The Fundamental Principles of Dr. Chauncy's System Pointed Out and Compared
In which the fundamental principles are pointed out,,
Before we enter into the consideration of the particular arguments of Dr. Chauncy, it may be proper to give some account of the fundamental principles of his system. Beside the doctrine of the salvation of all men, to establish which is the design of his whole book; there are several other doctrines, which may be considered as fundamental to his system. He does not deny all future punishment of the wicked; but allows that they will be punished according to their demerits, or according to strict justice. Thus he allows that “many men will be miserable in the next state of existence, in proportion to the moral depravity they have contracted in this. There is no room for debate here.’’* “They must be unavoidably miserable in proportion to the number and greatness of their vices.”! ‘’ For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord: i. e. if men continue the servants of sin, the
* rase 9. t P. 10.
wages (hey shall receive, before the gift through Christ is conferred on them, will be the second death,“* If some men suffer that punishment which is the wages of sin, they doubtless suffer all which they deserve. No man deserves more than his wages.” In the collective sense, they will be tormented for ages of ages; though some of them only should be tormented through the whole of that period; the rest variously as “to time, m proportion to their desertsP’li “There shall be a difference in the punishment of wicked men, according to the difference there has been in the nature and number of their evil deeds.’’’’l He speaks of the wicked as liable “to positive torments awfully great in degree, and long in continuance, in proportion to the number and greatness of their cnwie5.”§ “The pardonableness of all other sins and blasphemies,” [except that against the Holy Ghost] “lies in this, its being possible for men, to escape the torments of hell, though they should have been guilty of those sins. — Accordingly the unpardonableness of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, must consist in the reverse of the pardonableness of other sins — in the impossibility of their escaping the torments of hell, who are chargeable with this sin. — This now being the meaning of the unpardonableness of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, it is quite easy to perceive, that even these blasphemers, notwithstanding the unpardonableness of the sin they have committed, may finally be saved — For if they are not saved till after they have passed through these torments, they have never been forgiven -^The divine tazn) has taken its course; nor has any intervening pardon prevented the full execution of the threatened penalty on them. — Forgiveness strictly and literally speaking has not been granted them.’’||” This kind of sinners being absolutely excluded from the privilege of
P. 00. t P. 307. t Page 320. i P. 350, 351. [j P. 335, &c.
forgiveness, mu=t, as has been sahl, suffer the torments of another world, before they can he saved.’’*
In these passages concerning the hhisphemers of the Holy Ghost, the author pLainly supposes, that not only those of that character, but all wo suffer the torments of hell are finally saved without forgiveness, havir.g satisiied by their own sufferings the utmost demands of strict justice. He who is delivered ftom further punishment in consequence of having suffered a jiunishment Iiowever great in degree and long in duration, but not. equal to that, to which he is iiiiblo by strict justice, is the subject of forgiveness. Just so much punishment is forgiven him, as is lucking to make the punishment, which he hath suffered, equal to that,’ to which he is liable by strict justice. Now our author, in the passages just quoted, supposes that both the blasphemers of the Holy Ghost and all others who pass through the torments of hell, are finally delivered, not in consequence of a punishment inferior in degree or duration, to that which may be inflicted on them, according to strict justice; as in that case they would be the subjects of forgiveness: hut in consequence of that punishment, which is according to strict justice, and therefore they an delivered without forgiveness. ]-{e says, ‘’• The [)ardonableneS’S of all other sins, lies in the possibility, that those who have been guilty of them, should escape the torments of hell.” Those therefore who actually pass through the torments of hell receive no forgiveness; but are liberated on the footing of strict justice. If pardonableness, or which is the same, a possibility of pardon consist in a possibility of escaping the torments of hell; then actual [)ardon consists in an actual escape from those torments. Of course they who do not escape them, but pass througl» them, receive no pardon.
