A Reply to Dr. C's Answers to the Arguments from the Texts Declaring the Punishment of the Damned Everlasting
Doctor C. says,* that the misery of the damned is said to be eternal or everlastings in five texts only in all the New Testament. Whatever was intended by this ambiguous proposition, the fact doubtless is, that many of his readers have been grossly deceived by it, as they have been led to believe, that the doctrine of endless punishment is apparently taught, in no more than five texts in all the New Testament; or that no more than five texts can be produced, the words of which seem to import an endless punishment. Whereas, all that Dr. C. or any man can pretend is, that the punishment of the damned is in five texts only, in the New Testament, asserted to be eternal by the use of the adjective cciMvioi commonly translated eternal or everlasting. It cannot be pretended, but that the texts in which the punishment of the damned Page 258.
is in some manner or other declared to be eternal, and in words as determinate, as the adjective, eternal, far exceed the number ye. The five texts now referred to, do not comprise any of those, in which the damned are said to be punished forever, forever and ever; to be punished by a worm that dieth not, and a fire that is not quenched; to be confined by an impassable gulf; to be shut out from the kingdom of heaven; not to see life, &c. &c. &,c.
Now what follows from this circumstance, that the punishment of the damned is in five texts only, in the New-Testament, declared to be eternal, by the application of the Greek adjective, ettmio<; 1 It may still be declared to be eternal, by other words equally determinate, in above five hundred texts.
Or if there were no other texts, expressing in other words, endless punishment; are not five divine asseverations of any truth, sufficient to hind our faith? If five be not sufficient for this end, neither are five thousand.
Besides; all that Dr. C. says on this head, may be justly retorted: and if his observations in page 259, 260, be of any force to show, that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the scriptures; just as forcibly may it be proved, that the damned will not be punished for an age. Supposing, as Dr. C. does, that the words utm ctimioq &c. do not mean an endless duration, but the duration of an age; I might say, “The misery of the wicked is said to be for an age in only five texts, in all the New Testament; Upon which I cannot help making a pause to express my surprize to find the sacred writers so very sparing in the use of this word age, as referring to future torments. It is used but three times by Matthew; but once by Mark; but once by Paul; and not once by the other writers of the New Testament. All which is very extraordinary, if it be doctrine of Christianity, that the wicked are to be punished jTor an age.-^ And the omissions of the sacred writers upon this head, are a strong presumptive argument, that they knew nothing of this doctrine, which has been so vehemently pleaded for in these latter days,” by Dr. C. and some others. Therefore, whenever it shall be proved, that notwithstanding the rare use of the word oge with a reference to the punishment of the wicked, that punish-= ment will really last for tin age; it is presumed, that it can be proved from the &u..;- ^nies, that it will last “Without end. — If a word, signifying ai 9ge, applied five times to future punishment, prove that pnni??hment to continue for an age; why will not a word feignifying an endless duration, appii«?d five times to that punishment, prove it to be without end? Nothing therefore can be concluded from the number of times, utmiaq eternal, is applied to future punishment. The whole question, in this state of it, depends on the proper meaning of the word j not at all on the frequency of its use.
Dr. C. says,* “That ettm and ettmio may signify a limited duration;” and that “from this remark it follows, that the preceding evidence in favour of universal salvation, remains strong and valid.” It is acknowledged, that if those words may signify, and all things considered, do as probably signify, a limited, as an unlimited duration, when applied to the punishment of the wicked; nothing either for or against endless punishment, can be concluded from the use of those words. It is also, on the same suppositions, acknowledged, that by that application of those words, the evidence which Dr. C. has exhibited in favour of the salvation of all men, is not at all impaired. But it is not granted, that those words, when applied to the punishment of the wicked, do as probably signify a limited as unlimited duration. Nor is it granted that Dr. * Page 260.
C’s evidence of universal salvation is valid. Though we should grant that it remains unimpaired by the words ttim and utmio^ eternity and eternal; yet it may be utterly invalidated by other considerations: and that this is in fact the case, I have endeavoured already, and shall further endeavour to show; how successfully, is submitted to the reader.
The Doctor manifestly argues, on this head from possibility to probability, and even to fact. He says,* “If ictavioi may signify a period of time only, there is not a shadow of an interference between its connection with the punishment of wicked men, and their being finally saved:” i. e. If it may possibly signify a period of time only, it is absolutely certain, that when it is applied to future punishment, it does signify a period of time only. The inconclusiveness of such argumentation must be manifest to every reader. In the same manner it is easy to prove, “that there is not the shadow of an interference between the connection of et/wvas, eternal,” with the life and happiness of the righteous, and their final damnation.
The Doctor says,t “These words, ecicov and uimie are evidently more loose and general in their meaning, than the English words eternity everlasting-r-l(it were not so, how comes it to pass, that uiav and uianog will not always bear being translated eternity, everlasting?” By the same argument it may be proved, that the words eternity and everlasting in our language, are more loose and general in their meaning, than the Greek cciei)v and ccMviog. We frequently say, such a man is an everlasting talker, or he talks eternally; he is eternally slandering and quarrelling with h*s neighbours. But according to Dr. C’s sense of the Greek words uiav and cttavio^ the English phrases just mentioned cannot be properly translated, by the use of those Greek words. The Doctor says, they properly
* Page 261. flbid.
mean the duration of an age. But when it is said, a mas talks eternally, the meaning is not, that he talks for an age. — The truth is, there are idioms in all languages, which will not bear a literal translation into any other language. — The circumstance that xim, ccimio^ will not always bear to be rendered eternity and eternal no more proves, that they do not properly signify the same with our words eternity and eternal., than the circumstance that they will not always bear to be rendered an age., and during an age., proves that they do not properly signify the duration of an age. It is said Rom. xvi. 26, ‘’- According to the commandment of the everlasting God., ocimiov Qsov;” but no man would render this, according to the commandment of the God who lives for an age.
The Doctor thinks that “before eternal times is an impropriety in English,” and hence infers, that Trpo Xpovm «ci&fvim Tit. i. 2, means a limited duration. It is presumed, that the Doctor would not have ol)jected to the propriety of expressing a proper eternity, by saying, From eternity., from everlasting., from eternal ages. Yet in reality there is as great an impropriety in these expressions, as in that which the Doctor pronounces an impropriety. Understood strictly and literally they imply, that there is a point at which eternity began, and from eternity is from that point. The very use of the preposition yVom implies this. It implies, that the computation is made /rom something, at which eternity began. This something must strictly be some time, or some point in endless duration. So that from eternity taken strictly, is as real and as great an impropriety as before eternity or before eternal times. The same is observable of io eternity. Yet from eternity and to eternity., are in fact used among us to express an absolute eternity: and how does it appear absurd, that the apostle should express the same idea by a phrase, in which no greater impropriety is naturally implied, and uhich may as well, and in the sam<=i way, as the phrasesyVom eternity and to eternity be made properly to sig-nify an absolute eternity? The impropriety supposeii to be in the exi ression, Before eternal times is, that it implies a beginning- to eternity. The same is implied in the expression frotn eiemiiij: and in the phrase to eternity it is implied that there is an end to eternity. But [ mean not to insist on this: I do but just mention it, to show, that Dr. C’s most favourite proof, that cft;<yv<c5 means a temporary duration, is not demonstrative.
