Chapter 12: Doctor C’s Arguments from Psalms 8:5-6, Hebrews 2:6-9, Philippians 2:9-11, 1 Corinthians 15:24-29, and Revelation 5:13

His argument from (Psalm 8:5-6) and (Hebrews 2:6-9) is built on those words, "You have put all things under his feet." He was of the opinion that those words mean, by the universality of the terms, that even sin itself shall be subjected to Christ; and that sin cannot be subjected to Christ in any other way than by the destruction of it. But this is to suppose what is by no means granted, and ought not to have been asserted without proof. An enemy may be overpowered, taken, imprisoned, and put entirely under the power, or under the feet of the conqueror; and yet not be put to death or annihilated. When it is said Christ's enemies shall be made his footstool (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 10:13), no one will pretend that this means either a cordial submission to Christ, or annihilation. When the captains of Israel put their feet on the necks of the Canaanite kings (Joshua 10:24), as this was no token of cordial submission or reconciliation, so it is certain that those kings were not then annihilated. The same idea is naturally suggested by that expression, "Put under his feet." Not any of these phrases is allowed to be used in Scripture, to express either a cordial submission, or annihilation. Sin is such an enemy as never can in its nature be reduced to a cordial submission to Christ. Nor needs it to be annihilated, to answer the expression of being put under the feet of Christ; nor indeed does that expression naturally suggest the idea of annihilation, but naturally, if not necessarily, implies the contrary. An enemy may be under the feet of his conqueror before he is annihilated, but after he is annihilated, he is neither under his feet, nor in any other place. To be under the feet therefore implies existence: and sin may properly be said to be put under the feet of Christ, when it is so restrained and exemplarily punished, that on the whole no dishonor is done by it to Christ, or to the Deity; no evil results from it to the universe, or to any of Christ's real followers: but on the other hand it is made, contrary to its own tendency, the instrument of promoting the glory of God and of the Savior, and of increasing the happiness of his universal kingdom, and of all his true subjects.

Dr. C. makes a distinction between God's government of power and his moral government: by which it is supposed that he meant to show that sin cannot be brought into subjection to Christ, but by the willing submission of the sinner. Men by sinning oppose the government of God; not his government of power; for this ever was, and ever will, and ever must be, submitted to; but his moral government which he exercises over intelligent and free agents. Here is room for opposition. Men may resist that will of God, which requires their obedience, etc. It may be presumed that the passage now quoted was entirely out of the Doctor's mind, when he wrote the following: It is readily acknowledged, the glory of Christ's power, as head of the government of God, will be illustriously displayed, if by force only he finally subdues obstinate sinners. By this it appears that it was Dr. C.'s opinion that men do oppose the power of Christ, and the power of Christ as the head of the government of God too; and that his power may be illustriously displayed, if it be employed to subdue by force their obstinate opposition. But to say that power and force are employed to subdue obstinate opposition, and yet that this opposition is no opposition to that power and force, is as absurd as to say that a prince exerts his power and force to subdue the opposition of an army of rebels, and yet that those rebels do not at all oppose his power; or it is as absurd as to say that opposition can be subdued where there is no opposition.

It is by no means clear what Dr. C. meant by God's government of power, as opposed to his moral government. Can there be any government without power? It is plain by the last quotation that Dr. C. did not imagine that God's moral government is without either power or force, and that both power and force may be employed to subdue sinners, who as sinners are subjects of God's moral government only. But let the Doctor have meant by this distinction what he will, it is by no means true that sinners are always so far restrained and subjected by God's moral government, that in the present state of things, and if all things were to remain as they now are, no dishonor would be done to God, no injury to his kingdom, to his chosen people, or to the intellectual system. There is room therefore for sin and sinners, in this sense, to be subjected and restrained by the government of God. When the wrath of men shall praise God, and the remainder of wrath shall be restrained, then will sinners be brought to that subjection to Christ, of which I am speaking. But Dr. C. would not pretend that in this sense, sinners ever have been, ever will be, and ever must be subject to God. In one word, to be subjected to Christ is to be made either actively or passively subservient to his purposes and to his glory.

When the enemies of a prince are overcome, and in chains and prisons are restrained from interrupting the peace and happiness of his faithful subjects; then they are put under his feet and are subjected to him, and all their "rule, authority and power, are put down or abolished." So when all the enemies of Christ, all "obstinate sinners" shall be, to use Dr. C.'s own words, by force finally subdued, shut up in prison, bound with chains, and prevented from doing the least mischief to the disciples and kingdom of Christ; then those enemies will be put under the feet of Christ; then an end will be put to the dominion of sin; then the works of the devil will be destroyed; then the serpent's head will be bruised, and the devil's kingdom will be overthrown, as really and effectually, as the power of a rebel can be overthrown by an entire conquest of him and his adherents, by his perpetual imprisonment and other proper punishment according to the laws of the kingdom, though he and some of his partisans be permitted to live, and though they retain a rebellious spirit. The verb [in non-Latin alphabet] in (Romans 8:20) signifies, as Dr. C. holds, an involuntary subjection. It may therefore mean the same in (Hebrews 2:8) and (1 Corinthians 15:27), etc.