* P. 340,
Again: the only observation made by Dr. C. to show, that the blasphemers of the Holy Ghost are not forgiven; or the only respect in which he asserts, that they are not forgiven, is, that they pass through the torments of hell. But as this holds good with regard to all the damned, it equally proves, that none of them are forgiven; and that the divine law takes its course on them all; and that no intervening pardon will ever pre vent the full execution of the threatened penalty on them. — Now if the divine law take its course on the damned, and the penalty threatened in the law, be fully executed on them; they are undoubtedly punished according to their demerits, or according to strict justice; and if after all, they be liberated from punishment, they are liberated not in the way of forgiveness, nor on the footing of grace or favour; but on the footing of strict justice.
But if this conclusion concerning all the damned be denied; yet as the blasphemers of the Holy Ghost are some of mankind, some of mankind at least, if not all the damned, will be saved on the footing of strict justice, and without forgiveness.
The same observations for substance, may be made on the other q’lotations above. If the damned suffer ‘’ a misery in proportion to the number and greatness of their vices;” if ^’ they receive the wages of sin;” if they be “tormented variously as to time, in proportion to their deserts;” and “according to the difference there has been in the nature and number of their evil deeds;*’ if they suffer ‘’ positive torments awfully great in degree and long in continuance, in proportion to the number and greatness of their crimes;” ihey are punished to the utmost extent of justice. To punish them any further would be excessive, injurious and oppressive. To exempt them from punishment, is so far from an act of grace or favour,that it is an act called for by the most rigorous justice.
STniCTLY EXAMINED. 13
By these quotations, and by the observations on them, it appears, that our author holds, that the damned sufler a punishment properly and strictly vindictive, and vindictive to the highest degree, and to the utmost extent to which vengeance in any just government can proceed. Indeed speaking of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, he plainly asserts a vindictive punishment both of those cities, and of the damned; he says,* that “the destruction of those cities-’ was, “for a public example of the divine vengeance to after ages. And the fire of hell is doubtless called everlasting for the like reason;” i. e. because it will last, till it shall have accouiplished the design of heaven in the destruction of the damned, for a public example of the divine vengeance. In his Five Dissertations p. 110, he speaks of the labour, sorrow and death which men suffer in this world, as ‘’ testimonies of God’s vengeance, — as judgments on his part, and real evils on theirs;” By vindictive punishment is meant, that which is sufficient to support and vindicate the authority of the divine law, or which is sufficient to satisfy the justice of God. But no advocate for vindictive punishment ever suj)posed, that to vindicate the authority of the law and to satisfy the justice of God, a greater punishment is necessary, than is according to justice or according to the desert, or the nature and number of the sins, the vices, the crimes of the person punished: or that to those ends, a greater punishment is necessary, than is inflicted, when “the divine law takes its course;” or than is implied ‘Mn the full execution of the threatened penalty.” A punishment greater than that which answers those descriptions, would be so far frofti satisfying justice, that it would be positively unjust: it would be so tar from supporting the authority of the divine law, that it would bring it into contempt by violating it’.
* P. 274.
li SALVATION or ALL MEJf
If that positive torment, which in degree and contintiance is according to the desert and the nature and number of the evil deeds of the sinner, be not sufficient to satisfy the justice of God, I wish to be informed what would satisfy it. — But Dr. C. himself holds, that the punishment which satisfies the justice of God, is vindictive and opposed to that which is disciplinary and medicinal; “If the next state is a state of punishment not intended for the cure of the patients themselves, but to satisfy the justice of God, and give warning to others; it is impossible all men should be finally saved.”* So that I am perfectly agreed with Dr. C. in his idea of a vindictive jjunishment, and whether he do not hold such punishment in the utmost extent, I appeal to every candid readier, who shall have perused the forecited quotations, or the pages from which they are taken.
