fuch a defeat; or that it was not the original intention of Chrift to fave a fmall part only; than he has made it appear, 'that it was the intention of Chrift to fave all men.

Dr. C. feems not to have reflected, while he was urging this argument, that it equally militates against his own laft refort, annihilation. For if an "end be put to the exist"ence, both in foul and body," of all who die impenitent, as the Doctor allows will be the cafe, if universal falvation be not true; then on his 'principles, the devil will not be vanquished by Chrift; the works of the devil will not be deftroyed, but " he will get the better of Chrift, "by effecting the everlafting deftruction of the greater 66 part of those whom Chrift came from heaven to fave."*

So that when this objection fhall be anfwered, fo far as it lies against Dr. C's laft refort, doubtlefs an answer will be fupplied to those who believe in endless mifery.

After all, it is not an article of my faith, that only a fmall part of the human race will be finally faved. But my faith in this particular is not built on abftract reasonings from the divine goodness and the miffion of Chrift. That divine goodnefs which fuffered all the apoftate angels to perish finally, might have fuffered all, or a greater part of the apoftate race of men, to perish in like manner. My faith is built on feveral reprefentations and prophecies of fcripture, 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 objec tion from the fmallness of the number faved, is taken a

way.

P. 282. P. 324

CHAP.

CHA P. XV.

In which are confidered Dr: C's anfwers to the arguments drawn from what is faid concerning Judas, Mark XIV. 21;-from the unpardonable fin; and from the tendency of the doctrine of univerfal falvation to licentioufness.

THE

HE Doctor anfwers to the argument from Mark XIV. 21', "Wo 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 expreffion, not literally true;*That if the literal fenfe were the most reasonable, confidering this text by itself; yet confidering the many paffages brought by Dr. C. which declare the final falvation of all men, we must not understand this passage in the literal fenfe, as in that cafe we shall fet the fcripture at variance with itself ;+ That the real meaning of this paffage may be prophetical, as if our Lord had faid, "The man who fhall betray me fhall practically declare, that in his apprehenfion, it "were good had he not been brought into being." As to the first of these answers, it is a mere unfupported conjecture, and therefore is to be fet down for nothing.As to the fecond, it is not allowed that the Doctor has produced any one paffage of fcripture which declares the final falvation of all men: but this in view of what has been faid on the paffages produced by the Doctor, is fubmitted to the reader.- -As the Doctor contends that this paffage cannot be understood in the literal fenfe, without fetting the fcripture at variance with itfelf; fo it is contended by the advocates for endlefs punishment, that it can be understood in the literal fenfe, without fetting the fcripture at variance with itself in the leaft degree; and that the general tenor of the fcripture points out the literal fenfe to be the true fenfe.- As to Dr. C's third anfwer, it is, in the first place, a mere unfupported conjecture: fecondly, it may be noticed, that it is manifeft, that the text

P. 329. † P. 330. ‡ P. 331.

pronounces

pronounces the proper wo or curfe, which fhould fall on the man who fhould betray our Lord. "The Son of Man "indeed goeth, as it is written of him; but wo 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 curfe which this text denounces, is fuch a weariness of life and impatience of exiftence, as has fometimes befallen even true faints; as in the inftance of Job. And is it credible that this was the proper and full curfe of betraying the Lord of life and glory? Or that if this be but a very fmall part of the curfe of that abominable wickednefs, our Lord would have mentioned it in fuch a manner, as naturally to communicate the idea, that it is the proper and full curfe of it?

AFTER all the ingenuity of Dr. C. and other univerfalifts, in torturing this paffage to a meaning confiftent with their scheme; it remains a plain, direct, and pofitive testimony against it.

NEXT follows Dr. C's anfwer to the argument from what is faid concerning the fin against the Holy Ghoft, Matt. XII. 32; "Whofoever fpeaketh against the Holy "Ghost, it fhall not be forgiven him, neither in this "world, neither in the world to come." Mark III. 29; "He that fhall blafpheme against the Holy Ghoft hath ne"ver forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damna"tion." Luke XII. 10, " Unto him that blafphemeth "against the Holy Ghoft, it fhall 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 Hebraifm intended to fignify, not fo much the par"donableness of fome fins, and the unpardonableness of "others; as the greater difficulty of obtaining pardon for "blafphemy against the Holy Ghoft, than for any other "blafphemy." It is wholy immaterial whether the words were intended to fignify not fo much the unpardonableness of fome fins. If they were intended to fignify at all the unpardonableness of fome fins, that is fufficient for the prefent purpose. So that both Dr. C. and his favourite author Grotius, virtually concede all that is demanded in this in ftance.

