Chapter 5: Is Annihilation the Punishment of the Damned?

Doctor C's first object was, to prove that all men will be finally happy. If he should fail in this, his last resort was annihilation. If the foregoing scheme, says he, should be found to have no truth in it, and the wicked are sent to hell, as so many incurables, the second death ought to be considered, as that which will put an end to their existence, both in soul and body, so as that they shall be no more in the creation of God. Having made the supposition, that the next is the final state of men, he says, It is most peremptorily affirmed, that they (the wicked) shall reap corruption, perish, be destroyed, and die a second time; which fixes the sense of the word everlasting, when joined with the misery they shall be doomed to undergo, limiting its meaning to an age, or period of duration only. Corruption, perdition, destruction, and the second death do not limit the meaning of the word everlasting, unless it be on the supposition, that those words themselves mean annihilation. Sometimes by those words Doctor C. seems to have meant a transition from one future state of existence to another; at other times he expressly declares that they mean misery, torment. Now if those words applied to the wicked mean a transition from the next state of existence to another, they by no means certainly limit their misery. This transition may be from one state of misery to another state of misery; as Doctor C. supposed that they might pass through several future states of misery, before they should arrive at happiness. In fact, from the words used in this sense, no inference can be drawn, that they will ever arrive at a state of happiness: because a transition from one state of misery to another state of misery, is as truly a transition, as a transition from a state of misery to a state of happiness. But if those words mean misery or torment, they certainly do not limit the future misery of the wicked; as will more fully appear presently.

I do not find any proof offered by Doctor C. that the wicked will be annihilated, unless he consider the very meaning of the words destruction, death, etc. as a proof. But this proof, if it be one, was absolutely given up by himself, as he held, that those words signify not annihilation, but misery; as in the following passages: Everlasting punishment, everlasting fire, everlasting destruction: so the words are rendered in our English Bibles; but we are very obviously led to understand by them misery, that must be suffered for a certain period. If men continue the servants of sin, the wages they shall receive before the gift through Christ is conferred on them, will be the second death: whereas if they become the servants of God, this gift through Christ will issue in their eternal life, without their passing through the second death. That by the second death he here meant not annihilation, but the misery of hell, is manifest, as it is to be followed with the gift of God through Christ, which is eternal life. The going away into everlasting punishment, the being cast into the furnace of fire, where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, mean the same thing in the sacred dialect, with the second death. They may be saved without first going through the torments of hell, or as the scripture expresses it, without being hurt of the second death. How strange then is it, that Doctor C. should urge the literal and original meaning of the words death, destruction, etc. as an argument for annihilation, when he himself supposed that they mean not annihilation, but obviously mean misery! And that he should suppose, that they limit the sense of the word everlasting, when it is joined to the misery of the damned! As well might he have said, that the word misery limits the sense of the word everlasting, when it is joined to the misery of the damned!

Perhaps some admirers of Doctor C. may attempt to reconcile this inconsistency, by saying, he held that the words death, destruction, etc. mean and prove annihilation, on the sole supposition, that the next state is final: that on any other supposition he held that they mean misery. But this would be a vain attempt. For if those words do or may mean misery, they are no proof of annihilation, whether the next state be final or not. They are no more a proof of it, than [illegible] words misery and torment; because by his own concessions, they are at least capable of meaning misery or torment. Therefore though Doctor C's scheme of universal happiness should fail, we should from the application of the words death, destruction, etc. to the wicked, be under no necessity of supposing that they will be annihilated; everlasting destruction may mean everlasting misery.

The truth appears to be, that Doctor C. was led to adopt, as [illegible] last resort, the idea of the annihilation of the wicked, not by the obvious meaning and use of the words death and destruction in scripture; since he allows they obviously mean misery or torment; but by the preconception, that it is a certain truth, that the endless misery of any of mankind can never exist. To this preconceived opinion the scripture must some way or other be accommodated.

But let us proceed to some considerations to confirm the proposition, that annihilation is not the curse or punishment denounced against sin in the divine law.

The doctrine, that annihilation is the curse of the divine law, may be held in two different senses, both which I conceive to be entirely opposite to the truth. It is the sentiment of many, that annihilation is the punishment of sin threatened in the law, and is actually inflicted on those who die impenitent. Again; it is the sentiment of some, that though annihilation will not be inflicted on any; yet it is the curse which was originally in the law denounced against sin; but that Christ has absolutely redeemed all from it; and therefore none will suffer it.

