men, even though sinners, through their voluntary opposition, obtain no good by it? It certainly is, if we may believe Dr. C. for it is a maxim with him, "that we must not judge of the divine goodness, by the actual good, which we see produced, but must take into view the tendency of the divine administration,” etc. See the quotations made page 125.

The Doctor says, "It is incredible, that God should constitute his Son the Savior of men, and the bulk of them be finally damned." But why is it incredible? Is it not an undertaking worthy of Christ, in a way most honorary to God, to open a door of mercy and salvation to all mankind, though by the wicked and ungrateful rejection of Christ by the majority, a minority only will actually be saved? If it be not credible, that God should constitute his Son the Savior of men, and "the bulk" of them be finally damned, is it credible, that Christ should be constituted the Savior, and a bare majority of mankind be saved? If not, how large must the majority be?

As to the observation, "That it is a gross reflection on the Savior, whose proper business it is, to destroy the works of the devil, and rescue mankind out of his hands; to suppose, that the devil should finally get the better of Christ, by effecting the everlasting damnation of the greater part of men;"† there are some particulars in it, which want explanation. First; what is meant by destroying the works of the devil? If this mean to abolish all sin, and all the misery consequent on sin to any of the human race; it is not granted, that this is the proper business of our Savior, nor is this the proper meaning of the original, in 1 John. 3: 8, the text to which Dr. C. refers. The verb is Léon, dissolve, take to pieces, and thus prevent the ill effect of the works of the devil. But if destroying the works of the devil mean, to defeat and to prevent the ill consequences of those works so that no final damage shall thence arise to the interest of God's kingdom, or of the universe; it is granted, that this is the proper business of Christ. But it is not granted, but that this may be effected, without the salvation of all men. Again, what is meant by "the devil's getting the better of Christ?" This doubtless means, that he defeats Christ more or less, as to some object of his mediatorial undertaking. But Dr. C. has no more made it appear, that the final salvation of only a part, and a small part of the human race, implies such a defeat; or that it was not the original intention of Christ to save a small part only; than he has made it appear, that it was the intention of Christ to save all men.

Dr. C. seems not to have reflected, while he was urging this argument, that it equally militates against his own last resort, annihilation. For if an "end be put to the existence, both in soul and body," of all who die impenitent, as the Doctor allows will be the case, if universal salvation be not true;* then on his principles, the devil will not be vanquished by Christ; the works of the devil will not be destroyed, but "he will get the better of Christ by effecting the everlasting destruction of the greater part of those whom Christ came from heaven to save." So that when this objection shall be answered, so far as it lies against Dr. C's last resort, doubtless an answer will be supplied to those who believe in endless misery.

After all, it is not an article of my faith, that only a small part of the human race will be finally saved. But my faith in this particular is not built on abstract reasonings from the divine goodness and the mission of Christ. That divine goodness which suffered all the apostate angels to perish finally, might have suffered all, or a greater part of the apostate race of men to perish in like manner. My faith is built on several representations and prophecies of scripture, particularly concerning the millennium, and the general and long prevalence of virtue and piety in that period. Therefore in this view, the foundation of the objection from the smallness of the number saved, is taken away.

CHAPTER XV.

IN WHICH ARE CONSIDERED DR. C'S ANSWERS TO THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM WHAT IS SAID CONCERNING JUDAS, MARK 14: 21,FROM THE UNPARDONABLE SIN,—AND FROM THE TENDENCY OF THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION TO LICENTIOUSNESS.

The Doctor answers to the argument from Mark 14: 21, "Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. Good - were it for that man, if he had never been born ;"-That perhaps it may be a proverbial expression, not literally true ;‡— That if the literal sense were the most reasonable, considering this text by itself, yet considering the many passages brought by Dr. C. which declare the final salvation of all men, we must not understand this passage in the literal sense, as in that case we † p. 324. + p. 329

Page 282.

shall set the scripture at variance with itself;*-That the real meaning of this passage may be prophetical, as if our Lord had said, “The man who shall betray me" shall practically declare, that in his apprehension, it "were good had he not been brought into being." As to the first of these answers, it is a mere unsupported conjecture, and therefore is to be set down for nothing. As to the second, it is not allowed that the Doctor has produced any one passage of scripture which declares the final salvation of all men; but this in view of what has been said on the passages produced by the Doctor, is submitted to the reader. As the Doctor contends that this passage cannot be understood in the literal sense, without setting the scripture at variance with itself; so it is contended by the advocates for endless punishment, that it can be understood in the literal sense, without setting the scripture at variance with itself in the least degree; and that the general tenor of the scripture points out the literal sense to be the true As to Dr. C's third answer, it is, in the first place, a mere unsupported conjecture; secondly, it may be noticed, that it is manifest, that the text pronounces the proper woe or curse, which should fall on the man who should betray our Lord. "The Son of Man indeed goeth, as it is written of him; but woe to that man, by whom the Son of Man is betrayed; good were it for that man, if he had never been born." But according to Dr. C. all the curse which this text denounces, is such a weariness of life and impatience of existence, as has sometimes befallen even true saints; as in the instance of Job. And is it credible that this was the proper and full curse of betraying the Lord of life and glory? Or that if this be but a very small part of the curse of that abominable wickedness, our Lord would have mentioned it in such a manner, as naturally to communicate the idea, that it is the proper and full curse of it?

sense.

