Chapter 10: Dr. C’s Argument from Romans 8:19–24

The text is, For the earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected the same in hope. Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. The words of chief importance are those of the 21st verse; The creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God: which are supposed by Doctor C. to hold forth the salvation of all men. But the main question here is, what is the meaning of the word creature. Doctor C. supposes it means the human race. Others suppose it means the whole of the creation which was made for the sake of men, and is subjected to their use. Beside the word creature, the following words and expressions, manifestation of the sons of God — "vanity" — "willingly" — bondage of corruption — are all understood differently by Doctor C. and by those who believe in endless punishment. Let us therefore attend to them respectively.

1. The meaning of the word [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], creature or creation, is to be sought. It may not be impertinent to inform the reader who is unacquainted with the original, that the word translated creature in the 19th, 20th and 21st verses, is the very same which in the 22nd verse is translated creation; and doubtless whatever be the meaning of it, it ought to have been translated uniformly throughout this passage. Doctor C. was of opinion that it means all mankind or the rational creation of this world. His reasons for this opinion are, that earnest expectation, groaning, travailing together in pain, are more naturally and obviously applicable to the rational, than the inanimate [and brutal] "creation" — that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], the whole creation, is never used (one disputed text only excepted, Colossians 1:15) to signify more than the whole moral creation, or all mankind — that it would be highly incongruous, to give this style [the whole creation] to the inferior or less valuable part, wholly leaving out the most excellent part, mankind.

1. Earnest expectation, groaning, travailing together in pain, are more naturally applicable to the rational, than the inanimate [and brutal] "creation." If this prove anything, it will prove too much: it will prove, that when in Psalm 114, it is said The sea saw it and fled; Jordan was driven back; the mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs; the meaning is, that men saw it and fled; that men were driven back; that men skipped like rams and like lambs. It will prove, that Jeremiah 47:6, O you sword of the Lord, how long will it be before you be quiet? Put up yourself into your scabbard, rest and be still; means that men should put up themselves into a scabbard, and there rest and be still. It will prove that Hosea 13:14, I will ransom them from the power of the grave: I will redeem them from death. O death, I will be your plagues; O grave, I will be your destruction; means that God will be the plagues and destruction of men: and when once it is established, that death and the grave mean men, as men are to be ransomed from the grave and redeemed from death, it will follow that men are to be ransomed from themselves and redeemed from themselves. But there is no end to the absurdities which will follow from this mode of construing the scriptures.

The truth is, that the figure of speech, whereby inanimate things are represented as living, sensible and rational persons, and are addressed as such, is very common in scripture. Beside the instances already mentioned, I beg leave to refer to the following: Deuteronomy 32:1. Give ear, O you heavens, and I will speak; hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. Psalm 65:12-13. The little hills rejoice on every side. The pastures — the valleys — shout for joy: they also sing. Isaiah 55:12. The mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Habakkuk 2:11. For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it. Psalm 89:12. Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in your name. Psalm 97:1. The Lord reigns, let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of the isles be glad thereof. Isaiah 24:4. The earth mourns and fades away, the world mourns, languishes and fades away. See also Psalm 98:8, Isaiah 16:8, Isaiah 35:1-2, Isaiah 49:13, Leviticus 18:28, etc.

Now rejoicing, shouting for joy, singing, breaking forth into singing, clapping of hands, crying out, answering, mourning, languishing, etc., are certainly in these passages applied to inanimate creatures. But they are applicable to such creatures, not more naturally and obviously, than earnest expectation, groaning and travailing in pain.

Though the Doctor thinks these expressions not properly applicable to any other creatures than mankind; yet he himself applies them to mankind in no other sense, than that in which they are applicable to the brutal creation. The sense in which he supposes all mankind long and wait for the manifestation of the sons of God, is, that they groan under the afflictions of this world, sensible of its imperfections, and consequently desire something better. Now the calamities of the world fall not on the rational part of it only, but on all the animal, sensitive parts, and consequently they, as well as mankind, desire something better. From these calamities and miseries the animal parts of the world will be delivered, at the manifestation of the sons of God.