CONCERNING this conftruction of Grotius, which is but a mere conjecture, brought in to help over an argument

which crouds hardly on Dr. C's fcheme; the Doctor fays, "Whoever goes about to prove, that there is no truth in "it, will perhaps find, that he has undertaken a very "hard talk." The fame may be faid of any man, who fhould undertake to prove, that there are not a dozen primary planets belonging to the folar fyftem; or who fhould undertake to difprove any one of a thousand other conjec

tures.

AFTER all, the Doctor does not depend much on this conftruction of Grotius, and proceeds to give us his own fenfe of the paffages above quoted; which is, That it is indeed true, that "the blafphemy against the Holy Ghost "is abfolutely unpardonable ;"* that the divine law fhall take its courfe on thofe who are guilty of that blafphemy, 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 faved, and admitted to heaven, after they fhall have fuffered the full penalty threatened in the law. On this idea of Dr. C. fome remarks have been already made in Chapter I. Nor can it efcape the notice of the attentive reader, that it implies, that fome men are faved, not only without forgivenefs; without the exercise of divine grace, in the fcriptural fenfe of grace; without any aid from the merit or atonement of Chrift; and therefore not on the account, on the ground, 66 or for the reafon of Chrift's obedience and death;"‡ but wholly on the footing of the law. But the idea that any of mankind are to be faved without forgiveness, is wholly foreign from the fcriptures, nor can it be pointed out to be contained in any part of fcripture. Every chapter of the gospel is inconfiftent with it; to refer to particular texts would be endlefs and needlefs.- And what divine grace is there exercised in the falvation of one, who has by fuffering the whole threatened penalty of the law, made full fatisfaction for his own fins? There is manifeftly no more grace in faving fuch man, than there is in faving one who has never finned. Nor is he who has fuffered the full penalty of the law, faved on account of the death or obedience of Chrift. On the account of Chrift's obedience or death he is releafed from no punishment: and to fuppofe, that God

* P. 334. † P. 336. P. 20.

2

has

has not goodnefs enough, without an atonement, to take a creature to heaven, who in the eye of the law is per fectly innocent, is a fuppofition utterly inconfiftent with the divine goodnefs.Laftly, he, who is faved in confequence of fuffering the whole penalty threatened in the law, is faved on the foot of law. Yet it is utterly and abundantly denied by Dr. C. to be poffible, that any finner fhould be faved on the foot of law.

In view of thefe obfervations, the reader will judge, whether Dr. C's conftruction of the paffages, which speak of the fin against the Holy Ghoft, be admiffible: and whether thofe paffages and the argument deduced from them, do not remain in full force againft univerfal falvation.

WE come at length to Dr. C's answer to the laft argument of thofe in the oppofite fcheme which he confiders, which is drawn from the tendency of Dr. C's fyftem to li centioufnefs and vice.

On this the Doctor obferves; " To difprove the final falvation of all men, it must be plainly fhown, that this "doctrine does naturally and directly tend to encourage "men in vitious practice.*" In this it is implicitly granted, that if the doctrine of univerfal falvation do indeed naturally and directly tend to encourage men to persist in vitious practice, it is not true. On this we may join iffue with him. That that doctrine does comparatively encou rage men to perfift in vice, will appear perhaps from the following confiderations.It will not be denied that if there were no punishment threatened to the wicked, it would naturally and directly encourage them to perfift in vice. This is granted by Dr. C. Had we attempted+ "to introduce mankind univerfally into a ftate of happi

nefs, upon their leaving this world, whatever their mo"ral conduct had been in it, the argument," that Dr. C's fcheme tends to licentioufnefs, "would then have held "ftrong." But if the argument holds ftrong, provided there be no future punishment, it holds proportionably, if that punishment be very fmall and far lefs than is deferved by the wicked; and especially if at the fame time that punishment be fuited to their perfonal good. Now that the future punishment of the wicked is, on Dr. C's fcheme, very finall, compared with what it is on the oppofite scheme, is manifeft at firft fight; it is infinitely lefs. And that it