Doctor C. insists on the words in 1 John 3:8, "For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." By the works of the devil, he understands all sin: by destroying he understands an entire abolition. On the other hand, by destroying the works of the devil, some understand a perfect defeat of every attempt in opposition to the peace, happiness and glory of God's kingdom: The devil will be most effectually subdued, his works will be destroyed and his head bruised in the highest sense and degree, when he shall be perfectly defeated and disappointed in all his designs, and every thing he has attempted against Christ and his interest, shall be turned against himself, to answer those ends which he constantly sought to defeat by all his attempts; and Christ shall be more honored, and his kingdom more happy and glorious forever, than it could have been, if Satan had never opposed him, or seduced and destroyed any of mankind. As the text now under consideration is capable of the sense just given; until it shall be proved, that the Doctor's is the true sense, it proves nothing to his purpose.

Doctor C. grants, that by destruction the scriptures mean the misery and punishment of sinners. Therefore sinners are in the sense and language of scripture destroyed, when they are sent to the place of restraint, imprisonment and misery prepared for them. And as sinners will be destroyed without annihilation, so may sin and the works of the devil.

That God has always power to subdue or to subject to himself his enemies, is one thing: actually to subject them, by restraining them from doing any damage to his kingdom or his subjects, is another. In the present state, the enemies of Christ tempt his subjects, obstruct his cause, and do many things, which if they were to remain as they now are, would be an everlasting dishonor to Christ. But they shall be made his footstool, they shall no more do any of those things.

When Christ puts his enemies under his feet, he treads them down in his anger and tramples them in his fury, agreeably to (Isaiah 63:3). But this surely is not to bring them to a cordial reconciliation.

Therefore, as (Psalm 8:5-6; Hebrews 2:6-9) are fairly capable of a construction entirely different from that on which Doctor C's whole argument from them depends; they prove nothing to his purpose: especially as they are not naturally capable of his construction.

We are now to attend to (Philippians 2:9-11): "Therefore God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." The question concerning this text is the same as that concerning the text last under consideration; What are we to understand by that subjection, to which Christ in consequence of his exaltation, was to reduce mankind? Is it a free and voluntary subjection in all men? Or in some men a subjection to which they shall be reduced by the power and authority of Christ, in opposition to their own inclinations? Doctor C. asserts that the former is the most plain and natural sense, and that the latter is evidently too low and restrained an interpretation. But positive assertions prove nothing.

As to the Doctor's reasons to prove that the subjection in question is a free and voluntary one, they are as follows; That Christ is now endeavoring to reduce mankind to a voluntary subjection to himself — That though Christ does not in this state, prevail on all men voluntarily to subject themselves to him, yet he may prevail on them in the next state — That if Christ was exalted for this end, that every knee should bow to him, etc. he will fail of his end unless all men be reduced to a voluntary subjection — That the genuflection in (Philippians 2:10) evidently means a voluntary act — That a compelled subjection is a poor, low kind of subjection in comparison with that which is voluntary; therefore the reward of Christ's humiliation, unless it imply a universal voluntary subjection of mankind, is low and small in comparison with what it would have been, had it implied a voluntary subjection.

1. Christ is now endeavoring to bring all men to a voluntary subjection to himself; and these endeavors will sooner or later be successful: therefore (Philippians 2:9, etc.) means a voluntary subjection. Answer: Christ is now in no other sense endeavoring to bring all to a voluntary subjection, than in the days of his incarnation he endeavored to gather the inhabitants of Jerusalem together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings: or [reconstructed: than he] always has endeavored to prevent the death of him that dies. But as those endeavors have not been efficacious; so his endeavors to bring all men to a voluntary subjection, may not be. Therefore this argument proves nothing.

2. Though Christ does not in this state prevail on all men voluntarily to subject themselves to him; yet he may prevail on them in the next state: therefore in the next state all will in fact be brought to a voluntary subjection: therefore (Philippians 2:9, etc.) means voluntary subjection. Answer: It does not follow from the power of Christ to reduce all men to a voluntary subjection, that he will in fact, reduce them to that subjection.

3. If Christ were exalted for this end, that every knee should bow to him, etc. he will fail of the end of his exaltation, unless all be reduced to a voluntary subjection. Answer: The consequence by no means follows from the antecedent. For though it be allowed that Christ was exalted for the end, that every knee should bow to him; yet it is not allowed that this bowing of the knee is a voluntary subjection. So that Christ may obtain the whole end of his exaltation, without effecting a voluntary subjection of all men. This argument takes for granted, that the bowing of the knee mentioned in (Philippians 2:10) is a voluntary submission.

4. The genuflection in (Philippians 2:10) evidently means a voluntary act. Answer: It does not evidently mean a voluntary act. A mere contradiction is a sufficient answer to a mere assertion.

5. A compelled subjection is a poor, low kind of subjection in comparison with that which is voluntary. Therefore the reward of Christ's humiliation, unless it imply a voluntary subjection of all mankind, is low and small in comparison with what it would have been, had it implied a voluntary subjection. Therefore it does imply a voluntary subjection; therefore a voluntary subjection is intended in (Philippians 2:10).