Further, the inanimate parts of the world, once personified, as they are in innumerable instances throughout the scriptures, may as properly have the particular personal affections, actions and sufferings, of expectation, waiting, groaning, travailing, etc. ascribed to them, as any other personal affections, actions or sufferings.

If any should think it impossible for brutes and inanimate matter to enjoy the liberty of the children of God, and therefore that it is absurd to represent, that they shall be delivered into that liberty: let it be observed, that though this would be absurd, while they are represented to be still brutes and inanimate matter; yet as soon as they are represented to be intelligent beings, the absurdity ceases. There is in this case no more absurdity in representing them, as brought into the glorious liberty of the children of God after the resurrection, than in representing, that they rejoice in the manifestation of the divine perfections and in the prevalence of true religion in this world; as is done in the passages before quoted.

Objection. Though there would be no absurdity in figuratively representing brutes and inanimate creatures, in this world, as rejoicing in the manifestations of divine power, wisdom and goodness, yet there is an absurdity in the representation, that they shall be brought into the liberty of the children of God, after the end of the world; because then they will be annihilated; and to represent that after they shall be annihilated, they still enjoy glorious liberty, is a gross inconsistency. This is the objection in its full strength — let us attend to it.

It is not agreed by all writers, that the liberty of the children of God mentioned in the 21st verse, means that liberty and blessedness which they shall enjoy after the resurrection and general judgment; some are of the opinion, that it means that liberty which they shall enjoy on earth in the latter days, when Christ shall reign on earth for a thousand years. If this be the true sense of the apostle, the objection vanishes at once, as the brutal and inanimate creation will then be in as real existence, as they are now.

Nor is it agreed among writers, that this world will, after the general judgment be annihilated. It is the opinion of many, and of great authority too, that after a purification by fire, it will be restored to a far more glorious state, than that in which it is at present, and will forever be the place of the residence of holy and happy beings. If this be true, the objection again vanishes.

Finally, if it be the real truth, that the brutal and material creation will be annihilated, after the general judgment, yet there is no absurdity in representing, that it shall be brought into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Wherein does the liberty of the children of God consist? Doubtless in a great measure in deliverance from sin, and from the influence of it in themselves and others. So the brutal and material creation, even if it be annihilated, shall be delivered from the power, abuse and abominable perversion of wicked men, to which it had been long subjected, and under which it had long groaned. Therefore this creation introduced as a rational person, may, without impropriety be represented as earnestly wishing for that deliverance. And as the deliverance from sin in themselves and from the effects of sin in others, is at least a great part of the liberty which the children of God shall obtain after the general judgment; so the aforesaid deliverance of the creation may not improperly be called a deliverance into the liberty of the children of God, into a similar liberty, a like freedom from the tyranny, abuses and perversions of wicked men. Or the sense may be a deliverance in, at, or on occasion of, the glorious liberty of the children of God. The preposition us, is capable of this sense, and then the construction of this passage will be, That the creation itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, at the time, or on occasion, of the glorious liberty or deliverance of the children of God.

2. Doctor C. further pleads, That [in non-Latin alphabet], the whole creation, is never used (one disputed text only excepted, Colossians 1:15) to signify more than the whole moral creation, or all mankind. This is a matter of importance, and requires particular attention. The phrase [in non-Latin alphabet] is used four times only in all the New Testament, beside the instance which is now under consideration. The places are, Mark 16:15; Go you into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Colossians 1:15; "The first born of every creature." Verse 23; The gospel which you have heard, which is preached to every creature, which is under heaven. 1 Peter 2:13; Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake.

