Chapter 11: Dr. C’s Arguments from Colossians 1:19-20, Ephesians 1:10, and 1 Timothy 2:4

The first of those texts is: For it pleased the Father, that in him all fullness should dwell. And having made peace by the blood of the cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself: by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Doctor C.'s sense of this passage is this: It pleased the Father — by Jesus Christ — to change back all things to himself — to change the state of this lower world, of the men and of the things, whether they be on earth, or in the aerial heaven, that encompasses it. It was his opinion, that to reconcile all these things, is to rechange their state, or bring them back to that state they were originally in. With reference to mankind, he says, By Christ their state was changed back, they were absolutely brought back to the condition they would have been in, had it not been for the lapse; what I mean is, that they were absolutely and unconditionally put into salvable circumstances. But what follows from all this; One would think Doctor C. had forgotten himself. Supposing all this were granted, would it follow, that all men will be saved? That because they are in salvable circumstances, therefore their actual salvation will be effected? No, no more than from the original state of Adam, it followed that he would never fall. He was endowed with a power to stand: he was in such circumstances, that he might have continued in his original innocence. Yet he fell. So, though it be granted, that all men are by Christ put into salvable circumstances, yet through their obstinate impenitence and unbelief they may fail of this great salvation. Doubtless Doctor C. believed, that by Christ the state of mankind is so changed, that they are all salvable, or may be saved, immediately after the end of this world. But this notwithstanding, he believed also, that a great part of mankind would die impenitent, and that none of them would be saved within a thousand years of the end of this world, and some of them not till after ages of ages.

But in aid of his argument from this passage, the Doctor brings in again, (Romans 5:10) For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son; much more being reconciled, we shall be saved, by his life. I have formerly remarked on the Doctor's use of this passage; and need not repeat those remarks. It may be observed, however, that the manner of his applying this passage to strengthen his argument from (Colossians 1:20) really implies, that this last text taken by itself, contains no argument at all, and therefore ought never to have been introduced as a proof. Whatever force there is in it, to prove universal salvation, depends entirely, according to Doctor C.'s stating of the matter, on Romans 5:10, which has been considered already. So that if his sense of Colossians 1:20 be true, it does nothing towards proving the salvation of all men.

I do not however mean to suggest, that Doctor C.'s sense is, in my opinion, the true one. It is impossible, that all things should be brought back, in all respects, to their original state. All mankind cannot now live in the garden of Eden. It cannot be again fact, that all the knowledge of God possessed by men, should be such as is derived from either the works of creation and providence, or from immediate intercourse of God and angels with men. Nor can it be ever again true, that God is propitious to men immediately, without a mediator. In these, and perhaps many other respects, mankind cannot be changed back to their original state. But if once the advocates for universal salvation admit of limitations, and say, that all things will however be brought to their original state in many respects, the believers in endless punishment too must be allowed to apply their limitations; and they will allow, that as the original state was a state of order, regularity and due subordination, wherein every person and thing were in their proper places; so in this sense all things will finally be brought back to their original state, and order will be again restored to the universe.

Nor does the verb [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] signify in general to change anything back to its former state. For instance, if two men had been long and habitual enemies to each other; and if having for a while become friends, they should return to their former enmity; I believe no critic in the Greek language would think this return to their enmity, would be properly expressed by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], reconcile. When the Jews were brought home from the Babylonian captivity, they were changed back to their former state. But is this change ever expressed by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], reconcile?

This verb is never used in the New Testament, but to signify a change, whereby those who were at enmity, become friends. This observation is true of all those words of the same derivation, on which Doctor C. criticizes so abundantly from page 128, to 142. It is therefore not applicable to all the things on this earth, and in the aerial heaven, unless it be by the figure prosopopoeia. By that figure indeed every thing animate and inanimate may be said to be alienated from man, in consequence of his sin; and to be reconciled to him in consequence of the blood of the cross, and of the return of man to God through Christ. But if this were the idea of Doctor C. he should have given up his objection to the sense of (Romans 8:19) etc., given by the believers in endless punishment; and at the same time he would have virtually given up his own sense of that passage.