1. It is the sentiment of many, and was the sentiment of Doctor C. provided his scheme of universal happiness does not hold; that annihilation is the punishment threatened in the law, and is actually inflicted on those who die impenitent. Concerning which it is to be remarked;

1. That on this hypothesis, all Dr. C's arguments both from scripture and reason, to prove the salvation of all men, entirely fall to the ground; and it is nothing inconsistent with either the justice or goodness of God, that a great part of mankind should be forever cast off, and suffer an endless punishment; and not only a great part, but the greater part of the whole; as he acknowledges, that but few are saved immediately from this life. Nor is it at all inconsistent with the design of Christ's undertaking, nor with his honor as the Savior of mankind, that the greater part of the whole race should not be saved. All that argument therefore of Dr. C. with his declamation on the supposed absurdity, that Christ should undertake to defeat the devil and destroy his works, and yet really be so far baffled by him, as still to fail of the salvation of the greater part of mankind, comes entirely to nothing. Nor must it be any more urged as an argument in this dispute, that God is willing that all men should be saved, and not willing that any should perish; or that Christ died for all men, etc., etc. At least these propositions must be received with the same limitations and distinctions, with which the despised orthodox, systematic divines have received them. At the same time, all those texts which speak of the restitution of all things; of God's tender mercies over all his works; of the free gift coming upon all men to justification of life; of the creature delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God; of the destruction of the last enemy, death: of all things gathered together in Christ; of all things reconciled to God by Christ; of every creature saying, blessing and honor, etc., to him that sits on the throne and to the Lamb, etc., etc., must be given up, or understood with the like limitations, as are put upon them, by the believers in endless misery. At the same time, all Dr. C's laboured criticism on [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], etc., must be acknowledged to be groundless: and all that he has said against vindictive punishment, and in favor of mere discipline, is nothing to the purpose.

2. The scriptural representations of the punishment of the wicked are inconsistent with the idea that it consists in annihilation. According to the scriptures the wicked depart into everlasting fire. The smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever. They shall weep and wail and gnash teeth. They have no rest day nor night. The one in hell lifted up his eyes, being in torment. The damned shall dwell with everlasting burnings. When the master of the house shall have risen up and shut the door, they shall stand without, crying Lord, Lord, open to us: to whom the master shall say, I know you not — depart from me. After they themselves shall have been thrust out, they shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God. The rich man in hell saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. The saved shall go forth and look on the carcasses of transgressors, and they shall be an abhorring to all flesh. The beast and false prophet, and by parity of reason, all men dying in wickedness, shall be cast into a lake of fire and shall be tormented forever and ever; [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in the plural number, determining, that they, the devil, the beast and the false prophet, shall be tormented for ever and ever. The wicked shall be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.

But how can those who are annihilated, be said to be cast into fire, into a lake of fire and brimstone, and to be tormented there; to have no rest; to weep, and wail and gnash their teeth; to dwell with everlasting burnings? As well might these things be said of them before they were created. How can they be said to plead for admission into heaven, and to reason on the subject with the master of the celestial mansions? How can they see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God? How can they seeing Abraham and Lazarus in that state, enter into discourse with the former? Revelation 14:11: The smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night. But those who are annihilated, so far as they have anything, have continual rest day and night.

The different degrees of the punishment of the wicked in hell prove, that their punishment does not consist in annihilation. Matthew 5:22: Whoever shall be angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment: whoever shall say to his brother, raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whoever shall say, you fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire. The servant who knows not his master's will, and commits things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes; but the servant who knows his master's will, and commits things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with many stripes. It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon and for Sodom, than for Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. The wicked shall receive according to their works, according to the fruit of their doings, and according to that which they shall have done in the body. The scribes and Pharisees were to receive the greater damnation (Matthew 23:14). But if annihilation be the punishment of the wicked, there is no difference between the punishment of the least sinner and the greatest, who die impenitent: which is both absurd in itself and absolutely contradictory to the scriptural account.