As to Mark 16:15, it is granted, that in that text every creature means human creature. Though Doctor C. says, that Colossians 1:15, is disputed; yet he pretends not, that every creature here means mankind merely: nor does it appear, that the text is in this respect disputed. It is indeed disputed, whether [in non-Latin alphabet], every creature, or rather, all the creation, refer to the new creation, that is, the church, or to the old creation, which was made at the beginning of the world. It is also disputed, whether Christ be so the first born of all the creation, as to be a creature himself; or whether he be the first born in this sense only, that he is the heir, the head and Lord of all the creation. [in non-Latin alphabet], in our version rendered first-born, is by some rendered first creator or producer, which gives a still different sense to the passage. But it does not appear, that it has ever been contended, that [in non-Latin alphabet] signifies no more than all mankind. For in whatever sense Christ is the first-born of all the creation, he is the first-born not only of the human race, but of all the creation absolutely. If it be said, that Christ is the first-born of all the creation, as he is the first creature which was made; this implies, that he was made not before all men only, but before all creatures. If it be said, that he is the first-born of all the creation, as he was begotten from eternity, and so begotten before all the creation; still he was in this sense begotten not before all men only, but before all creatures. If it be said, that he is the first-born of all the creation, as he is the heir, the head, the Lord of all; still in this sense he is the first-born not of mankind only, but of all creatures. What right then had Doctor C. to suggest, that it is disputed, whether [in non-Latin alphabet] in this text signify more than the whole moral creation of this world, or all mankind?

The next passage, in which [in non-Latin alphabet] occurs, is Colossians 1:23; The gospel, which was preached to every creature under heaven. The Doctor, who was well acquainted with the original, doubtless recollected, or at least, he ought to have examined, and then he would have seen, that in the original it is, [in non-Latin alphabet], in all the creation under heaven, or in all the world. Surely the Doctor did not imagine, that the gospel was preached within every man.

The other passage is 1 Peter 2:13, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of men; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], every human creature. The question is whether these words signify all mankind: and the very proposing of the question, I presume, suggests the answer. Will any man say, that every Christian is required, either by reason or revelation, to submit to every individual of the human race, whether man, woman or child; and whether the Christian be a lord or a tenant, a king or a subject? Besides; allowing that the phrase as it stands, means the human race; the addition of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] shows that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] without [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], would not signify the human race; otherwise why is it added? If the words in our language, every creature, mean always every human creature, it would be needless in any case to insert the adjective human; and the very insertion of it would imply, that the writer or speaker was of the opinion, that the bare words every creature, were not certainly limited to human creatures, but would most obviously be taken in a greater extent. This text therefore is so far from a proof, that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], every creature, is never used in all the New Testament (except in one disputed text) to signify more than all mankind; that it is a clear proof, that it does naturally signify more than all mankind, and to make it signify no more, must be limited by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], human.

After all, the very drift of the apostle shows, that in 1 Peter 2:13, he was so far from meaning all mankind by the expression [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], that he meant either not one of the human race, or at most but very few; that he meant either human laws and constitutions, or human magistrates, the king as supreme, governors who are sent by him, etc.

Now let the reader judge, whether [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] be never used in all the New Testament to signify more or less than all mankind; and whether of the four instances, in which it occurs, beside this of Romans 8, it do not in every one signify either more or less than all mankind; excepting Mark 16:15. And it is equally against Dr. C's argument from Romans 8, whether it be used in other places to signify more, or to signify less than all mankind. If it signify more in other places, it may signify more in Romans 8. If it signify less in other places, it may signify less in Romans 8: and when the apostle says, the earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God, he may mean that only believers and true Christians, or the true church in all ages, as distinguished from the Apostle, and first converts, who had the first fruits of the Spirit, are thus waiting, etc.

It is further to be observed, that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], creature or creation, without [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], is in the whole New Testament used ten times, beside the use of it in Romans 8; in no one of which does it mean mankind. The places in which it is used are all noted in the margin, that the reader may examine them for his own satisfaction.

In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] occurs but three times: (2 Chronicles 14:15), where it is translated cattle; (Ezra 8:21), where it is translated substance; and (Psalm 104:24), where it is translated riches. In the Apocrypha it is used nine times; and not once to signify all mankind and not more or less.