The Doctor further observes,* “The particles e’]i and sTreyMvsc are sometimes added in the Septuagint, to the word xiav. Whereas, should we add the Eugiish words answerable to those Greek particles, to the term eternity it would make evident nonsense.” The Doctor was mistaken: we do say forever more, forever and ever forever nd for aye. Yet no man will hence infer, that in our language the words ybr ever do not properly mean an endless duration, or that forever and ever implies an addition to eternity.
Doctor C. insists,! that •’ aiav and aiaviog sis-nify nothing more than an age, dispensation., period of continuance, either longer or shorter;” That “it is certain, this is the sense in which they are commonly, if not always used in the sacred pages;” That this is “the frequent and almost perpetual use of the words — in the sacred writings.” It is by no means granted, nor has the Doctor made it evident, that this is almost the perpetual use of those words, especially in the New Testament. Ai&>v reckoning the reduplications of it, as oi aiam Im ooimuv., to be but single instances of its use, occurs in the New Testament in one hundred and four instances; in thirty-two
* Page 263. j Page 264 and 267, of which, it means a temporary duration.* In seven, it mny be taken in either the temporary or endless sense. t In sixty-five, inclnding sis instances in which it is applied to future punishment, it plainly signifies an endless duration.J How then could Dr. C. say, that it is commonly if not always used in the sacred pages, to signify an age or dispensation only? and that this is almost the perpetual use of it 1 But itccim used absolutely did generally signify a mere temporary duration; it would not thence follow, that it has the same restricted signification, when governed by the preposition f/$. It is never applied to future punishment, but in this construction. In the whole New Testament, it is used in this construction, sixty-one times, in six of which it is applied to future punishment. § That in
*The places are, Matt. xii. 32; xili. 22, 39, 40, 49; xxiv. 3; xjcviii. 20; Mark iv. 19; Luke i. 70; xvi. 8; xx. 34, 35; Acts iii. 21; Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20; ii. 6, twice, 7, 8; iJi. 18; x. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Gal. i. 4; Eph. i. 21; ii. 2; vi.l2: 1 Tim. vi. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 10; Tit. ii. 12; Heb. i. 2; ix. 26; xi. 3.
f The places are, Mark x. 30; Luke xviii. 30; John ix. 32; Eph. ii. 7; iii. 9; Col. i. 26; Heb. vi. 5.
ifThe places are as follows; Matt. vi. 13; xxi. 19; Mark xi. 14; Luke i. 33, 55; John iv. 14; vi. 51, 53; viii. 35, tvlrice, 51, 52; X. 28; xi. 26; xii. 34; xiii. 8; xiv. 16; Acts xv. 18; Rom. i. 25; ix. 5; xi. 3G; xvi. 27; 1 Cor, viii. 13; 2 Cor. ix. 9; xi. 31; Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 11, 21; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17, twice; 2Tirj.. iv. 18; Heb. i. 8; v. 6; vi. 20; vii. 17, 21, 24, 28; xiii. 8, 21; 1 Pet. i. 23, 25; iv. 11; v. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 18; 1 John ii. 17; 2 John 2; Rev. i. G, 18; iv. 9, 10; v. 13, 14; vii. 12; x. 6; xi. 15; XV. 7; xxii. 5. — The six instances in which it is applied to future punishment, are, Mark iii. 29; 2 Pet. ii. 17; Jud. 13; Rev. xir. 11; xix.3; xx. 10.
§In this construction it is found in all the texts mentioned in thela.st niarginalnote, except Acts xv. 18; Eph. iii. 11, 21; Once in 1 Tim. i. 17, and 2 Pet. iii. 18.
I have been thus particular in noting all the texts, in which eurv occurs in the New ‘’^’estaraent, that the reader may examine them and judare for himsf .f, whether 1 have given a just representatioH of the use of that word by the inspired writers.
all the remaining fifty-five it is used in the endless sense,
1 appeal to the reader. If in those fifty-five instances it be used in the endless sense; this surely is a ground of strong presumption, that in the six instances, in which it is applied to future punishment, it is used in the same sense.
The adjective ctiavte is still more unfavourable to Dr. C’s system, than the sul)stantive uim. It is found in seventy-one places in the whole New Testament; sixty-six, beside the five in which Dr. C. allows it is applied to future punishment.* In every one of the sixty-six instances, except two, 2 Tim. i. 9; and Tit, i. 2; it may, to say the least, be understood in the endless sense, if beside the two instances just mentioned, Rom. xvi. 25; Pbilem. 15; Heb. vi. 2; and Jude 7, should be pleaded, which I think are all that any universalist will pretend do contain a limited sense; it may be observed concern.
ing Rom. xvi. 25, that fi.v{lt;p(ov Xpoyoi ecimmq (J-st lyrfsvcv
may, with at least as great truth and propriety, be rendered “mystery kept secret during the eternal or unlimited past ages, or from eternity,” as, “mystery kept secret since the world began.” — The literal construction of Philem. 15, 16, is, “That thou mightest receive him eternal, no longer as a servant, but above a servant, a brother;’’ or more briefly thus;” That thou mightest
* The places are, Matt- xix, 16, 29; xxv. 46; Mark x. 17, 30; Luke X. 25; xvi. 9; xviii. 18, 30; John iii. 15, 16, 36; iv. 14, 36; V. 24, 39; vi. 27, 40, 47, 54, 68; x. 28; xii. 25, 50; xvii. 2, 3; Acts xiii. 46, 48; Rom. ii. 7; v. 21; vi. 22, 23; xvi. 25, 26;
2 Cor. iv. 17, 18; v. I; Gal. vi. 8; 2Thess. ii. 16; 1 Tim. i. 16; vi. 12, 16, 19; 2 Tim. i. 9; ii. 10; Tit. i. 2, twice; iii. 7; Philem. 15; Heb. v, 9; vi. 2; ix. 12, 14, 15; xiii, 20; 1 Pet. v. 10; 2 Pet. i 11; 1 John i. 2; ii. 25; iii. 15; v. 11, 13, 20; Jud. 7, 21; Rev, xiv. 6. — The five texts in which Dr. C allows etimio? to be applied to future punishment are, Matt, xviii. 8; xxv. 41,46; Mark iii. ^9; 2 Thess. i. 9 •, To which is to be added, Jude 7.
324 SAtVATION OF ALL MEN
receive him as an eternal brother.” That Onesimiss was, in the endless sense, become an eternal brother to Philemon, and that as such he ought to be received by Philemon, cannot be disputed, provided they both were, as the apostle supposed them to be, real Christians. — The iinal judgment intended in Heb. vi. 2, may with the same propriety be called an ewc//e55 judgment, because it refers to an endless duration to follow; as it may be called the judgment of an age or dispensation, because it refers to an age or dispensation which shall then have been past. — As to the fire suffered by the Sodomites, if the text mean the fire of hell, then Jude 7, is to be added to the five texts, in which it is acknowledged camio refers to future punishment. If it mean the fira in which they and their city were consumed in this world, it can be called eternal, or uimio^ with respect to the effect only: and to say that this effect is to last for a limited time only, is the same as to say, that the Sodomites are finally to be saved; which is to beg the grand .luestion.