Answer: We are very improper persons to determine a priori what is the proper reward of Christ, or what reward is the greatest, and most honorable to Christ. Some may imagine it would be most honorable to Christ, to reduce all men to a voluntary submission in this life; as in that case they would be saved from all future punishment; and thus might the grace, power and wisdom of Christ in their opinion be more glorified. Hence they might argue just as forcibly as Dr. C. does in the other case, that undoubtedly Christ will in this life reduce all men to a voluntary subjection to himself. On the same principle it might also have been proved, before the fact showed the contrary, that all men would be reduced to a voluntary subjection to Christ, in a very short time, long before the time of their ordinary departure out of life. On the same principle too it might have been proved, that God would never permit sin and misery to enter the world. Thus it appears, that Dr. C.'s argument, if it prove anything, proves too much, therefore proves nothing.

The Doctor was not insensible, that the same words are quoted by the Apostle Paul, and applied to the general judgment; at which time Dr. C. does not pretend, that all men will be voluntarily subject to Christ. See Romans 14:10-12: For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, as I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore we have clear evidence, that these words do sometimes mean that subjection which is not voluntary. And that in Philippians 2:10, they mean a voluntary subjection and that only, we must have good evidence, before we are obliged to believe it. The utmost evidence which Dr. C. gives us, respecting that matter, I have exhibited above; and concerning the sufficiency of it, the reader will judge.

Doctor C. acknowledges, that the words are pertinently applied by the Apostle, to that subjection which shall take place as to all, at the general judgment: but says that his thus applying them is no argument that they mean nothing more. To which it may be answered, that it is an argument that they mean nothing more in Philippians 2:10, unless good reason can be given to show, that in this passage they do mean more: and whether the reasons which Dr. C. gives, be good and satisfactory, is submitted as before.

We come at length to the consideration of that passage of scripture, which Dr. C. considers as decisive of itself, were there no other text in the Bible of the like import. It is 1 Corinthians 15:24-29: Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he has put all things under his feet. But when he says all things are put under him, it is manifest, that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued to him, then shall the son also himself be subject to him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

The Doctor prefaces his criticism on this text, with some observations on the previous context, which demand our first attention. He quotes the 21st and 22nd verses: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive: and adds, It is with me beyond all controversy evident, that the apostle is speaking here, not of a partial, but universal resurrection, not of the resurrection of the righteous only, but of the whole race of Adam. The same all who suffer death through Adam, shall through Christ be made alive. The comparison between the damage by Adam and the advantage by Christ, lies in this very thing. Here we have the Doctor's opinion, and his reason for it. His opinion is, that in the 22nd verse the apostle is speaking of all mankind: his reason for this opinion is, that otherwise there would be no proper comparison of Adam and Christ. But the truth of this observation is by no means conceded. The reader may have seen my ideas of this case in the remarks made above, on Romans 5:12, etc. If an army under one general be all killed or taken, and afterwards the surviving part of the same army, now liberated, and under the command of another general, return every one in safety from a dangerous battle; it may be justly said, As under the former general all the army was killed or taken, so under the latter general all the army returned from the battle in safety. There would in this case be a true and proper comparison. Yet the very same all would not be intended in both parts of the comparison. Dr. C.'s reason therefore is not sufficient to support his construction. There is a proper comparison of Adam and Christ, if the apostle say, and intended to say, As in Adam all his seed die, even so in Christ all his seed shall be made alive.

It is indeed a truth granted on all hands, that all mankind will be raised at the last day; but it does not hence follow, that the apostle in this verse is speaking of such a universal resurrection.

Besides, if it should be granted, that the twenty-second verse refers to the resurrection of all men, it would not follow, that all will be saved. For Doctor C. grants, that had the apostle no where else opened his mind more fully and particularly upon this matter, the utmost we could have argued from his words, would have been, that as all men die in Adam, so in Christ they should all be delivered from this death, by a resurrection to life. How then does this text prove universal salvation? And especially how is this verse, or even the whole passage of itself decisive? Although Doctor C. in page 197, declares his opinion, that this passage is decisive of itself, was there no other text in all the Bible of the like import; yet he himself in page 207, gives it up as decisive, in the following words: This parenthesis, comprehended within the twenty-fourth and twenty-ninth verses, was purposely interposed to bring us to a pause — and give us opportunity — to reflect upon — the truths — here revealed; pursuing them in their just tendency, necessary connection and final result: In the doing of which, we should virtually continue the discourse, and finish it with respect to the wicked, as the apostle had done — with respect to the righteous. Thus it appears by the authority of Doctor C. that this portion of scripture does not contain any thing plain, or positive concerning the salvation of those who die in wickedness; but to investigate that which to him was so important and favorite a doctrine, we must virtually continue and finish the discourse ourselves. How then is this passage decisive of itself? Unless we virtually continue and finish the discourse ourselves with respect to the wicked, as the apostle had done with respect to the righteous, we shall never, even in Doctor C.'s opinion come to the same conclusion concerning the wicked, to which the apostle came concerning the righteous, that they shall be saved.

The chief thing, which Doctor C. endeavors by this passage to prove, with a final view to the establishment of universal salvation, is, that the mediatory scheme will not be finished at the second coming of Christ; but a great deal will then remain to be done before the plan of God, for the accomplishment of which the mediatory kingdom is entrusted to the son, shall be completed. By the "finishing," "the completing," etc., of "the mediatory scheme," the mediatorial kingdom, etc., Doctor C. must have meant the finishing of the work of salvation, or of delivering sinners from sin and misery: otherwise he meant nothing to the purpose of proving the salvation of all men. What if the mediatorial kingdom be not finished at Christ's second coming? Yet if after that period, Christ will never more deliver any of mankind from sin and from wrath; those who shall at that time remain in sin, and under the wrath of God, will never be saved.