But it is time we attend to Dr. C's other reason for understanding the creature to mean all mankind; or at least to include all mankind, if it mean anything more. The reason is,

3. That it would be highly incongruous, to give this style [the whole creation] to the inferior or less valuable part, wholly leaving out the most excellent part, mankind. But is there more propriety in calling a small part, though it be the most excellent part, the whole creation; than in calling by far the greater part the whole creation, though it be not so excellent? The learned men in any nation, are, in some respects, the most excellent part of the nation. But would it be more proper to call them, to the exclusion of all the unlearned, the whole nation, than to call all the unlearned, to the exclusion of the few learned, the whole nation? The few truly virtuous and holy persons who love God supremely and their neighbor as themselves, and who find the strait gate, are undoubtedly the most excellent part of any nation. But would it be more proper to call them alone the whole nation, than to call the rest alone, the whole nation? Those of the apostolic age, who had the first fruits of the Spirit, were, without doubt the most excellent of that generation. But would it therefore be more proper to call them as distinguished from the rest of men, that whole generation; than to call the rest of men as distinguished from them, that whole generation? Besides; propriety or congruity of language depends wholly on use. If the words creature, creation and whole creation be frequently in scripture used without any reference to mankind; then there is no incongruity in the same use of the same words, in this eighth chapter of Romans: and that this is the use, I appeal to the texts before quoted, which are all the texts in which the words here translated creature, and the whole creation, are to be found in all the scriptures.

2. We are to inquire into the meaning of the expression, "manifestation of the sons of God." These words, The earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God; are thus paraphrased by Dr. C: The creature, the rational creature, mankind in general, waits for the time when it shall be revealed, that they are the sons of God. He here takes it for granted, that the word creature means mankind. Whether this be a supposition justly founded, is now submitted to the reader who has perused what has been offered on this subject.

But even on the supposition that the creature does mean mankind, how strange it is that the waiting of this creature for the manifestation of the sons of God, should mean that this creature is waiting to be itself manifested to be the sons of God! Would it not be strange arguing, to say, that because the Jews waited for the manifestation of the Messiah, therefore they waited to have it manifested, that they were the Messiah! Or that because Simeon waited for the manifestation of the consolation of Israel; therefore he waited to have it made apparent, that he was the consolation of Israel! Yet either of these expressions as naturally imports the sense which I have now given, as the expression, the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God, imports, that the "creature" or race of creatures is waiting to have it revealed that they are the sons of God.

3. The meaning of the word "vanity" next requires our attention. — By this word Doctor C. understands mortality and all other unavoidable unhappiness and imperfection of this present weak, frail, mortal state. Again, "mankind were subjected to vanity or mortality." "God subjected mankind to vanity, that is, the infelicities of this life." According to Doctor C. then, the vanity here spoken of is a natural evil. But it may at least be made a question, whether he is not mistaken, and whether it is not a moral evil. The same word, [in non-Latin alphabet], is used twice more in the New Testament; Ephesians 4:17; that you henceforth walk, not as other gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, and 2 Peter 2:18, For when they speak great swelling words of vanity. In these two, the only instances of its use in the New Testament, beside the text under consideration, it manifestly means not a natural but a moral evil, either positive wickedness or at least a sinful deficiency. Is not this a ground of presumption at least, that also in Romans 8:20, it means a moral evil?

In the same sense [in non-Latin alphabet] the adjective from which [in non-Latin alphabet] is derived, is used James 1:26, This man's religion is vain: and 1 Peter 1:18; you were not redeemed with corruptible things — from your vain conversation. [in non-Latin alphabet] is also used in the same sense, Romans 1:21; Became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Vain and vanity in none of these instances signify "mortality" or "infelicity;" but either positive sin or sinful deficiency.