It is strange, that Doctor C. as well as the translators of the Bible, should render the words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in (Colossians 1:20) to himself. In the preceding verse we have [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]; in the 20th verse we have [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], and again, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. Now it seems very odd, that in this multiplied use of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in its various cases, one instance only should be selected from the rest, and rendered himself, meaning the Father, and in all the other instances it should be referred to Christ. No person without prepossession, construing this passage, would render it in that manner. It is altogether unnatural to suppose, but that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] refers to the same person in all these instances, and ought to be rendered accordingly.

It is further to be observed concerning [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], that in all instances in which they occur in the New Testament, in the Septuagint and in the Apocrypha, the person to whom the subject of the proposition is said to be reconciled, is never once expressed in the accusative case governed by the preposition [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]; but is always expressed in the dative case. Hence it may be inferred that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] in Colossians 1:20, does not mean the person to whom all things in heaven and earth are reconciled: but that it means, that all things in heaven and earth are reconciled to each other, into him: that is, so as to be brought into Christ, to be united under him as their head, and be interested in the common advantages and blessings of his glorious kingdom.

To be in Christ is a common phrase of the New Testament to express subjection to Christ, and an interest in the blessings of his kingdom; and to be reconciled into Christ, may mean to become united to him by faith, to become subject to him in obedience, and to be interested in all the blessings of his kingdom.

By sin angels and men, Jews and Gentiles, became alienated from each other; and men in general, by the predominancy of self-love, became virtually enemies to each other. Now it pleased the Father to reconcile by Jesus Christ, angels and men, Jews and Gentiles to each other, and to diffuse by his grace a spirit of benevolence among them, whereby they should love their neighbor as themselves. And as to the universal term all things, we cannot take it in its literal and utmost extent, unless by the figure before mentioned, which Doctor C. cannot admit, without giving up what he most earnestly contends for, in his comment on Romans 8:19, etc. But if we once admit a limitation of that universal term, every one must be allowed to propose his own limitation, and some doubtless will insist, that it extends to angels and to believers only from among men: as it is said, that all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, were baptized by John: all men counted John that he was a prophet: all men came to Christ (John 3:26).

But if we should allow, that all things in heaven and earth include all mankind; still even in this extent it is true, that it pleased the Father to reconcile all things; but in such a sense, as not to imply the salvation of all men. This is true in the same sense, in which God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11); or in the death of him that dies (Chapter 18:32); in the same sense in which God was unwilling to give up Ephraim (Hosea 11:8); and in the same sense in which Christ was unwilling to give up the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and would have gathered them together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; though they would not. The destruction of the sinner is not in itself agreeable to God; as the punishment of a child is not in itself agreeable to a good parent. Yet as a good parent may, to secure the general good of his family, punish a disobedient child; so God, to secure the general good of his kingdom, may punish a rebellious creature. As the good parent who, to prevent that punishment to which his disobedient and apostate child must, going on in his disobedience, be subjected, uses all proper means to reclaim him; may be said to be pleased with the idea of his impunity; so the Deity who uses all proper means to reclaim all mankind, and to reconcile them to one another, may be said to be well pleased with the idea of this reconciliation, or to choose to reconcile all men to one another, and to bring them into Christ. In itself it is the object of his choice and complacency. In this sense it pleased the Father to reconcile all things: it was what pleased him.

On the whole it appears, that if Doctor C.'s sense of this passage be the true one, it affords no proof at all of universal salvation — that his construction of it is far less favorable to that doctrine, than that which seems to be held forth by our translation — that if this last construction be adopted, still it would be no real proof of universal salvation, for two reasons; (1) That the universal term must be limited, and therefore may be so limited as to comprehend angels and believers only of all nations. (2) That even if the universal term be extended to all mankind, still the text is capable of a construction both rational and analogous to other passages of scripture, which yet does by no means imply universal salvation. And the sequel of the apostle's discourse favors this last construction, implying, that it pleased the Father, or was in itself pleasing to the Father, to reconcile all men, on the terms of the gospel, and not absolutely, as Doctor C. supposes. The sequel is, And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now has he reconciled — to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight: if you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel. Will any man pretend, but that this implies, that if they did not continue in the faith, they would not be presented unblamable in the sight of God? But this is far from the doctrine which teaches, that all mankind, whether believers or unbelievers, whether they continue in the faith or not, shall be saved.

