door for endless misery. For how do we know, that the same sovereign wisdom, which is now supposed to inflict temporary evils on mankind, may not also see fit to inflict on them endless evils?

According to Dr. C. men are by a divine constitution subjected to vanity including mortality, infelicity and bondage to bodily appetites. But why was this constitution made? Was it made for the greater happiness of every individual, or of the system, or of both? Which ever of these answers be given, it will follow, that evil, both natural and moral is subservient to good; and is introduced, if not in the first instance of Adam's transgres sion, yet in every other instance, by the positive design and constitution of God. Evil therefore both natural and moral, makes a part of the scheme of God, takes place by his constitution, and is subject to his control? What then becomes of the scheme of self-determining power, for which Dr. C. is so zealous an advocate? And here how justly may many passages in Dr. C's writings be retorted? Particularly the following; "If men's volitions and their consequent effects, are the result of invariable necessity in virtue of some exterior causes so inviolably connected, as that they will and must come to pass, the author of this connexion, which according to this plan is God, is the only efficient and real author of whatever has been, or shall hereafter be brought into event; not excluding any of the most complicated villanies that have been, or may be perpetrated by any of the sons of Adam. Is this a scheme of thoughts fit to be embraced by intelligent creatures ?""*

Beside, if this constitution were made for the greater happiness of every individual, then every individual is more happy than he would have been, if he had not been subjected to vanity; and then there is no such thing as

Benevolence of the Deity, page 136.

punishment in the subjection to vanity, or in any of its consequences; nor any foundation, with a view to the private interest of any man, to regret any of the evils of this life, or of that which is to come.

It does not however appear to be fact, that every individual is in this life rendered more happy, by the evils which he suffers here: and to say that he will be rendered by them more happy on the whole hereafter, neither appears to be fact, nor to be capable of proof. How will any man prove, that the Sodomites will on the whole be more happy, than Enoch and Elijah, who never tasted death?

If all men be subjected to vanity, to promote not their personal good, but the good of the system, and the good of individuals be given up to this end; why may we not in the same way account for endless punishment?—If it be not consistent with the divine perfections to subject men to suffering, unless it issue in their personal good; then it is not consistent with the divine perfections to punish at all, either in this world, or the future.

CONTAINING REMARKS ON DR. C'S ARGUMENTS FROM COL. 1. 19, 20; EPH. 1. 10, AND 1 TIM. II. 4.

THE first of those texts is: "For it pleased the Father, that in him all fullness should dwell. And having made peace by the blood of the cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself: by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."-Dr. C's sense of this passage is this: *It pleased the Father-by Jesus

* Page 127.

Christ-to change back all things to himself to change the state of this lower world, of the men and of the things, whether they be on earth, or in the aerial heaven, that encompasses it." It was his opinion, that to reconcile all these things, is to rechange their state, or bring them back to that state they were originally in.* With reference to mankind, he says, "By Christ their state was changed back, they were absolutely brought back to the condition they would have been in, had it not been for the lapse; what I mean is, that they were absolutely and unconditionally put into salvable circumstances."But what follows from all this? One would think Dr. C. had forgotten himself. Supposing all this were granted, would it follow, that all men will be saved? That because they are in salvable circumstances, therefore their actual salvation will be effected? No, no more than from the original state of Adam, it followed that he would never fall. He was indued with a power to stand: he was in such circumstances, that he might have continued in his original innocence. Yet he fell. So, though it be granted, that all men are by Christ put into salvable circumstances, yet through their obstinate impenitence and unbelief they may fail of this great salvation.— Doubtless Dr. C. believed, that by Christ the state of mankind is so changed, that they are all salvable, or may be saved, immediately after the end of this world. But this notwithstanding, he believed also, that a great part of mankind would die impenitent, and that none of them would be saved within a thousand years of the end of this world, and some of them not till after ages of ages.

But in aid of his argument from this passage, the Doctor brings in again, Rom. v. 10, "For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son; much more being reconciled, we shall be saved, by

* Page 129. † Page 132.

his life." I have formerly remarked on the Doctor's use of this passage; and need not repeat these remarks. It may be observed, however, that the manner of his applying this passage to strengthen his argument from Col. i. 20, really implies, that this last text taken by itself, contains no argument at all, and therefore ought never to have been introduced as a proof. Whatever force there is in it, to prove universal salvation, depends entirely, according to Dr. C's stating of the matter, on Rom. v. 10, which has been considered already.-So that if his sense of Col. i. 20, be true, it does nothing towards proving the salvation of all men.

men.

I do not however mean to suggest, that Dr. C's sense is, in my opinion, the true one. It is impossible, that all things should be brought back, in all respects, to their original state. All mankind cannot now live in the garden of Eden. It cannot be again fact, that all the knowledge of God possessed by men, should be such as is derived from either the works of creation and providence, or from immediate intercourse of God and angels with Nor can it be ever again true, that God is propitious to men immediately, without a mediator. In these, and perhaps many other respects, mankind cannot be changed back to their original state. But if once the advocates for universal salvation admit of limitations, and say, that all things will however be brought to their original state in many respects, the believers in endless punishment too must be allowed to apply their limitations; and they will allow, that as the original state was a state of order, regularity and due subordination, wherein every person and thing were in their proper places; so in this sense all things will finally be brought back to their original state, and order will be again restored to the universe.

Nor does the verb arxalaλ77 signify in general to change any thing back to its former state. For instance, if two men had been long and habitual enemies to each other; and if having for a while become friends, they should return to their former enmity; I believe no critic in the Greek language would think this return to their enmity, would be properly expressed by azoxa7a2a77w, reconcile. When the Jews were brought home from the Babylonish captivity, they were changed back to their former state. But is this change ever expressed by añоxalαλα77w, reconcile?

This verb is never used in the New Testament, but to signify a change, whereby those who were at enmity, become friends. This observation is true of all those words of the same derivation, on which Dr. C. criticises so abundantly from page 128, to 142. It is therefore not applicable to all the things on this earth, and in the aerial heaven, unless it be by the figure prosopopoeia. By that figure indeed every thing animate and inanimate may be said to be alienated from man, in consequence of his sin; and to be reconciled to him in consequence of the blood of the cross, and of the return of man to God through Christ. But if this were the idea of Dr. C. he should have given up his objection to the sense of Rom. viii. 19, &c. given by the believers in endless punishment; and at the same time he would have virtually given up his own sense of that passage.

It is strange, that Dr. C. as well as the translators of the Bible, should render the words savlov in Col. i. 20, unto himself. In the preceding verse we have ev avw; in the 20th verse we have d' avlov, olavpov avlov, and again, d'avlov. Now it seems very odd, that in this multiplied use of avlos in its various cases, one instance only should be selected from the rest, and rendered himself, meaning the Father, and in all the other instances it should