Besides, the very nature of the case shows, that vanity in this instance was not used by the apostle, in Doctor C.'s sense. According to his sense of vanity, the apostle under the influence of the Holy Ghost, advances this proposition: The human race was made subject to mortality, unavoidable unhappiness and imperfection, not willingly. But who ever supposed that the human race was made subject to these things willingly? Or that any man, or any intelligent being, ever chose to be subject to mortality and unhappiness? This is a proposition too insignificant to be advanced by so sensible and grave a writer as Paul, and under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost too. — The Doctor seems to have been aware of this objection to his construction of vanity, and therefore supposes the word willingly means, not what is naturally understood by it, a voluntary consent of the heart; but that it means, through some fault, "by a criminal choice." Therefore —

4. We are to inquire into the meaning of the word willingly. — Is it not at first blush a little extraordinary, that willingness must certainly mean a fault, a criminal choice? Suppose an historian should say, that Hugh Peters and others who were executed at the restoration of Charles the second, were executed not willingly; must we understand him to mean, that they were not executed in consequence of any fault of their own? The original word [in non-Latin alphabet] is used once more only in all the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 9:17, "If I do this thing" (that is, preach the gospel) willingly, [in non-Latin alphabet], I have a reward: but if against my will, [in non-Latin alphabet], a dispensation of the gospel is committed to me. According to Doctor C.'s construction of willingly in Romans 8, the meaning of the apostle is, If I preach the gospel "through some fault of my own," or "by my own criminal choice," I have a reward; but if I do it without any fault or criminal choice of my own, a dispensation of the gospel is committed to me.

[in non-Latin alphabet] derived from [in non-Latin alphabet], and of the same signification, is in the New Testament used in Philemon 14, only; That your benefit should not be of necessity, but willingly: which I presume even Doctor C. would not expound thus; That your benefit should not be of necessity, but through some fault of your own. The adverb, [in non-Latin alphabet], is used twice in the New Testament, Hebrews 10:26; If we sin willfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth: and 1 Peter 5:2, Taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint but willingly. To the first of these the Doctor in a quotation from Taylor, refers, as an authority, to confirm his sense of willingly in Romans 8. But surely both he and Taylor made this reference with little consideration; for according to them the sense of the verse in Hebrews is this; If after we have received the knowledge of the truth, we sin through our own fault, or "by our own criminal choice." Did Doctor C. or Doctor T. indeed believe, that we ever sin without any fault of our own, or without our own criminal choice? It is plain, that the meaning of Hebrews 10:26, is what is well expressed in the translation; If we sin willfully, not through some inattention, but pertinaciously, after we know the truth, know our duty and the proper motives to it; there remains no more sacrifice for sin.

Thus the construction, which Doctor C. gives of willingly, as meaning, "through our own fault," or by our own criminal choice, appears to be wholly unsupported by any authority; to be a mere invention to help over the difficulty of the supposition, that the inspired apostle should advance so trifling a proposition as this; that mankind do not choose misery: and also appears to be attended with many absurdities.

The error of that construction further appears from this, that if what comes upon us not through our own fault, be properly expressed by saying, that we are subjected to it, not willingly; then what does come upon us through our own fault, may be properly expressed, by saying, it comes upon us willingly. At this rate the inhabitants of the old world were drowned willingly: Sodom and Gomorrah were burnt up willingly: Pharaoh was first plagued, and then destroyed in the Red Sea willingly: Korah, Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up in the earth willingly: Those whom Doctor C supposes to be punished in hell for ages of ages, are punished willingly.

Neither is it true, in Doctor C's sense, that mankind are made subject to vanity, not willingly: that is, not through any fault of theirs; not by their own criminal choice. By vanity he understands "mortality," "and the infelicities of this vain mortal life." Therefore according to him, men are not made subject to mortality, and the infelicities of this life, through any fault of their own. And if so, then death and the various infelicities of life are not any evidence, that the subjects of death and those infelicities are themselves sinners, or the objects of God's displeasure. But this is contrary to the whole current of scriptural representations; particularly to (Psalm 90:3, etc.) You turn man to destruction, and say, Return, you children of men. — You carry them away, as with a flood; they are as a sleep. In the morning they are like grass, which grows up; in the evening it is cut down and withers. For they are consumed by your anger, and by your wrath they are troubled. You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your countenance. For our days are passed away in your wrath: we spend our days as a tale that is told. The days of our years are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they be eighty years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow: for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Who knows the power of your anger, according to your fear, so is your wrath. So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts to wisdom. How plain and full is this testimony, that the general mortality of mankind is an evidence of God's anger for the sin of those, who are the subjects of such a dispensation?