If it should be pleaded in answer to this argument, that though all the wicked shall suffer annihilation; yet the punishment of all will not be the same; as the more aggravated sinners will be made the subjects of misery for a while, and then be annihilated: it may be replied, that this supposes the curse of the law to consist in two things, temporary misery and annihilation. But where have we any hint in the scripture, that the curse of the law, as suffered in the future world, is such a heterogeneous compound as this?—After all, it seems, that annihilation is but a small part of that curse; for that alone will be inflicted on the least sinner only, and on account of the least sin; and all that punishment which shall be inflicted on any person, above that which is due to the least sin; is to consist in torment. Why then might not the constitution have been, that the small additional part of the curse, which is to consist in annihilation, should likewise be inflicted in torment? This was very feasible. He who suffers the punishment of ninety nine sins in torment, might by a small addition, in degree or duration to his torment, have suffered the punishment of an hundred sins. Add to the torment of every sinner dying impenitent, a degree or duration of misery, equal to that which is deserved by one sin, and that the least, and there would have been no need that any of them be annihilated, but having suffered the whole curse of the law, they would on the foot of strict justice be entitled to exemption from further punishment. And who having by misery satisfied for all the various and most aggravated sins of his life, would not choose to satisfy, in the same way, for the least of all his sins, rather than to be struck out of existence, and to lose inconceivable and endless enjoyment? As therefore this supposed constitution would be so apparently unnecessary and unwise, it cannot be expected to obtain credit, unless it be most clearly revealed in scripture, which is not pretended concerning it.—Besides, this hypothesis places so small a part of the punishment of sinners in annihilation, that it cannot with any propriety be said, that the curse of the law consists in annihilation.

Should it be further objected, that though all the wicked be annihilated, yet their punishment may be of different degrees, as the losses they shall respectively suffer, will be different according to their various degrees of enjoyment or capacities for enjoyment: it may be answered, that the wicked are to be punished according to their several crimes. A man guilty of murder, will, if his other crimes be the same, be punished more than the thief, who steals the value of five shillings. Yet the enjoyment of the latter and his capacity for enjoyment, may be far greater than those of the former. By annihilation therefore he would suffer a far greater loss.—Not all those who know their master's will, and yet commit things worthy of stripes, possess greater enjoyments or capacities for enjoyment, than those who know not their master's will.

3. The punishment of the fallen angels does not consist in annihilation: and the damned suffer the same kind of punishment with them. That the fallen angels are as yet annihilated, I presume, will be pretended by no believer in divine revelation, and that they are not to be annihilated, will be evident, if we consider, that in expectation of that full punishment, to which they are liable, they asked our Lord, whether he were come to torment them before the time. It was torment then, not annihilation, which they expected. The present state of the fallen angels is a state of torment to a certain degree. They "believe and tremble:" "They are reserved in chains under darkness, to the judgment of the great day," (Jude 6): "They are cast down to hell," (2 Peter 2:4): "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 be tormented day and night, forever and ever," (Revelation 20:10). This text proves,

(1) That the devil is now, before the general judgment, in a state of torment, in the lake of fire and brimstone. And it appears from the question, which he put to our Lord, to which reference was just now had, that he anxiously dreads the removal, which he is to suffer, from this his present state, to that in which he is to be after the general judgment, and to which he and his angels, are reserved in chains. But can we suppose, that he would anxiously dread a deliverance by annihilation, out of the lake of torment by fire and brimstone? This would imply, that endless annihilation is more to be dreaded, than the endless torment which is the subject of this controversy. If so, Doctor C. ought to have dropped all objections to the justice of endless torments, since he allowed that the annihilation of the wicked would be just. And if that be just, then also endless continuance in the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the utmost punishment that any man holds concerning the wicked, and which is now supposed to be a less punishment than annihilation, is just.—But if it be granted, that annihilation is not so great a punishment as endless continuance in the lake of fire and brimstone; it is as absurd to suppose, that the devils should dread or tremble at the prospect of annihilation, as that a man tormented with the gout or stone, should dread or tremble at an assurance, that he should before long be delivered from his tortures, and in their stead should suffer the prick of a pin.

(2) That text directly proves, that the devil is to be forever tormented, and not annihilated. "And they," [the nominative to be supplied] "shall be tormented forever and ever."—To say that this means, that the devil will be first tormented for ages of ages, and then be annihilated, leads into the absurdities before noticed.

But to this state of torment, in which the fallen angels are, and are to be, the wicked shall be sent. "Depart you cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." "The devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are." And as the devil is not to be annihilated, but punished with torments, so are the wicked.