Yet Dr. C. is a great enemy to vindictive punishment, and it is a fundamental principle of his book, that the future punishment of the wicked is disciplinary and intended for the good, the repentance and reformalion of the patients, and not to satisfy the justice of God. This appears from the quotation just now made from page 11th; and by innumerable other passages, some of which I shall now recite. “The wicked shall be sent to a place of weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; not to continue there always, but till the rebellion of their hearts is subdued, and they are wrought upon to become the willing and obedient subjects of God.“t ‘^ For ages of ages, the wicked shall be miserable — as a mean to destroy the enmity of their hearts and make them God’s willing and obedient people.’’^” The rest [“the wicked”] shall have their portion in the place of blackness of darkness, as a suitable and necessary discipline, in order to their being reduced under moral subjection to Christ.’’’§
* P. 11. t P. 220. X P. 221. J P. 22K ‘* The other [•’ the wicked”] shall be banished to dwell in unspeakable torment, till they repent of their folly, and yield themselves up to God, as his obedient servants.’** “He considers the many dispensations,” through which he supposes the wicked will pass, “as variously adapted for the discipline of stubborn and rebellious creatures.”! “Is it not far more reasonable to suppose, that the miseries of the other world are a proper discipline in order to accomplish the end” of the recovery of the damned, “than that they should be final and vindictive only?”! ‘’ The consideration of hell as a purging fire, is that only which can make the matter sit easy on one’s mind.“§ With approbation he quotes from Mr. Hartley these words; “‘the doctrine of purgatory, as now taught by the Papists, seems to be a corruption of a genuine doctrine held by the ancient fathers, concerning a purifying fire.”|| He considers the misery of hell as “intended for the good of the patients themselves,-”IT — for “their benefit;”** as “a discipline by which is to be effected the personal good of wicked men. “It He says, “The reason why the wicked suffer the torments of the next state, is that they might be made the willing people of God.”]:J
As this is his idea of the nature and end of the future punishment of the wicked, he often rejects with abhorrence the idea, that they are to be punished for any other end exclusive of their own personal good. AVhat he says in p. 325, implies, that unless we believe, that the future punishment of the wicked is intended for their personal good, we must believe, that “the character of God, as the Father of mercies, and the God of pity, is limited to this world only;” and that he is not the “same good being in the other world, that he is in this;” —
* P. 224. t P. 309. I P. 322. J P. 324. P. 324. f P. 325- P. 326. n P. 328. Xt- 343.
16 SALVATION’ OF ALL M£N
That on that supposition, ‘’ we sli;ill say that of our Father in heaven, which we cannot suppose of any father on earth, till we have first divested him of the heart of a father.’-* And in page 11th, before quoted, he absolutely rejects all punishment which is not disciplinary.
But how these two fundamental parts of Dr. C’s system can be consistent with each other, is difficult to he conceived. Is that punishment which is according to the deserts of the sinner; that which in degree and continuance is according to the nature and number of his evil deeds; in which the divine law takes its course upon him, and in which the penalty threatened in the law is fully executed: is this punishment no more than a suitable and necessary discipline to the sinner; necessary “to reduce him to a moral subjection to Christ;” necessary ‘^ to his personal good,” “his benefit,” &.c.? If so, then that punishment which is according to strict justice and ‘• satisfies the justice of Goi>,” and that which is a mere merciful and beneficial discipline, are one and the same. The damned sinner suffers no more punishment, than is necessary for his good, nor can without injury and oppression be made to suffer more: and all ground of dis tinction between vindictive and disciplinary punishment entirely vanishes. Dut if any man should avow this sentiment, that such punishment only, as is necessary and conducive to the sinner’s personal good, can consistently with justice be indicted; I beg leave to refer him to the next chapter, in which the subject is considered at large.
