Chapter 8: Whether Endless Punishment Is Consistent with Divine Goodness

That this inquiry is very important, every one must be sensible, who is in the least acquainted with this controversy. No topic is so much insisted on by the advocates for universal salvation; on no subject do they throw out such abundant and fervent declamation; no argument is urged with such an air of triumph. This is their strong hold, in which they feel themselves perfectly secure, and from which they imagine such effectual sallies may be made, as will drive out of the field all believers in endless punishment. Therefore this part of our subject requires particular and close attention.

I propose to begin with stating the question — then to proceed to some general observations concerning the divine goodness and some concessions made by Dr. C. — then to consider Dr. C's arguments from the divine goodness — and in the last place, to mention some considerations to show, that the endless punishment of some of mankind, is not inconsistent with the divine goodness.

1. It is a matter of great importance, that the question now to be considered be clearly stated. The question is, Whether it be consistent with the divine goodness, that any of mankind be doomed to endless punishment consisting in misery. This question is not now to be considered with any reference to the atonement of Christ; or the argument in favour of universal salvation, drawn from the divine goodness, does not depend at all on the atonement. To argue that goodness requires the salvation of all men now since Christ has made a sufficient atonement, implies that without the atonement no such argument could be urged. To argue from the atonement is not to argue from goodness merely, but from fact, from the gospel, from particular texts or from the general nature of the gospel. The argument is this; Christ has made atonement for all, therefore all will be saved. But that this argument may carry conviction, it must first be made evident that the atonement did respect all mankind; also that it is the intention of God, to apply the virtue of that sufficient atonement, to the actual salvation of all. But these things can be proved from the declarations of scripture only. Now all Dr. C's arguments from scripture shall be considered in their place; but this is not their place.

The question, Whether it be consistent with divine goodness, that any of mankind be punished without end, means, either, Whether it be consistent with the greatest possible exertion or display of goodness in the Deity; or Whether it be consistent with goodness in general, so that God is in general a good Being, and not cruel and malicious, though he do inflict endless punishment on some men. It is not an article of my faith, that in all the works of creation and providence taken together, God displays indeed goodness in general, but not the greatest possible goodness. This distinction is made, to accommodate the discourse, if possible, to the meaning of Dr. C. As he denies that God has adopted the best possible plan of the universe, it seems, that he must have distinguished in his own mind, between the goodness actually exerted and displayed by the Deity in the present system, and the greatest possible display of goodness.

If the former of these be intended by Dr. C. and others, all their strong and frightful declamations on this subject, come to this only, that endless punishment is not the greatest possible display of the divine goodness; or that the system of the universe, if endless punishment make a part of it, is not the wisest and best possible. But this is no more than is holden by Dr. C. and it is presumed by other advocates in general for universal salvation. Dr. C. abundantly holds, as we shall see presently, that the present system of the universe, according to his own view of it, without endless punishment, is not the wisest and best possible. It is therefore perfect absurdity in him, to object, on this ground, to endless punishment.

But it is manifest, by the vehement and pathetic exclamations of Dr. C. on this subject, that he aimed at something more than this. It is manifest that he supposed and meant to represent, that if the doctrine of endless punishment be true, God is not a good, a benevolent being, but a cruel, malicious one. He says, that the doctrine of endless punishment gives occasion for very unworthy reflections on the Deity: That in view of that doctrine an horror of darkness remains, that is sadly distressing to many a considerate heart. He quotes with approbation those words from Mr. Whiston: If the common doctrine were certainly true, the justice of God must inevitably be given up, and much more his mercy. This doctrine supposes him, [God] to delight in cruelty, So that the question agitated by Dr. C. is really, Whether, if God inflict endless punishment on any sinner, it be not an act of cruelty and injustice, as all cruelty is injustice. But this is the very question, which has been so largely considered in several preceding chapters, and needs not to be reconsidered here. So that Dr. C's arguments from goodness are mere arguments from justice; and if endless punishment be reconcilable with divine justice, it is equally reconcilable with divine goodness, in the sense in which he argues from divine goodness.

If after all it be insisted on, that Dr. C. meant to consider the question, or that the question ought to be considered, in the first sense stated above, namely, Whether endless punishment be consistent with the most perfect display of goodness; although if the negative of this question were granted, Dr. C. could not consistently from there draw an argument in favor of universal salvation; yet it may be proper to consider this state of the question, and perhaps sufficient observations upon it will occur in the sequel of this chapter.

2. I am to make some general observations concerning the divine goodness, and take notice of some concessions made by Dr. C.

The goodness of God is that glorious attribute, by which he is disposed to communicate happiness to his creatures. This divine attribute is distinguished from the divine justice in this manner: the divine justice promotes the happiness of the universal system, implying the divine glory, by treating a person strictly according to his own character: the divine goodness promotes the same important object, by treating a person more favorably than is according to his own character or conduct: So that both justice and goodness may and always do, as far as they are exercised, subserve the happiness of the universal system, including the glory of the Deity, or the glory of the Deity, including the happiness of the universal system. As the glory of God, and the greatest happiness of the system of the universe, and even of the created system, mutually imply each other; whenever I mention either of them, I wish to be understood to include in my meaning the other also. The declarative or the exhibited glory of God, is a most perfect and most happy created system; and a most perfect and most happy created system is the exhibited glory of God; or it is the exhibition, the manifestation of that glory; as a picture is an exhibition of the man.

That infinite goodness is in God, and is essential to his nature, is granted on all hands: God is LOVE. This attribute seeks the happiness of creatures, the happiness of the created system in general, and of every individual creature in particular, so far as the happiness of that individual is not inconsistent with the happiness of the system, or with happiness on the whole. But if in any case, the happiness of an individual be inconsistent with the happiness of the system, or with the happiness of other individuals, so that by bestowing happiness on the first supposed individual, the quantity of happiness on the whole shall be diminished; in this case, goodness, the divine goodness, which is perfect and infinite, will not consent to bestow happiness on that individual. Indeed to bestow happiness in such a case would be no instance of goodness, but of the want of goodness. It would argue a disposition not to increase happiness, but to diminish and destroy it.

