sent, established the constitution, by which they became mortal, frail, subject to the influence of their bodily appetites and so to sin? After all, Dr. C's exposition of this paragraph in Rom. viii. is by no means, even on his own principles, a proof of universal salvation. His translation of those most important words in the 20th and 21st verses, is this, "The creature was subjected to vanity, not willingly; but by the judicial sentence of him, who subjected it, in consequence of a previous hope, that even this very creature should be delivered from its slavery of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." So that the utmost, which this passage teaches, according to his own account, is, that mankind may now hope, that they shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. But what if there be a foundation to hope that this will be the case? Does it thence follow, that this hope will certainly be fulfilled? In consequence of the death of Christ and the proclamation of the gospel, there is a door of hope set open to all men. But does it hence follow, that all men will certainly enter in at this door, and secure the blessings for which there is a foundation to hope? Dr. C. would doubtless grant, that there is a door of hope opened to mankind in general, that they may be saved immediately after death. Yet he would not pretend, that this God delivered the Israelites out of Egypt in such a manner, as gave hope that even that generation would enter the promised land. Yet this hope was not fulfilled. Therefore, though it should be granted, that God hath subjected mankind to vanity in hope, that they shall be delivered from it, into the glorious liberty of the children of God, it would by no means follow, that all men will be saved: and Dr. C. is entirely mistaken, when he says, "Mankind universally is ex hope is realized. pressly made, in the 21st verse, the subject of this glorious immortality."* No such thing is expressly said, and in these words he contradicts his own paraphrase of that verse, in which he pretends no more, than that there is a foundation for hope, that mankind shall attain to a glorious immortality. In the preceding remarks on Dr. C's construction of this passage, the sense, which suppose to be the true one, hath been sufficiently expressed. Yet it may be proper here briefly to repeat it. The earnest expecta tion of the creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creation is subject to that use to which it is applied by sinful men, which, as to the end of its existence, the divine glory, is in its own natural tendency, vain and unprofitable, and in many respects positively sinful; I say, to this it is subject not voluntarily, but on account of him, for the sake of his glory (da governing the accusative) or for the accomplishment of the mysterious, but wise and glorious purposes of him, who subjected the same in hope, that this same creation shall be delivered from this unprofitable and sinful use, which may justly be considered as a state of bondage to it, into a liberty, in several important respects, similar to that of the children of God; or at least shall be delivered at the time, when the children of God shall be admitted to the enjoyment of their most glorious liberty. For we know, that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, by reason of that vile abuse and perversion, which is made of it by sinful men, and through desire of that deliverance just mentioned, and in due time to be granted it. Beside the observations on particular parts of Dr. C's construction of Rom. viii. some more general remarks occur.-One is, that his construction implies, that the * Page 102. * divine law is unjust, and cannot be executed consistently with justice. He says, that man on the foot of mere law, without grace, is in bondage to bodily appetites : therefore on the foot of mere law, without grace, there is no hope for him. And he speakst of the case of mankind as remediless, without the grace manifested in Jesus Christ. Yet in the same page he says, "It is the thought, that mankind were subjected to suffering, not remedilessly, but with an intention of mercy," and "it is this thought only, that can reconcile the unavoidable sufferings of the race of men, as occasioned by the lapse of Adam, with the perfections of God." So that God made a law, which could not be executed, consistently with his perfections, and he was obligated in justice to shew mercy through Christ, to mankind. By mere law men were remediless, and if they had been suffered to remain in that remediless state, as they would have remained in it without Christ and the gospel, such a dispensation could not have been reconciled with the perfections of God. Therefore the divine law cannot be reconciled with justice, or with the perfections of God. According to Dr. C. vanity included in it bondage to bodily appetites, as well as bondage to death. Therefore, as God could not consistently with his perfections, subject mankind to vanity, without an intention of mercy; and as it would be a reflection on the Deity, to suppose, that he has subjected mankind to vanity, without hope of deliverance || therefore on these principles, God could not consistently with his perfections and character, avoid giving mankind a ground of hope of deliverance from sin, or he could not withhold the grace of the gospel: but he was obliged in justice to his own character, to deliver men from both sin and the sufferings of this * Page 109. Page 122. Page 109. Page 122. || Page 103. life, and it may be presumed, that Dr. C. would have consented to add, and from the sufferings of hell too. Where then is the grace of the gospel, and of the gift of Christ? In the gift of Christ, in the institution of the gospel, and in every thing pertaining to it, so far as was necessary to our deliverance from sin and punishment, God has done no more than was necessary to save his own character from reflections and reproach. It may be further remarked, that Dr. C.* argues, that because men are subjected to a state of suffering, not through their own personal disobedience; "it is congruous to reason to think, that they should be subjected to it, not finally." But why does he say, "not finally?" He might with the same strength of argument have said, not at all. The calamities of this life, with temporal death, are inflicted on mankind, either as a punishment, or as sovereign and wise dispensations of Providence. If they be inflicted as a punishment, without any sin, by which the subjects deserve them, they are as real an injury as endless misery would be, if it were inflicted as a punishment, in like manner without any sin, by which it should be deserved. And if God do indeed injure his creatures in a less degree, he is an injurious being and what security have we concerning such a being, that he will not injure them in the highest possible degree?-So that if God be a just being, as it is agreed on all hands, that he is, it is equally "congruous to reason to think," that he would not subject his creatures to a temporary state of suffering, as a punishment, without any sin, by which they deserved it, as that he would not subject them to a state of final suffering. If it be said, that death and the calamities of life are not a punishment of mankind, but mere sovereign, wise dispensations of Providence; this supposition opens a * Page 103. 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 transgression, 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. |