Before I quit this part of the Doctor's book, I shall add one remark more. In his comment on this, Colossians 1:20, and on Romans 5:10, he takes great pains to make out a double reconciliation to be taught by the apostle Paul. The one, he says, means that change of state all men are absolutely brought into by the death of Christ; and is opposed to the condemnation through the lapse of the one man Adam. The other is that change of state, which is connected with an actual meetness for, and present interest in, eternal life. But these two reconciliations are really but one; for the definition which the Doctor himself gives of the latter, perfectly agrees with the former. He abundantly holds, that that change of state, into which all men are brought by the death of Christ, is connected with an actual meetness for, and present interest in, eternal life; and his whole scheme implies this: otherwise there is no certainty, that all men will be saved, in consequence of the death of Christ. The Doctor himself, in the very next sentence to that just quoted, allows, that the former reconciliation is connected in the scheme of God, with the latter, and will finally issue in it. Now, if his first kind of reconciliation be connected with that kind, which is connected with actual meetness for, and present interest in, eternal life: then that first kind of reconciliation is itself connected with actual meetness for, and present interest in, eternal life. If Jacob be connected with Isaac, and Isaac be connected with Abraham, then Jacob too is connected with Abraham.

Let us now attend to the Doctor's argument from Ephesians 1:10: That in the dispensation of the fullness of times, he might gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him. On this text the Doctor says, By means of the lapse, and what has been consequent thereupon, all things in heaven and on earth, were got into a broken, disjointed, disorderly state; and the good pleasure of God to reduce them from their present separated, disorderly state, into one duly-subjected and well subordinated whole, may very fitly be signified by the phrase, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to gather together in one all things. And this I take to be the thing intended here. But what is this to the purpose of the salvation of all men? It is granted on all hands, that by the lapse, all things relating to men, got into a broken, disjointed, disorderly state; and that it is the good pleasure of God to reduce them from their present separated, disorderly state into one duly-subjected, well subordinated whole, under Christ as their head; and that this is the thing intended by the apostle in this passage. But if the Doctor supposed, that this implied the repentance and salvation of all men, it was but a mere supposition without proof.

Suppose a rebellion be excited in the kingdom of a most wise and good prince, and this rebellion extend far and wide, so as to throw the whole kingdom into confusion. At length the king's son, at the head of his armies, subdues the rebels, pardons the generality, sentences the leaders, some to the gallows, others to perpetual imprisonment: and thus restores peace, tranquility, good order and government. Is not a well subjected and duly subordinated state of things in that kingdom now restored and established, although those rebels who are confined in prison, still retain their rebellious tempers, and are not in a state of happiness?

Nor does Doctor C. pretend to point out how a well subordinated state of things proves the salvation of all men; unless it be in the following and other passages not more conclusive: If God created all men — by Jesus Christ, we may easily collect hence, how he comes to be their common Father — and if they are his children, how fit, proper and reasonable it is, that they should be fellow heirs to, and joint partakers in, that happy state, which he has proposed shall take place, etc. It seems then that Ephesians 1:10, proves that all men will be saved, not by anything contained in the text itself, but because all men are the creatures of God. The argument is this: All men are the creatures of God, therefore that well subjected and duly subordinated state of things, which is to be effected by Jesus Christ, implies the salvation of all men. It seems then that that well subjected and duly subordinated state of things, does not of itself imply the final salvation of all men, and therefore this text is introduced with no force of argument. Doctor C. might have argued just as forcibly thus, All men are the creatures of God, therefore all men will be saved. But as to this argument it is entirely different from Ephesians 1:10, and has been already considered.

We are, in the last place, to attend to Doctor C.'s argument from 1 Timothy 2:4; Who will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. The questions concerning the meaning of this text, are, as Doctor C. justly observes, two; (1) Who are meant by all men; whether all men individually, or generically. (2) Is there a certain connection between God's willing, that all men should be saved, and their actual salvation.

1. Who are meant by all men, whether all men individually, or generically — Doctor C. gives two reasons, why this expression should be understood of all men individually.