Therefore that Doctor C. might prove, that the endless punishment of any sinner is inconsistent with the goodness of God, he should have shown, that the sum total of happiness enjoyed in the intellectual system will be greater if all be saved, than it will be if any suffer an endless punishment. To show that God by his infinite goodness will be excited to seek and to secure the greatest happiness of the system, determines nothing. This is no more than is granted by the believers in endless punishment. It is impertinent therefore to spend time on this. But the great question is, Does the greatest happiness of the system require the final happiness of every sinner? If Doctor C. have not shown that it does, his argument from divine goodness is entirely inconclusive.

Instead of showing, that the divine goodness or the greatest happiness of the general system, requires the final happiness of every individual; Doctor C. has abundantly shown the contrary. In his book on the Benevolence of the Deity, he expresses himself thus; It would be injurious to the Deity to complain of him for want of goodness merely because the manifestation of it to our particular system, considered singly and apart from the rest, is not so great as we may imagine it could be. — No more happiness is required for our system, even from infinitely perfect benevolence, than is proper for a part of some great whole. — We ought not to consider the displays of divine benevolence, as they affect individual beings only, but as they relate to the particular system of which they are parts. — The divine benevolence is to be estimated from its amount to this whole, and not its constituent parts separately considered. — The only fair way of judging of the divine benevolence with respect to our world, is to consider it not as displayed to separate individuals, but to the whole system, and to these as its constituent parts. — No more good is to be expected from the Deity with respect to any species of beings, or any individuals in these species, than is reasonably consistent with the good of the whole of which they are parts. — It is true, that destruction of life will follow, if some animals are food to others. But it may be true also, that there would not have been so much life, and consequently happiness, in the creation, had it not been for this expedient. — As we are only one of the numerous orders which constitute a general system, this quite alters the case, making those capacities only an evidence of wise and reasonable benevolence, which are fitted for a particular part sustaining such a place in the constitution of this whole. — I proceed to show wherein the unhappiness that is connected in nature, or by positive infliction of the Deity, with the misuse of moral powers, is subservient to the general good of the rational creation, which is hereby more effectually promoted, than it would have been, if free agents might have acted wrong with impunity. — "For if they" [future punishments] are considered — under the notion of a needful moral mean intended to promote, upon the whole, more good in the intelligent creation, than might otherwise be reasonably expected; they are so far from being the effect of ill will, that they really spring from benevolence and are a part of it.

By these quotations it appears with sufficient clearness, that it was Doctor C's opinion, that there are defects, miseries and punishments of individual creatures, which are consistent with the good of the system, and are therefore consistent with the divine goodness: and that the divine goodness does not seek the happiness of any individual any further, than the happiness of that individual is subservient to the happiness of the system, or to the increase of happiness on the whole. Therefore Doctor C. supposes the miseries of men in this life, and even the punishments of the future world, are not inconsistent with the divine goodness, because they are subservient to the good of the system. Now the advocates for endless punishment believe the same concerning the endless punishment of those who die impenitent: and for him to suppose without proof, that this punishment is not consistent with the greatest good and happiness of the system, is but begging the question.

What is the absurdity of supposing, that the endless punishment of some sinners may be subservient to the good of the system? Why may not the general good be promoted, as well by endless misery, as by the miseries of this life? And why may we not be allowed to account for endless misery in the same way, that Doctor C. accounts for the miseries of this life, or for the temporary misery which he allows to be in hell? It is now supposed to have been proved, that endless punishment is just. If then the general good may be promoted by the tortures of the stone endured for a year, by a man who deserves them, why may not the general good be promoted by the same tortures, continued without end, provided the man deserves such a continuance of them? If we were to judge a priori, we should probably decide against misery in either case. But fact shows that temporary miseries are consistent with the goodness of God, or with the general good: and why may not endless misery be so too, provided it be just?

If it be asserted, that the endless punishment of a sinner who deserves such punishment, is so great an evil, that it cannot be compensated by any good, which can arise from it to the system; I wish to have a reason given for this assertion. It is granted that the good accruing to the system overbalances the temporary miseries of sinners both here and hereafter. And is the endless misery of an individual, though justly deserved, so great an evil, that it cannot be overbalanced by any endless good, which may from there accrue to the system? Endless misery is doubtless an infinite evil: so is the endless good from there arising, an infinite good.

Nor does it appear, but that all the good ends, which are answered by the temporary punishment of the damned, may be continued to be answered by their continual and endless punishment, if it be just. God may continue to display his justice, his holiness, his hatred of sin, his love of righteousness, and of the general good, by opposing and punishing those who are obstinately set in the practice of sin, and in the opposition of righteousness, and of the general good. In the same way he may establish his authority, manifest the evil of sin, restrain others from it, and by a contrast of the circumstances of the saved and damned, increase the gratitude and happiness of the former, as well as increase their happiness by the view of the divine holiness, and regard to the general good, manifested in the punishment of the obstinate enemies of holiness and of the general good; and by a view of divine grace in their own salvation, and the salvation of all who shall be saved. These are the principal public ends to be answered by temporary vindictive punishment, on supposition that future punishment is temporary; and if any other good end to the universe shall be answered by it, in the opinion of those who believe it, let it be mentioned, that by a thorough inquiry we may see whether the same good end may not be answered by continual and endless punishment.