That in the sense now explained, the mediatorial scheme will not be finished at the second coming of Christ, is indeed a point in dispute, and the Doctor's proofs of this point are to be candidly weighed. They are these two — (1) This passage of scripture teaches, that a universal subjection to Christ is to be effected before the finishing of the mediatory scheme; but this universal subjection to Christ is not effected at the second coming of Christ. — (2) The reward of the good and faithful subjects of Christ is to be bestowed on them in the kingdom of Christ, and therefore Christ's kingdom will not be at an end, till after they shall have enjoyed that reward for some time at least. I think these two are all the reasons which Doctor C. has given to support the proposition in question. He has indeed divided his long and complicated discourse on the text now before us, into five heads: but for what reason is not manifest.

1. It was the opinion of Doctor C. that 1 Corinthians 15:24-29, teaches us, that a universal subjection to Christ is to be effected before the finishing of the mediatorial scheme, which is not effected at Christ's second coming. By subjection to Christ Doctor C. meant with respect to intelligent creatures, a cordial, willing subjection. By subjection to Christ, with respect to sin and death the first and second, he seems to have meant abolition. But though it is agreed on all hands, that there will be a universal subjection to Christ effected, before the finishing of the mediatorial scheme; yet it is not agreed that this subjection, with reference to all intelligent creatures, will be a willing subjection or submission. Concerning this particular, some observations have been made in the former part of this chapter. That the text now under consideration does teach a willing subjection, must be shown, or the text will not appear to be to the purpose. Now to show, that all intelligent creatures will be cordially subjected to Christ, and will be saved, the Doctor insists, that both sin and the second death will be destroyed.

1. That sin will be destroyed. With reference to those words, "he must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet" — "All things shall be subdued to him" — The Doctor asks, "Is sin an enemy?" Supposing it is an enemy, what follows? Not what the Doctor asserts, "Then it will be destroyed," meaning abolished, extirpated by universal obedience and virtue. For the apostle does not say, that all enemies shall be destroyed, abolished, extirpated or annihilated: but that all enemies shall be subdued and put under Christ's feet. So that the true and only consequence from the supposition, that sin is an enemy, is, that it shall be subdued, restrained and put under Christ's feet; which may be done in a sense true, proper, and as Doctor C. grants, glorious to Christ, without the abolition of it.

Indeed the apostle says, that the last enemy, death, shall be destroyed; which by no means implies, that all other enemies shall be destroyed. It may mean, what our translators evidently understood by it, that the last instance which we shall have of the destruction of any enemy, will be in the destruction of death. The words literally, and according to the order of the original, are thus translated: the last enemy is destroyed death; and they may mean, and may very properly be rendered thus, Death is destroyed the last enemy. Now suppose an historian, in the account of a battle, should say, The general was killed the last enemy: must we necessarily understand him to mean, that all the enemies of the whole army were killed, and the general was killed after all the rest? Might not his words be justly taken in this sense, that the general was the last enemy who fell, and many others might escape?

Or death may by the apostle be called the last enemy proverbially and with respect to this life only; as it is now sometimes called the last debt due to nature. Since the expression, the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, is capable of this sense; and since it does not appear, that it implies, that all other enemies will be destroyed: therefore it is no proof of universal salvation; as both sin and misery may still be allowed to be enemies, and yet may be in existence, after the destruction of death.

But it may be asserted in a true and proper sense, that sin, in the damned, is not an enemy. It does no damage to Christ, to his kingdom, or to the peace and happiness of his subjects. It is to be sure, an enemy in no other sense, than the damned themselves are enemies: and if from that expression, the last enemy that is destroyed, abolished, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], is death, it follow, that all Christ's enemies will be abolished or annihilated; it will also follow, that all the damned will be annihilated. So that if this argument prove any thing, it proves too much; so much that it entirely overthrows universal salvation.

But sin in the damned, and the damned themselves, instead of doing any damage to Christ or his subjects, will be the means of increasing the glory of the former and the happiness of the latter, to eternity.

It is observable, that the verb [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is never in all the New Testament, applied to express the destruction of all wicked men, of the enemies of God in general, or of all sin. Therefore as neither sin itself, nor all the enemies of God, are said [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], to be abolished, we have no right, even on the supposition that sin is an enemy in every sense, to say that it will be abolished, or extirpated from the universe. The peculiar phraseology of the passage now under consideration, is worthy of particular notice. In the twenty-fourth verse it is said, that Christ will abolish, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], all rule and all authority and power. But he is said to put all his enemies under his feet, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], verse twenty-fifth, and to put all things under his feet, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], verse twenty-seventh. Although therefore all the rule, and all the authority and power of Christ's enemies shall be abolished, and the apostle is careful to inform us of that; yet he is equally careful to inform us, that his enemies themselves shall be only subjected to him, and put under his feet; as it seems, designedly shifting the phraseology and avoiding the application of the verb [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to them. What right then have we to apply it to them? Is not the application of words to persons or things, to which the apostle designedly did not apply them, a gross perversion of scripture?