As to 2 Tim. i. 9, and Tit. 1. 2, without insisting on what has been observed in page 319, 320, 321, if it should be granted, that in these two instances otimieqis used in a limited sense, I conceive no injury would result to the doctrine for which I plead. It will not be disputed that the words eternal and everlasting in our language, are sometimes used in a limited sense: and perhaps no book written in the English language, especially written by so many different authors, and at such distant times, as the New Testament, can be found, in which the word eternal is used seventy times, and not twice at least in the limited sense.
As the proper meaning of the word camios is so much insisted on by Dr. C. and as he triumphs in the idea, that it is almost perpetually, by the sacred writers, used in the limited sense, I must beg the patience of the reader, while I descend to the consideration of the particular texts, in which it occurs. In forty-four of the foremeutioned sixty-six texts, uiavioq is applied to the future life of the righteou*, and therefore is used in the endless sense. If this be not allowed, it will follow, that there is no promise, no security of an endless life to the righteeuS;, or to any of mankind, and of course universal salvation must be given up; as shall be more particularly shown presently. In Luke xvi. 9, it is applied to the celestial habitations of the righteous: in 2 Cor. iv. 17, to the future glory of the righteous: in 2 Cor. v. 1, to their house in heaven: in 2 Thess. ii. 16, to their consolation: in 2 Tim. ii. 10, to their future gory: in Heb. v. 9, to their salvation: in Heb. ix. 15, to their future inheritance. That in these seven instances it is used in the endless sense, will doubtless be granted, by all those who allow this to be the sense of it in the preceding forty-four In Heb. ix. 12, it is applied to the redemption of Christ: in Heb. xiii. 20, to the covenant of grace: in Rev. xiv 6, to the gospel. That in these three instances, it is used in the endless sense, it is presumed, there can be no dispute among Christians. The sense is still more determinate, when it is applied to the Deity or his perfections, as it is to God himself, in Rom. xvi. 9: to the divine power, in 2 Tim. vi. 16: to the divine glory, in 1 Pet v. 10: to the Holy Ghost, in Heb. ix. 14 — In 2 Cor iv. 18, it is applied to things unseen as opposed to things seen: and to suppose, that in this instance it means the duration ot an age or dispensation only, would destroy all opposition between thine,s seen and things unseen; because many of the former continue for an age or dispensation, as well as the latter. The bare writing of this passage, so as to express a limited duration, sufficiently confutes that sense: thus, ‘^ The 28~^’ things which are seen, are temporal; but the thing’s which are unseen, continue for an age or dispensation.” — In 2 Pet. i. 11, ettmiog is applied to the kingdom of Christ. I am aware, that the believers in Dr. C’s book, will hold, that in this instance, it is used in the limited sense, because according to that book, the kingdom of Christ is of mere temporary continuance. To assert this however is a mere begging of a question in dispute-That this kingdom is not of mere temporary continuance, some reasons have been urged to show.* How forcible those reasons are, is submitted to the reader. — Now these texts, together with 2 Tim. i. 9; Tit. i. 2; Rom. svi. 25; Philem. 15; Heb. vi. 2, and Jude 7, which were before considered, make up the whole sixty-six.
For the truth of this account of the use ofcciviog in the New Testament, I appeal to all who are acquainted with the Greek Testament, or are capable of examining it. And if onmio be used seventy-one times in the whole; sixty-six times besides those instances, in which it is allowed to be applied to future punishment: and if in all those sixty-six instances, except two, it certainly mean, or at least may fairly and most naturally be understood to mean, an endless duration; if in all, except six, it must necessarily be understood in the endless sense; what are we hence naturally, and may I not say, necessarily, led to conclude, concerning those instances, in which it is applied to the punishment of the wicked? Doubtless that in those instances too it is used in the endless sense.
“But what are we to think of Dr. C’s saying, that this word is, in the sacred pages, most frequently and almost perpetually used in the limited sense? With all his parade of Greek learning, and of a thorough acquaintance with the Greek Testament, was he in reality so little * See Chap. xii. page 234, -Stc.
acquainted with it, as to fall into such an egregious mistake? If it should be here pleaded in defence of Dr. C. that he supposed eciavtoi; to be used in the limited sense, in all those instances in which it is applied to the future life of the righteous; and that on this supposition, it is almost perpetually used in the limited sense: it may be observed, that Dr. C. did indeed suppose this; and he might as well have supposed, that the same word applied to future punishment is used in the limited sense. This latter supposition would have been no more a begging of the question than the former. But of this more presently.
Dr. C* thinks “it is evident from the very texts that are brought to prove the strict eternity of hell-torments, that they contain no such doctrine.” This proposition is supported by the following considerations — Trat in two texts the word everlasting is applied to the fire of hell, not to the punishment or misery of the wicked — That fire in its own nature tends to an end, and will by the laws of nature necessarily in time come to an end — That fire powerfully tends to bring on a dissolution of those bodies that are cast into it.
1. That the word everlasting is applied, in two texts, to the Jire, not to the punishment, of hell; hence the Doctor infers, in words which he quotes with approbation from JVichol Scot, that though “the fire be without end, it will not follow, that every individual subject, which is cast into it, must be so too.”t Did the Doctor then believe, that some of the subjects of hell fire will not exist without end, but will be annihilated? This is to give up the salvation of all men. — Besides; that the fire of hell will be kept up without end, and therefore eternal ages after all the subjects shall be either ;»nnlhilated or delivered out of it, is a mere conjecture, uPxSup- * Page 21% t Ibid.
ported by any evidence from scripture or reason. As well might the Doctor have said, The saints will indeed be received to everlasting habitations; the habitations will be strictly without end; but the saints will, after a while, be all either annihilated or sent to hell. — What if the word everlasting be in two instances applied to the fire of hell? In other instances it is applied to the punishment to the destruction to the smoke of the torment and to the torment itself of the damned, Rev. xx. 10, “And” [they] “shall be tormented, day and night, forever and ever.” And if, when applied to the fire, it prove that to be without end, doubtless when applied to the punishment, to the destruction, to the torment, it equally proves them to be without end.
2. That “fire as such naturally tends to an end, and will, in time,” by the laws of nature, ‘’ actually come to an end.”* — This, like many other of Dr. C’s arguments, if it prove any thing, proves too much, and therefore really proves nothing. It depends on this very false principle, that whatever, according to the laws of nature, established in this world, would, without an immediate divine interposition, come to an end, will certainly come to an end in the future world. Now according to this principle, all the bodies of both sinners and saints, in the future world, us well as this, will be dissolved. Nay, as their souls too are con&tcmtly upholden in existence by the agency of God, nnd would in their own nature immediately cease to exist, wer it not for that continued agency; it follows, according to the principle now under consideration, that all the soul* of both sinners and saints will actually come lo an end, in <he future word. But as this consequence will bf rejected, and as it will be grrinied, that the souls of all men will, by the agency of God, be upholden without end; so the same agency will * Page 273.
be sufficient, to continue the fire of hell without end; and that whether it be material fire or not. If it be not material fire, it does not, in its own nature, more tend to an end, than the souls of men, or the faculties of those souls. If it be material fire, still it may, as was just now observed, be perpetuated to an absolute eternity.