Another question concerning the divine goodness proper to be considered here, is, whether it secure and make certain the final happiness of every man; or whether it be satisfied with this, that opportunity and means are afforded to every man to obtain happiness, if he will seize the opportunity and use the means. Concerning this also, Doctor C. has sufficiently expressed his sentiments; as in the following passages: We must not judge of the benevolence of the Deity merely from the actual good we see produced, but should likewise take into consideration the tendency of those general laws conformably to which it is produced. Because the tendency of those laws may be obstructed, and less good actually take place, than they were naturally fitted to produce. In which case, it is no argument of want of goodness in the Deity, that no more good was communicated; though it may be of folly in the creatures. It is impossible we should judge fairly of the Creator's benevolence, from a view only of our world, under its present actual enjoyments. But if we would form right sentiments of it, we must consider the tendency of the divine scheme of operation, and what the state of the world would have been, if the rational and moral beings in it had acted up to the laws of their nature and given them full scope for the production of good. All the good suitable for such a system as this, is apparently the tendency of nature and the divine administration, and it actually prevails so far as this tendency is not perverted by creatures themselves — for which he [God] is not answerable. The Doctor expresses himself to the same purport in many other passages of the same book.

It is manifest, that in these passages, Doctor C. esteems it a sufficient vindication of the divine goodness, that God has established good laws, has benevolently constituted the nature of things and has given opportunity to men to secure to themselves the enjoyment of good: and that the divine goodness does not imply that every individual creature shall actually enjoy complete good or happiness. If these things be true, then no argument from the divine goodness can prove, that every individual of mankind will be finally happy: the divine goodness though complete and infinite does not secure actual happiness to every individual: it secures the opportunity and means only of happiness: or it secures such a divine scheme as has a tendency to the happiness of all, and would actually prevail to the communication of happiness to all, if it were not perverted by creatures themselves, for which perversion God is not answerable.

Now that such a divine scheme as this is actually adopted, is undoubted truth, and may be granted by every advocate for endless punishment. Therefore on the same ground on which Doctor C. vindicates the goodness of God, from the objections which arise from present calamities, and from future temporary punishment; may the same goodness be vindicated from the objections which are raised from endless punishment. In the former case it is pleaded, that God is infinitely good, though creatures suffer calamities here and deserved punishment hereafter, because he has given them opportunity to obtain happiness, and has adopted a scheme of operation which has a tendency to good. Just so God is infinitely good, though some men suffer deserved endless punishment; because he has given mankind opportunity to obtain eternal life and salvation, and has adopted a scheme of providence and of grace, which will actually prevail to the final salvation of all, if it be not neglected or perverted by men themselves; for which neglect or perversion God is not answerable.

It is also conceded by Doctor C. that none of the sons of Adam, by the mere exercise of their natural powers, ever yet attained to a perfect knowledge of this rule [the rule of man's duty, and of God's conduct in rewarding and punishing.] Most certainly they are unable, after all their reasonings, to say, what punishment as to kind, or degree, or duration, would be their due, in case of sin. This is plainly to give up all arguments against endless punishment, drawn from the goodness of God, or from any other divine perfection. For if most certainly after all our reasonings from the divine perfections as well as from other topics of reason, we be unable to say what punishment, as to kind, or degree, or duration, is due in case of sin; then "most certainly we are unable to say," but that an endless punishment, and that consisting in misery too, is due, and is necessary to secure and promote the good of the system. Therefore to have been consistent, Doctor C. ought never to have pretended, that endless misery is not reconcilable with divine goodness.

Doctor C. further grants, that it may be necessary, that the penalty of the divine law be inflicted, and that the infliction of it may be honorable to God, and useful to creatures: indeed, he grants, that the full penalty of the law will actually be inflicted on some men. Perhaps the reasons of government might make it fit and proper, and therefore morally necessary, that the threatening which God has denounced, should be executed. Would the wisdom of the supreme legislator have guarded his prohibition with a penalty it was not reasonable and just he should inflict? And might not the infliction of it, when incurred, be of service, signal service, to the honor of the divine authority, and to secure the obedience of the creature in all after times? If it be fit and proper, and morally necessary; if it be of signal service to the honor of the divine authority, and to secure the obedience of creatures, to inflict the penalty of the divine law; doubtless the infliction of it is not only consistent with the general good, but subservient to it, and therefore perfectly consistent with the divine goodness. It is not "reasonable," that God should inflict the penalty of his law, unless the infliction be consistent with the general good, and so with the divine goodness. Therefore the question proposed in the last quotation may with equal truth and force be proposed a little differently, thus, Would the wisdom of the supreme legislator have guarded his prohibition with a penalty, which it was not consistent with the general good of the universe, or with the goodness of his own nature, that he should in any one instance inflict? Thus it appears to be fully granted, that divine goodness does not oppose the infliction of the penalty of the divine law, but requires it. In fact, as has been hinted above, Doctor C. expressly asserts, that the penalty of the law will be inflicted on some men; that on those who pass through the torments of hell, the divine law will take its course, and the threatened penalty will be fully executed. Now what the penalty of the divine law is, we have before endeavored to show. Therefore if our reasoning on that head be just, it follows from that reasoning and from Doctor C.'s concessions in the preceding quotations taken together, that endless punishment is not only reconcilable with divine goodness, but is absolutely required by it. Would divine goodness both denounce and actually inflict a penalty, which that goodness did not require, and which was not even reconcilable with it?

Doctor C. informs us, that Christ was sent into the world, and the great design he was sent upon was to make way for the wise, just and holy exercise of mercy — towards the sinful sons of men. It seems then, that if it had not been for the mediation of Christ, there would have been no way for the exercise of mercy towards men, in a consistency not with justice and holiness only, but with wisdom? And if not with wisdom, not with the general good: for wisdom always dictates that which is for the general good. And if it would not have been consistent with the general good, to exercise mercy towards sinners, without the mediation of Christ, neither would it have been consistent with the divine goodness, for that and that only which is subservient to the general good, is an object to the divine goodness. In this sentiment Doctor C. was very full, as we have already seen. Therefore without the mediation of Christ, divine goodness required, that all mankind be left in a state of despair under the curse of the law. And if it have been shown, that this curse is endless misery, it follows, that divine goodness, required that all mankind, if it had not been for the mediation of Christ, should suffer endless misery.