But if mortality and the calamities of life be an evidence of God's anger at the sin of those, who suffer death and those calamities; then it is not true, that men in general are subjected to death and those calamities, without any fault of their own; but the truth is, that they are subjected to them on account of their own sin, as this is the very cause of the divine anger, of which calamity and death are the effects and tokens.

If it should be objected, that to be made subject to vanity, in this passage, does not mean, to be made actually to suffer death and infelicity, or does not include the infliction of death and infelicity; but implies mortality only, or that constitution whereby men are made mortal or liable to death and infelicity: this objection grants, that death and infelicity are actually inflicted on men on account of their own fault or sin; but holds, that the sentence of mortality and liableness to infelicity took place in consequence of Adam's sin only. So that according to this, the sense of the apostle will be, that the human race was put under a sentence of mortality, without any fault of their own; yet this sentence was never to be executed, but on account of their own fault. And the consideration that mankind are put under the sentence of mortality, without any fault of their own, is a ground of hope, that they will be delivered from that sentence of mortality. But as the actual infliction of death is on account of their own fault, there is no such ground of hope, that they will be delivered from death and infelicity themselves. — A mighty privilege this (were it possible) to be delivered from the sentence of death, and from mortality, but not from death itself! To be delivered from liableness to infelicity, but not from infelicity itself!

I am not insensible of the absurdity and impossibility of such a supposition. But who is answerable for this absurdity? Doubtless the objector himself, who is of the opinion, that to be made subject to vanity, is to be under the sentence of death, and to be made liable to infelicity, but not to suffer death or infelicity.

The idea, that to be made subject to vanity, [illegible], means not the state of subjection to vanity, but the act by which the creature was subjected: and that [illegible] means, as Doctor C. says, by or through him, who subjected it; implies this further absurdity, that the act, by which the creature was made subject to vanity, was by him who subjected it; or that act was really the act of him whose act it was; that he who subjected the creature to vanity, really did subject it to vanity. — But who will dare to impute such identical propositions to the inspired apostle?

5. We at length come to consider Doctor C's sense of the phrase bondage of corruption. — This according to him is synonymous with vanity: therefore the same observations for substance, which were made concerning his sense of vanity, are applicable to his sense of the bondage of corruption. But a few things in particular are worthy of remark. Doctor C. says, that in consequence of the subjection of man to a frail, mortal, corruptible condition — he is upon the foot of mere law, and without the supposition of grace or gospel, in bondage to bodily or animal appetites and inclinations. It seems then, that since all Christianized nations are under not mere law, but grace and gospel, they are not in bondage to bodily or animal appetites and inclinations, and doubtless for the same reason, are not in bondage to any principle of depravity. But is this indeed so, that men under mere law are so depraved, as to be in bondage to animal appetites; but as soon as they are placed under the gospel, in the mere external dispensation of it, they are no longer the subjects of any depravity? It seems then, that the natural depravity of men depends on their mere external circumstances; that while they are without the gospel their hearts are in bondage to animal appetites: but as soon as they are placed under the gospel, however they disregard it, they are free from that bondage. But all those nations, to whom Christianity is published, are under the gospel; therefore they are already free from bondage to animal appetites; and it is absurd for them to hope, that they shall be delivered from this part of the bondage of corruption.

Besides, Dr. C. says, that both these senses of bondage (that is, bondage to death and bondage to animal appetites) are certainly included in that vanity the creature is subjected to. Then by the creature Dr. C. must mean, not the whole moral creation, or all mankind including those nations and individuals to whom the gospel is made known: because they are not under mere law, and therefore according to him are not subjected to that part of vanity which consists in bondage to animal appetites. Yet he abundantly holds, that all men are subjected to vanity, which certainly includes, according to him, bondage to animal appetites.

