repentance; and if, as the advocates for universal salvation hold, a great part of mankind will suffer this punishment; it follows, that a great part of mankind will not be saved. For to be saved, and yet to suffer the curse of the law, is a direct contradiction. To suffer the curse of the law is to be damned, and is all the damnation to which any sinner is exposed, and to which justice, the most strict and rigorous justice, can doom him. If then any man have suffered this damnation, from what is he or can he be saved? Certainly from nothing, because he is exposed to nothing: unless we say, that by the just law of the God of perfect justice, he is exposed to unjust pun-. ishment.

If to this argument it be objected, that though all men are not saved from the curse of the law, whether by Christ, or without him; yet all are finally admitted to happiness; those who repent in this life, are admitted to happiness through the merits of Christ; those who die impenitent, are admitted to the same, in consequence of enduring in their own persons, the curse of the law and that this is all which is intended by the salvation of all men-with respect to this I observe.

(1) This is no proper salvation, which in its primary meaning signifies a deliverance from evil. But according to the case now stated, some men are not delivered from any evil, to which they ever were exposed; but suffer it all. Therefore they are not saved.

(2) That this objection entirely sets aside, with regard to a great part of mankind, salvation in the way of forgiveness of sin, and the free grace of God in the pardon of the sinner, which is contrary to the whole gospel.

But to proceed; as Christ, on the present hypothesis, doth not in fact save all men; so it would be no favour to them, for him to attempt the salvation of all those who die impenitent. An attempt to deliver them from the

curse of the law, would be an attempt to deprive them of the most necessary, wise, desirable and merciful means of grace, on which their eternal happiness depends: an attempt not to deliver them from any thing which on the whole is an evil, a disadvantage even to themselves; but to deprive them of that on which their supreme interest depends; of that which is in fact the greatest good, which they, in their present temper can enjoy, and the greatest blessing which at present God can possibly bestow on them.-Now to deprive them of this, is certainly no favour, nor any fruit of grace, mercy or goodness to them personally. Even to take them to heaven, before they have passed through this discipline would by no means be so great a favour to them, as to cause them to pass through this discipline; as it would be to take them to heaven before they were prepared for it, or could enjoy happiness in it.

Further; if the curse of the law be that punishment, which is necessary to lead to repentance, then Christ came not to deliver from the curse of the law, all who are to be finally happy, but to inflict that curse on a part of them. Christ is exalted to be a prince and a Saviour to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. It is a part of his office, to bring men to repentance, by all wise and proper means. Dr. C. and other advocates for universal salvation, suppose, that hell torments are the means, and most wise, proper and necessary means too, by which Christ will execute the work of giving repentance to all the damned. Therefore his work as a saviour, so far as respects them, is, on Dr. C's plan, not to deliver them from the curse of the law, but to inflict that curse on them. But who is not struck with the contrariety of this idea, to the constant, uniform declarations of scripture, that Christ came to redeem us from the curse of

the law, to save us from wrath, to deliver us from the wrath to come, &c.

Will it be said in opposition to the last observation, that those who die in impenitence, are not saved in any sense by or through Christ, whether by his atonement, or by him as God's prime minister, in the fulness of times bringing all to repentance; and that therefore Christ is not come to inflict the curse of the law on any who shall be finally happy? Then let it never more be pleaded, that Christ is the saviour of all men; that he gave himself a ransom for all; that he tasted death for every man; that the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto the many, (meaning all men) that by the righteousness of one the free gift shall come upon all men to justification of life; that Christ must reign, till he shall have put all enemies under his feet, in genuine repentance; that peace being made by the blood of the cross, it pleased the father by Christ to reconcile all things to himself. For if Christ shall not finally have saved all men by his merit, nor shall have led them to repentance in the execution of the scheme of providence; in what sense can the salvation of all men be ascribed to Christ? In what conceivable sense can he be called the Saviour of all men ?— Therefore if any adopt the idea of the objection just stated, let them never more plead in favour of the salvation of all men, any of those passages of scripture referred to above, nor any passage, which relates to salvation by Christ.

Beside ; if the damned be led to repentance by the torments of bell, by whom are those torments inflicted? Not by Christ it seems, because that would imply, that Christ came not to deliver all who shall be finally happy, from the curse of the law; but to inflict that curse on a part of them. By whom then will those torments, those

most excellent means of grace, be administered? Is not Christ the judge of all men? The father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the son. We must all stand at his judgment seat and receive according to that which we shall have done in the body whether good or evil and he will say; Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

4. If the penalty of the law consist in that punishment, which is necessary to lead to repentance, then all the damned, if brought to repentance at all, are delivered out of hell, not on the footing of grace and mercy, or of favour and goodness; but on the footing of the strictest justice; not on the footing of the gospel, but of the rigour of law. By the present hypothesis, the damned all suffer that punishment, which is necessary to lead them to repentance, and therein suffer the curse of the law, or all that punishment which the utmost rigour of law and justice denounces or can inflict. If the Deity himself were to proceed in punishing, one step beyond this line, he would exceed the hounds of justice, would rise in opposition to his own perfections, would deny himself; in short, would no longer be God. Therefore as soon as a sinner in hell is brought to repentance, he must be immediately released. Nor is he under obligation to plead for grace or favour; he may demand release on the footing of personal justice. He is under no necessity to have recourse to the gospel, he may insist on his personal right, on the footing of the law. He hath satisfied the law; he hath satisfied the justice of God; it hath taken its course on him; he hath nothing more to fear from it; and he must be delivered from further punishment or else he is injured, he is oppressed.

Nay; to plead for mercy or favour in order to his deliverance, is not merely needless; it is out of character, it is degrading himself who stands right with respect

to the law, to the place of one who is obnoxious to still further punishment. It implies that he is ignorant of his own character and relation to the Deity and his law. Equally out of character would he act, if on his deliverance, he should render praise or thanks, either to God the father, or to his son Jesus Christ. Surely a mancondemned by a civil judge, to receive forty stripes save one, after he has received them, is under no obligation to render praise or thanks for his release, either to the judge or to the executive officer.

But how are these things reconcileable with the scriptures? Surely these consequences fairly deducible from the hypothesis under consideration, are entirely inconsistent with the gospel; and the hypothesis itself cannot consistently be embraced by any believer in the New Testament.

Particularly: This hypothesis precludes all possibility of forgiveness of the damned, even, on the supposition that they are finally to be admitted to heavenly happiness. Forgiveness implies, that the sinner forgiven is not punished in his own person, according to law and justice. But on the hypothesis under consideration in this chapter, all the damned, are in their own persons punished according to law and justice, in that they suffer that punishment, which is necessary to lead them to repentance. Who would think of telling a man, who has in his own person, received the corporeal punishment, to which he had been condemned, that the crime for which he received that punishment, is freely forgiven him? This would be adding insult to the rigour of justice.But according to the scriptures, it seems there is no salvation on the footing of the law, or without forgivness. Therefore either it must be made to appear, that the scriptures do admit the idea, that some men will be received to heaven on the footing of law, and without for