(1) That God's willingness that all men should be saved, is brought in as an argument to enforce the duty of praying for all men, mentioned in the first and second verses. The Doctor takes for granted, that it is our duty to pray for all men individually; and then concludes, that all men individually are those, whom God wills should be saved. But it is by no means true, that we are to pray for all men without exception. The apostle John expressly mentions a sin to death, and for those who commit that sin we are not to pray (1 John 5:16-17). Our blessed Savior not only did not in fact pray for the world, but openly and in the most solemn manner avowed the omission (John 17:9). And the prophet Jeremiah was forbidden by God, to pray for the Jews, for their good (Jeremiah 14:11). So that when the apostle in the first verse of the context now under consideration, exhorts to pray for all men, we must of necessity, as we would not set the Scripture at variance with itself, understand him to mean not all individuals without exception.

Beside, if it were our duty to pray for all individuals, it may not have been the design of the apostle in this passage to inculcate this duty. The Jewish converts to Christianity were full of prejudices against the Gentiles, and above all, against the Gentile kings, and those, under whose authority they were; and who, in their opinion, had no right to exercise authority over their nation. Therefore with the utmost propriety does the apostle give the exhortation contained in the first and second verses of this context, though he meant no more, than that Christians should pray for the Gentiles of every nation, as well as for the Jews, and especially for kings and rulers among the Gentiles.

(2) The other reason given by Doctor C. why all men should be understood of all men individually, is the reason given, why God desires the salvation of all men, namely, that there is one God, and one mediator between God and men. "This," he says, "is a reason, which extends to all men" individually, "without limitation." Very true; and it is a reason, which extends to all men generically too: and therefore is a very good reason, why we should pray for the salvation of men of all nations; nor is there anything in this reason, which proves, that the apostle meant, that all men individually would be saved.

As to Doctor C.'s reasoning in the following passage: God is as truly the God of one man, as of another; and there is therefore the same reason to think, that he should be desirous of the salvation of every man, as of any man; it is by no means allowed to be conclusive. It depends on this postulate, which is a begging of the question: That God cannot give existence and other common benefits to a man, and not save him. I might with the same force argue thus; God is as truly the God of one man, as of another; therefore there is the same reason to think, that he should be desirous of the temporal prosperity of every man, as of some men. It is no more granted, and therefore ought no more to be asserted, without proof, that salvation is connected with this circumstance, that God is a God to every man, in the sense in which it is granted, that he is a God to every man, than that temporal prosperity is connected with that circumstance.

Further, that all men individually are intended, Doctor C. argues from this, that the apostle says, There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. The Doctor says, that the man Jesus mediates between God and men universally. If by the mediation of Jesus, the Doctor meant such a mediation as will certainly issue in the salvation of all men; this again is a mere humble begging of the question. But if he meant a mediation of the following description, that Christ has made atonement sufficient for all men; is now offering the virtue of that atonement to all men; and is using a variety of means to persuade all men to accept and trust in that atonement, and to return to God, seeking his favor and eternal life, for the sake of Christ alone; it follows not at all from such a mediation of Christ, that all individuals will be saved. It no more follows, than from the facts, that God led the Israelites out of Egypt by the hand of a mediator; that he gave them opportunity to enter the land of promise; and that that mediator was the mediator of that whole generation individually; it followed, that that whole generation individually, would certainly enter the land of promise.

Doctor C. says, No good reason can be assigned, why the man, Christ Jesus, should mediate between God and some men only, to the exclusion of others. Can a good reason be assigned, why Christ leads to repentance in this life, some men only, to the exclusion or dereliction of others? When such a reason shall be assigned, doubtless we shall be supplied with a reason, why Christ should effectually and savingly mediate in behalf of some men only.