4. Romans 9:22 affords an argument pertinent to the present subject. The words are, "What if God willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." One end it seems of permitting sinners to proceed to such lengths in sin, is to make known the divine power in their destruction. But annihilation is no exertion of power, it is a mere suspension of power. The words imply further, that the longer God endures with the wicked, the greater will be the manifestation of both his wrath and power in their destruction. But as annihilation is the same to every person annihilated, it exhibits no greater manifestation of power towards one than towards another. And if it were a manifestation of power, there would be no greater manifestation of power in the annihilation of one, than of another. It is presumed, that no unbiased judge will say, that the meaning is, that God endures, with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, to display his wrath and power in their annihilation; as the very same display of both would be made, without any long-suffering.

The only consideration urged from scripture in support of the sentiment, which I am opposing, is the application of the words, death, destruction, perish, corruption, etc. to the punishment of the wicked. This however came with a very ill grace from Doctor C. who understood, and was necessitated by his scheme of universal salvation, to understand, those words to mean misery, as I have already shown. With regard to others, who make not this concession, let them, if they believe in revelation, (and with such only I dispute) reconcile the scriptures with themselves, and understand such like passages as those I have quoted above, representing the punishment of the damned, to consist in misery, in any consistence with the threatening of death, destruction, etc., otherwise than by allowing that those words do mean positive misery. But to allow this, is to give up the scheme of annihilation; or at least this argument for it.

Besides, the scriptures themselves explain their own meaning in the use of the words death, destruction, etc. The second death is expressly said to consist in being cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, and in having a part in that lake; which is not a description of annihilation, nor can be reconciled with it (Revelation 20:14; Revelation 21:8). Matthew 24:51, "And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with hypocrites, there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." To divide a man into two parts, as determinately expresses annihilation, as the words death, perdition, etc. This however the scripture supposes to be consistent with a state of misery, expressed by wailing and gnashing of teeth. Genesis 5:24, "Enoch walked with God, and was not, for God took him." In this instance, though the scripture says, Enoch was not, which more directly expresses annihilation, than death, destruction, etc., yet it explains itself to mean not annihilation; indeed no man pretends that the righteous are annihilated. When the scriptures say, that men are dead in trespasses and sins, no man understands the expression to mean annihilation. The same may be said of the apostle's words in 1 Timothy 5:6, "She that lives in pleasure is dead while she lives."

Therefore, since the scriptures do often use the word death, etc. to signify something entirely different from a cessation of life or of existence; and since we cannot make the scriptures consistent with themselves, unless we understand the same words in the same latitude, when applied to the punishment of the wicked, we are necessitated to understand them in that latitude.

2. As I observed, there is another sense in which annihilation may be held, and was held by Doctor C. which is this; that though annihilation will not actually be inflicted on any man, yet it is the curse which was originally in the divine law denounced against sin; but that Christ has absolutely redeemed all men from that curse, so that no man is now liable to it. By Christ — they were absolutely and unconditionally put into salvable circumstances — Upon this foundation and this only, they are become capable of a future immortality. God might upon the first offence he [Adam] committed, have immediately turned him out of existence, as he threatened he would; the effect whereof would have been the total loss of all his principles bodily and mental, and of all his obligations. The same grace through Christ, which continued Adam in being after the lapse, etc. It will further enhance our idea of the greatness of God's grace [through Christ] in restoring that possibility of existence which had been forfeited by Adam's lapse, etc. Death — would have put a period to all possibility of perception or exertion in any shape forever, had it not been for the interposition of grace through Christ. The term death when used with reference to the posterity of Adam, considered simply as such, cannot contain more in its meaning, than is included in it, when used with reference to Adam himself.

On this hypothesis, the punishment actually suffered by the damned is no part of the curse of the divine law, but merely a necessary and wholesome discipline designed for the good of the patients. But this scheme of annihilation can, no more than the former, be reconciled with the scripture, which says the wicked shall receive according to their works, shall pay the uttermost farthing, shall have judgment without mercy, wrath without mixture, etc. Nor indeed can it be reconciled with Doctor C.'s book, which says, The wicked will be punished according to their deserts, according to their sins, according to the nature and number of their crimes and evil deeds: and so that the law will have its course, and the threatened penalty will be executed on some of them at least. These expressions certainly declare, that they will suffer the full curse of the divine law. Otherwise the curse of the law is a greater punishment than that which is according to the deserts of the wicked, and greater too than the full penalty threatened in the law; which is absurd and contradictory.

