Chapter 6: The Justice of Endless Punishment Consisting in Misery

According to what was proposed in the close of the last chapter, I am to inquire in the first place, Whether the curse of the law, or the punishment which in the divine law is threatened against transgressors, consist in that punishment which the wicked will actually suffer in hell. That this cannot be the curse of the law, on the supposition that all men are to be saved, appears at first blush from this consideration, that some men will actually suffer that punishment: and if that punishment be the curse of the law, some men will be damned and not saved. For salvation consists in deliverance from the curse of the law. "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law:" and all who are saved, are saved by the redemption of Christ, which is a redemption from the curse of the law. But since all men are not saved from that punishment which a great part actually suffer in hell; it is absurd to say, that that punishment is the curse of the law from which Christ has redeemed and will save all men.

I mean not now to enter into any dispute concerning the nature of Christ's redemption. It is sufficient for my present purpose to take for granted no more, than is granted by all Christians, that all who are saved, are saved some how by and through Christ. This is abundantly asserted in the various works of Doctor C. But neither has he pretended nor will any other advocate for universal salvation pretend, that the punishment which is actually to be suffered by a great part of mankind in hell, is the curse of the law from which Christ is to save all men: because by the very terms a great part of mankind are actually to suffer it.

Besides; if that be the curse of the law; it is all the punishment to which the sinner is justly liable. He having suffered that, cannot consistently with justice be made to suffer any further punishment; and if after that he be exempted from further punishment, he is exempted from it, not in the way of grace, forgiveness or pardon; but entirely on the footing of justice and of his own personal right. It is to be noticed however, that the gospel is ignorant of any salvation of sinners, except in the way of grace and forgiveness.

If the punishment actually to be suffered in hell be the curse of the law, then the damned in their deliverance out of hell, and exemption from further punishment, experience no salvation at all. They are delivered from nothing to which they are or ever were exposed. We might as well say, that the most innocent citizen in the state is saved from the gallows, when he has neither committed any crime, nor is accused of any. The very idea of salvation is deliverance from the curse of the law. But if the pains of hell for ages of ages be the curse of the law, they who suffer those pains, are not saved; they are damned to the highest possible degree consistent with law and justice; which is all the damnation for which any man can argue.

On the whole, I conclude, that the idea, that the curse of the law consists in the punishment, which the damned are actually to suffer in hell, is totally irreconcilable with the salvation of all men.

In the next place we are to inquire, whether the curse of the law consist in some temporary punishment, which is of greater duration than that which is supposed to belong to the punishment which the damned shall actually suffer. If the curse of the law be a temporary punishment of greater duration than that which is actually to be suffered by the damned; that more lasting temporary punishment is doubtless threatened in the law. Doubtless the curse of the law is the curse threatened in law: the very terms imply this. Now, where in all the law, or in all the scripture, is threatened any punishment of greater duration, than that which in the sacred dialect is said to be everlasting, forever, forever and ever, etc.? But all these expressions are on all hands allowed to be applied in scripture to the punishment which the damned shall actually suffer. Unless therefore some longer punishment can be found threatened in scripture, than that which is said to be forever and ever, etc., it cannot be pretended, that the curse of the law is a temporary punishment of greater duration, than that which is actually to be suffered by the damned. But no punishment of greater duration, whether temporary or endless, than that which the damned are constantly declared to suffer, can be pointed out from any part of scripture. Therefore the curse of the law is not a temporary punishment of greater duration, than that which is to be suffered by the damned.

Now, if this train of reasoning be just, if the curse of the divine law be neither annihilation, nor (on the supposition of the salvation of all men) that misery which the damned are actually to suffer; nor a temporary misery of greater duration; the consequence is inevitable, that it is endless misery. No other hypothesis seems to be conceivable. The law certainly threatens some punishment. This punishment must consist either in annihilation, or in something else. If it consist in something else, that something must be either temporary or endless misery. If it be temporary misery, it must be either a misery of shorter duration than that which is to be suffered by the damned; or that very misery which is to be suffered by the damned; or a temporary misery of longer duration. That the curse of the law is a misery of shorter duration than that which is to be suffered by the damned, no man will pretend; as this would imply that the damned will suffer a greater punishment than was ever threatened, and than is just. And that the curse of the law is neither the very misery to be suffered by the damned, nor a temporary misery of longer duration, I have endeavored to prove, and submit the proof to the candid and judicious. If the proof shall be found to be good, we are driven to the conclusion, that the curse of the divine law is endless misery.