If this argument from the tendency of fire to an end, be of any force, it will overthrow Dr. C’s scheme, equally as the contrary. For it is equally the tendency of all the fire, of which we have any experience, to come to an end, in a short time, as to come to an end at all. JSTo fire in this world will, without new supplies of fuel, last for ages of ages, or even for one age. But with a proper supply of fuel, any fire may be kept up without end. If therefore we are to conclude, that the fire of hell will come to an end, because the fire of which we have knowledge, will without a new and constant supply of fuel, come to an end; we are also to conclude, that the fire of hell will come to an end, before the expiration of one age. — Indeed God can make the fire of hell last for an age: and he can with equal ease make it last without end. Nay, he can make our common fire last without end. The same power which shall make our bodies immortal, can make our common fire strictly eternal. To this end the nature of that fire needs no greater alteration, than the nature of our bodies needs, to render them immortal.
The Doctor informs us,“*” that he “sees not but an age, dispensation or period, for the continuance of this fire, will very well answer the full import of the word ctimm, everlasting; especially, if we suppose this age to last till the fire has accomplished the end, for which it was enkindled.” — But it is not allowed by the opponents of the Doctor, that the fire will ever have accomplished * Page 274.
the end) for which it was enkindled; and to argue ob that supposition, is to take for granted, what is as much in dispute, as any subject of this w hole controversy. — He adds. The words concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, “They are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire,” ‘• import no more than this, that this fire lasted till it had accomplished the design of heaven, in the destruction of those cities, for a standing example of the divine vengeance to after ages. And the fire of hell is doubtless called everlasting for the like reason.” According to this then, the word everlastings &c. applied to future punishment, gives no evidence, that that punishment is to last longer, than the time, during which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were in consuming, or longer than one day: and the flood of Noah, as it lasted till it had accomplished the design of heaven in the destruction of the old world, for a standing public example of the divine vengeance to after ages, was an eternal flood: The deaths of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, of Nadab and Abihu, of Zimri and Cosbi, &c. &:c. were for the same reasons eternal deaths. — But how is this sense of everlasting consistent with that for which Dr. C. abundantly contends, that it signifies the duration of an age? And if “the fire of hell be doubtless called everlasting,” in the former sense, how does it appear, that it ever is, or that it can consistently be, called everlasting in the latter sense?
3. “Fire powerfully tenuis to bring on a solution of continuity, in those bodies, that are cast into it;” therefore the punishment of hell is not endless.j So fire tehds to bring on a dissolution of the human body in a Tery short time, in one hour, or in a much shorter time:
* Let if be remembered, that Dr. C. is a bitter enemy to »wiiciive punishment.
t Page 276.
therefore the punishment of hell will not last for ages of ages, or for one age, or even for one day. This argument is just as conclusive, as that now quoted from Dr. C. He who can make an human body endure the fire of hell for an age, can make it endure the same fire, for an endless succession of ages. Therefore though fire does powerfully tend to bring on a dissolution of those bodies, which are cast into it, it by no means thence follows, either that such dissolution will be effected in the wicked; or that their torment will ever come to an end. The Doctor proceeds* to argue, that future punishment will not be endless, because ••’ the wicked are not said to live always in torment without dying; or thai their bodies shall be immortal, or incorruptible, or indissoluble: but that they shall reap corruption, be destroyed, perish, undergo death.” On this passage it may be remarked,
1. That by dyings corruption destruction perishing the second deaths he evidently means something oiffertnt from torment; as he sets those terms in opposition to torment or misery. Yet he tells us in the very same page, that “the second death, which wicked men shall pass thmugh, and their being cast into the lake of fire, mean — one and the same thing.” In other parts of his book, he declares, that everlasting destruction evidently means misery’t — that ‘• the being cast into the furnace of fire, where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, meiins the same thing, in the sacred dialect, with the second death, ‘’J — that the scripture expresses going throucrh che torments “of hell, by being hurt of the second death.”§
2. If by death., destruction., kc. Dr. C. mean any thing different from the torment of the damned, it s€^ems he must mean, either annihilation, or a dissolution of the
* Page 277. f Page 224. X Page 210. f Page 337.
connexion of the souls and bodies of the damned, and their transition from the state, in which they are to be immediately after this life, to the next succeeding state. If he mean the former, it is indeed opposed to their endless misery, and equally opposed to their final salvation. If he mean a transition of the damned to some other state, this is no proof against endless misery; because the Doctor himself supposes, that the damned, or some of them at least, will pass through several succeeding states of misery. And let them pass through ever so many succeeding states, there is no evidence arising from this bare transition, that they will ever be saved. So that let the Doctor mean, in this case, what he will, by deaths destruciion &c. those words are either not at all opposed to the endless misery of the wicked, or they are equally opposed to their endless happiness. Whether they do mean annihilation or not, has been already considered in chap. v. The truth undoubtedly is, what Dr. C. himself abundantly holds, though in writing this passage, he seems to have forgotten it; that the death, destruction, corruption, second death of the damned, is their misery or torment, the smoke of which shall ascend forever and ever, and in which in Rev. xx. 10, they are expressly said to be tormented forever and ever.
3. If the express words“* The wicked shxiW always live in torment without dyhig’’’’ be not written in scripture, yet it is there written, that ‘•’- they shall go into everlasting punishment;*’ that” the smoke of their torment shall ascend forever and ever,” “that they shall be tormented forever and ever,’’ &c. In Ptev. xx. 10, it is said, “The devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and they shall he tormented day and night forever and ever;” (idravta-Sijc-oiloct, in the plural number. Now so long as a person is tormented, he lives in torment without dying-: and to be tormented forever and ever, is to live always in torment without dying-. What right then had Dr. C. to say, that the wicked are not said to live always in torment without dyin? And if the Tery words just quoted from Dr. C. had been inserted in the sacred volume, they might have been explained away as easily as the expressioDS just now quoted from scripture, and as the many other declarations of endless torment which are there to be found. It might have been said. The wicked, while such, shall indeed always live in torment; but no sooner shall they repent and become righteous, than they shall be delivered from their torment, into endless bliss. The righteous are no more in the very words said to be immortal in happiness, than the wicked are said to be immortal in misery; and shall we therefore deny, that they are to be immortal in happiness? If it had been said, that the wicked shall be incorruptible or indissoluble in misery, it might have been pleaded, with as much plausibility, as attends many of Dr. C’s pleas, that this meant, that while they are in misery, they are incorruptible, &c. not that they shall without end remain in misery.
The Doctor tells us,* that “the texts which join xiw vto^ everlastings with the misery of the wicked, are very few in comparison with those, which join with it a dissolution, destruction, or death.” That this observation may be at all to the purpose, it ought to be shown — 1. That destruction, death, &,c. as applied in scripture to the damned, are inconsistent with their endless misery, and are not at the same time, equally inconsistent with their final salvation. — 2. That whenever there is a seeming inconsistency between several passages of scripture, and to relieve the difficulty, we are necessitated to understand some of them in a figurative sense; we are to determine, that the truth is according to the literal tenor of the greater number, and that the minority, as in popular assemblies, is alwaj’S to give way to the majority, and complaisantly submit to a figurative construction.
A view has now been taken of Dr. C’s arguments to prove that cttm eternity and ximto^ eternal do not in the sacred writings properly mean an endless duration. Concerning the validity of those arguments, it is the province of the reader to judge.