2. The other question concerning the meaning of this text, which also Doctor C. notices, is, Whether there be a certain connection between God's willing in the sense of this text, that all men should be saved, and their actual salvation. Doctor C. grants that men as free agents have power to oppose those means which God uses with them for their salvation; and yet holds that God has a power to counteract, in a moral way, this opposition of men. Of this and other remarkable things in Doctor C. on the subject of free agency, particular notice will be taken hereafter. In the meantime it may be observed, that it appears from various passages of scripture, that God is frequently said to will things which do not in fact come into existence, or with respect to which his will is not efficacious: as in the following passages: (Matthew 23:37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you; how often would I [illegible] have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; and you would not! (Hosea 11:8) How shall I give you up, Ephraim? How shall I deliver you, Israel? How shall I make you as Admah? how shall I set you as Zeboim? my heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. (Deuteronomy 5:28-29) They have well said all that they have spoken. O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me and keep my commandments always! (Deuteronomy 32:28-29) For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them. O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end! (Psalm 81:13) O that my people had listened to me, and Israel had walked in my ways! (Isaiah 48:18) O that you had listened to my commandments! Then your peace would have been as a river, and your righteousness as the waves of the sea. (Luke 12:47) And that servant who knew his Lord's will, and did not prepare himself, neither did according to his will, etc. (Matthew 21:31) Which of the two did the will of his Father? They say to him, the first.

Now what right had Doctor C. to suppose, that the will of God in 1 Timothy 2:4, is not used in the same sense as in the passages just quoted? And if it be used in the same sense, there is no more absurdity in supposing that the will of God should be resisted in the one case, than in the other: no more absurdity in the supposition, that God should will the salvation of all men, and yet all should not be saved: than that he should will to gather together the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; and yet [reconstructed: that] they should not be thus gathered.

Besides the texts quoted above, I may further refer to Ezekiel 18:32; I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies, says the Lord God. Yet his death did, by the words of this text, take place in fact. So that here is a most plain instance of an event which takes place contrary, in some sense, to the pleasure or will of God. Doctor C.'s reasoning is this; Whatever God wills, will come to pass. God wills the salvation of all men; therefore this will come to pass. To apply this reasoning to the text last quoted, it will stand thus; Whatever God wills, comes to pass. But God wills the continued life of him that dies; therefore it comes to pass, that he who dies, does not die.

The truth is, God wills the salvation of all men, in the same sense that he wills the immediate repentance and sanctification of all men; or as he wills them to be as perfect, in this life, as their heavenly Father is perfect. He now commands all men every where to repent, to believe the gospel and to comply with the necessary conditions of salvation: and complying with those conditions, they shall be saved immediately after the present state. So that God's willing that all men should be saved, no more proves that all men will be saved, than his willing that all men should immediately repent, proves, that all will immediately repent; or than his willing that all men should be perfect in this world, and comply with his law as perfectly as the angels do in heaven, proves that these things will actually take place in this world.

It is presumed, that Doctor C. would not have denied, that it is the will of God in some sense, and that a proper sense too, that all men be brought to repentance in this state, and that they be saved immediately after this state. Yet God does not efficaciously will either of these things. Was it not in a proper sense the will of God, that our first parents should retain their original innocence, and not by their apostasy deluge the world in sin and misery? I presume this will not be denied. It was his will, if it was his command. But if it was the will of God, that Adam should stand and not fall; the will of God in this case was not efficacious. And if it was not efficacious to prevent the entrance of sin into the world, how can we know, that it will be efficacious to extirpate it out of the world, or from among the human race? If God was not in any proper sense willing that sin and misery should enter and predominate in the world; then it seems, that infinite power and wisdom were in this instance baffled. And if these divine perfections have been baffled once, they may be baffled a second time, and notwithstanding all their attempts, sin and misery may continue without end, in some of the human race. If on the other hand, although God commanded and in a proper sense willed, that man should stand: still in another sense he consented, or willed, that he should fall: in the same sense God may consent, that some men shall be the subjects of sin and misery to an endless duration.

Doctor C. readily owns, that men, as free agents, have the power of resisting and opposing those means, which God from his desire of their salvation, may see fit to use with them. "Yet it appears" to him a gross reflection on that being, who is infinitely perfect, to suppose him unable finally to counteract, and in a moral way too, the weakness, [reconstructed: folly] and obstinacy of such poor inferior creatures, as men are. How these two propositions, which in the Doctor's book occur within a page, can be reconciled with each other; how man can have a power to resist all the means which God uses to effect his salvation, and at the same time God can have a power to counteract, in a moral way, this obstinate resistance of man, must certainly be set down among the things hard to be understood in Doctor C.