Here I might repeat the various arguments urged in the third chapter, to prove that the punishment of the damned is not a mere salutary discipline. But to avoid repetition, I beg leave to refer the reader to the considerations there suggested: and to proceed to other considerations, which may further show, that the future punishment of the wicked is not disciplinary, and that Christ has not so redeemed all men from annihilation, that no man is now liable to it, if indeed that be the curse of the law.

1. If annihilation be the curse of the divine law, and the torments of hell be a mere salutary discipline; then there is no forgiveness in exempting a sinner from those torments. To forgive a sinner is to exempt or release him from the curse of the law; not to excuse him from a salutary means of grace. If a physician excuse his patient from an emetic or from the cold bath, no man will pretend that he exercises forgiving grace.

2. I wish the reader to attend to Galatians 3:10: "For as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse: for it is written cursed is every one that continues not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." This proves that all men are not absolutely delivered from the curse of the law, whether that curse consist in annihilation, or misery temporary or endless: because some men are evidently supposed in this text, to be exposed to that curse. As many as are of the works of the law, as doubtless many of the Jews of that day were, are expressly said to be "under the curse." They therefore were not absolutely and unconditionally delivered from that curse. But if the curse of the law be annihilation, and all men be unconditionally delivered by Christ from that curse, how can any man be under it?

If it should be said, that this text is nothing to the purpose, because the curse here mentioned is the curse, not of the moral, but of the ceremonial law; it may be answered, If this text, with the context say nothing of redemption from the curse of the moral law, how is it known, that Christ, according to the hypothesis now under consideration, has delivered all men unconditionally from annihilation, which is supposed to be the curse of the moral law? It is the thirteenth verse, which assures us, that "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law." If this mean the ceremonial law, it seems, we have no assurance that Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the moral law, be that annihilation or what it may; but all that Christ has done or suffered notwithstanding, we are as liable to that curse, as we were before Christ undertook for us.

Besides, the curse of the law here mentioned, is the very curse mentioned in Deuteronomy 27:26, from which it is quoted. But that was not the curse of the ceremonial law, but of the moral, as every precept enumerated in that context, and to which this curse is annexed, is purely moral — or if this curse be that to which any man is liable, who transgresses any precept, written in the book of the law; it will certainly include the curse of the moral law. For whether the book mentioned, be the book of Deuteronomy, or the whole Pentateuch, it contained the whole moral law. Therefore the curse here mentioned includes the curse of the moral law. And indeed with respect to us under the gospel, the text must mean the moral law only, because, as the ceremonial law is now repealed, it is no longer in existence, and therefore is no longer contained in the book of the law — further, if the redemption of Christ was a redemption from the curse of the ceremonial law only; then it had no respect at all to us Gentiles, who never were under the ceremonial law; nor are we in any respect redeemed by Christ.

It is also to be observed, that this curse is opposed by the apostle, throughout the context, to the blessing of Abraham, as is manifest by inspection. But the blessing of Abraham did not consist in freedom from the ceremonial law. If it consisted in that, the Gentiles originally possessed the blessing of Abraham, since they were as perfectly free from the ceremonial law, as Abraham himself. Whereas the coming of the blessing of Abraham on the Gentiles is spoken of as a new and adventitious blessing, not as one originally possessed by them; see verses 8 and 14. The blessing of Abraham is not only not said to consist in bare freedom from the ceremonial law, but it is positively said to consist in justification by faith; verses 6–10, 14, and 29.

This passage throws light on the present question in another point of view. As the curse of the law is set in direct opposition to the blessing of Abraham, all who are not entitled to the blessing of Abraham, are of course under the curse, and are not unconditionally rescued from it by Jesus Christ — if it should be said, that the blessing of Abraham is common to all mankind, all being justified and exempted from the curse of the law, as he was; let it be observed, that Abraham obtained this blessing in consequence of faith only: and will it be pretended, that all men are now the subjects of the faith of Abraham? The apostle constantly speaks of this blessing as suspended on the condition of faith: verse 7, "They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." Verse 8, "The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith." Verse 9, "They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham." Verse 14, "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith." Verse 29, "If you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Now if faith in Christ be necessary to the inheritance of the blessing of Abraham, and all who are not entitled to that blessing, be liable to the curse of the law; then it cannot be true, that all mankind are unconditionally freed by Christ from the curse of the law, whether that curse be annihilation or anything else.

