Chapter 14: Reply to Dr. C’s Arguments from Texts Describing Everlasting Punishment

Doctor C. says, that the misery of the damned is said to be eternal or everlasting, in five texts only in all the New Testament. Whatever was intended by this ambiguous proposition, the fact doubtless is, that many of his readers have been grossly deceived by it, as they have been led to believe, that the doctrine of endless punishment is apparently taught, in no more than five texts in all the New Testament; or that no more than five texts can be produced, the words of which seem to import an endless punishment. Whereas, all that Doctor C. or any man can pretend is, that the punishment of the damned is in five texts only, in the New Testament, asserted to be eternal, by the use of the adjective [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], commonly translated eternal or everlasting. It cannot be pretended, but that the texts in which the punishment of the damned is in some manner or other declared to be eternal, and in words as determinate, as the adjective, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], eternal, far exceed the number five. The five texts now referred to, do not comprise any of those, in which the damned are said to be punished forever, forever and ever; to be punished by a worm that dies not, and a fire that is not quenched; to be confined by an impassable gulf; to be shut out from the kingdom of heaven; not to see life, etc. etc. etc.

Now what follows from this circumstance, that the punishment of the damned is in five texts only, in the New Testament, declared to be eternal, by the application of the Greek adjective, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]? It may still be declared to be eternal, by other words equally determinate, in above five hundred texts.

Or if there were no other texts, expressing in other words, endless punishment; are not five divine asseverations of any truth, sufficient to bind our faith? If five be not sufficient for this end, neither are five thousand.

Besides; all that Doctor C. says on this head, may be justly retorted: and if his observations in page 259, 260, be of any force to show, that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the scriptures; just as forcibly may it be proved, that the damned will not be punished for an age. Supposing, as Doctor C. does, that the words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], etc. do not mean an endless duration, but the duration of an age; I might say, The misery of the wicked is said to be for an age, in only five texts, in all the New Testament: Upon which I cannot help making a pause to express my surprise to find the sacred writers so very sparing in the use of this word age, as referring to future torments. It is used but three times by Matthew; but once by Mark; but once by Paul; and not once by the other writers of the New Testament. All which is very extraordinary, if it be a doctrine of Christianity, that the wicked are to be punished for an age. And the omissions of the sacred writers upon this head, are a strong presumptive argument, that they know nothing of this doctrine, which has been so vehemently pleaded for in these latter days, by Doctor C. and some others. Therefore, whenever it shall be proved, that notwithstanding the rare use of the word age, with a reference to the punishment of the wicked, that punishment will really last for an age; it is presumed, that it can be proved from the same topics, that it will last without end. If a word, signifying an age, applied five times to future punishment, prove that punishment to continue for an age; why will not a word signifying an endless duration, applied five times to that punishment, prove it to be without end? Nothing therefore can be concluded from the number of times, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], eternal, is applied to future punishment. The whole question, in this state of it, depends on the proper meaning of the word; not at all on the frequency of its use.

Doctor C. says, that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] may signify a limited duration; and that from this remark it follows, that the preceding evidence in favour of universal salvation, remains strong and valid. It is acknowledged, that if those words may signify, and all things considered, do as probably signify, a limited, as an unlimited duration, when applied to the punishment of the wicked; nothing either for or against endless punishment, can be concluded from the use of those words. It is also, on the same suppositions, acknowledged, that by that application of those words, the evidence which Doctor C. has exhibited in favour of the salvation of all men, is not at all impaired. But it is not granted, that those words, when applied to the punishment of the wicked, do as probably signify a limited as unlimited duration. Nor is it granted that Doctor C.'s evidence of universal salvation is valid. Though we should grant that it remains unimpaired by the words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], eternity and eternal; yet it may be utterly invalidated by other considerations: and that this is in fact the case, I have endeavored already, and shall further endeavor to show; how successfully, is submitted to the reader.

The Doctor manifestly argues, on this head from possibility to probability, and even to fact. He says, if [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] may signify a period of time only, there is not a shadow of an interference between its connection with the punishment of wicked men, and their being finally saved: that is, if it may possibly signify a period of time only, it is absolutely certain, that when it is applied to future punishment, it does signify a period of time only. The inconclusiveness of such argumentation must be manifest to every reader. In the same manner it is easy to prove, that there is not the shadow of an interference between the connection of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], eternal, with the life and happiness of the righteous, and their final damnation.

