vide an answer to them, and it is absurd in him to object them to the doctrine of his opponents.

The sum of what has been said on this head of the destruction of sin is (1) That it does not appear, that sin in the damned is properly an enemy to Christ and his kingdom; as it does no harm to that kingdom. (2) If it be determined that sin in the damned is an enemy to Christ, it will not follow, that it will be destroyed, meaning by destruction annihilation or abolition; because it is no where said, that all Christ's enemies will be destroyed, xalaya.-Or even if this were asserted concerning all Christ's enemies, and the verb xalapyea were applied to them all, it would not certainly determine, that they will all be annihilated, as that verb is capable of another sense, and is doubtless used in another sense, Heb. ii. 14; "That through death he might destroy, nalapynon, him that had the power of death, that is the devil." Dr. C. did not believe, that the devil will be annihilated. Therefore if that verb were applied to all Christ's enemies, and sin in the damned were allowed to be an enemy to Christ; still it might mean something else beside annihilation: nay, it must necessarily mean something else, or it would equally disprove universal salvation, as endless misery.

In Dr. C's discourse on this subject, it is implied, that when a sinner is brought to repentance and cordial reconciliation to Christ, he is destroyed. His words are,* "Christ shall continue vested with regal power, till he has brought all enemies into subjection to him-Christ will continue head of the kingdom of God-till he has actually subdued all enemies-Is sin an enemy ?-then it shall be destroyed-for Christ must destroy all enemies." By these several expressions it appears, that it was Dr. C's opinion, that all Christ's enemies will be subjected to * Page 214, 215.

him, that they all will be subdued under him, and that they will all be destroyed by him. Now it is abundantly evident, that by subjection, subduing, &c. when applied to those who die in impenitence, Dr. C. meant a cordial reconciliation to Christ: and he by no means held, that these enemies thus reconciled, will be destroyed by annihilation. It follows therefore, that as all Christ's enemies are to be destroyed, to be destroyed, and to be reconciled to Christ in true repentance, are, according to Dr. C. one and the same thing. Therefore, when Paul was converted, he was destroyed; and as he will eternally be the subject of repentance, he will suffer an eternal destruction. The punishment of God's enemies is, that they shall be destroyed; they shall be punished with everlasting destruction. But what punishment are everlasting repentance and complacency in God? they are among the greatest blessings which Deity himself can confer on a creature: Endless destruction and endless salvation are throughout the scriptures opposed to each other. But according to Dr. C's scheme, they perfectly harmonize and mutually imply each other.-Now whether this scheme harmonize with the scriptures is submitted to the reader.

Whether this scheme harmonize with the scriptures or not, it does not harmonize with other parts of Dr. C's book. He says,* that by the destruction of the wicked, mentioned in 2 Thes. i. 9, and in various other texts, "we are very obviously led to understand misery." Surely conversion from sin to holiness, and especially the everlasting holiness of the saints in heaven, is not misery.

Dr. C. holds, that all enemies will be subdued and subjected to Christ, and that sin will be subjected to him, when it is abolished or annihilated. But if sin be subjected to Christ, when it is annihilated, then the sin

* Page 224.

ner would be subjected to Christ were he annihilated. But this kind of subjection, is no more a cordial subjection than that which is effected by mere power, and which consists in restraint and punishment.-Beside, according to Dr. C. there are two ways of subjecting to Christ intended in this passage; one is by cordial reconciliation, the other is by annihilation. This then will keep in countenance the opponents of Dr. C. who be lieve, that there are two ways of subjecting to Christ; one by cordial reconciliation, which respects the elect only; the other by restraint and punishment, which respects the reprobate.

On the whole, whether this passage be sufficient to prove an universal abolition of sin, is now left to the judgment of the reader.

2. Doctor C. was of the opinion, that 1 Cor. xv. 24— 29, teaches, that before the finishing of the mediatorial scheme, the second death will be destroyed-He says,* "The second death may with as much propriety be called an enemy, as the first death.-Let any sense be assigned, in which the first death can be properly spoken: of as an enemy, and it will at once be easy to make it appear, that the second death is, in the same sense, as truly an enemy, and much more so.""Ist death, the second death, an enemy? Then this enemy shall be destroyed; for Christ must destroy all enemies." This is the Doctor's argument; in answer to which two observations may be made-That the second death is not an enemy, in the sense which the Doctor's argument implies-That if it were in every sense an enemy, it would not follow, that it shall be destroyed, i. e. abolished.

The reader hath seen the observations made above, concerning sin as an enemy and concerning the destruc* Page 210. + Page 215.

tion of sin similar observations may be made concerning the second death.

(1) The second death is not an enemy in the sense which Dr. C's argument implies and requires.-If the Doctor meant, that the second death is an enemy to those who are the subjects of it, as it destroys their happiness and prevents their admission to a glorious immortality; this is granted. But it is not granted, that therefore it will be destroyed: and for the Doctor to take it for granted, that therefore it will be destroyed, is the same thing as to take for granted that all mankind will finally be admitted to a glorious immortality, which is the grand subject of the present controversy. But if the Doctor meant, that the second death is an enemy to Christ, as it prevents the brightest display of his glory, the greatest prosperity of his kingdom, and the greatest happiness of his subjects; in this sense it is denied to be an enemy. This is a sense in which the first death is an enemy, and notwithstanding what Dr. C. says, it does not seem easy to make it appear, that the second death is, in the same sense, as truly an enemy." The first death, while it continues, prevents the brightest display of the glory of Christ, the greatest prosperity of his kingdom, and the greatest happiness of his subjects: if it should continue, it would be inconsistent with the promises of Christ, with the complete salvation of the elect, and would defeat the gospel. Now to make it appear, that in this sense the second death is an enemy, it may be presumed, is not a more easy task, than to prove the salvation of all men.The second death is no more an enemy to Christ, to his kingdom, or to his faithful subjects, than the execution of some most atrocious and ungrateful rebels, whose lives cannot be spared consistently with the glory of their king, the prosperity of his kingdom, or the happiness of

66

his faithful subjects; is an enemy to the king, to his kingdom, or to his faithful subjects.

Doctor C. further urges, that "the second death is the last enemy, and the only one that is so."* If it be no enemy, it is neither the last nor the first enemy. Therefore," it seems" not "reasonable, when the apostle says, the last enemy which is death, shall be destroyed, to understand him to mean by death, the second death." The first death is in the sense before given, the last enemy; the last who prevents the complete display of Christ's glory, the last who prevents the perfection of his kingdom, the last who has power to hurt the saints. After the destruction of this death, they immediately receive the adoption of sons. Although the devils and those who have been persecutors in this world, will still be in existence after the destruction of the first death, they will no more have it in their power to dishonour Christ, or to interrupt the happiness of his subjects, than if they were annihilated.

(2) If the second death were in every sense an enemy, it would not follow, that it shall be destroyed, meaning abolished. All the enemies of God or of Christ, are no where said to be abolished xalapyɛlobal, meaning annihilation. To be subdued, subjected, put under feet, is by no means the same as to be annihilated. If therefore the second death be ever so truly and properly an enemy, the utmost that would thence follow, is, that it would be so restrained and subjected to Christ, as to be prevented from doing mischief, and to be made an instrument of promoting the glory of God, and the happiness of his Kingdom. In this sense it may be granted, that the second death will be destroyed; yet the salvation of all men would no more be implied in the concession, than it is implied in the destruction of the devil, mentioned, * Page 210.