Doctor C's argument that sin will be destroyed, depends wholly on this general proposition, That all Christ's enemies will be destroyed. Now the word destroyed in this case, doubtless means either abolition, or restraint and punishment. If it mean abolition, extirpation, annihilation; then as was before observed, all the enemies of Christ will be annihilated, and the doctrine of universal salvation falls to the ground at once. If it mean restraint, punishment, preventing from doing mischief, &c, then sin may be said to be destroyed, and yet have an endless existence in the universe.

If then these words, The last enemy death shall be destroyed, do certainly imply, that all Christ's enemies shall be destroyed? And if it be also certain, that sin in the damned is, in every proper sense, an enemy, those words are equally inconsistent with Doctor C's scheme, as with the opposite. They either imply an universal annihilation of all Christ's enemies; and so are equally inconsistent with universal salvation, as with endless torment; or they are not at all inconsistent with it, and therefore are no argument against it. If they imply an universal annihilation of the enemies of Christ, as they are equally against Doctor C's scheme, as against the opposite; it equally concerns him, as his opponents, to provide an answer to them, and it is absurd in him to object them to the doctrine of his opponents.

The sum of what has been said on this head of the destruction of sin is (1) That it does not appear, that sin in the damned is properly an enemy to Christ and his kingdom; as it does no harm to that kingdom. (2) If it be determined that sin in the damned is an enemy to Christ, it will not follow, that it will be destroyed, meaning by destruction annihilation or abolition; because it is no where said, that all Christ's enemies will be destroyed, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. Or even if this were asserted concerning all Christ's enemies, and the verb [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] were applied to them all, it would not certainly determine, that they will all be annihilated, as that verb is capable of another sense, and is doubtless used in another sense, Hebrews 2:14; That through death he might destroy, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], him that had the power of death, that is the devil. Doctor C. did not believe, that the devil will be annihilated. Therefore if that verb were applied to all Christ's enemies, and sin in the damned were allowed to be an enemy to Christ; still it might mean something else beside annihilation: or rather, it must necessarily mean something else, or it would equally disprove universal salvation, as endless misery.

In Doctor C's discourse on this subject, it is implied, that when a sinner is brought to repentance and cordial reconciliation to Christ, he is destroyed. His words are, Christ shall continue vested with regal power, till he has brought all enemies into subjection to him — Christ will continue head of the kingdom of God — till he has actually subdued all enemies — Is sin an enemy? — then it shall be destroyed — for Christ must destroy all enemies. By these several expressions it appears, that it was Doctor C's opinion, that all Christ's enemies will be subjected to him, that they all will be subdued under him, and that they will all be destroyed by him. Now it is abundantly evident, that by subjection, subduing, etc., when applied to those, who die in impenitence, Doctor C. meant a cordial reconciliation to Christ: and he by no means held, that these enemies thus reconciled, will be destroyed by annihilation. It follows therefore, that as all Christ's enemies are to be destroyed, to be destroyed, and to be reconciled to Christ in true repentance, are, according to Doctor C., one and the same thing. Therefore, when Paul was converted, he was destroyed; and as he will eternally be the subject of repentance, he will suffer an eternal destruction. The punishment of God's enemies is, that they shall be destroyed; they shall be punished with everlasting destruction. But what punishment are everlasting repentance and complacency in God? They are among the greatest blessings which Deity himself can confer on a creature. Endless destruction and endless salvation are throughout the Scriptures opposed to each other. But according to Doctor C's scheme, they perfectly harmonize and mutually imply each other — Now whether this scheme harmonizes with the Scriptures is submitted to the reader.

Whether this scheme harmonizes with the Scriptures or not, it does not harmonize with other parts of Doctor C's book. He says, that by the destruction of the wicked, mentioned in (2 Thessalonians 1:9), and in various other texts, we are very obviously led to understand misery. Surely conversion from sin to holiness, and especially the everlasting holiness of the saints in heaven, is not misery.

Doctor C. holds, that all enemies will be subdued and subjected to Christ, and that sin will be subjected to him, when it is abolished or annihilated. But if sin be subjected to Christ, when it is annihilated, then the sinner would be subjected to Christ were he annihilated. But this kind of subjection is no more a cordial subjection, than that which is effected by mere power, and which consists in restraint and punishment — Besides, according to Doctor C., there are two ways of subjecting to Christ intended in this passage; one is by cordial reconciliation, the other is by annihilation. This then will keep in countenance the opponents of Doctor C. who believe, that there are two ways of subjecting to Christ; one by cordial reconciliation, which respects the elect only; the other by restraint and punishment, which respects the reprobate.

On the whole, whether this passage be sufficient to prove a universal abolition of sin, is now left to the judgment of the reader.

2. Doctor C. was of the opinion, that (1 Corinthians 15:24-29), teaches, that before the finishing of the mediatorial scheme, the second death will be destroyed. He says, The second death may with as much propriety be called an enemy, as the first death — Let any sense be assigned, in which the first death can be properly spoken of as an enemy, and it will at once be easy to make it appear, that the second death is, in the same sense, as truly an enemy, and much more so — Is death, the second death, an enemy? Then this enemy shall be destroyed; for Christ must destroy all enemies. This is the Doctor's argument; in answer to which two observations may be made — That the second death is not an enemy, in the sense which the Doctor's argument implies — That if it were in every sense an enemy, it would not follow, that it shall be destroyed, that is, abolished.