We are next to attend to the Doctor’s answer to the argument drawn from the circumstance, that the same word in scripture is used to express the duration of the misery of the wicked, as is used to express the duration of the happiness of the righteous, and that in the same text; as Matt. xxv. 46; “These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The Doctor’s first answer to this argument is, that the state next succeeding the present, is not final, either with respect to the wicked or the righteous: and therefore the word eternal, even when applied to the life of the righteous, means not an endless duration.* For this hypothesis he gives no new reasons, but refers us to what he had said before, which we have already considered,! and the sum of which is, that Christ’s kingdom is not to continue without end, but is at last to be delivered up to the Father; that the reward promised in scripture to the righteous is to be bestowed upon them in this kingdona of Christ; that that reward therefore cannot be without end. — In opposition to this, it has been shown, that the scriptures abundantly assure us, that the kingdom of Christ is to be without end; and that whatever is said in scripture concerning Christ’s resignation of the kingdom
* Page 282. f Page 300, &c.
strictlV examined. 335
to the Father, must be understood in a consistency with the endless duration of Christ’s kingdom: and an attempt was made, to show in what sense of resigning the kingdom, a consistency can be preserved.
Further; the idea now advanced by Dr. C. cannot be admitted, in a consistency either with the scriptures, nor with Dr. C. himself.
1. Not with the scriptures. For if Matt. xxv. 46, and the many other texts, which promise eternal life to the righteous, do not promise them an endless life and happiness, there is no promise of such happiness to the righteous in all the scripture: and with at least as much plausibility, as the Doctor evades the force of Matt. xxv. 46; may the force of any text be evaded, which can be brought to prove the endless life of the righteous. Let us consider those, which the Doctor supposes determine the future life and happiness of the righteous to be endless.“* Luke XX. 36; ‘’ Neither can they die any more.” This may be evaded two ways; it may be said to mean no more, than that they shall not die during the continuance of Christ’s kingdom; and the original happily favours this construction, Ovls ci7ro6ocv£tv eli ^wccvlut. Neither can Ihey die as yet; their death will be deferred till the end of Christ’s kingdom. — It may also be evaded thus. If they cannot die any more they may live in misery. — 1 Cor. ix. 25; “But we an incorruptible crown.” True, the crown may be incorruptible indeed! but the possessor may be very corruptible: as Dr. C. supposes the /re of hell may be endless, though the wicked shall all be delivered out of it in time. — And when the bodies of the saints are said to be raised incorruptible to put on incorruption immortality &c. this may mean indeed, that they shall exist and live, but not that they shall be happy without end. — “We receiving a kingdom, which cannot be moved,” Heb. xii. 28; the kingdom may indeed be immoveable; yet a great part of the subjects may be removed. — 1 Pet. i. 4; ‘• He hath begotten us — to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” xlll this may be true concerning the inheritance, yet all the heirs from among men, of that inheritance, may be removed from the possession of it, and in that sense, may fade away. — Rev. ii. 11; ‘’He that overcometh, shall not be hurt of the second death.” He may however be hurt of the third, fourth or tifth death. — Chap. xxi. 4; ‘• God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death.” Here also I avail myself of the original: it may be literally rendered, “The death shall not be as yetP — Thess. iv. 17; “So shall we be ever with the Lord.” The word ever, Trxvlole, properly signifies not endlessly, but constantly, continually, uninterrupiedly. In this sense it is manifestly used in every other instance in the New Testament. Nor is it in any instance, beside this 1 Thess. iv. 17, applied at all to the future state. Therefore 1 Thes. iv. 17, means no more, than that the saints, while they are in heaven, shall be uninterrupiedly with Christ; as John xii. 8, means, that while we are in the world, we uninterruptedly have the poor with us.
Thus by admitting Dr. C’s sense of Matt. xxv. 46, we erase from the scriptures every promise of endless life and happiness to the righteous, and overthrow the gospel. — Indeed Dr. C. expressly holds, that there is no promise in the gospel of endless happiness to any man; how consistently with himself, the reader will judge.* ‘’ The reward promised, under the administration of Christ’s kingdom, in the 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.” Yet* he quotes the texts remarked on in the last paragraj.h, and says they determine that the happiness of the righteous is to be endless: and were not those texts supposed by Dr. C. to be promises, given under the administration of Christ’s kingdom, in this present state, in order to persuade men to become his good and faithful subjects?
2- Nor is Dr. C’s construction of Matt. xxv. 46, any more consistent with his own scheme, than it is with the Bible. His whole scheme supposes, that all men will be finally happy: and he believed that the doctrine of final happiness is taught in scripture. He professes to ground his whole book immediately on scripture. But if there be no promise in scripture, of endless happiness, as IS implied in his construction of Matt. xxv. 46; and as he expressly holds, in page 222; his whole scheme falls to the ground.
That Dr. C. does in other parts of his book, hold that there are promises of endless happiness, does not relieve the matter. To be inconsistent and to contradict one’s self, clears vip no difficulty. Who is answerable for that inconsistence, I need not inform the reader. It is manifest, the Doctor was driven into this inconsistence, by the pressure of the argument from Matt. xxv. 46, That the punishment of the wicked is of the same duration with the happiness of the righteous, because in the very same sentence it is said, The wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into everlasting life.
If there be no promise in scilplure, of final happiness, then all those texts from whicft the Doctor argues uni- * Page 286, &c.
versa! salvation, are altogether impertinent, and prove nothing- to the purpose for which they are brought. A promise is an assurance of the bestowment of some future good. If therefore, Rom. v. 12, &c. Chap. viii. 19, &c. 1 Cor. XV. 24, &lo. &c. be no promises of endless happiness, they afford no assurance nor evidence, that all will be finally saved.
In the same manner in which Dr. C. restricts Matt. XXV. 4G, to a limited duration, may every text from which he argues universal salvation, be restricted. If the life promised in the last quoted text, be a limited life; a life to be enjoyed before the kingdom is delivered up to the Father; what reason can be given why, in Rom. V. 18, “The free gift came upon all men to justification of /i/e,” the life promised is not the same, and of the same limited duration? — If life for a limited duration only be promised in Matt. xxv. 46; then the destruction of death for a limited duration only, is of course all that is promised in the same text. And if the destruction of death for. a limited duration only be all that is promised in Matt. xxv. 46; how does it appear, that a destruction of death for any more than a limited duration, is promised in 1 Cor. xv. 26, ‘^ the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death?” — And how strange is it, that Dr. C. should from Rom. viii. 21, ^’ The creature shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God,” argue the certain salvation of all men, when he himself holds, that the glorious liberty promised the children of God, does not mean final salvation.
The Doctor’s second answer to the argument from Matt. xxv. 46, is founded on the supposition, that the next is the final state with respect to both the righteous and the wicked.* — If the next state of the wicked be final, the Doctor abundantly declares, that all men will not be saved.* — ‘’If the next state is a state of punishment not intended for the cure of the patients themselves, — it is impossible all men should be finally saved,“t “If — the wicked are sent to hell as so many absolute incurables, the second death ought to be considered as that which will put an end to their existence, both in soul and body.” Thus this second answer of Dr. C. wholly depends on the supposition, that the wicked are to be annihilated; and to evade the argument from Matt. xxv. 46, to prove endless punishment, he is necessitated to adopt the scheme of annihilation, and thus to give up his whole system of universal salvation.
