Section 1: Fundamental Principles Pointed Out

Before we enter into the consideration of the particular arguments of Doctor Chauncy, it may be proper to give some account of the fundamental principles of his system.

Besides 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: that is, if men continue the servants of sin, the wages they 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, in proportion to their deserts. 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. 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 crimes. 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 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 them. This kind of sinners being absolutely excluded from the privilege of forgiveness, must, as has been said, suffer the torments of another world, before they can be saved.

In these passages concerning the blasphemers of the HOLY GHOST, the author plainly supposes, that not only those of that character, but all who suffer the torments of hell are finally saved without forgiveness, having satisfied by their own sufferings the utmost demands of strict justice. He who is delivered from further punishment in consequence of having suffered a punishment however great in degree and long in duration, but not equal to that, to which he is liable by strict justice, is the subject of forgiveness. Just so much punishment is forgiven him, as is lacking to make the punishment, which he has 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: but in consequence of that punishment, which is according to strict justice, and therefore they are delivered without forgiveness. He says, "The pardonableness 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 pardon consists in an actual escape from those torments. Of course they who do not escape them, but pass through them, receive no pardon.

Again: the only observation made by Doctor 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 prevent 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 favor; 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 quotations 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; they 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 favor, that it is an act called for by the most rigorous justice.

By these quotations, and by the observations on them, it appears, that our author holds, that the damned suffer 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;" that is, because it will last, till it shall have accomplished 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 supposed, 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 "in the full execution of the threatened penalty." A punishment greater than that which answers those descriptions, would be so far from satisfying justice, that it would be positively unjust: it would be so far from supporting the authority of the divine law, that it would bring it into contempt by violating it. If that positive torment, which in degree and continuance 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 Doctor 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 Doctor C. in his idea of a vindictive punishment, and whether he do not hold such punishment in the utmost extent, I appeal to every candid reader, who shall have perused the forecited quotations, or the pages from which they are taken.

Yet Doctor 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 reformation of the patients, and not to satisfy the justice of God. This appears from the quotation just now made from page 11; 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. "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. 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 — for "their benefit;" as a discipline by which is to be effected the personal good of wicked men. 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.

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. What 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 — That on that supposition, we shall 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 11, before quoted, he absolutely rejects all punishment which is not disciplinary.

But how these two fundamental parts of Doctor C's system can be consistent with each other, is difficult to be 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," etc.? If so, then that punishment which is according to strict justice and satisfies the justice of GOD, 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 distinction between vindictive and disciplinary punishment entirely vanishes. But 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 inflicted; I beg leave to refer him to the next chapter, in which the subject is considered at large.

In the meantime, it may be proper to observe, that Doctor C. could not consistently adopt the sentiment just mentioned; because he in page eleventh 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 the latter is inconsistent with the salvation of all men. His words are, 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 — 'tis impossible all men should be finally saved. On this notable passage, I observe, 1. That Doctor C. here, as every where else through his book, distinguishes between a vindictive and disciplinary 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 Doctor C. a punishment conducive to the sinner's good, is all that can in strict justice 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 with 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 Doctor 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 mercy, compassion, grace or favor of GOD, through CHRIST. He allows, that the Apostle's Doctrine of justification stands upon the foot of grace through CHRIST, and that mankind have universally sinned and consequently cannot be justified upon any claim founded on mere law. The gift by CHRIST takes rise from the many offenses, which mankind commit in their own persons, and finally terminates in opposition 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 to damage through the lapse of Adam; so they shall as universally be delivered from it, through the gift by CHRIST. The gift on CHRIST's part — ought to be taken in its abounding sense. The plain truth is, final everlasting salvation is absolutely the free gift of GOD to all men, through JESUS CHRIST — he has absolutely and unconditionally determined, of his rich mercy, 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 pity, 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 as "the scripture scheme of mercy," and of the vilest of the human race as "the objects of mercy." He quotes with approbation, from Mr. Whiston, That there may be in the utmost bowels of the divine compassion, another time of trial allotted to the damned, in which many or all of them may be saved, by the infinite indulgence and love of their CREATOR.

Our author abundantly declares also, that this rich mercy, this free gift, this tender compassion and grace, this infinite indulgence and love of their 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 to death, is the ground or reason, upon which it has pleased GOD to make happiness attainable by any of the human race. It was with a view to the obedience and death of CHRIST, upon this account, upon this ground, for this reason, that GOD was pleased to make the gospel promise of a glorious immortality to the sons of men. 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 Doctor 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 penalty 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? 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 of 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 cropped and branded, and on whom the law has taken 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 most 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? Doctor 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? In fact, what justice would there be in refusing deliverance to a man, unless it be purchased for him by another, when he has fully purchased it for himself? What if the person before described to have suffered some corporal 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 sufferings; 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 has that other person afforded me any 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 has benefited 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 through Christ or on his account.

On the whole, Doctor 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 Doctor C. fall into these inconsistencies, by mere inattention; he was driven to them by dire necessity, provided it was necessary for him, to adopt his favorite doctrine of the salvation of all men. Every one of the aforementioned 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 their 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 no body 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 Doctor 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.

Besides; 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 whichever 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 favor of universal salvation, and against 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 eyesore 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, Doctor 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 showed no mercy, etc., etc.

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 held 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 favor through Christ. If he had not held 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 Doctor 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 favor 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 Doctor C. was compelled by necessity to associate in his scheme, principles which will wage eternal war with each other.