According to Dr. C. vanity includes bondage to bodily or animal appetites. Yet mankind are subjected to vanity not through any fault or crime of their own. But is it not a fault or crime in any man, to be governed by his bodily appetites, or to be in bondage to them? With what truth or consistency then could he hold, that men are subjected to vanity not through any fault or crime of their own, and that therefore their subjection to vanity is a ground of hope of deliverance from it; when the very state of subjection to vanity is a very great fault or crime? Can a fault or crime be a ground of hope of impunity, or of the divine favour?

But perhaps it may be pleaded, that though the state of subjection, or the being subject to vanity, implies a fault; yet the act of subjecting, or the act by which mankind were subjected, to vanity, is not through, or on account of any previous fault of mankind in general; and this is the ground of hope that they shall be delivered. If this be the meaning of Dr. C. it comes to this. That because mankind are, in consequence of Adam's sin, not their own personal sin, subjected by God to frailty, mortality, bodily appetites and sin; therefore they do not deserve to be left without hope of deliverance: the divine perfections do not admit of it: it would not be just: at least it would be a hard case. Otherwise where is the ground of hope of deliverance? No promise is pleaded as the ground of this hope. The only pretended ground of hope in this argument is, that mankind were subjected to vanity, not through any fault of their own: as in the following passage; For if mankind were subjected to a state of suffering, not through any willful disobedience which they themselves had been personally guilty of, it is congruous to reason to think, that they should be subjected to it not finally — but with room for hope that they should be delivered from it: and was it not for this hope, it cannot be supposed — it would be a reflection on the — benevolence of the Deity to suppose, that they would have been subjected to it. But if this subjection to vanity by God be perfectly just, what right have we to expect, that God will deliver all men from the consequences of it? Have we a right, without a divine promise to expect, [illegible] God will suffer none of the sinful race of men, to bear the consequences of a just and wise constitution? And would it be a reflection on the Deity, not to expect this?

So that this whole argument of Dr. C. implies that God in subjecting mankind, on account of Adam's sin, "to a state of suffering," made an unjust constitution. Yet Dr. C. himself abundantly holds, that this is a real constitution of God.

At the same time, it is implied in all this, that if mankind had been thus subjected to vanity, in consequence of their own personal sin; they might justly have been left without hope. Thus it is really granted by Dr. C. after all his labor to prove the contrary, that the personal sins of men, deserve a hopeless state of suffering. And the whole question in the present view of it, comes to this, Whether the personal actual sins of mankind, under the present divine constitution, be real sins, and deserve the punishment justly due to sin: or whether these sins be not excusable, because they are the established consequence of Adam's transgression, and not the consequence of their own voluntary act. Or in other words, whether the moral evil of any action consist in the nature of the action itself, or in its cause or antecedents. Of this question I should be very willing to enter into the discussion, were it necessary: but as it has been so particularly considered by another author, I beg leave to refer to him. I beg the reader's patience however, while I make only one or two brief observations.

If the present actions of mankind be excusable, because they are the consequence of Adam's transgression and not of their own previous sinful actions or volitions, in the first instance; it will follow that there is no sin or moral evil in the world, nor ever has been. All the present actions of men, if they be excusable, are no moral evil. The same is true of all the actions of men ever since the fall of Adam. And even Adam's transgression itself is no moral evil; for this did not take place in consequence of any previous criminal choice or action; because by supposition, that transgression was the first sin committed by man. Whatever transgression he first committed, is the very transgression of which we are speaking: and it is absurd to talk of a sin previous to the first sin.

Concerning Dr. C's idea, that mankind are subjected to mortality, infirmity, and the influence of bodily appetites, on account of Adam's sin only, without any regard to their personal sins; and that this subjection was the cause and occasion of all the actual transgressions and temporal calamities of the posterity of Adam; it may be observed;

1. That for reasons already given, it appears not to be true, that mortality and the calamities of life are brought on men on account of Adam's sin merely, without regard to the personal demerit of those who suffer them.

