who are meant by all men, whether all men individually, or generically. Dr. C. gives two reasons, why this expression should be understood of all men individually.

(1) "That God's willingness that all men should be saved, is brought in as an argument to enforce the duty of praying for all men," mentioned in the first and second verses. The Doctor takes for granted, that it is our duty to pray for all men individually; and then concludes, that all men individually are those whom God wills should be saved. But it is by no means true, that we are to pray for all men without exception. The apostle John expressly mentions a sin unto death, and for those who commit that sin we are not to pray, 1 John 5: 16, 17. Our blessed Savior not only did not in fact pray for the world, but openly and in the most solemn manner avowed the omission, John 17: 9. And the prophet Jeremiah was forbidden by God, to pray for the Jews for their good, Jer. 14: 11. So that when the apostle in the first verse of the context now under consideration, exhorts to pray for all men, we must of necessity, as we would not set the scripture at variance with itself, understand him to mean not all individuals without exception.

Beside, if it were our duty to pray for all individuals, it may not have been the design of the apostle in this passage to incul

cate this duty. The Jewish converts to christianity were full of prejudices against the Gentiles, and above all, against the Gentile kings, and those under whose authority they were; and who, in their opinion, had no right to exercise authority over their nation. Therefore with the utmost propriety does the apostle give the exhortation contained in the first and second verses of this context, though he meant no more, than that Christians should pray for the Gentiles of every nation, as well as for the Jews, and especially for kings and rulers among the Gentiles.

(2) The other reason given by Dr. C. why all men should be understood of all men individually, is the reason given, why God desires the salvation of all men, viz., that there is one God, and one mediator between God and men. "This," he says, "is a reason which extends to all men" individually, "without limitation." Very true; and it is a reason, which extends to all men generically too; and therefore is a very good reason, why we should pray for the salvation of men of all nations; nor is there anything in this reason which proves, that the apostle meant, that all men individually would be saved.

As to Dr. C's reasoning in the following passage:* "God is as truly the God of one man, as of another; and there is therefore the same reason to think, that he should be desirous of the salvation of every man, as of any man;" it is by no means allowed to be conclusive. It depends on this postulate, which is a begging of the question: That God cannot give existence and other common benefits to a man, and not save him. I might with the same force argue thus: God is as truly the God of one man as of another ; therefore there is the same reason to think, that he should be desirous of the temporal prosperity of every man, as of some It is no more granted, and therefore ought no more to be asserted without proof, that salvation is connected with this circumstance, that God is a God to every man, in the sense in which it is granted, that he is a God to every man, than that temporal prosperity is connected with that circumstance.

men.

Further, that all men individually are intended, Dr. C. argues from this, that the apostle says, "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." The Doctor says, that the man Jesus mediates between God and men universally. If by the mediation of Jesus, the Doctor meant such a mediation as will certainly issue in the salvation of all men; this again is a mere humble begging of the question. But if he meant a mediation of the following description, that Christ hath made atonement sufficient for all men; is now offering the virtue of that * Page 164.

atonement to all men; and is using a variety of means to persuade all men to accept and trust in that atonement, and to return to God, seeking his favor and eternal life, for the sake of Christ alone; it follows not at all from such a mediation of Christ, that all individuals will be saved. It no more follows, than from the facts, that God led the Israelites out of Egypt by the hand of a mediator; that he gave them opportunity to enter the land of promise; and that that mediator was the mediator of that whole generation individually; it followed, that that whole generation individually, would certainly enter the land of promise.

Dr. C. says, "No good reason can be assigned, why the man, Christ Jesus, should mediate between God and some men only, to the exclusion of others." Can a good reason be assigned, why Christ leads to repentance in this life, some men only, to the exclusion or dereliction of others? When such a reason shall be assigned, doubtless we shall be supplied with a reason, why Christ should effectually and savingly mediate in behalf of some men only.

2. The other question concerning the meaning of this text, which also Dr. C. notices,† is, Whether there be a certain connection between God's willing in the sense of this text, that all men should be saved, and their actual salvation. Dr. C. grants that men as free agents have power to oppose those means which God uses with them for their salvation; and yet holds that God has a power to counteract, in a moral way, this opposition of men. Of this and other remarkable things in Dr. C. on the subject of free agency, particular notice will be taken hereafter. In the meantime it may be observed, that it appears from various passages of scripture, that God is frequently said to will things which do not in fact come into existence, or with respect to which his will is not efficacious; as in the following passages: Matt. 23: 37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee; how often would I, nonoa, have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings; and ye would not !" Hos. 11: 8, "How shall I give thee up Ephraim? How shall I deliver thee Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together." Deut. 5: 28, 29, "They have well said all that they have spoken. O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me and keep my commandments always!" Chap. 32: 28, 29, "For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them. O that † p. 166. ‡ p. 166, 167.

# Page 165.