If then it be an established point, that endless misery is the curse of the divine law; the inference is immediate and necessary, that the endless misery of the sinner is a just punishment of his sin. It is impossible that a God of inviolable and infinite justice should threaten in his law an unjust punishment. A law containing such a threatening, is an unjust law; and an unjust law can never be enacted by a legislator of perfect justice. It is in vain to say, that God will never execute the law. To make an unjust law, is as really irreconcilable with justice, as to execute it. What should we think of a human prince who should enact a law, that whoever should walk across his neighbor's ground without his consent, should die on the gallows. I presume no man would pretend, that the forbearance of the prince to execute the law, would save his character from abhorrence and contempt.

Again; if all men shall be saved, they will be saved from something, from some punishment. That punishment must be either temporary or endless. If it be temporary, it must be either that punishment, which is to be endured by the damned, or a longer temporary punishment. But for reasons already given, it can be neither of these. Therefore it must be an endless punishment. But if all men be saved from an endless punishment, they were exposed to an endless punishment, and exposed to it by a divine constitution, and therefore an endless punishment is just; otherwise it could not have been appointed by God.

If all men shall be saved, they are redeemed by Christ, and they are redeemed by him from some punishment. That punishment is either temporary or endless. If it be temporary, it is either the punishment which the damned shall actually suffer, or a longer temporary punishment. But for reasons already given it is neither of these. Therefore, it is an endless punishment. Therefore they were exposed to an endless punishment, and that punishment is just. Surely no Christian will pretend, that our Lord Jesus Christ came to redeem and save us from a punishment to which we never were exposed, and which the very justice of God would never permit him to inflict.

If endless punishment be unjust, it seems that Christ came to save mankind from an unjust punishment; a punishment, to which they were not justly liable, and which could not be inflicted on them consistently with justice. But what an idea does this give us of God? It implies, that he had made an unjust law, denouncing an unjust penalty; that having made this law, he was determined to execute it, till Christ came and prevented him.

If all men shall be saved, and shall be saved in the way of grace, favor, pardon or forgiveness; then it would be just, that they should not be saved. If their deliverance imply grace and forgiveness, then it would be just, that they should not be delivered, and that they should suffer that punishment from which they are delivered. But for reasons already given, if all men shall be saved, they shall be saved from an endless punishment. And to be saved from an endless punishment not on the footing of justice, but by mere grace and forgiveness, implies, that the infliction of endless punishment would be just. Surely to liberate a person from an unjust punishment, is no act of forgiveness.

All the ascriptions of praise, and all hymns of thanksgiving sung by the saved on account of their salvation, prove, that it would have been just, that they should not be saved. If God in delivering all men from endless punishment, be worthy of praise and thanksgiving, it would have been just, if he had not delivered them from it. A mere act of justice, which the object of it may demand on the footing of his personal right, does not infer, an obligation to any great praise or thanksgiving. No man conceives himself bound very much to praise another for giving him his due, or for not injuring him, or for not punishing him, when he deserves no punishment. But the only punishment, from which God delivers all men, on the supposition, that all are to be saved, is an endless punishment, as was shown before. Therefore, unless endless punishment be just, there is no foundation for praise and thanksgiving for the salvation of all men.

If endless punishment be unjust, then God was bound in justice to save all men from it, and could no more fail of granting this salvation, than he could deny himself: and he was bound in justice to do whatever was necessary to that salvation, and if that salvation could not be dispensed, but in consequence of the incarnation and death of Christ; then unless God had given his son to become incarnate and to die, he would have committed injustice. So that on this plan, the very gift of Christ, of the gospel, and of all the means of grace, are mere acts of justice, and not of grace or favor: and the revelation of the gospel or of the salvation of all men is no gracious communication, but a communication made entirely on the foundation of justice. For surely it is but an act of justice to tell mankind, if there be any need of telling them, that God will not injure them, and so preserve them from the tormenting fear of injury from the hand of God. To have kept them without the necessary means of knowing this, would have savored of cruelty. Yet according to the scriptures the aforementioned divine acts and communications are no acts of justice, but of free and infinite grace.