The Doctor gives us three reasons to show, that even on the supposition, that the next is the final state, it will not follow, from the endless happiness of the righteous, that the wicked will suffer endless misery. The first reason is, That the word everlastings utmiog, when applied to the righteous, is mostly joined with the word life: whereas this word, when applied to the wicked, is never connected with their /?/e, but always with the fire, or with their damnation punishment or destruction. t — Now this observation is wholly impertinent, on any other supposition, than that the wicked are to be annihilated: for Dr. C. himself makes this observation, supposing that the next state of the wicked will be final. And if it be final, the wicked must be without end in that state, which is allowed by all to be a state of misery; or they must not exist at all. — Thus still the Doctor is obliged to give up his favourite scheme of the salvation of all men.
His second reason is, that it perfectly falls in with our natural notions of the infinite benevolence of the Deity,
* Page 11. + Page 282. % Page 284.
that he should reward the righteous with endless life: but not that he should punish the wicked with endless misery.* But our notions of the benevolence of the Deity, are to be conformed to divine revelation; and only when they are conformed to that standard, are they right. And to suppose, that the endless misery of those, who live and die in wickedness, is not agreeable to scriptural representations of the benevolence of the Deity, is a mere begging of the question. — This subject has alre.’idy been largely considered in chap. viii.
The Doctor’s last reason is, “That we are naturally and obviously led to interpret a<<yv/e5, everlastings when joined with the happiness of the righteous, in the endless sense, from other texts which determine this to be its meaning.” — “This” adds the Doctor, “I call n decisive answer to this branch of the objection, upon supposition, that the next is the final state of man.”t Now all those his determinate texts have been already considered in page 335, &c.; and in view of the observations there made, the reader will judge, whether those texts do any more decisively, than the word uimio^ everlastings prove the future happiness of the righteous, to be without end.
To confirm his construction of Matt. xxv. 46, Dr C. mentions two texts in which he supposes the word uimieg, everlastings is in the same sentence used both in- the limited and endless sense. One is Rom. xvi. 25, 26; *’• According to the mystery which was kept secret Xpovotqaimiqiq] since the world began — but is now made manifest — according to the commandment pov ociuvov Qeov of the everlasting God.” Concerning this text it was before observed, that Xp,”o/^ ctiavioK; is perfectly capable of the endless sense. The mystery was kept secret from all
* Page 285. t Pae 287, 288.
eternity, or during- the eternal ages which preceded creation; or through the eternity a parte anie as some call it. So that this text answers not the Doctor’s purpose. — The other text produced by the Doctor, is Tit. j. 2, ‘’ In hope [^6^?;$ xiaviov] of eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised [Trpo Xpovm uimim] before the world began.” On this text, it has been observed,* that there is no absolute certainty, that it means a limited duration. But supposing that this indeed is an instance to the Doctor’s purpose: when it shall be made as evident from the very nature of the case, or from any other source of evidence, that the wicked cannot be punished without end, as it is, that God could not give a promise before eternity; doubtless we shall all give up the Doctrine of endless punishment.
At length we come to the Doctor’s criticism on the expression yoret;er and ever. — He seems to suppose, that expression in scripture does not refer to the future punishment of all the wicked, but only of” the worshippers of the beast,” and to a certain “rabble rout of men,’’ as he calls them. Be this as it may, it equally overthrows the Doctor’s scheme, as if it ever so confessedly referred to the punishment of aiZ the wicked. — But on the supposition, thixt forever and ever refers to the punishment of the wicked in common, the Doctor thinks that that “phrase is obviously capable of being understood of a limited duration.”t His reasons are, That uieov in the singular number almost perpetually signifies an age, or a limited duration,| — That though this word in the plural is to be met with in several places in the Septuagint, yet in them all it signifies a limited duration,§ — In like manner the plural of utm is most commonly, if not always, used, in the New Testament, to point out a
* Page 319. f Page 295, t Ibid. J Page 296, limited duration ;* That f/5 lov uimu(im ocimm is applied in Rev. xi. 15, to the kingdom of Christ, and therefore must mean a limited duration ;t — That f/5 oamoc ocimtc,^ and f<5 7ov ctima. x-cci si lov cttmot lov uimoc, are always in the Septuagint, to be understood in the limited sense. J
1. Aim in the singular number almost perpetually signities a limited duration. — Answer: It is by no means granted, that ottm in the singular almost perpetually signifies a limited duration; especially when governed by the preposition f;^. In p. 321, &c. the use of xtm, in the New Testament, was traced, both in the singular and plural, and it was found, that it is much more frequently used in the endless, than in the limited sense. If the use of the singular number only be traced, in even this number it is still most frequently used in the endless sense, as the learned reader m;iy see, by examining the texts, in which it is used in the Greek Testament, all which have been already noted. Dr. C’s assertion therefore, that it almost perpetually signifies a limited duration, is a mere assertion, and stands for nothing until it shall be proved: and to make a mere assertion a ground of an important consequence, is not warrantable by the laws of reasoning and philosophy.
But if the assertion were ever so true, the consequence, which Dr. C. thence draws, would by no means follow. — If cam in the singular did almost perpetually signify a limited duration, it would not follow, that ot uimsq Im otimm too signifies a limited duration. Language is not made metaphysically by philosophers, but by the vulgar, without metaphysical reasoning: and the meaning of particular phrases is wholly determined by use, not by metaphysical reasoning on the natural force of the words. If therefore use have determined o< etimii 1m ecimm to mean generally or universally an endless
* Page 297. t Page 298. t Page 301.
duration, this is enough to settle the present question, let ettm mean in the singular what it may.
Or if we must reason metaphysically on this subject it may be asserted, that cam ‘]m ocimm or o< aimslofnecimav is no absurd or unintelligible mode of expressing an endless duration. If ecim signify an age and the phrases just mentioned be rendered, the age of the ages and the ages of the ages, the strictest philosophy will justify those phrases, as applied to eternity. We have no idea of eternity, but as an endless succession of ages. Therefore, that age, those ages, or that duration, which comprehends all those successive ages, is a proper eternity. The Doctor undertakes to reason metaphysically on this subject,* and observes, that “a duration for eternities of eternities, is a very uncouth mode of expression.” — But it is not more uncouth, than the expression of An eternity added to an eternity, or an eternity and an eternity. Yet this is the strict analysis of forever and ever, an expression rendered abundantly proper by use.
One thing more ought to be observed, that eciav, whether in the singular or plural, governed by the preposition £!<;, invariably in the New Testament, signifies awendless duration. But in the phrase in question, et ‘]cv<; cx.imac, ‘]m oiivm it is governed by that preposition.
2. That though ciimsq, the plural, is met with in several places in the Septuagint, yet in them all it signifies a limited duration.? — Answer 1. It does not appear, that uteom in the Septuagint always signifies a limited duration; nor is it used in this sense in all the instances, which Dr. C. produces to prove, that it always means a limited duration: as Psal. cxlv. 13, “Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom: ficco-iXeia Truvm ^av aimedv,’* Dan. ii. 44;” In the days of these kings, the God of heaven
* Page 297, 298. f Page 29^.
shall set up a kingdom — and it shall stand forever, e/$7af? eciavocq.*^ Though the Doctor endeavours to prove, that in these texts a limited duration must be intended, because in 1 Cor. xv. 28, Christ is represented as delivering up his kingdom to the Father; yet it is at least as denrly proved by Luke i. 33, ‘’ Of his kingdom there is no end,” and the other texts before quoted,* that the texts now in question are to be taken in the endless sense. — Besides, how does it appear, that Psal. cxlv. 13, refers to the kingdom of Christ, as distinguished from the kingdom of the Father? And the kingdom of the Father Dr. C. allows, is without end.