In the mean time, it may he proper to observe, that Dr. C. could not consistently adopt the sentiment just mentioned; because he in page llth before quoted, distinguishes expressly between that punishment, which is intended for the cure of the patients, and that which is intended to satisfy the justice of God; and asserts that
* r. 327.
the latter is inconsistent with the salvation of all men. His words are, ‘Mf the next state is a state of [mnishment, not intended for the cure of the patients themselves, but to satisfy the justice of God — ’tis impossible all men should be finally saved.” On this notable passage, I observe, 1. That Dr. C. here, as every where else through his book, distinguishes between a vindictive and diijciplijKiry punishment; or between that punishment which is conducive to the sinner’s good, and that which satisfies divine justice. It cannot therefore be said, that according to Dr. C. a punishment conducive to the sinner’s good, is all that can in strict jufttic be inflicted on him. — 2. He asserts, that if future punishment be intended to satisfy divine justice, it is impossible all men should be saved. Yet he himself in holding, that the wicked will be punished according to their deserts, and in degree and continuance according to the nature and number of their sins, crimes and evil deeds; and that the divine law will take its course on them, the whole threatened penalty be inflicted, and they never be forgiven; holds that punishment, which entirely satisfies the justice of God. Therefore, as he also holds that such future punishment as satisfies the justice of God, is inconsistent vvilh the salvation of all men; to be consistent, he must give up the doctrine of the salvation of all men, to prove which, he wrote his whole book.
Another fundamental principle of Dr. C’s book, is, that all men, both those who are saved immediately from this life, and those who are saved after they have suffered the pains of hell; are saved by the mere merciy compassion, grace or favour of God, through Christ. — He allows,* that the Apostle’s Doctrme of justification stands “upon the foot of grace through Christ,” and
* Pa-e 43.
“that mankind have nniversallj’ sinned and consequenlly cannot be justified upon any clahn founded on mere late.” — “The gift by Christ takes rise from the many offences, which mankind commit in their own persons, and finally terminates in o[)posir!on to the power and demerit of them all, in their being restored, not simply to life, but to reign in it forever.”* ‘’ As mankind universally are subjected lo damnge through the lapse of Adam; so they shall as unixersaUy be rl diver eel from ii, through (he gift by Christ. “t” The gift on Cjirist’s part, — ought to be taken in lis abounding sense.”]: “The [)lain truth is, fmal everlasting salvation is absolutely ihefrcs gift of God to all men, through Jesus Christ — he has absolutely and unconditionally determined, of his richmercy through the intervening mediation of his son Jesus Christ; that all men, the whole race of lapsed Adam shall reign in life.“§ He speaks of God as exercising p^72/, tender compassion and grace, towards the damned; and speaking of the disciplinary punishment of the damned, he says,” that God, in the other world as well as this, must be disposed to make it evident, that he is a being of boundless and inexhaustible goodness. ‘’’ “He speaks of the doctrine of universal salvation, as the gospel plan of mercy extensively benevolent; and a wonderful design of mercy”ir as “the scripture scheme of mercy,” and of the vilest of the human race as “the objects of merci/.”** He quotestt with approbation, from Mr. Whiston, ‘’ That there may be in the inmost bon-cls of the divine compassion., another time of trial allotted” to the dnmned, in which many or all of them may be saved, by the inftnile indulgence and love of their Creator.”
Our author abundantly declares also, that this rich mercy this free gift this tender compassion and grace, this
* P. 56. t ?. e-?. X r. 75. f r, 86, H p. 326. IT P. 360. P. 365. ft P. 405.
infinite indulgence and love of Iheir Creator, this boundless and inexhaustible goodness in the salvation of all men, is exercised through Christ only, and for his sake. “Jesus Christ is the person through whom and upon whose account happiness is attainable by any of the human race.”* “The obedience of Christ, and eminently his obedience unto death is the ground or reason.^ upon which it hath pleased God to make happiness attainal)!e by any of the human race.’U “• It was with a view to the obedience and death of Christ, upon this account vpon this ground, for this rec5on, that God was pleased to make the gospel promise of a glorious immortality to the sons of men. “I” Christ died not for a select number of men only, but for mankind universally and without exception or limitation.*’§
Now, how can this part of Dr. C’s system be reconciled with that part, in which he holds, that all the damned will be punished according to their deserts? Can those who are punished according to their deserts after that be saved on the foot of grace through Christ? Can those who are punished according to the nature and number of their evil deeds; in degree and continuance, in proportion to the number and greatness of their crimes; in whose punishment the divine law takes its course, and the threatened pewilty is fully executed: can these persons be saved by a gift? by a gift taken in the abounding sense? by the free gift of God through Christ? by rich mercy 1 by pity., tender compassion and grace? by mercy extensively benevolent? by a wonderful design of mercy? by boundless and inexhaustible goodness? by the utmost bowels if the divine compassion? by the infinite indulgence and love of their Creator? Is the man who by his crimes has, according to law, exposed himself to the pillory, or to be cropt and branded, and on whom the law has taken
* P. 17. t P. 19. X r. 20. y P. 20.