If endless punishment be unjust, it is hard to imagine of what advantage the mediation and redemption of Christ is to all mankind. Doctor C. speaking of his own scheme of universal salvation, says, Nor is there any scheme that so illustriously sets forth the powerful efficacy and extensive advantage of the mediation of Jesus Christ. If mankind universally are the objects of his concern, if he died for them all, if he ascended up to heaven for them all, if he is there acting on their behalf, and managing all things in the kingdom of grace, with a view to their salvation, and will not give up his ministry in this kingdom, till he has actually accomplished this great design, and instated the whole human kind in eternal glory, what more noble idea can we form of his undertaking for us? etc. What is "the powerful efficacy and extensive advantage of the mediation of Christ," with regard to those, who suffer for ages of ages, as Doctor C. allows some men do? Is "the powerful efficacy and extensive advantage of Christ's mediation" "illustriously set forth" in delivering them from an unjust punishment? Is the idea, that Christ came to save them from a punishment, which they do not deserve, "the most noble idea we can form of his undertaking?" Those who are saved by Christ, without suffering the torments of hell, do indeed derive some advantage from the mediation of Christ. But this is no greater advantage than is derived from Christ, according to the scheme of those, who believe in endless punishment. They hold, that all who are preserved from hell, are preserved from it by Christ. But what advantage do those men derive from Christ's mediation, who pass through the torments of hell, and are not saved, till they have been punished for ages of ages? To say that they are rescued by Christ from endless misery, is either to give up the present question, and to allow that endless misery is just: or it is to give up the moral rectitude of the divine character, and to hold, that God has threatened, and was about to inflict, an unjust punishment. To say, that the advantage, which they derive from Christ, is that they are rescued from a temporary punishment, which is longer than forever and ever, is to say, that for which there is no foundation, as no such punishment is threatened or mentioned in scripture. So that in any case, if endless punishment be unjust, it is impossible to imagine, of what advantage the mediation and redemption of Christ is to all mankind.

The hope of the gospel implies that endless punishment is just. On the plan of universal salvation, all men are encouraged to hope that they shall be delivered from some punishment. Doctor C. applies (Romans 8:20) to all men, and supposes that they are all subjected to vanity in hope of "deliverance from the bondage of corruption," and from "the final consequences" of it. That is, all men have a ground to hope, that they shall be at last delivered from sin and its punishment. This punishment as we have seen, can be no other than an endless punishment. But that God encourages us to hope, that we may escape endless punishment, as clearly implies that endless punishment is just, as his encouraging us to hope, that he will never leave us nor forsake us in this life, implies that it would be just, if he should leave us. If endless punishment be not just, then God encourages us to hope, that he will not injure us, will not rob us of our rights or tyrannize over us! The very idea of hope in this case, implies some danger that God will injure us; however that there is a possibility, and therefore a foundation to hope, that he will not injure us.

If endless punishment be unjust, we are as sure, that it will never be inflicted, as we are of the justice of God, or as we are, that the judge of all the earth will do right. But are we ever encouraged in scripture barely to hope, that the judge of all the earth will do right? What if a subject who has always entirely conformed to the laws of his prince and is conscious of his own innocence, and also knows that his prince is fully informed of it, should say, that he hopes his prince will not order him to be executed as a felon? This would certainly imply great diffidence in the justice of his prince, and would be a high reflection on his character. Much more is it a reflection on the character of God, to express a bare hope, that under his government, no man will be punished with an unjust punishment.

The promises of the gospel appear to be a further proof of the justice of endless punishment. They are promises of deliverance from some punishment. If there be any promises of the salvation of all men, they are not promises that all shall wholly escape the punishment of hell. Doctor C. and others grant, that some men will suffer that punishment. Nor are they promises of escape from a longer temporary punishment, than that of hell, as there is no mention in all the scripture of such a punishment. Therefore they are promises of deliverance from endless punishment. Therefore endless punishment is just: otherwise the promises that God will save from it, would be absurd. The very idea, that God promises to save from endless punishment, implies that he has a right to inflict it. Do we ever find God promising in scripture, that he will not injure or tyrannize over his creatures? And are the exceeding great and precious promises, which the apostle Peter mentions, merely assurances that we shall not be treated by God unjustly? There would be nothing at all precious in such promises; because they would give us no greater security from such injury, than we should have without them. If the bare justice of God do not secure us from injury at his hands, neither will his veracity. What should we think of a prince of good reputation for justice, if he make proclamation, that he would not punish any of his subjects ten times as much as they deserve; and should call this an exceeding great and precious promise? Whatever we might before have thought of him and of his government, we should doubtless then think that his subjects were not perfectly secure in their rights.