There are other texts, in which uimeg seems beyond dispute to be used in the endless sense; as Psal. lxxvii. 7, “Will the Lord cast off forever, sig lovg camai 1 and will he be favourable no moreV^ The latter expression explains the former to mean an endless duration. The next verses further confirm this idea. — Dan. iv. 34; “I praised and honoured him, that liveth forever stq lovietimcti.^’^ Chap. vi. 26;” For he is the living God, and stedfast forever f/$ lov<; uimxq.’’’’ If cccm£(i be not in these instancefS used in the endless sense, it is in vain to search for instances, in which it is used in that sense; and it may be presumed, that it is incapable of any application, by which it shall appear to be used in that sense.
Ans. 2. But if it were ever so true, that «<6>yf5 is never used in the Septuagint, but in a limited sense; it by no means thence follows, that eig lovg uimug lav uiavm is in general, or at all, in the A’czy Testauient used in a limited sense.
3. In like manner the plural of eum is commonly, if not always, used in the New Testament to point out a limited duration.! The answers to this argument are the
* Page 235, &c. f Page 29r.
very same, with those given to (he preceding. — (1) The plural of «e<&;v, in the New Testament, even when it is not redoabled, is not commonly, much less always, used to point out a limited duration; but is generally used to point out an endless duration, as the reader may see by the texts in which it occurs, all which are noted in the margin.* Dr. C. quotes Luke i. 33, “He shall re’gn over the house of Jacob forever,” as an instance, thata<- 6>v£$ means a limited duration. But if he had quoted the whole verse, the latter part would have effectually confuted his sense of the former part. The words are, “and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” — (2) If uicoveihy itself did commonly point out a limited duration, it would not follow, that the same limited sense belongs to 5/5 7at;5 eciavx 1m otimm.
4. E;5 ‘]ov(; cciavctg 1m ximm is applied to the kingdom of Christ, in Rev. xi. 15; and therefore must mean a limited duration.! — ^rtryer: The application of that phrase to the kingdom of Christ, is no proof at all, that it is ever used in the limited sense: because it appears by Luke i. 33, Dan. vii. 14, Isai. ix. 7, and more Ijtrgely by what was said, page 302, &;c. that Christ’s kingdom is without end.
5. The phrases sk; ximcc ccimo^ and «$ 7«v ximot ««; e/$7ov ctimoc %v ocimog are always in the Septuagint, to be understood in the limited sense. J;
Answer 1. It is by no means a conceded point, that those phrases in the Septuagint are always to be understood in a limited sense. The contrary appears even from the instances quoted by Dr. C. to prove that they
* In the endless sense, Matt. vi. 13; Luke i. 33; Rom. i. 25; ix. 5; xi. 36; xvi. 27; 2 Cor. xi. 31; Eph. ili. 1 1, 21; 1 Tim. i. 17; and Heb. xiii. 8. — In the limited sense, 1 Cor. ii. 7: x. 11; Eph. ii. 7; Heb. i. 2; ix. 26; xi. 3. — In Eph. iii. 9; and Col. i. 26^ it is capable of either sense.
t Page 298. Page 301.
are used in the limited sense; as Psal. cxix. 44, “So shall I keep thy law continually forever and ever.” Psal. cxlv. 2, “I will praise thy name forever and ever.” To suppose, that these texts contain no more, than a professed intention of the psalmist, to obey and to praise God, as long as he should live in this world, is as arbitrary a supposition, as to suppose, that when the scriptures speak of God as living- forever and ever, they mean no more, than that God will live as long as men live in this world.
Answer 2. But if those phrases in the Septuagint did ever so certainly mean a limited duration, it would not follow, that also the very different phrase eiglovi utamg 1m dimm in the New Testament, means a limited duration. The truth is, this last phrase is not to be found in the Septuagint, though it frequently’’ occurs in the New Testament. Beit so therefore, that those phrases. in the Septuagint, mean a limited duration; is it not very singular argumentation, thence to infer, that a very different phrase found in the New Testament, means a limited duration too? This is just as if Dr. C. had argued, that because the word lion in the Septuagint means a four-footed beast, therefore the word man in the New Testament means a four-footed beast too.
The Doctor* holds, that “it is of no significancy, that this phrase is sometimes applied to God:” because, if from this application merely, we argue the absolute eternity of God; we may argue the absolute eternity of the land of Canaan, and of the successive generations of men, from the application to them, of the same or an equivalent phrase. — But the same phrase is never applied, either to the land of Canaan, or to the successive generations of men: and whatever other phrase is applied to them, is by that very application proved not to be equiv-
. * Pa?e 303.
alent: Because we have no other possible way to know, that anj’ phrase is equivalent, than by its application to those subjects alone, which are of equal duration with those, to which alone the phrase in question is applied. — The Doctor proceeds; “Reason assures us, that the duration of God will have no end” — for this caue, “not from the force of this phrase, we interpret it when applied to God, as meaning a duration without end.” I^ut is not the eternity of God revealed in scripture, as well as known by reason? If so, where and in what words is it expressed? Let any more determinate expression of it be pointed out in the scriptures. If the divine eternity be clearly revealed in scripture, and this phrase be as determinately expressive of it, as any in the bible, doubtless it determines the future punishment of the wicked also, to be without end, because it is repeatedly applied to that.
Fin lily, the Doctor observes,* ‘^ That it is as certain, that the phrase bk; 1ov(; uimxe, Im cctmm ought to be construed for ages of ages, is that the wicked in the resurrection state, will not be incorruptible, but shall die a second time.” That the wicked shall reap corruption, and shall suffer the second death, is not in the least inconsistent with their endless miserj’, unless corruption and the second death mean either annihilation or final happiness. If they mean the same with the destruction of the wicked, they mean misery, as Doctor C. himself allows; t and no man will say, that the declarations of scripture, that the wicked shall reap misery or suffer misery, are a proof, that that misery is not endless. Or if corruption and the second death mean a transition from the resurrection state, to the next succeeding state, if any such there be, still that succeeding state, or the
* Page 304. t Page 224.
final state of the wicked, may be a state of misery. But if corruption and the second death mean annihilation they overthrow the salvation of all men. Is it not therefore surprizing, that Dr. C. should over and over again, insist on an argument, as fally demonstrative of his scheme, which argument either wholly overthrows his scheme, oris utterly impertinent to the subject?