its course, and the threatened penalty has been fully executed; is he after all delivered from further suffering by grace by pity by tender compassion by indulgence and love., by the utmost bowels of compassion? — No; he has a right on the foot of mere law and of the inost rigorous justice to subsequent impunity, with respect to the crime or crimes, for which he has been thus punished; and to tell him after he is thus punished, 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 mediatory 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 suf- .fering; 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
* P. 153, 154.
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 benefitted 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 throvgh Christ or on his account.
On the whole, Dr. C’s scheme 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, (o 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.
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 (heir 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 punishment. But which ever 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 favour of universal salvation, and agjiinst 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 scripture: 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 shewed no mercy, kc. &,c.
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 chief 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 favour 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 favour 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.
SECTION II.
hi which objections to the preceding reasoning are considered,
I. IF to some part of the preceding reasoning, it should be objected, 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.
I. 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, lakes 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 tis from death; their being made righteous, as well as reigning in life.” t” 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 for ever.” J” 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 cssentialUj 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; so the scriptures are very clear as to the same matter. Gal. iii. 13. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse
* P. 25, 26. 1 P. 27. t P. 30. 9 P. 37, for US.” Rom. v. 9. “We shall be saved from urath through him.” 1 Thes. i. 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 any thing 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 hare 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 (he same time to grant, that the deliverance of the sinner from wrath, is no fruit of forgiveness, or of grace, even in the very sense in which the objector uses the word grace. It is no act of favour, or of goodness, as distinguished from justice, to deliver a person from wrath, who is innocent, or who in his own person has satisfied the law, and therefore now stands right with respect to it. But the idea of delivering a sinner from wrath, without forgiveness, and without grace, is as foreign from the scriptures, as that of the admission of a sinner, without grace, to the positive joys of heaven.
II. Perhaps it may be objected to part of the preceding section, that by punishment “in proportion to their deserts,” and “according to their evil deeds,” &c. Dr. C. meant not a punishment equal to strict justice, or satisfactory to the justice of God; but one in which a due proportion to the deserts of the various persons, with respect to one another, who are the subjects of the punishment, is observed. — But to this it may be answered, Dr. C. doubtless meant to use the expressions, “in proportion to their deserts,” “according to their evil deeds,” &,c, in the same sense fn which the scriptures say, “according to their works;” “according to the fruit of their doings,” &;c. This is manifest not only by the similarity of the expressions, but by his own reference to those phrases in scripture, as in the following passages, “Which is plainly inconsistent with that difference the scripture often declares there shall be, in the punishment of wicked men, according to the difference there has been in the nature and number of their evil deeds.”* “Under the prospect of being condemned by the righteous Judge of all the earth — to positive torments awfully great in degree, and long in continuance, in proportion to the number and greatness of their crimes.”! Here he undoubtedly refers to those passages in which the scriptures assure us, that the judge “will render to every man according to his deeds;” “according as his work shall be,” &c. Now these phrases of scripture are clearly explained to us, by those representations, in which the punishment of the wicked is illustrated by the imprisonment of a debtor, till he shall have paid the uttermost farthing, the very last mite, &c. and by the passages, in which it is declared, that the wicked shall have judgment without mercy; that God will not pity nor spare them, &c. Whereas, if they suffer less than they deserve according to strict justice; so far they are the objects of mercy and pity; so far God does spare them; so far they have mercy mixed with judgment. Nor can it be said, that they pay the uttermost farthing of the debt. Again; Dr. C. allows, that the wicked will in the second death receive the wages of sin. But the wages of a man are not merely a part, or a certain proportion of wlat he deserves, or has earned, but the whole. No man who has faithfully done the work, which he contracted to do for ten pounds, will allow, that five pounds are his wages for that work.