After all the ingenuity of Dr. C. and other universalists, in torturing this passage to a meaning consistent with their scheme; it remains a plain, direct, and positive testimony against it.

Next follows Dr. C's answer to the argument from what is said concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, Matt. 12: 32, "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Mark 3: 29," He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." Luke 12: 10. "Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven."

The Doctor's first answer to this argument is taken from Grotius. He tells us that Grotius "looks upon the words as an Hebraism intended to signify, not so much the pardonableness of some sins, and the unpardonableness of others; as the greater difficulty of obtaining pardon for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, than for any other blasphemy." It is wholly immaterial whether the words were intended to signify not so much the unpardonableness of some sins. If they were intended to signify at all the unpardonableness of some sins, that is sufficient for the present purpose. So that both Dr. C. and his favorite author Grotius, virtually concede all that is demanded in this instance.

Concerning this construction of Grotius, which is but a mere conjecture, brought in to help over an argument which crowds hardly on Dr. C's scheme; the Doctor says, "Whoever goes about to prove, that there is no truth in it, will perhaps find, that he has undertaken a very hard task." The same may be said of any man, who should undertake to prove, that there are not a dozen primary planets belonging to the solar system; or who should undertake to disprove any one of a thousand other conjectures.

After all, the Doctor does not depend much on this construction of Grotius, and proceeds to give us his own sense of the passages above quoted; which is, That it is indeed true, that "the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost "is absolutely unpardonable;' "* that the divine law shall take its course on those who are guilty of that blasphemy, and no intervening pardon will prevent the full execution of the threatened penalty on them; and forgiveness strictly and literally speaking will not be granted to them; yet that they will be finally saved, and admitted to heaven, after they shall have suffered the full penalty threatened in the law. On this idea of Dr. C. some remarks have been already made in Chap. I. Nor can it escape the notice of the attentive reader, that it implies that some men are saved, not only without forgiveness; without the exercise of divine grace, in the scriptural sense of grace; without any aid from the merit or atonement of Christ; and therefore not "on the account, on the ground, or for the reason of Christ's obedience and death;" but wholly on the footing of the law. But the idea that any of mankind are to be saved without forgiveness, is wholly foreign from the scriptures, nor can it be pointed out to be contained in any part of scripture. Every chapter of the gospel is inconsistent with it; to refer to particular texts would be endless and needless. And what divine grace is there exercised in the salvation of one, who

has by suffering the whole threatened penalty of the law, made full satisfaction for his own sins? There is manifestly no more grace in saving such a man, than there is in saving one who has never sinned. Nor is he who has suffered the full penalty of the law, saved on account of the death or obedience of Christ. On the account of Christ's obedience or death he is released from no punishment; and to suppose, that God has not goodness enough, without an atonement, to take a creature to heaven, who in the eye of the law is perfectly innocent, is a supposition utterly inconsistent with the divine goodness. Lastly, he who is saved in consequence of suffering the whole penalty threatened in the law, is saved on the foot of law. Yet it is utterly and abundantly denied by Dr. C. to be possible, that any sinner should be saved on the foot of law.

In view of these observations, the reader will judge, whether Dr. C's construction of the passages, which speak of the sin against the Holy Ghost, be admissible; and whether those passages and the argument deduced from them, do not remain in full force against universal salvation.

We come at length to Dr. C's answer to the last argument of those in the opposite scheme which he considers, which is drawn from the tendency of Dr. C's system to licentiousness and vice.

On this the Doctor observes: "To disprove the final salvation of all men, it must be plainly shown, that this doctrine does naturally and directly tend to encourage men in vicious practice."* In this it is implicitly granted, that if the doctrine of universal salvation do indeed naturally and directly tend to encourage men to persist in vicious practice, it is not true. On this we may join issue with him. That that doctrine does comparatively encourage men to persist in vice, will appear perhaps from the following considerations. It will not be denied that if there were no punishment threatened to the wicked, it would naturally and directly encourage them to persist in vice. This is granted by Dr. C." Had we attempted to introduce mankind universally into a state of happiness, upon their leaving this world, whatever their moral conduct had been in it, the argument," that Dr. C's scheme tends to licentiousness, "would then have held strong." But if the argument holds strong, provided there be no future punishment, it holds proportionably, if that punishment be very small and far less than is deserved by the wicked; and especially if at the same time that punishment be suited to their personal good. Now that the future punishment of the wicked is, on Dr. C's scheme, very small, compared with what it is on the opposite * Page 341. † p. 342.