The Doctor says, These words, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] are evidently more loose and general in their meaning, than the English words eternity, everlasting — If it were not so, how comes it to pass, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] will not always bear being translated eternity, everlasting? By the same argument it may be proved, that the words eternity and everlasting in our language, are more loose and general in their meaning, than the Greek [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. We frequently say, such a man is an everlasting talker, or he talks eternally; he is eternally slandering and quarrelling with his neighbours. But according to Doctor C's sense of the Greek words [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], the English phrases just mentioned cannot be properly translated, by the use of those Greek words. The Doctor says, they properly mean the duration of an age. But when it is said, a man talks eternally, the meaning is not, that he talks for an age. The truth is, there are idioms in all languages, which will not bear a literal translation into any other language. The circumstance that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], will not always bear to be rendered eternity and eternal, no more proves, that they do not properly signify the same with our words eternity and eternal, than the circumstance that they will not always bear to be rendered an age, and during an age, proves that they do not properly signify the duration of an age. It is said (Romans 16:26), According to the commandment of the everlasting God, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]; but no man would render this, according to the commandment of the God who lives for an age. P. 261.

The Doctor thinks that before eternal times is an impropriety in English, and hence infers, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] (Titus 1:2) means a limited duration. It is presumed, that the Doctor would not have objected to the propriety of expressing a proper eternity, by saying, From eternity, from everlasting, from eternal ages. Yet in reality there is as great an impropriety in these expressions, as in that which the Doctor pronounces an impropriety. Understood strictly and literally they imply, that there is a point at which eternity began, and from eternity is from that point. The very use of the preposition from implies this. It implies, that the computation is made from something, at which eternity began. This something must strictly be some time, or some point in endless duration. So that from eternity taken strictly, is as real and as great an impropriety as before eternity or before eternal times. The same is observable of to eternity. Yet from eternity and to eternity, are in fact used among us to express an absolute eternity: and how does it appear absurd, that the apostle should express the same idea by a phrase, in which no greater impropriety is naturally implied, and which may as well, and in the same way, as the phrases from eternity and to eternity, be made properly to signify an absolute eternity? The impropriety supposed to be in the expression, Before eternal times, is, that it implies a beginning to eternity. The same is implied in the expression from eternity: and in the phrase to eternity it is implied that there is an end to eternity. But I mean not to insist on this: I do but just mention it, to show, that Doctor C's most favourite proof, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] means a temporary duration, is not demonstrative.

The Doctor further observes, The particles [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], are sometimes added in the Septuagint, to the word [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. Whereas, should we add the English words answerable to those Greek particles, to the term eternity, it would make evident nonsense. The Doctor was mistaken: we do say forevermore, forever and ever, forever and for aye. Yet no man will hence infer, that in our language the words forever do not properly mean an endless duration, or that forever and ever implies an addition to eternity. P. 263.

Doctor C. insists, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] signify nothing more than an age, dispensation, period of continuance, either longer or shorter; That it is certain, this is the sense in which they are commonly, if not always used in the sacred pages; That this is the frequent and almost perpetual use of the words — in the sacred writings. It is by no means granted, nor has the Doctor made it evident, that this is almost the perpetual use of those words, especially in the New Testament. [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] reckoning the reduplications of it, as [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], to be but single instances of its use, occurs in the New Testament in one hundred and four instances; in thirty-two of which, it means a temporary duration. In seven, it may be taken in either the temporary or endless sense. In sixty-five, including six instances in which it is applied to future punishment, it plainly signifies an endless duration. How then could Doctor C. say, that it is commonly if not always used in the sacred pages, to signify an age or dispensation only? and that this is almost the perpetual use of it? P. 264 and 267. The places are: Matthew 12:32; 13:22, 39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mark 4:19; Luke 1:70; 16:8; 20:34, 35; Acts 3:21; Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:6, twice, 7, 8; 3:18; 10:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 1:21; 2:2; 6:12; 1 Timothy 6:17; 2 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 1:2; 9:26; 11:3. The places are: Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; John 9:32; Ephesians 2:7; 3:9; Colossians 1:26; Hebrews 6:5. The places are as follows: Matthew 6:13; 21:19; Mark 11:14; Luke 1:33, 55; John 4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, twice, 51, 52; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; Acts 15:18; Romans 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; 1 Corinthians 8:13; 2 Corinthians 9:9; 11:31; Galatians 1:5; Ephesians 3:11, 21; Philippians 4:20; 1 Timothy 1:17, twice; 2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 1:8; 5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 13:8, 21; 1 Peter 1:23, 25; 4:11; 5:11; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:17; 2 John 2; Revelation 1:6, 18; 4:9, 10; 5:13, 14; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 22:5. — The six instances in which it is applied to future punishment are: Mark 3:29; 2 Peter 2:17; Jude 13; Revelation 14:11; 19:3; 20:10.

But if [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] used absolutely did generally signify a mere temporary duration; it would not follow, that it has the same restricted signification, when governed by the preposition [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. It is never applied to future punishment, but in this construction. In the whole New Testament, it is used in this construction, sixty-one times, in six of which it is applied to future punishment. That in all the remaining fifty-five it is used in the endless sense, I appeal to the reader. If in those fifty-five instances it be used in the endless sense; this surely is a ground of strong presumption, that in the six instances, in which it is applied to future punishment, it is used in the same sense. In this construction it is found in all the texts mentioned in the last marginal note, except Acts 15:18; Ephesians 3:11, 21; once in 1 Timothy 1:17, and 2 Peter 3:18. I have been thus particular in noting all the texts, in which [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] occurs in the New Testament, that the reader may examine them and judge for himself, whether I have given a just representation of the use of that word by the inspired writers.