* P. 320. t P. 350.
111. It may also be objected to a part of the former section, that though “the law shall have its course” oa some men, and “the full penalty threatened in the law, be executed on them;” still this does not imply a punishment equal or satisfactory to strict justice; as the divine law itself does not, nor ever did threaten all that punishment, which is deserved according to strict justice: and therefore though the damned shall suffer ail which is threatened in the law, yet they will not suffer a vindictive punishment, a punishment which shall “satisfy the justice of God.” — Concerning this objection it may be observed;
1. That by the law is meant, to use Dr. C’a own words, “the moral law,” “the law of nature, the law of reason which is the law of God:” and to say, that this law does not threaten a penalty adequate to the demands of justice, is to say, that it does not threaten a penalty adequate to the demands of reason. If so, it is not the law of reason j which is contrary to the supposition. Therefore to say, that the law of reason does not threaten a penalty adequate to the demands of justice, is a real contradiction.
2. That Dr. C. neither does nor could consistently make this objection; because if the objection were just, men might be justified,” on a claim founded on mere law On the principle of the objection, the law threatens a punishment far less than we deserve; and a man having suffered this punishment, may be justified on the foundation of mere law: the law would be satisfied, and the man would stand right with respect to it, nor would it have any further claim on him, in the way of punishment, more than on a person who had never transgressed. Therefore he thenceforward obeying the law, might as truly be justified on the foot of mere la-w as if he had rendered the same obedience, without ever trans= gressing.
But Br. C. holds, “that mankind universally have sinned, and consequently cannot be justified upon a claim founded on inere /atw.“* Andt that” the whole world had become guilty before God, and were therefore incapable of being justified upon the foot of mere law.” That all men are f “incapable of justification upon the foot of mere law, as having become guilty before God.” To the same efi”ect in various other passages. So that according to Dr. C. if future punishment be intended to satisfy the law it is equally impossible, that all men should be saved, as it is on the supposition, that future punishment is intended to satisfy justice.
3. Dr. C. allows, that a man having suffered the penalty of the law, is not, and cannot be, the object of forgiveness. §” If they are not saved, till after they have passed through these torments, they have never been forgiven — The divine law has taken its course; nor has any intervening pardon prevented the full execution of the threatened penalty on them. Forgiveness strictly and literally speaking, has not been granted to them.” But if those who suffer the penalty of the law, are not, in their subsequent exemption from punishment, the objects of forgiveness, they suffer all they desei’ve. So far as they are exempted from deserved punishment, they are forgiven: forgiveness means nothing else than an exemption from deserved punishment.
4. Dr. C. says, that Adam (and for the same reason doubtless men in general) “must have rendered himself obnoxious to the righteous resentment of his God and King, had he expressed a disregard to any command” of the moral law, the law of which the Doctor is speaking in that passage. But the righteous resentment of
* P. 43. t P- 34. i P. 36. P. 336. (| 5 Dissertations. P. 55.
W ^’
God for transgression is a just punishment of transgression; and a just punishment is any punishment, which is not unjust. And it is impossible that Adam should be obnoxious to such a punishment, if the law, the most strict rule of God’s proceedings with his creatures, had not threatened it. — Thus Dr. C. himself grants, that the punishment threatened in the law is the same which is deserved according to strict justice.