Doctor C. allows that it is our duty to pray for the salvation of all men. This appears especially in his comment on 1 Timothy 2:4, etc. But this proves the justice of endless punishment. If we are to pray for the salvation of all men, we are to pray that they may be delivered from the curse of the law; which, as we have seen already, is an endless punishment. Now, to pray that God would save men from endless punishment certainly implies an acknowledgement of just exposure to such punishment. Otherwise there would be as much propriety, that the angels around the throne of God, should pray, that they, perfectly guiltless as they are, may not be punished with the torments of hell. What if an entirely innocent and most dutiful subject of some earthly prince, and one who is by all acknowledged to be such, should prefer a petition to his prince, that he would not order the petitioner to the stake or the gallows?

Hitherto the justice of endless punishment has been considered on the ground of what I suppose to be the truth, that it is deserved by every sinner, on account of the sins which he has committed in this life only. There is another ground, on which it may be supported, and which is equally inconsistent with that capital argument in favor of the salvation of all men, that endless punishment is not reconcilable with justice. Though it were not just, to inflict an endless punishment for the sins committed in this life only, which I by no means allow; yet there would be no injustice in suffering the sinner to go on in sin, and to punish him continually and without end as he sins.

That it was no injustice in God, to leave man at first to fall into sin, will doubtless be granted by all, because it is an evident fact. Now if God may without injury permit a creature to fall into sin today, and punish him for it, why may he not do the same tomorrow, and so on through every day or period of his existence. And if it be just to leave a sinner to endless sin, it is doubtless just to inflict on him endless punishment for that endless sin. Therefore the endless sin and punishment of a creature is no more inconsistent with divine justice, than the existence of sin and punishment in any instance, and for ever so short a duration. If it be not consistent with justice, that a sinner be left by God to endless impenitence; then the leading of a sinner to repentance is an act of mere justice, the payment of a debt, and not an act of grace, which is utterly irreconcilable with the Scriptures. If it be not consistent with justice to leave a sinner to final impenitence, then God is bound in justice, some time or other to lead every sinner to repentance. But when is this time? How long may God, without injury, permit the sinner to continue impenitent? If he may for one day, why not for two? for four? for eight, etc. to eternity? Though the damned should, by their sufferings, fully satisfy for all their past sins; yet God would be no more obliged in justice, to lead them to repentance, or to preserve them from sin in future, than he was obliged to preserve them from sin at the time they first fell into it: and consequently he would not be obliged in justice to release them from punishment. I take it to be abundantly conceded by Doctor C. that the damned may justly be punished till they repent. Therefore if they never repent they may justly be punished without end.

Now, that our advocate for universal salvation, may establish his favorite proposition, that endless punishment is not reconcilable with divine justice; he must show, that it is not consistent with divine justice, to leave a sinner to proceed without end in his own chosen course of sin, and to punish him daily for his daily sins. Till he shall have done this, it will be in vain for him to plead, that those who die in impenitence, will all finally be saved, because endless punishment is not reconcilable with the justice of God.

If after all, any man will insist, that endless punishment is not reconcilable with divine justice, he ought fairly to answer the preceding reasoning, and to show that the curse of the divine law from which Christ has redeemed us, is either annihilation, or that misery which the damned are actually to suffer; or a longer temporary misery. He ought to show further, that Christ came to deliver all men from some other punishment, than that which is endless; or that it is reconcilable with the character of God to refuse to release man from an unjust punishment, without the mediation of his son: that deliverance from unjust punishment is an act of free grace, pardon, or forgiveness: that deliverance from an unjust punishment is a proper ground of ecstatic and everlasting praise and thanksgiving to God. That the very mission of Christ, the institution of the gospel and of any means necessary to the deliverance of sinners from endless punishment, can be considered as gracious gifts and institutions, on any other supposition than that endless punishment is just. He ought also to show, of what advantage the mediation of Christ is to those who suffer in hell for ages of ages; and how the hope and the promises of the gospel, and how praying for the salvation of all men, can be reconciled with the idea, that endless punishment is unjust, and finally, that it is unjust, that God should leave a sinner to perpetual sin, and to punish him perpetually for that sin.