3. As was proposed, we now proceed to consider Doctor C.'s arguments from the goodness of God, to prove the salvation of all men. If some of the following quotations be found to be rather positive assertions than arguments; I hope the fault will not be imputed to me, provided I quote those passages which contain as strong arguments from this topic, as any in his book.

It is high time, that some generally received doctrines should be renounced, and others embraced in their room that are more honorable to the Father of Mercies, and comfortable to the creatures whom his hands have formed. I doubt not it has been a perplexing difficulty to most persons (I am sure it has been such to me) how to reconcile the doctrine which dooms so great a number of the human race to eternal flames, with the essential, absolutely perfect goodness of the Deity. And perhaps they contain ideas utterly irreconcilable with each other. To be sure, their consistency has never yet been so clearly pointed out, but that a horror of darkness still remains that is sadly distressing to many a considerate tender heart. In this passage it is implied, that the doctrine of endless misery is not honorable to the Father of Mercies. But what is the proof of this? If there be any, it consists in these several particulars — That this doctrine is uncomfortable to the creatures of God — That it has been a perplexing difficulty to some, Doctor C. thinks to most, and "is sure it has been such to him," to reconcile that doctrine with the goodness of God — That perhaps they are irreconcilable — That to be sure (in Doctor C.'s opinion) they never have been so reconciled, but that a horror of darkness remains.

If these be arguments, they require an answer. The first is, that the doctrine of endless misery is uncomfortable, or rather not so comfortable to God's creatures, as some other doctrines: therefore it is not honorable to the Father of Mercies. But would Doctor C. dare to say, that every doctrine is dishonorable to God, which is not equally comfortable to sinful creatures, as some other doctrines? and that no doctrine is consistent with the divine goodness, but those which are in the highest degree comfortable to such creatures? What then will follow concerning his doctrine of "torment for ages of ages?" Or would any man choose that the comparison be dropped and that the argument be expressed thus: The doctrine of endless misery is uncomfortable to creatures, therefore it is dishonorable to God? This still confutes the doctrine of torment for ages of ages. Besides, if the meaning be, that it is uncomfortable to all creatures, it is a mistake. To those who believe it to be a just and glorious expression of the divine hatred of sin, and a necessary means of vindicating the justice of God, of supporting the dignity of his government and of promoting the general good; it is so far from being uncomfortable, that it is necessary to their comfort; and they rejoice in it for the same reasons, that they rejoice in the advancement of the general good. They rejoice in it on the same principles of benevolence and piety, that Doctor C. rejoiced in the prospect, that the divine law would have its course, and the full threatened penalty be executed on some of mankind.

The next particular of the above quotation is, that the doctrine of endless misery has been perplexing to some, or to most men, and to be sure to Doctor C. Doubtless this is true of many other doctrines, which however have been believed both by Doctor C. and by other Christians: such as the perfect rectitude, goodness and impartiality of all the dispensations of divine providence: the consistency between the existence of sin in the world and the infinite wisdom, power, holiness and goodness of God: the final subserviency of all events to the divine glory and the general good of the system, etc. Therefore, if the argument prove anything, it proves too much.

The third particular is, Perhaps endless misery is not reconcilable with the goodness of the Deity. Answer, Perhaps it is reconcilable with that divine attribute.

The last particular is, To be sure (in Doctor C's opinion) they never have been so reconciled, but that a horror of darkness remains with respect to the subject. Answer, In the opinion of many other men, they have often been so reconciled, that there was no reason, why a horror of darkness in view of the subject should remain in the mind of any man. They experience no more horror of darkness in the idea, that God inflicts that endless punishment which is perfectly just, is absolutely necessary to satisfy divine justice, and vindicate the despised authority, government and grace of God, and is subservient to the glory of God and the general good; than in the idea of most other doctrines of the gospel.

But let us proceed to another passage of Doctor C. Multitudes are taken off before they have had opportunity to make themselves hardened abandoned sinners: and so far as we are able to judge, had they been continued in life, they might have been formed to a virtuous temper of mind, by a suitable mixture of correction, instruction, and the like. And can it be supposed with respect to such, that an infinitely benevolent God, without any other trial, in order to effect their reformation, will consign them over to endless and irreversible torment? Would this be to conduct himself like a father on earth? Let the heart of a father speak on this occasion. In fact, it does not appear, that any sinners are so incorrigible in wickedness, as to be beyond recovery by still further methods within the reach of infinite power: And if the infinitely wise God can, in any wise methods, recover them, even in any other state of trial, may we not argue from his infinite benevolence, that he will?

The first branch of this argument is, that some die before they become incorrigible; therefore the fatherly goodness of God will give them another trial. But did Doctor C. know when sinners become incorrigible, and when not? Does any man know how long a person must live in sin, to arrive at that state? If not, what right has any man to say, that any sinners die, before God as perfectly knows them to be incorrigible, as if they had lived in sin ever so long? Besides, were sinners to live in sin ever so long, still this objection might be made; and Doctor C. has in fact made it, not only with regard to those who die prematurely, but with regard to all sinners. He says, "It does not appear, that any sinners are so incorrigible, as to be beyond recovery by still further methods." That is, if it do not appear, that sinners are in this world beyond recovery by still further methods to be used for their recovery, we are to believe from God's infinite benevolence, that those further methods will be used for their recovery. But should a sinner go through the torments of hell, and of ten other succeeding states of trial, it is to be presumed, that Doctor C. would not say, but that possibly he might be recovered by some further methods within the power of God to use, if indeed God should [reconstructed: see] cause to use those further methods. The ground of this argument is, that goodness requires, that God use means for the recovery of sinners, as long as it is in the power of God to use any further means to that end. But this as much needs to be proved as any one proposition advanced by Doctor C.