But perhaps the word finally in the second quotation is emphatical, and Doctor C.'s meaning is, that though the power of resisting in man cannot consistently with free agency be counteracted even by God, at once, or in a short time; yet it may be counteracted in a very long time. This however will not agree with Doctor C.'s own language. He says, The power in men of resisting the means, which God from desire of their salvation sees fit to use with them, ought not to be overruled, nor indeed can be in consistence with moral agency. Now to counteract or overrule in a long time this power of resisting, is as really to overrule it, as to overrule it in a short time. But according to Doctor C. it cannot be overruled in consistency with moral agency. It seems then, that if the damned shall be finally brought to repentance by God counteracting their obstinacy, they are stripped of their moral agency.

Or if it be pleaded, that this counteracting is not an effectual overruling; but such an influence of means and motives, as is consistent with moral agency: still this gives no satisfaction. Is it such a counteracting, as will certainly and "infallibly" be followed by the repentance and salvation of the sinner? This is held by Doctor C. If this be so, what moral power of still resisting has the sinner at the time of his repentance? And if he have at that time no moral power of further resistance, then this power is overruled effectually, and of course, according to Doctor C.'s scheme, the sinner is deprived of his moral agency.

If on the other hand it be said, that the counteracting be not such as will certainly and “infallibly” be followed by the repentance of the sinner; then there is no certainty that the sinner will ever under the most powerful means which God shall use with him, be brought to repentance and be saved. Thus the certainty of universal salvation at once comes to nothing. There is no certainty, no ground of assurance, that all will be saved; and all the truth is, that God will use means with sinners hereafter, as he does in this state, to prepare them for salvation; but as in this state, so in the future, sinners may, or may not, comply with those means.

To Doctor C. it appeared a gross reflection on that being who is infinitely perfect, to suppose him unable finally to counteract, and in a moral way too, the obstinacy of men. But is it no reflection on God, to suppose him not to have been able in a moral way, to prevent the entrance of sin into the world? Is it no reflection on him to suppose, that he is not able in a moral way to counteract the obstinacy of men in this life? Is it no reflection to suppose, that he is not able, by the powerful means used in hell, to counteract it, in a single instance, for the space of a thousand years? How long must God be unable to counteract human obstinacy, before the imputation of such inability becomes a reflection on him? How long may he consistently with his perfections be unable to counteract that obstinacy? And what duration of that inability may be imputed to him, without a reflection on him, and what duration of it cannot be imputed to him without a reflection? If it be no reflection on God, to say, that he is unable to counteract that obstinacy within a thousand years; is it a reflection to say, that he is unable to counteract it in two thousand, in ten thousand, or in a hundred thousand years? If not, why does it become a reflection to say, that he is unable finally to counteract it? — Let any believer in Doctor C.'s scheme answer these questions.

Doctor C.'s reasoning in the following passage, is worthy of notice; If God desires the salvation of all, and Christ died that this desire of God might be complied with, is it credible that a small portion of men only should be saved in event? This reasoning may be retorted thus: If God desires that all men be saved immediately after this life, and Christ died that this desire might be complied with; is it credible, that a small portion of men only should be then saved?

The advocates for universal salvation, one and all, bring in the text now under consideration, Who will have all men to be saved, as a proof of their doctrine. Therefore I wish to ask them, from what they believe all men are, according to these words, to be saved? From an endless punishment? Then they were by a divine constitution exposed to an endless punishment; then an endless punishment is just; then sin deserves an endless punishment; then sin is an infinite evil; which to them is an infinitely horrible doctrine. But let them, if they can, avoid it, once allowing that all men are to be saved from an endless punishment. Or are all men, according to these words, to be saved from a temporary punishment? What temporary punishment? Not that which is to continue for ages of ages: some will suffer that. Not from a longer temporary punishment; because none such is threatened; and sinners are not exposed to a punishment greater than that which is threatened in the divine law. On the whole, according to universalism, these words mean, that all men shall be saved indeed, but shall be saved from — NOTHING.