On the whole, it is left with the reader to determine, whether the reasons offered by Dr C. prove, that smlovf Mcjvsis l6))> ocieovm means a limited duration. — That the reader may judge concerning the true force of that expressfon, every place, in which it is used by the inspired writers, is noted in the margin.*
Next occurs Dr. C’s answer to the argument from Mark ix. 43; “The fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” — The Doctor’s answer consists of these particulars — That the fire of hell may never be quenched; yet the wicked may not live in it endlesslyt — That in hell or while the wicked are in the next state of existence, their worm indeed shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched; but their torment shall be continued during their existence in that state. J — As to the first observation. That the fire of hell may never be quenched, thotigh the wicked shall be delivered out of it in time, by either salvation or annihilation; it has been observed to be a mere wild conjecture, and probably would never have been thought of, had not the scheme been in distress, and must be relieved by some means or other. Other re* marks have been made on this conjecture, to which I
* Gal. J. 5; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii.21; 1 Pet. iv. 11; v. 11; Rev. i.6, 18; iv. 9, 10; v. 13,14; vii. 12; X. 6; xi. 15: xiv. 11; xv. 7; xix 3; xx. 10; xxii. 5.
t Page 311. tibid.
refer the reader. — Nor does the latter observation, especially iis connected with the former, appear to be more rational or pertinent. According to these two observations, the sense of Mark ix. 43, 44, is merely this; It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into the hre which never shall be quenched, though thou mayest soon be delivered out of it: and in which while thou continuest, thy torments will not cease. But where is the evidence of the truth of this proposition? How does it appear to be better for a man to cut off his right hand, and be forever after maimed, than to go into a lire which is indeed endless, and in which while he continues, he will be uneasy, and even feel torment; though he may not continue in it two minutes or two seconds? Who would not choose to suffer even a very painful torment, for a few seconds, or minutes, rather than to lose an hand or an eye? Thus the sense which Dr. C. puts on Mark ix. 43, &c. utterly frustrates the manifest design of our Lord, which was in that passage to exhibit a most powerful motive to the greatest self denial. But according to the Doctor’s construction, the passage contains no powerful motive to self denial, or any thing else.
Besides; is it not flat and insipid, to tell a man, that he shall go into a tire which never shall be quenched, though he may be immediately taken out again? — Yet this is the sense which Dr. C. puts on those words of our Saviour! But how is it to the purpose? or how does it concern any man, if he be not in the fire of hell, that that fire shall never be quenched? — .Suppose a man is to be burnt at the stake. It would be a matter of indifference to him, whether the lire, in which he should be put to death, be continued burning for five hundredyears, after his death, or be extinguished immediatoJy; ^Jld:’ to teJl him by way of threatening: tlia tnat- firri* 30^- shall be kept up five hundred years after his death; or to threaten a criminal who is about to be executed on the gallows, that the gallows on which he shall die, shall stand a thousand years after his execution; would be perfect Impertinence.
Doctor C. seems to insist much on this, That in Mark ix. 43, &c. a reference is had to the punishment of those whose bodies were either burnt in the valley of Hinnom, or permitted to lie upon the ground, to be fed upon by worms. But it does not thence follow, as Dr. C. supposes, that as the fire of the valley of Hinnom went out, when the bodies were consumed, and the worm died, when the bodies were eaten up; so the fire and worm of hell shall cease. The sense may be, that as those bodies in the valley of Hinnom, were consumed by fire and worms, which after a while ceased; so the wicked in hell shall be tormented by fire and worms, which shall not cease. — Indeed this is expressly asserted: and as Mr. Hopkins justly observes, “It cannot be granted, that our Saviour, by those words,” Where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched,-’ means a worm that dieth and a fire that is quenched very soon. For this would be to suppose, he means directly contrary to what he says*
The Doctor argues against endless punishment from the smaliness of the number of those who are saved in the next state.j That ‘’ only a few of mankind” should be saved finally, and” the greater part eternally perish’* he thinks not reconcileable with the great mercy of the Christian dispensation; or with the glad tidings of great joy, and the divine good will celebrated at the birth of our Saviour. This argument is built on the supposition, that it would not be dishonorary to Christ, that a minority
* Future state of those who die in their sins, i Page 322,.
of-mankind be lost. But this would be equally inconsistent with Dr. Cs scheme, as that a majority be lost. This argument, as it grants that some will not be saved, gives up the grand question, and disputes concerning the number only, which is to be saved. But this is no subject of dispute in this controversy.
Is it then no instance of great and glorious mercy, to institute a scheme, by which salvation may be oflfered to every creature; by which whosoever will, may take the water of life freely, and no man shall perish, but in consequence of his own voluntary rejection of that institution? Is not the certain information of this institution indeed glad tidings of great joy to all people? Is not the institution a clear proof of the abundant good will of God to men, even though sinners, through their voluntary opposition, obtain no good by it? It certainly is, if we may believe Dr. C. for it is a maxim with him, “that we must not judge of the divine goodness, by the actual good which we see produced, but must take into view the tendency of the divine administration,” &c. see the quotations made page 181.
The Doctor says, ‘^ It is incredible, that God should constitute his Son the Saviour of men, and the bulk of them be finally damned.“* But why is it incredible? Is it not an undertaking worthy of Christ, in a way most honorary to God, to open a door of mercy and salvation to all mankind, though by the wicked and ungrateful rejection of Christ by the majority, a minority only will actually be saved? If it be not credible, that God fhould constitute his Son the Saviour of men, and” the bidk’’’^ of them be finally damned, is it credible, that Christ should be constituted the Saviour, and a bare majority of mankind be saved? If not, how large must the majority be?
* Page 32X
As to the observation, “That it is a gross reflection on the Saviour, whose proper business it is, to destroy the works of the devil, and rescue mankind out of his hands; to suppose, that the devil should finally get the better of Christ, by effecting the everlasting damnation of the greater part of men;“* there are some particulars in it, which want explanation. First; what is meant by destroying the works of the devil? If this mean to abolish all sin, and all the misery consequent on sin to any of the human race; it is not granted, that this is the proper business of our Saviour, nor is this the proper meaning of the original in 1 John iii. 8, the text to which Dr. C. refers- The verb is Ayo*;j, dissolve take to pieces and thus prevent the ill eifect of the works of the devil. But if destroying the works of the devil mean, to defeat and to prevent the ill consequencesof those works, so that no final damage shall thence arise to the interest of God’s kingdom, or of the universe; it is granted, that this is the proper business of Christy But it is not granted, but that this may be effected, with- out the salvation of all men. — Again, what is meant by ‘^ the devil’s getting the better of Christ?” This doubtless means, that he defeats Christ more or less, as to some object of his mediatorial undertaking. But Dr. C. has no more made it appear, that the final salvation of only a part, and a small part of the human race, implies such a defeat; or that it was not the original intention of Christ to save a small part only; than he has made it appear, that it was the intention of Christ to save all men.
Dr. C. seems not to have reflected, while he was urging this argument, that it equally militates against his own last resort, annihilation For iran “^ end be put to’ the existence, both in soul and body,” of all who die impenitent, as the Doctor allows will be the case, if universal salvation be not true ;* then on his principles, the devil will not be vanquished by Christ; the works of the devil will not be destroyed, but “he will get the better of Christ, by effecting the everlasting destruction of the greater part of those whom Christ came from heaven to save,”t — So that when this objection shall be answered, so far as it lies against Dr. C’s last resort, doubtless an answer will be supplied to those who believe in endless misery.
After all, it is not an article of my faith, that only a small part of the human race will be finally saved. But my faith in this particular is not built on abstract reasonings from the divine goodness and the mission of Christ. That divine goodness which suffered all the apostate angels to perish finally, might have suffered all, or a greater part of the apostate race of men, to perish in like manner. My faith is built on several representations and prophecies of scripture, particularly concerning the millennium, and the general and long prevalence of virtue and piety in that period. Therefore in this view, the foundation of the objection from the smallness of the number saved, is taken away.
* Page 282. j Page 324.