The reader has seen the observations made above, concerning sin as an enemy and concerning the destruction of sin: similar observations may be made concerning the second death.

(1) The second death is not an enemy in the sense which Doctor C's argument implies and requires. If the Doctor meant, that the second death is an enemy to those who are the subjects of it, as it destroys their happiness and prevents their admission to a glorious immortality; this is granted. But it is not granted, that therefore it will be destroyed: and for the Doctor to take it for granted, that therefore it will be destroyed, is the same thing as to take for granted that all mankind will finally be admitted to a glorious immortality, which is the grand subject of the present controversy. But if the Doctor meant, that the second death is an enemy to Christ, as it prevents the brightest display of his glory, the greatest prosperity of his kingdom, and the greatest happiness of his subjects; in this sense it is denied to be an enemy. This is a sense in which the first death is an enemy, and notwithstanding what Doctor C. says, it does not seem easy to make it appear, that the second death is, in the same sense, as truly an enemy. The first death, while it continues, prevents the brightest display of the glory of Christ, the greatest prosperity of his kingdom, and the greatest happiness of his subjects: if it should continue, it would be inconsistent with the promises of Christ, with the complete salvation of the elect, and would defeat the gospel. Now to make it appear, that in this sense the second death is an enemy, it may be presumed, is not a more easy task, than to prove the salvation of all men. The second death is no more an enemy to Christ, to his kingdom, or to his faithful subjects, than the execution of some most atrocious and ungrateful rebels, whose lives cannot be spared consistently with the glory of their king, the prosperity of his kingdom, or the happiness of his faithful subjects; is an enemy to the king, to his kingdom, or to his faithful subjects.

Doctor C. further urges, that the second death is the last enemy, and the only one that is so. If it be no enemy, it is neither the last nor the first enemy. Therefore, "it seems" not reasonable, when the apostle says, the last enemy which is death, shall be destroyed, to understand him to mean by death, the second death. The first death is in the sense before given, the last enemy; the last who prevents the complete display of Christ's glory, the last who prevents the perfection of his kingdom, the last who has power to hurt the saints. After the destruction of this death, they immediately receive the adoption of sons. Although the devils and those who have been persecutors in this world, will still be in existence after the destruction of the first death, they will no more have it in their power to dishonor Christ, or to interrupt the happiness of his subjects, than if they were annihilated.

If the second death were in every sense an enemy, it would not follow, that it shall be destroyed, meaning abolished. All the enemies of God or of Christ, are nowhere said to be abolished [illegible], meaning annihilation. To be subdued, subjected, put under feet, is by no means the same as to be annihilated. If therefore the second death be ever so truly and properly an enemy, the utmost that would from there follow, is, that it would be so restrained and subjected to Christ, as to be prevented from doing mischief, and to be made an instrument of promoting the glory of God, and the happiness of his kingdom. In this sense it may be granted, that the second death will be destroyed; yet the salvation of all men would no more be implied in the concession, than it is implied in the destruction of the devil, mentioned (Hebrews 2:14), that he will be annihilated. Nor can we hold, that all Christ's enemies will be destroyed in the sense now opposed, without holding the annihilation of the wicked, and giving up universal salvation.

Doctor C. endeavors to make out, that if death, the last enemy, do mean temporal death, still the destruction of this death implies universal salvation. Simple restoration to life, says he, is not the thing the scripture means by death destroyed. To be sure the apostle Paul had quite another notion of it — What is the idea he leads us to entertain of it? Plainly not a bare return to life, but such an one as is connected with a glorious immortality. That in this chapter the apostle speaks of such a return to life, as is connected with a glorious immortality, is granted; because in this chapter he is speaking of the resurrection of the saints only. The Doctor indeed tells us, that it was with him beyond all controversy evident, that the apostle is speaking here, not of a partial, but universal resurrection. To others however it is beyond all controversy evident, that the apostle is speaking here of the resurrection of the righteous only. Even the Doctor acknowledges, that after the 28th verse the apostle confines his discourse to the righteous, without saying any thing of the wicked. Now this affords some ground of presumption at least, that in the former part of the chapter too, he confines his discourse to the resurrection of the righteous. Nor has Doctor C. given any reason, beside that which has been already examined, namely, that the comparison between the damage by Adam, and the advantage by Christ, lies in this very thing, that the same all men are meant in both parts of that expression, as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. So that Doctor C.'s argument, that from the resurrection of all mankind, it follows, that all will be saved, depends on principles, which are neither granted nor proved, and therefore is utterly inconclusive.

He further says, This second death, strictly and properly speaking, is THE LAST ENEMY, and THE ONLY ONE, that is so. Then surely there will not be a third, a fourth death, etc., etc., for ages of ages. Yet this is taught in other parts of his book; as in the following passage, They may all — be doomed — to a state of misery, which shall last for an age: In which state some — may be wrought upon to submit themselves to God — Others may die in this state stupid — And those who thus died in their obstinacy may again — be put into a place of suffering for another age; in which some may be reduced — and others stand it out still. These others may, in yet another form of existence, be sent into a place of discipline for another age; and so on, till there has been torment for ages of ages. Here the Doctor distinctly mentions three future states of suffering, and supposes there may be others continued in succession for ages of ages, which are so many distinct deaths, as really as the first state of suffering after this life, is the second death, with respect to temporal death. What right then had the doctor to say, and with what consistency could he say, that the second death is the last enemy, and the only one that is so?