The next branch of this argument is, that it would not be acting like a father on earth, if God were to consign sinners to endless torment. And is it acting like a father on earth, to doom men to the second death, the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, and there torment them for ages of ages? Let the heart of a father on earth speak and declare whether it would be agreeable to him, to inflict on his children these extreme and long continued tortures? Or even many of the temporal calamities which God inflicts on mankind; such as poverty, shame, a feeble sickly habit, extreme pain and distress, loss of reason, and death attended with the most afflicting circumstances? Would a father on earth choose to plunge his children in the ocean, and leave them to the mercy of the waves? Would he set his house on fire, while they were buried in soft slumbers, and consume them in the flames? Such declamatory applications to the passions are a two-edged sword which will wound Doctor C's scheme, as certainly as that of his opponents. But this controversy is not to be settled by an application to the passions.

The last part of the above quotation destroys the whole. It is this: It does not appear that any sinners are so incorrigible, as to be beyond recovery by still further methods within the reach of infinite wisdom. If God has revealed that no sinners shall be recovered after this life, it is doubtless a wise constitution that this life is the only state of probation. Therefore it is not within the reach of infinite wisdom, to use any further means after this life for the recovery of those who are incorrigible here. So that this whole paragraph is a mere begging of the question: it takes for granted, that this life is not the only state of probation, or that the endless punishment of all who die impenitent is not a doctrine of divine revelation.

Doctor C. elsewhere argues universal salvation from this, that God speaks of himself, as the universal Father of men; and says, fathers on earth chastise their children for their profit, but do not punish them, having no view to their advantage. But does a father on earth never punish an incorrigible child, when it is necessary for the good of the rest of the family? If he did not, but suffered him to ruin his whole family, or even one of his other children; [reconstructed: would he act the part], or deserve the name, of a father? And shall we say that of our Father in Heaven (who instead of being evil, as all earthly fathers are more or less, is infinitely good) which we cannot suppose of any father on earth, till we have first divested him of the heart of a father? The truth is, this and all arguments of the kind take for granted what is by no means granted, that the salvation of all men, is subservient to the good, not of the persons saved only, but of the universal system.

In various passages Doctor C. has much to say of our natural notions of God's goodness; particularly, that the natural notions we entertain of the goodness and mercy of God, rise up in opposition to the doctrine of never ending torments. I grant that our natural notions of those divine attributes rise up in opposition to endless torments, on the supposition that they are unjust and inconsistent with the general good. But on the supposition that they are both just and subservient to the general good, our natural notions rise up in favor of them. So that this and such like arguments all depend on taking for granted what is no more granted than the main question.

Nearly allied to the argument from the divine goodness, is that by which Doctor C. attempts to prove universal salvation from the end of God in creation. As the first cause of all things is infinitely benevolent, it is not easy to conceive that he should bring mankind into existence unless he intended to make them finally happy. If the only good God knew that some free agents would make themselves unhappy, notwithstanding the utmost efforts of his wisdom to prevent it, why did he create them? To give them existence knowing at the same time that they would render themselves finally miserable — is scarcely reconcilable with supremely and absolutely perfect benevolence. This argument, as the preceding, entirely depends on the supposition that the final happiness of every individual is necessary to the greatest happiness of the system. Doubtless God is absolutely and perfectly benevolent: but such benevolence seeks the greatest happiness of the system, not of any individual, unless the happiness of that individual be consistent with the greatest happiness of the system. This is the plain dictate not of reason only, but of scripture, and is abundantly conceded by Doctor C. as appears by the quotations already made. There is no difficulty therefore in conceiving, that however the first cause of all things is infinitely benevolent, he should bring mankind into existence, though he never intended to make them all finally happy. He might in perfect consistence with infinite benevolence, bring them into existence, intending that some of them should suffer that endless punishment which they should deserve, and thereby contribute to the greatest happiness of the system. And if such a punishment be subservient to the greatest happiness of the system, infinite benevolence not only admits of it, but requires it; nor would God be infinitely benevolent, if he should save all men. Therefore this grand argument, on which Doctor C. and other writers in favor of universal salvation, build so much, is a mere begging of the question. Let them show that the greatest good of the system requires the final happiness of every individual, and they will indeed have gone far toward the establishment of their scheme. But until they shall have done this, their argument from this topic is utterly inconclusive. It is no more inconsistent with the goodness of God, that he should create men with a foresight and an intention, that they should suffer that endless punishment which they should deserve, and which is subservient to the general good; than that he should create them with a foresight and intention, that they should subserve the same important end, by suffering the torment of ages of ages, or the pains of the stone or the colic; provided these temporary pains are not subservient to their personal good. And to say that temporary pains cannot consistently with the divine goodness be inflicted on the sinner, unless they be subservient to the personal good of the patient, is to contradict the plain dictates of reason, of scripture, and of Doctor C. himself. But this subject has been largely considered in Chapter 3.

These, I think, are Doctor C's principal arguments from the divine goodness, to prove universal salvation: I presume, that in his whole book there are none more forcible than these. His arguments of this kind generally, if not universally, depend on taking for granted, what is as much in dispute as any point in the whole controversy, that endless punishment is not consistent with the greatest good of the universal system, or the greatest general good. If it be true, that any man will be punished without end, no doubt it is so ordered, because infinite wisdom and goodness saw it to be necessary to the general good. If it be not true, it is equally certain, that infinite wisdom and goodness saw endless punishment to be inconsistent with the general good. But which of these is the truth, is the main question.