It seems to be but an act of justice to Doctor C. to repeat here, what I noticed before, that he himself, whether consistently or not, does acknowledge the justice of endless punishment: as in these words: If the next state is a state of punishment, not intended for the cure of the patients themselves, but to satisfy the justice of God, and give warning to others, 'tis impossible all men should be finally saved. This is a plain declaration, that a state, in which all salvation, and all possibility of salvation, are excluded, no more than satisfies justice, or is no more than just. The same is confessed in those many passages of this and the other works of Doctor C. wherein he has positively asserted, that man cannot be "justified on the foot of mere law," of "rigid law" etc. He would not deny, that the law of God is just, perfectly just. If therefore we cannot be justified on the foot of the divine law, we must on that foot be finally condemned, and consequently must be finally condemned on the foot of justice. Therefore the final or endless condemnation of the wicked is entirely just. The just law of God himself condemns them: and if that law, "mere law," "rigid law," be executed, they must be condemned to an endless punishment, and cannot possibly be justified or saved. So long therefore as the divine law is just, so long, according to the concession of Doctor C. the endless condemnation and misery of the wicked are just. There seems to be no way to avoid this consequence, but by holding that the curse of the law, and the punishment which "satisfies justice," are annihilation, with respect to which sentiment, I must refer the reader back to Chapter 5. But how inconsistent it is, to hold, that endless punishment, whether consisting in annihilation, or misery, is no more than satisfactory to justice; and at the same time to hold, that the wicked in temporary pains in hell, suffer according to their deserts, and endure the whole penalty of the law, cannot escape the notice of any attentive reader. Or will it be said, that the Doctor held a commutation of punishment? That endless annihilation is commuted for temporary misery? If so, then temporary misery is the curse of the divine law now inflicted in commutation for endless annihilation; and our author was entirely mistaken in a doctrine abundantly taught in all his writings, that, "by law," "mere law," "rigid law," no man can be justified or saved.

As a corollary from the whole of the preceding reasoning concerning the justice of endless punishment, may I not safely assert, what was most grievous to Doctor C. and is so to all other advocates for universal salvation; that SIN IS AN INFINITE EVIL? If every sinner does, on account of sin, deserve an endless punishment, sin is an infinite evil: that is all that is meant by the infinite evil of sin. Therefore if any man deny the infinite evil of sin, let him prove, that it does not deserve an endless punishment, and let him answer the preceding reasoning to evince the justice of endless punishment.

Perhaps some may object, that supposing sin does deserve an endless punishment, when it is not repented of; yet how can it deserve so great a punishment, when it is renounced in real repentance. But if repentance makes atonement for sin; if it satisfy the broken law of God; if it repair the damage done to society by sin; or if it so far atone, that the good of the universe, comprehending the glory of the deity, though it before required, that sin should be punished with endless punishment, now requires that it be punished with a temporary punishment only: then as repentance is a satisfaction made by the sinner himself, and makes a part of his personal character, sin repented of, does indeed not deserve endless punishment, otherwise it does. And if repentance does make the satisfaction for sin which has been described, then the satisfaction or atonement of Christ is in vain, since repentance would have answered the purpose without the death and atonement of Christ. There was no need that sinners be redeemed by Christ, or as Doctor C. says, that he should be "the person upon whose account," and that his obedience and death should be the ground or reason upon which happiness should be attainable by any of the race of Adam. They might have redeemed themselves, and by repentance have made a full satisfaction or atonement for their own sins, and thus might have been saved on their own account, and on the ground or reason of their repentance. But if on the other hand it be granted, that repentance does not make atonement or satisfaction for sin, and it be just to punish a sinner without end, provided he does not repent; it is just to inflict the same punishment, though he does repent.

This chapter shall be closed with a remark on a passage before quoted from Doctor C. in which he says, that the difference in the degree of the pain of the damned will scarce be thought worthy to be brought into the account, when the circumstance of endless duration, is annexed to it. If the different degrees of the misery of the damned be unworthy of notice, and do not sufficiently distinguish them according to their several degrees of demerit; then the different degrees in the happiness of the saints in heaven do not sufficiently distinguish them, according to their characters. Therefore on the same principle we ought to deny the endless duration of the happiness of heaven, as well as of the misery of hell; and to say, that the difference in the degree of happiness of the blessed in heaven, will scarce be thought worthy to be brought into the account, when the circumstance of endless duration is annexed to it; that if the happiness of heaven be of endless duration, the happiness of all the inhabitants of that world will be equal, which is inconsistent with the declarations of scripture, that all shall be rewarded according to their works; and that therefore the doctrine of the endless happiness of heaven is not true. But the falsity of this conclusion is evident to all: and equally false is the conclusion from the like premises, that the punishment of the damned is not endless.