2. The other argument of Dr. C. is, that the reward of the good and faithful subjects of Christ is to be bestowed on them in the kingdom of Christ; and therefore Christ's kingdom will not be at an end, till after they shall have enjoyed that reward for some time at least; and therefore will not be at an end, at the second coming of Christ, or immediately after the general judgment. This argument wholly depends on the supposition, that at the time at which the work of salvation shall be completed by Christ he will entirely abdicate all government of superintendency over those who shall be saved by him. If otherwise; if he shall still retain a superintendency over those who shall be saved by him; if he shall still be their immediate head or ruler, and the source of their happiness; though he shall not be the supreme ruler of the universe, nor even of the redeemed; but in this respect he shall resign the kingdom to the Father: he may be said yet to have a kingdom, and to sit on his throne; and to reign, etc. Before the resignation of the mediatorial kingdom, the government of all things is in the hands of Christ, being delegated by the Father to this government. Or as Dr. C. expresses it, he will be head over all; he will govern all; he will be all to all. Christ during that period acts as the supreme head of the universe. But when he shall have resigned the mediatorial kingdom, the Father will act as supreme head. Still Christ may, under the Father, be the head and governor of his redeemed and saved people. The Father will be supreme ruler, and Christ with his Church united to him, and dependent on him, will receive the benefits of his government. This does not imply, but that Christ himself, in subordination to the Father, will have a government over his saints.

Nor does it imply, but that the Son as one with the Father, as being in the Father, and the Father in him, shall reign after the resignation of the delegated sovereignty over all things. It may be presumed, that no man will say, that the Father does not reign now while the administration of universal government is in the hands of the Son. If he did not now reign, there would be no propriety in speaking as the scripture often does, of him that sits on the throne, and the Lamb; nor any propriety in the promise (John 15:16), that whatever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you; nor in those words of James (Chapter 1:17), Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights. But I need not add texts, to prove this. For the same reason therefore that the Father now reigns in and with the Son; so after the resignation of the general delegated administration, the Son will still reign in and with the Father. Now the government is conducted in the name and by the immediate agency of the Son: then it will be conducted in the name and by the immediate agency of the Father. Yet as now the Father reigns in and with the Son; so then will the Son reign in and with the Father. Christ now reigns with supreme sovereignty by delegation from the Father. After the resignation of this sovereignty, he will still reign over the saints by delegation from the Father, but with dominion, which shall be subordinate to that of the Father. He will also at the same time reign in and with the Father, in the exercise of a dominion, which shall not be delegated, but which is essential to him as a divine person, and one with the Father; as the Father, by virtue of his divinity, now necessarily reigns in and with the Son. So that although Christ shall immediately after the general judgment, resign the supreme delegated sovereignty, which he now possesses; still he will reign in these two respects, by a delegated subordinate authority over his saints; and by an undelegated, essential authority, which by virtue of his divinity, he possesses necessarily with the Father.

But whether the true idea of Christ's delivering up the kingdom to the Father, concerning which divines have repeatedly differed, have been now precisely exhibited or not; still the scriptures necessitate us to believe, that in some sense Christ will reign to an absolute eternity. (Hebrews 1:8) To the Son, he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. (Revelation 22:5) "They" [the saints] "shall reign forever and ever." (1 Peter 5:4) When the chief shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a crown of glory that fades not away. (1 Corinthians 9:25) "We do it to obtain an incorruptible crown." (Hebrews 12:28) We receiving a kingdom that cannot be moved. Both these last texts are quoted by Dr. C. to prove that the righteous shall live and be happy without end: and they equally prove that they shall reign without end. But the saints are to sit down with Christ on his throne and reign with him: and it is absurd to imagine, that they are to reign after the cessation of his reign; that they are to wear crowns which are incorruptible and fade not away; but that his crown is corruptible and fades away. Beside; the kingdom which the apostles and primitive Christians received, according to Hebrews 12:28, was not the kingdom of the Father, as distinguished from that of the Son, but was the kingdom of the Son, which he himself had then lately set up. This kingdom is said to be incapable of being shaken or dissolved; and therefore is endless, as Dr. C. himself believed: otherwise it was absurd for him to quote that text to prove, that the righteous will live and be happy without end. (Daniel 7:14) "His" [the Son of man's] dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (Isaiah 9:7) Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end. (Luke 1:33) He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end. More determinate language could not be used, to express the endless continuance of Christ's kingdom.

It is therefore granted, that the kingdom of Christ will continue, after the general judgment, and even without end. Yet it does not from there follow, that he will not at that time have finished the mediatorial work, or rather the work of saving sinners. I make this distinction, because though Christ will at the general judgment, have finished the work of saving sinners from wrath; yet he will without end be the mediator between the Father and the saints, and will be the medium of all divine communications to them, whether of knowledge, of happiness or of honor. It by no means follows from the circumstance, that Christ will, after the general judgment, retain a kingly power and dominion, that he will exert that power in delivering sinners from sin and misery.