4. That endless punishment is consistent with the divine goodness, not only is implied in various sentiments and tenets of Doctor C, but appears to be a real and demonstrable truth. To evince this, I shall now, as was proposed, mention several considerations.

1. All arguments against endless punishment, drawn from the divine mercy, grace or goodness, imply a concession, that endless punishment is just. Were it not just, there would be no occasion to call in the aid of goodness. Stern, unrelenting justice would afford relief. Nor is there the least goodness, as distinguished from justice, exercised by a judge, in delivering a man from an unjust punishment, attempted to be brought upon him by a false accuser. If therefore the salvation of sinners, and of every sinner, be an act of goodness, mercy or grace, as Doctor C. abundantly declares; then endless punishment is just. And if it be just, it appears by Chapter 3, that it will be inflicted, and inflicted by God too. Therefore it is consistent with divine goodness.

It is hoped it has been made manifest in Chapter 2 and 3, that the end of future punishment is not the personal good of the patients, but to satisfy justice, and support the authority and dignity of the divine law and government; as both Doctor C. and the scriptures abundantly hold, that the wicked will be punished to the utmost extent of their demerit. Now if the end of future punishment, whether temporary or endless, be to satisfy justice, and to support government; then the general good is promoted by the satisfaction of justice: otherwise God would not inflict such punishment. And if the proof in Chapter 6, that endless punishment is just, be valid, then justice is not satisfied by any punishment short of endless. But by Chapter 2 and 3 it appears, that all that punishment, which the wicked deserve, will actually be inflicted upon them by God. Therefore endless punishment is perfectly consistent with divine goodness.

2. If the divine law may be in any one instance executed consistently with divine goodness, endless punishment is consistent with the divine goodness. But the divine law may, in some instances, be executed consistently with divine goodness. I have before endeavored to show, that the penalty of the law is endless punishment. If this be true, then when the law is executed, endless punishment is inflicted. And who will dare to say, that God has made a law, which he cannot in any one instance execute consistently with his own perfections: and that if he should execute it in any instance, his goodness and mercy must be inevitably given up? Or rather, he delights in cruelty? If the law cannot be executed without cruelty, it is a cruel unjust law: and to make a cruel and unjust law, is as irreconcilable with the moral rectitude of God, as to execute that law. If the infliction of endless punishment be cruel, the threatening of it also is cruel. But this runs into the former question, whether endless punishment be just.

If it be said, though the law is just, and the execution of it would not be cruel; yet it cannot be executed consistently with the divine goodness, because the divine goodness seeks the greatest possible good of the system: but the greatest possible good of the system requires the final happiness of all — as to this I observe,

(1) That it is giving up the argument from divine goodness in the light, in which Doctor C. has stated it. It appears by the quotations already made, that he held endless punishment to be so inconsistent with divine goodness, that if that punishment be inflicted, it will prove God to be destitute of goodness, and to delight in cruelty.

(2) That the question as now stated comes to no more than this, whether endless punishment be consistent with the greatest possible display of divine goodness: for a system, in which there is the greatest possible good, and the greatest possible display of the divine goodness, are one and the same thing. But if it were granted, that endless punishment is, in this sense, inconsistent with the divine goodness, it would by no means follow, on Doctor C's principles, that all men will be saved. Because it is an established principle with him, that divine goodness is not and cannot be displayed, to the highest possible degree, or so but that there is room for higher displays and further communications of it. Neither is it to be supposed, because God is infinitely benevolent, that he has in fact made an infinite manifestation of his goodness. Infinity in benevolence knows no bounds, but there is still room for more and higher displays of it. This perfection is strictly speaking, inexhaustible, not capable of being displayed to a ne plus. Therefore, it would be absurd for Doctor C. or any one, who agrees with him in the sentiment expressed in the last quotation, to state the argument from divine goodness, in the light in which it is exhibited in the objection now under consideration. This stating of the argument runs entirely into the question, whether the present system of the universe be the best possible; which Doctor C. has sufficiently answered in the negative, in the passage last quoted, and in many other passages of his writings. If it be true, that divine goodness does not adopt and prosecute the best possible plan of the universe in general: what reason have we to think, that it will adopt and prosecute the best possible plan with regard to any part of the divine system; for instance the future state of those who die in impenitence?

(3) On the supposition, that God does adopt and prosecute the best possible plan, both with regard to the universe in general, and in every particular dispensation of his providence; still we shall never be able to determine a priori, that the final salvation of all men is, in the sense now under consideration, most subservient to the general good. It must be determined either by the event itself, or by revelation: and whether revelation do assure us of the salvation of all men, is not the subject of inquiry in this chapter, but shall be particularly considered in its place.

3. If divine goodness without respect to the atonement of Christ, which is foreign from the subject of this chapter, require the salvation of all men; it either requires that they be saved, whether they repent or not; or it requires, that they be saved on the condition of their repentance only. If it require that they be saved, whether they repent or not, it follows, that they have done no damage to the universe, or have committed no sin. For the very idea of sin is a damage to the universe, a dishonor to God, and an injury to the creature. Now whenever a damage is done to the universe, the good of the universe, or which in the present argument comes to the same thing, the divine goodness requires reparation. But if the good of the universe require, that the sinner be saved without even repentance, the good of the universe requires no reparation, and if it require no reparation, it has not been impaired, or there has been no damage done to the good of the universe: and if no damage have been done to the universe, no sin has been committed. No wonder then, that the divine goodness requires the salvation of those who have committed no sin or no moral evil.