The Doctor every where holds, that “the law of God is a perfect rule of righteousness.“* But if the law do cot threaten all the punishment which is justly dcr served by sin, it is no more truly a perfect rule of righteousness, than the gospel is. — Again;” Is the law that rule of right, “which God knows to be the measure of men’s duty to him, and of what is tit he should do for, or inflict upon them, as they are either obedient, or disobedient? There is, without all doubt, such a rule of men’s duty towards God, and of God’s conduct towards men, in a way of reward or punishment, according to their works.”! There could scarcely be a more explicit concession, that the divine law threatens all that punishment, which is according to justice. It is declared to be, not only the rule of rights but the measure of xvhat is fit in punishment, as well as of duty. Indeed Dr. C. never once, so far as I have noticed, suggests the idea, that the divine law does not threaten all that punishment, which is deserved by sin.
5. According to this objection, the moral law is a dispensation of grace, as truly as the gospel. But how does this accord with the scripture? That declares, that “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth,” or the gracious truth, “came by Jesus Christ;” John i. 17. — ‘- If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made
* Particularly 12 Sermons, P. 30. t Ibid. P. 39.
void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the law worketh wrath. — Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;” Rom. iv. 14. — “The sting of death is sin, and the J^trength of sin is the law;” 1 Cor. xv. 56. As in the objection now under consideration, the law is supposed to be as really a dispensation of grace, as the gospel; we may say, The strength of sin is the gospel as truly as, The strength of sin is the law. — Beside; if the law be a dispensation of grace, how can it be said to be the strength of sin? It threatens a part only of the punishment deserved by sin; and therefore it neither points out, how strong sin is, to bring into condemnation, nor does it give to sin its proper force to terrify and torment the sinner, by exhibiting the whole punishment deserved ^»y sin. On the ground of this objection, the strength of sin consists in the rule of strict justice, not in the law.
6. The apostle tells us, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” But the knowledge of the evil or demerit of sin is obtained by the knowledge of the threaten ing of the law only. If the law do not threaten all that punishment, which sin deserves, we know not by the law, what sin deserves, or how evil it is. — And if we know not this by the law, neither do we know it by any other part of scripture, nor by any other means whatever. Nor do we know our own demerit, nor our own proper characters as sinners; nor are we in any capacity to judge concerning our obligation to gratitude for the redemption of Christ, or for salvation through him; nor have we the proper motive to repentance set before us, in all the scriptures. The proper motive to repentance is the evil of sin. — And if we have not the knowledge of the evil of sin, it is impossible we should know the grace of pardon, or of salvation from that punishment which is justly deserved by sin.
7. The apostle declares, as we have seen, that ‘’ by the law is the knowledge of 5in,” and that ‘’ the law worketh wrath.’’’’ But on the principle of” this objection, by the law is the knowledge of grace, and the law worketh grace: and God without any atonement did grant to sinners some remission or mitigation of deserved punishment. Why then could not complete remission or pardon have been granted in the same way? What need was there of Christ and his death? Yet Dr. G. holds, that “it was with a view to the obedience and death of Ghrist, upon this account, upon this ground, for this reason, that God was pleased to raike the goepel promise of a glorious immortality to the miserable sons of men.”
8. If the full punishment to which the sinner justly exposes himself by sin, be not pointed out in the law; it is not a good law, as it does not teach the subject of the law the truth in this matter; but it is a deceitful law, or is directly calculated to deceive. It threatens a punishment, which the subject would naturally believe to be the whole punishment to which he is exposed by transgression, or which can be justly inflicted on him. — But this, if the objection be well grounded, is by no means the case. Thus the law would naturally tend to deceive fatally all its subjects.
9. From what is granted by Dr. C. it certainly follows, that the threatening of the law is all that can be inflicted consistently with justice, and that the punishment threatened in the law, and that which is allowed by strict justice, is one and the same. He says, “Whatever sin may in its own nature, be supposed to deserve; it is not reasonable to suppose, that it should be universally reckoned to death, when no law is in being that makes death the special penalty of transgression.“* —” Sin is not reckoned, brought to account, ought not to be looked upon as being taxed with the forfeiture of life, when there is no law in being, with death as its affixed sanction.’’* Therefore whatever sin may be supposed to deserve, it is not reasonable that it should be reckoned, it ought not to be reckoned, or which is the same thing, it is not just that it should be reckoned to any punishment whatever, when there is no law in being, which makes that punishment the special penalty of transgression. Therefore, as I said, the punishment threatened in the law, is all which can be inflicted consistently with justice; and the punishment threatened in the law, and that which is allowed by strict justice, are one and the same.