The whole of Doctor C's discourse on this subject implies, that the kingdom of the Father, in which he shall be all in all, will not begin immediately after the general judgment. But how can this be reconciled with Matthew 13:40-44: "As therefore the tares are gathered and burnt in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then [in non-Latin alphabet], at that very time, shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." This single text proves that the kingdom becomes the Father's immediately after the end of this world, and therefore entirely overthrows all Doctor C's labor to prove, that the kingdom does not become the Father's till ages of ages after the end of this world; and equally overthrows his great labor to fix a construction on 1 Corinthians 15:24, consistent with his scheme.

Besides, the Doctor's construction of the last passage mentioned seems to be absurd in itself. For he connects the end, as to the time of it, with Christ's delivery of the kingdom to the Father. And by the end he in the same page explains himself to mean the shutting up of the scene of providence with respect to the sons of Adam: which is and can be no other than the end of Christ's mediatorial kingdom. According to Doctor C., therefore, the apostle, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, gravely tells us, that the end of Christ's kingdom will be, when he shall deliver up his kingdom to the Father: or the end of it shall be at the very time, at which the end of it shall be! But what is this, but the most childish tautology! Who ever imagined, that Christ would still retain his kingdom, after he should have delivered it up? Surely that scheme must be in distress indeed, which requires such construction as this to be put on the sacred scripture!

Doctor C. says, The reward promised, under the administration of Christ's kingdom, in this present state, in order to persuade men to become his good and faithful subjects, is not the final happiness God intends to bestow upon them; but the happiness of that state which intervenes between the resurrection and God's being all in all. But all the promises of the Bible are given in this present state; therefore there are no promises in all the Bible of final happiness. How then does Doctor C. know that all men, or even any man will be finally happy? This is at once giving up his favorite doctrine, to establish which he wrote his whole book.

Doctor C. calls out, What a poor, low, lean idea the common explanation of this text gives us of the final effects of Christ's reign — in comparison with that, the above interpretation lets us into! Such exclamations occur in almost every argument of his book. I observe therefore concerning them once for all, that they seem better suited to work on the passions and imagination, than on the reason; that at least they are attempts to determine what is most for the general good and the glory of the Deity, not from revelation or from fact; but a priori, by our own imagination concerning what is best and most eligible. Now that we are in this way utterly incapable of determining what is most eligible, and most for the divine glory, in a thousand instances; every man of reflection must grant.

I have now finished my remarks on Doctor C's "decisive" argument from 1 Corinthians 15:24, etc. Whether it be indeed "decisive;" whether it be "unanswerably strong," is submitted to the reader.

We are next to consider Doctor C's argument from Revelation 5:13: "And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I, saying, Blessing and honor, and glory and power be to him, that sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb forever and ever." The main question concerning these words is, whether they look forward to a completion of the scheme of God, and assert a fact which is not to take place, till that scheme shall be completed. This is Doctor C's idea: he says, they evidently look forward to the completion of that scheme; he says it merely; he gives no reason to prove it. The context gives no suggestions of such an idea. It may be presumed, that Doctor C. himself did not imagine, that the song of the four beasts and four and twenty elders, contained in verse ninth, etc. looked forward to the completion of the scheme of God. It was evidently sung on occasion of the Lamb's taking the book sealed with seven seals, and before any of these seals were opened. Nor is there the least hint, but that what is described in the thirteenth verse, took place on the same occasion: but the narration naturally implies that it did then take place. The fourteenth verse confirms the construction now given. "And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that lives forever and ever." These words are evidently a part of the song mentioned in the ninth verse, as it was sung by the same four beasts and four and twenty elders. Whereas according to Doctor C's construction of the thirteenth verse, they are either a song which is to be sung after the completion of the scheme of God; or though they are a part of the song mentioned in the ninth verse, the apostle's account of that song is interrupted by inserting in the midst of it, a song to be sung by all mankind, after the completion of the scheme of God. To assert therefore, that the fact of the thirteenth verse did not take place on the occasion of the Lamb's taking the book; but is to take place ages of ages after the end of this world; and to support this assertion by no proof or reason, is to act an unreasonable part: especially considering the context and the difficulties attending that construction.

These words appear to contain a figurative representation of all creatures joining in joy and praise to the Father and the Lamb on occasion of Christ's taking and being about to open the seals of the book sealed with the seven seals; the book of providence toward the church. That such representations are common in Scripture, we have already seen, while we were considering (Romans 8:19, etc.). Therefore no argument in favor of universal salvation is afforded by this passage.

Doctor C. mentions several other texts as favoring his scheme; but says himself, that he does not depend on them as proofs, or as "conclusive in themselves." We need not therefore spend time to remark upon them. The reader of himself will easily conceive from the answers given to those on which he does depend as conclusive, what answers would be given to the rest.

Toward the close of that part of his book, which contains the direct evidence of universal salvation, Doctor C. comes down wonderfully, seems to relent, and to be scared at the result of his own reasoning. He owns, that after all, he may be mistaken; that concerning the state which he supposes will succeed the next state, neither the prophets, Jesus Christ, nor the apostles, have spoken in plain and explicit language, leaving no room for doubt. How these mild concessions are reconcilable with his many previous declarations, that his arguments are at least in his opinion, "evident," "decisive," "unanswerably strong;" that it is "positively affirmed" (in Romans 8:19, etc.) "that they shall be instated in immortal glory;" that "it is absolutely declared in this passage of Scripture," (Romans 5:12, etc,) "that they" (mankind universally) "shall be made righteous," etc., etc. remains to be pointed out.