that he is now released by grace, by pity, by utmost compassion, by indulgence and love, would be the grossest insult.

Again; how can those who have been punished according to their deserts, be saved through Christ, or on his account? How can the obedience and death of Christ be the ground or reason of their salvation? Having suffered the full penalty threatened in the law, they have a right to demand future impunity on account of their own sufferings. What need then have they of Christ, of his obedience and death, or of his mediatorial intervention, to be brought into the account? Dr. C. speaks of the "deliverance" or "the redemption which Christ has purchased" for all men. But what need is there, that Christ should purchase deliverance for those, who purchase it for themselves, by their own personal sufferings? Nay, what justice would there be in refusing deliverance to a man, unless it be purchased for him by another, when he hath fully purchased it for himself? What if the person before described to have suffered some corporeal punishment according to the strictness of law, should be told at his release, that he is delivered from further punishment, not on account of his own sufferings; but on account of some other person? on the ground, and for the reason of the obedience or merit of that other person? Might he not with just indignation reply: Wherein hath that other person afforded me any relief? I have suffered all that could be inflicted on me consistently with law and justice; and let the merit of that other person 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 suffers according to his deserts; and with as little propriety can it be said, that he is redeemed or delivered through Christ, or on his account.

On the whole, Dr. C's schéme comes to this: That not bare goodness, but that goodness, which is boundless and inexhaustible; not bare compassion, but the utmost bowels of the divine compassion; not bare indulgence and love, but the infinite indulgence and love of our Creator, will grant to his creatures of mankind, just so much relief from misery, as they are entitled to, by the most rigorous justice.

Nor did Dr. C. fall into these inconsistences, by mere inattention; he was driven to them by dire necessity, provided it was necessary for him, to adopt his favorite doctrine of the salvation of all men. Every one of the forementioned principles is essential to his system, and can by no means be spared.

* Pages 153, 154.

1. That the damned are punished according to their deserts, is manifestly essential to his system. For if in ages of ages they do not suffer a punishment which is according to their deserts, they do not suffer that which might justly be inflicted upon them; or, which is the same thing, that punishment which is denounced in the divine law: and according both to justice and the divine law, the damned might be made to suffer a greater punishment, than that which is for ages of ages; or than the longest punishment, which any of them will in fact suffer. But as nobody pretends there is any greater punishment threatened in the law, or in any part of scripture, than that which in scriptural language is said to be for ever and ever, which Dr. C. supposes to be for ages of ages only, and to be actually suffered by some men at least; he was necessitated to hold, that some suffer the utmost punishment threatened in the law, and of course the utmost which they deserve.

Beside; if he had allowed, that the damned do not suffer so long a punishment, as they deserve, or as is threatened in the law; he might have been asked, how much longer that punishment is, which is threatened in the law, than that which they actually suffer. And the answer must have been, either that it is a longer temporary punishment; or that it is an endless pun-` ishment. But whichever answer should have been given, inexplicable difficulties would have followed. If he should have answered, that the punishment threatened in the law, and which the sinner justly deserves, is a longer temporary punishment, than that which the damned actually suffer, he might have been challenged to point it out, as contained in the law, or in any part of scripture; and it is presumed, that he would not have been able to do it.

But if he should have answered, that the punishment threatened in the law, and which the sinner justly deserves, is an endless punishment, he must at once have given up all arguments in favor of universal salvation, and against endless punishment, drawn from the justice of God. Surely the justice of God does not oppose that which is just, and which the sinner deserves; or that which the just law of God threatens. He must also have acknowledged the infinite evil of sin, which seems to have been a most grievous eye-sore to him. For nothing more is meant by the infinite evil of sin, than that on the account of sin, the sinner deserves an endless punishment.

Again; Dr. C. could not assert, that the damned do not suffer all the punishment, which they deserve, without contradicting apparently at least, many clear and positive declarations of scrip

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 ob-jected, 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; § p. 37.

Pages 25, 26.

† p. 27.

+ p. 30.

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 Rom. 5: 9, "We shall be saved from

1 Thess. 1; 10,

made a curse for us." 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