3. On the hypothesis now under consideration, what are pardon and justification? They are everywhere in scripture represented to be conditional, suspended on the conditions of repentance and faith; and the same is abundantly held by Doctor C., however inconsistently with his other tenet concerning the unconditional exemption of all men from the curse of the law. The language of scripture is, He that believes shall be saved; but he that believes not, shall be damned. He that believes not is condemned already — the wrath of God abides on him, etc., etc. How can those be condemned, and how can the wrath of God abide on those, who are unconditionally delivered from the curse of the law? Pardon is generally supposed to consist in an acquittance from the curse of the law: but if all men, penitent and impenitent, believing and unbelieving, be acquitted and delivered from that curse, where is the propriety or truth of limiting pardon to the penitent and believing, and of declaring, that all the rest of men are condemned? To what are they condemned? Not to suffer the curse of the law: from this they are by supposition unconditionally delivered. By what are they condemned? Not by the law: this would imply, that they are under the curse of it.

If to this it be said, that the impenitent are condemned to suffer the curse of the law, in this sense only, that the law declares the punishment to which, according to strict justice, they are liable; but not that punishment to which they are now liable, since the redemption of Christ — to this it may be answered, in this sense the penitent and believing are equally condemned, as the impenitent and unbelieving; in fact, the whole body of the saints in heaven. Nor would there be any truth in saying, in this sense, "He that believes on Christ, is not condemned."

4. That single text, Galatians 5:2, seems to confute the hypothesis now in question. The words are, If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Whereas according to the hypothesis now in question, whether the Galatians were circumcised or not; whether they depended on their circumcision and other conformity to ceremonial institutions or not: still Christ did profit them; still by him was unconditionally secured to them the infinite profit of escape from the curse of the law, and of an endless life of happiness and glory in heaven.

This argument is equally conclusive, whether it be supposed that Christ has unconditionally rescued all men from annihilation or any other punishment. If salvation be secured to all men by Christ, then he does profit them, however they be circumcised or depend on their circumcision.

Beside the two lights in which the doctrine of annihilation has been stated above, there is another in which some seem to hold that doctrine; it is this, That if after God shall have used all proper means for the repentance and salvation of the wicked, they shall still remain impenitent, he will annihilate them from despair of ever bringing them to good. Concerning this sentiment it may be inquired, what then is the curse of the law? Is it annihilation? If so, then I refer to the arguments already urged in this chapter against that idea; namely, That on that supposition endless punishment is just: That the scripture abundantly represents the punishment of the damned to consist in misery: That the punishment of all who suffer the curse of the law will be equal: That the curse of the law is the same punishment which the devils suffer, which is not annihilation: That the punishment which the finally impenitent shall suffer, will be such, that in it God will display both his wrath and power, and greater degrees of wrath and power in the case of those, with respect to whom he exercises the greatest long-suffering: which cannot be true, if the curse of the law be annihilation, as that is not an exertion of power at all, or a display of greater wrath and power in the case of one sinner than of another. If it be said, that the curse of the law is that discipline which the wicked shall suffer, before they be annihilated, I refer to what has been said, chapter 2 and 3. If it be granted that the curse of the law is endless misery; either it must be allowed, that endless misery will be suffered by some men; or that though endless misery be the curse of the law, Christ has redeemed and will save all men from it, by admitting some to endless happiness, and by inflicting on others endless annihilation. With respect to this last sentiment, I beg leave to refer to the considerations already hinted in this chapter: and that the curse of the law, or all that punishment which the wicked justly deserve, whether it consist in endless misery or anything else, will actually be inflicted, has been attempted to be proved in chapter 3.

On the whole; it is left with the candid and judicious to determine, whether annihilation be the curse of the law: and whether that as the curse of the law can be reconciled with the scriptures, on either of the aforementioned hypotheses. 1. That all who die in impenitence, will be annihilated, as the proper and adequate punishment of their sins in this life. 2. That annihilation was originally the curse of the law; but that Christ has rescued all from it. If it shall be found that annihilation in any view of it, is not the curse of the law; it will remain, that that curse consists either in that punishment which sinners actually suffer in hell; or in some temporary misery greater than that which they actually suffer in hell; or in endless misery. In which of these it does consist, shall be further inquired in the next chapter.