If on the other hand it be allowed, that by sin damage is done to the universe, and yet it be held, that divine goodness requires the salvation of all men, on the condition of their repentance only; it will follow, that repentance alone makes it consistent with the general good, that the sinner be saved. Repentance then repairs the damage done to the universe by sin; and so makes satisfaction or atonement for sin — the very essence of atonement is something done to repair the damage done by sin to the universe, so that the sinner can be exempted from punishment, without any disadvantage to the universe. And as repentance is a personal act of the sinner, he does on this supposition make atonement for his own sin by his personal virtue. Therefore, if after this he be saved from wrath, he is but treated according to his personal character, or according to strict justice; not according to goodness or grace. So that while Dr. C. professes and supposes himself to be arguing from the divine goodness, the salvation of all men from the wrath to come; his arguments are really drawn from the justice of God only. They imply either that the sinner who is by divine goodness to be saved from the wrath to come, is no sinner, deserves no punishment, and therefore is incapable of being saved from wrath, as he is exposed to none; or that though he be a sinner, he has in his own person, made full satisfaction for his sin, and therefore merits salvation from wrath, and is incapable of it by an act of grace or goodness.

4. To argue the salvation of all men from the goodness of God, without regard to the atonement of Christ; and yet to allow that endless punishment is just, is a direct contradiction — if it be allowed or proved, that endless punishment is just, it follows of course that it is consistent with the general good, and which is the same thing, with the divine goodness, and is even required by divine goodness, on the supposition on which we now proceed, that no atonement is made for sin. The very idea of a just punishment of any crime is a punishment which in view of the crime only, is requisite to repair the damage done to the system by that crime. Any further punishment than this is unjust, and any punishment short of this, falls short of the demand of justice. At the same time that this is demanded by justice, it is demanded by the general good too: because by the definition of a just punishment, it is necessary to the general good; necessary to secure it, or to repair the damage done to it, by the crime punished. So that a just punishment of any crime is not only consistent with the general good, but is absolutely required by it, provided other measures equivalent to this punishment be not taken to repair the damage done by sin, or, which is the same, provided an atonement be not made. And if the endless punishment of sin be just; it is of course, on the proviso just made, perfectly consistent with the general good of the universe, and absolutely required by it, and equally required by the goodness of God. And to say that though it be just, it is not reconcilable with the divine goodness, is the same as to say, that though it be just, it is not reconcilable with justice.

OBJECTION: Divine goodness does not admit of the endless punishment of the apostle Paul; yet his endless punishment would be just. Answer: Divine goodness, or the general good of the universe, considering the sins or the personal character of Paul by itself, does both admit and require his endless punishment. But considering the atonement of Christ, which, as I have repeatedly observed, comes not into consideration in the present argument, it does not indeed admit of it.

I beg leave to ask the advocates for universal salvation, whether if Christ had not made atonement, it would have been consistent with the general good of the universe, that sinners be punished without end. If they answer in the affirmative, then endless punishment is in itself reconcilable not with justice only, but with goodness too, as goodness always acquiesces in that which is consistent with the general good. For if only in consequence of the atonement, endless punishment be inconsistent with the divine goodness, it becomes inconsistent with it, not on account of any thing in the endless punishment of sin, or in the divine goodness simply; but wholly on account of something external to them both: and therefore that external something being left out of the account, there is no inconsistency between the endless punishment of sin and the divine goodness in themselves considered. But that they are in themselves inconsistent is implied in Dr. C's argument from divine goodness; and that they are not in themselves inconsistent is all for which I am now pleading.

If the answer to the question just proposed be, that it would not be consistent with the general good, that a sinner be punished without end, even if Christ had not made atonement; it follows, that such punishment is not just; as the very definition of a just punishment is, one which in view of the sinner's personal character only is necessary to the general good. Or if this be not a proper definition of a just punishment, let a better be given. Any punishment is just, or is deserved, for no other reason, than that the criminal viewed in himself owes it to the public, or the general good requires it.

5. If divine goodness requires that every sinner be, on his mere repentance, exempted from punishment, it will follow that sin is no moral evil. If divine goodness requires that every sinner be, on his mere repentance, exempted from punishment, the general good of the universe requires the same. If the general good does require it, then either the sinner has in that action of which he repents done nothing by which the general good has been impaired, or that impairment is repaired by his repentance. For if he has impaired the general good, and not afterward repaired it, then by the very terms it requires reparation. And this which the general good in these cases requires of the sinner for the reparation of the general good is his punishment, and not his exemption from punishment. But if the sinner has done nothing which requires that reparation be made to the general good, then he has committed nothing which has impaired the general good — or, which is the same, he has committed no moral evil. For moral evil is a voluntary act impairing the general good consisting in the glory of God and the happiness of the created system. Or if it be said that the repentance of the sinner repairs the general good and prevents the ill effects of his sin, I answer, repentance is no punishment, nor any reparation of damage to the universe by a past action. It is a mere cessation from sin and a sorrow for it. A man who has committed murder makes by repentance no reparation for the damage which is thereby done to society or to the universe. So that if ever any damage were done to the universe by sin, and if therefore the public good required that reparation be made by the punishment of the sinner, it still requires the same, and therefore does not require his exemption from punishment. Besides, the false and absurd consequences necessarily following from the principle that the penitent deserves no punishment — which is the same with this, that the general good does not require that the penitent, viewed in his own character merely, be punished — plainly point out the falsity and absurdity of the principle itself. Particularly this consequence: that on that supposition the penitent never is nor can be forgiven, as he makes by his repentance full satisfaction in his own person, and thus answers the demand of justice or of the general good. But if it be true that repentance does not repair the damage done by sin to the universe, and if, as is now asserted, the general good does require that the penitent sinner, without regard to the atonement of Christ, be exempted from punishment, it required the same before he repented — consequently his sin never did impair the good of the universe, and therefore is no moral evil.