10. If the law do not threaten all that punishment, which is just, we cannot possibly tell what is a just punishment, or what justice threatens or admits with regard to punishment, and what it does not admit. If once we give up the law and the testimony, we are left to our own imaginations. Dr. C. holds, that the wages of sin are the second death, and that this death is a punishment which shall last, according to the language of scripture,
for ever and ever. Are these wages, and this punishment which shall continue for ever and ever adequate to the demand of justice or not? If they are, then the law threatens all which justice requires. — If they are not, then the wages of sin, and the punishment for ever and ever, are a gracious punishment, and sinners deserve a longer punishment. But how do we know, that sinners deserve a longer punishment, than this? No longer punishment is threatened in the law, or in any part of scripture.
11. If sin deserve a longer punishment, than that which is threatened in the law, it deserves either an endless punishment, or a temporary punishment longer than that which is threatened in the law. But if sin deserve an endless punishment, it is an infinite evil. — If it deserve a temporary punishment though longer than that which is threatened in the law, all men may finally be saved, even though the state of future punishment be intended to satisfy the divine justice: the contrary of which however is asserted by Dr. C.
12. If the damned, though they shall be punished according to law, will not be juinished as much as they deserve; what shall we make of the scriptures, which declare, that they shall have judgment without mercy; that God will not spare, nor pity them; that wrath shall be poured upon them without mixture? &,c.
I now appeal to the reader, whether, notwithstanding this objection, the damned, in suffering the whole penalty threatened in the divine law, do not suffer as much as they deserve according to strict justice, and therefore suffer a penalty to the highest degree vindictive.
IV. If it should be further objected, that there is no inconsistency in representing future punishment to be fully adequate to the demerit of sin; and yet to represent it as disciplinary, and adapted to the repentance and personal good of the patient: as both the ends of the personal good of the patient, and of the satisfaction of justice, are answered by it: it is to be noticed,
1. If this objection mean, that the punishment which is merely adapted to the personal good of the patient, be all which is deserved by sin; I beg leave to refer the objector to the next chapter.
2. If it mean, that though sin do deserve, and the damned will suffer, more punishment, than that which is conducive to the personal good of the patient; even all that punishment which is according to strict justice; yet all will be saved finally: then it will follow that an endless punishment is not deserved bj sin. In this case, I beg leave to refer the objector to chapter VI.
3. Still on the foundation of this objection, the damned, as they will have previously suffered all that they deserve, will finally be delivered from further suffering” of wrath, not by forgiveness, not by grace, nor through Christ; but entirely on the footing of strict justice, as having suffered the full penalty of the law.
4. Dr. C. could not consistently make this objection. The objection holds, that the damned do suffer a punishment entirely satisfactory to justice: and Dr. C. allows, that if the punishment of the wicked be intended to ‘’ satisfy the justice of God, and give warning to others, ’tis impossible ail men should be saved.”*
Having in this first chapter, so far attended to Dr. C’s system concerning future punishment, as to find, that it appears to be a combination of the most jarring principles; and having particularly pointed out the mutual discordance of those principles; 1 might spare myself the hibour of a further examination of his book; until at least it should be made to appear, that those principles do in reality harmonize with each other. — But as some may entertain the opinion, that though there be incon sistences in the Book, yet the general doctrine of universal salvation is true, and is defensible, if not on all the grounds, on which Dr. C. has undertaken the defence of it, yet on some of them at least; therefore I have determined to proceed to a more particular examination af this doctrine, and of the arguments brought by Dr. C. ia support of it.
* Pa-e n.