2. That the human race was indeed, in the sentence of God on Adam, subjected to infirmity and mortality: but it was no more subjected to these, than it was to depravity and sin. At least to assert the contrary would be to beg an important point in dispute: and to be sure, Dr. C. could not with any consistency assert the contrary. He holds throughout this, and all his other works, that the human race is subjected to infirmity on account of Adam's sin, and the Doctor's idea of this infirmity amounts to a proper moral depravity of nature. All that is meant, or that needs to be meant, by the moral depravity natural to mankind, in this fallen state, so far as that depravity is distinct from actual sin, is something in our nature, which universally leads to actual sin. Whether this something exist primarily in the body and bodily appetites, or primarily in the soul, is perfectly immaterial, so long as it is an unfailing source of actual sin, as Dr. C. manifestly considers it. In his Five Dissertations he is very explicit and abundant in this matter. His words are, In consequence of the operation of appetites and inclinations seated in our mortal bodies, we certainly shall, without the interposition of grace — do that — the doing of which will denominate us the captives of sin and the servants of corruption. "He" [the apostle] ascribes it to the flesh, by means of the overbearing influence of its propensities in this our present mortal state, that — we do that which our minds disapprove; and in many other passages to the same effect. So that Dr. C. really, though it seems undesignedly, held, that moral depravity of nature comes upon all mankind, on account of Adam's sin: and his favorite construction of Romans 5:12; And so death passed upon all men, for that (or as he will have it, whereupon, in consequence of which) "all have sinned;" comes to this only; that on account of Adam's sin, a divine sentence was denounced on the whole human race, dooming it to a state of moral depravity; in consequence of which moral depravity all men commit actual sin. What then has the Doctor gained by the construction of this passage, which he has labored so hardly in this and his other works to establish; and in which he claims to be an original; and which perhaps is the only particular in his whole book, with respect to which he has a right to set up this claim? It is also curious to see a gentleman of Dr. C.'s abilities, both opposing and defending with all his might, the native moral depravity of human nature!

Reasons have been already given, why willingly ought to be understood not to mean through the fault of a person; but in its original proper sense, with the consent of a person. If those reasons be sufficient, there is a further difficulty in Dr. C.'s construction of this passage, especially of the 20th verse. According to his construction of [in non-Latin alphabet], creature, the apostle declares, that mankind are subject to their bodily appetites, and so to sin, not willingly, not with their own consent. But is it possible, that men should be subject to bodily appetites, and should commit actual, personal sin, without their own consent? If, to evade this observation, it be said, that they are however by the act of God, without any previous consent of their own, subjected to frailty, mortality, bodily appetites, and so to sin; this would be mere trifling. Who ever imagined, that God first waited for the consent of mankind, and having obtained their consent, 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 Romans 8, 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 then 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 hope is realized. 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 has 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 expressly 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 I suppose to be the true one, has been sufficiently expressed. Yet it may be proper here briefly to repeat it. The earnest expectation of the creation waits 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, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 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 groans and travails 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.

Besides the observations on particular parts of Dr. C's construction of Romans 8, some more general remarks occur. One is, that his construction implies, that the 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 speaks 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 show 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 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 everything 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 door for endless misery. For how do we know, that the same sovereign wisdom, which is now supposed to inflict temporal evils on mankind, may not also see fit to inflict on them endless evils?

According to Doctor 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? Whichever 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 Doctor C. is so zealous an advocate? And here how justly may many passages in Doctor 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 connection, 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 villainies 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?

Besides, 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 punishment in the subjection to vanity, or in any of its consequences; nor any foundation, with a view to the private interest of any man, to regret any of the evils of this life, or of that which is to come.

It does not however appear to be fact, that every individual is in this life rendered more happy, by the evils which he suffers here: and to say that he will be rendered by them more happy on the whole hereafter, neither appears to be fact, nor to be capable of proof. How will any man prove, that the Sodomites will on the whole be more happy, than Enoch and Elijah, who never tasted death?

If all men be subjected to vanity, to promote not their personal good, but the good of the system, and the good of individuals be given up to this end; why may we not in the same way account for endless punishment? — If it be not consistent with the divine perfections to subject men to suffering, unless it issue in their personal good; then it is not consistent with the divine perfections to punish at all, either in this world, or the future.