Objection 1. The fourth argument seems to imply that sin consists in damage actually done to the universe, whereas there are many sins in which no real damage is actually done. As if a man stabs another with a design to murder him and opens an abscess, whereby the man is benefited instead of murdered, and in all acts of malice which are not executed, no damage is actually done.

Answer. Taking the word damage in a large sense, to mean not merely loss of property, as it is sometimes taken, but misery, calamity, or natural evil, it may be granted that sin does consist in voluntarily doing damage to the universe. It is a misery, a calamity, or a natural evil to any man to be the object of the malice of any other person, though his malice be never executed. It exposes him to the execution of that malice; it renders him unsafe, and to be unsafe is a calamity — especially to be the object of the malice of another to such a degree that the malicious man attempts the life of the object of his malice. In this case the man who is the object of malice is very unsafe indeed. And if but one person be in a calamitous situation, so far at least the public good is impaired, or the universe is damaged. Besides, if that one act impairing the public good be left unpunished, and no proper restraint by the punishment of the act be laid upon the man himself and upon others, the flood-gate is opened to innumerable more acts of the same or a like kind. This surely is a further calamity to the universe. So that every sinful volition, though it fail of its object in the attempt, or though it be not attempted to be executed in overt act, is a real calamity or damage to the universe.

Objection 2. The preceding reasoning must needs be fallacious, as it implies that goodness or grace is never exercised in any case wherein punishment is deserved, that whatever is admitted by justice is required by goodness, and that if sin be a moral evil and deserve punishment, it cannot consistently with the general good be forgiven.

Answer. This is not true. The reasoning above does not imply, but that there may be, consistently with the general good, the forgiveness of some sinners. Nor does it imply, but that the general good may require the forgiveness of some sinners — as undoubtedly it does require the forgiveness of all who repent and believe in Christ, and so become interested in him according to the Gospel. Nor does this reasoning imply, but that some sinners may obtain forgiveness on some other account than the merits of Christ — though I believe it may be clearly shown from Scripture that forgiveness can be obtained on no other account. But this reasoning does assert that if all penitents as such, or merely because they are penitents, or on account of their own repentance and reformation, be required by divine goodness to be exempted from punishment, then sin deserves no punishment and is no moral evil.

6. The voice of reason is, that divine goodness, or a regard to the general good requires, that sin be punished according to its demerit, in some instances at least: otherwise God would not appear to be what he really is, an enemy to sin, and greatly displeased with it. It is certainly consistent with divine goodness, that sin exists in the world, otherwise it would never have existed. Now since sin is in the world, if God were never to punish it, it would seem, that he is no enemy to it. Or if he punish it in a far less degree than it deserves, still it would seem, that his displeasure at it is far less than it is and ought to be. Nor can mere words or verbal declarations of the Deity sufficiently exhibit his opposition to sin, so long as he uniformly treats the righteous and the wicked in the same manner. His character in view of intelligent creatures will appear to be what it is held forth to be in his actions, rather than what he in mere words declares it to be. But will any man say, that it is conducive to the good order and happiness of the intellectual system, that God should appear to be no enemy, but rather a friend to sin?

Objection. God would still appear to be an enemy to sin, though he were not to punish it: because he takes the most effectual measures, to extirpate it by leading sinners to repentance. Answer. The extirpation of sin shows no other hatred of it, than a physician shows to a disease, which he takes the most effectual measures to abolish, by the restoration of health. But these measures of the physician do not show, that he views his patient as blameable. Sickness is no moral evil, and all the pains of the physician to remove sickness, are no testimony of his abhorrence of moral evil. But sin is a moral evil, and it is subservient to the general good, that the great governor of the universe should testify his abhorrence of it, as a moral evil, or as justly blameable. To this end he must do something further than is done by the physician, who heals his patient: he must either in the person of the sinner, or in his substitute, punish sin, and that according to its demerit; otherwise he will not show himself displeased at it as a moral evil.

Hatred of sin is as essential to the Deity as love of holiness; and it is as honorable to him and as necessary to the general good, that he express the former as the latter. Indeed the latter is no further expressed, than the former is expressed: and so far as the former is doubtful, the latter is doubtful too. The question then comes to this, whether it be consistent with the general good, that God should in actions, as well as words, express his abhorrence of sin as blameable, or as a moral evil; and express this abhorrence to a just degree. If this be consistent with the general good, it is also consistent with the general good, that sin be punished according to its demerit: and if it deserve an endless punishment, it is consistent with the general good and with divine goodness, that such a punishment be inflicted.

7. That endless punishment is inconsistent with divine goodness, and that all men are saved by free grace, is a direct contradiction. To be saved is to be delivered from the curse of the law, which we have before endeavored to show to be an endless punishment. But to be saved from this by free grace, implies, that the person so saved, deserves endless punishment, and that such punishment is with respect to him just. But whatever punishment is just with respect to any man, provided no atonement be made by a substitute, is necessary to the public good; and unless it be necessary to the public good, it is unjust. If it be necessary to the public good, the public good requires it: and if the public good require it, divine goodness requires it. Therefore to apply this reasoning to the endless punishment of the sinner: the salvation of the sinner consists in deliverance from the curse of the law: the curse of the law is endless punishment; and to be delivered from this by free grace, implies, that the endless punishment of the sinner is just. If the endless punishment of the sinner be just, and no atonement be made by a substitute, the public good requires his endless punishment, and the divine goodness of course requires it. So that if the sinner can be saved by free grace only, and no atonement be made by a substitute, the endless punishment of the sinner is not at all inconsistent with divine goodness; and to say that it is inconsistent with the divine goodness, and yet to say that all men are saved by free grace, and can be saved in no other way, implies, as I said, a direct contradiction. It implies, that endless punishment is just, as the deliverance from it is the fruit of grace only: it also implies, that it is not just, as the public good or the divine goodness does not require it, but is inconsistent with it.