The adjective [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is still more unfavorable to Dr. C's system, than the substantive [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]. It is found in seventy-one places in the whole New Testament; sixty-six, beside the five in which Dr. C. allows it is applied to future punishment. In every one of the sixty-six instances, except two, (2 Timothy 1:9; and Titus 1:2), it may, to say the least, be understood in the endless sense. If beside the two instances just mentioned, (Romans 16:25; Philemon 15; Hebrews 6:2; and Jude 7), should be pleaded, which I think are all that any universalist will pretend do contain a limited sense; it may be observed concerning Romans 16:25, that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] may, with at least as great truth and propriety, be rendered mystery kept secret during the eternal or unlimited past ages, or from eternity, as, mystery kept secret since the world began. The literal construction of Philemon 15, 16, is, That you might receive him eternal, no longer as a servant, but above a servant, a brother; or more briefly thus: That you might receive him as an eternal brother. That Onesimus was, in the endless sense, become an eternal brother to Philemon, and that as such he ought to be received by Philemon, cannot be disputed, provided they both were, as the apostle supposed them to be, real Christians. The final judgment intended in Hebrews 6:2, may with the same propriety be called an endless judgment, because it refers to an endless duration to follow; as it may be called the judgment of an age or dispensation, because it refers to an age or dispensation which shall then have been past. As to the fire suffered by the Sodomites, if the text mean the fire of hell, then Jude 7, is to be added to the five texts, in which it is acknowledged [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] refers to future punishment. If it mean the fire in which they and their city were consumed in this world, it can be called eternal, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], with respect to the effect only: and to say that this effect is to last for a limited time only, is the same as to say, that the Sodomites are finally to be saved; which is to beg the grand question.

As to 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2, without insisting on what has been observed in page 249, 250, if it should be granted, that in these two instances [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is used in a limited sense, I conceive no injury would result to the doctrine for which I plead. It will not be disputed that the words eternal and everlasting in our language, are sometimes used in a limited sense: and perhaps no book written in the English language, especially written by so many different authors, and at such distant times, as the New Testament, can be found, in which the word eternal is used seventy times, and not twice at least in the limited sense.

As the proper meaning of the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is so much insisted on by Dr. C. and as he triumphs in the idea, that it is almost perpetually, by the sacred writers, used in the limited sense, I must beg the patience of the reader, while I descend to the consideration of the particular texts, in which it occurs. In forty-four of the aforementioned sixty-six texts, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is applied to the future life of the righteous, and therefore is used in the endless sense. If this be not allowed, it will follow, that there is no promise, no security of an endless life to the righteous, or to any of mankind, and of course universal salvation must be given up; as shall be more particularly shown presently. In Luke 16:9, it is applied to the celestial habitations of the righteous: in 2 Corinthians 4:17, to the future glory of the righteous: in 2 Corinthians 5:1, to their house in heaven: in 2 Thessalonians 2:16, to their consolation: in 2 Timothy 2:10, to their future glory: in Hebrews 5:9, to their salvation: in Hebrews 9:15, to their future inheritance. That in these seven instances it is used in the endless sense, will doubtless be granted, by all those who allow this to be the sense of it in the preceding forty-four. In Hebrews 9:12, it is applied to the redemption of Christ: in Hebrews 13:20, to the covenant of grace: in Revelation 14:6, to the gospel. That in these three instances, it is used in the endless sense, it is presumed, there can be no dispute among Christians. The sense is still more determinate, when it is applied to the Deity or his perfections, as it is to God himself, in Romans 16:9: to the divine power, in 2 Timothy 6:16: to the divine glory, in 1 Peter 5:10: to the Holy Ghost, in Hebrews 9:14. In 2 Corinthians 4:18, it is applied to things unseen, as opposed to things seen: and to suppose, that in this instance it means the duration of an age or dispensation only, would destroy all opposition between things seen and things unseen; because many of the former continue for an [reconstructed: age] or dispensation, as well as the latter. The bare writing of this passage, so as to express a limited duration, sufficiently confutes that sense: thus, The things which are seen, are temporal; but the things which are unseen, continue for an age or dispensation. In 2 Peter 1:11, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], is applied to the kingdom of Christ. I am aware, that the believers in Dr. C's book, will hold, that in this instance, it is used in the limited sense, because according to that book, the kingdom of Christ is of mere temporary continuance. To assert this however is a mere begging of a question in dispute. That this kingdom is not of mere temporary continuance, some reasons have been urged to show. How forcible those reasons are, is submitted to the reader. Now these texts, together with (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; Romans 16:25; Philemon 15; Hebrews 6:2; and Jude 7), which were before considered, make up the whole sixty-six.

For the truth of this account of the use of [in non-Latin alphabet] in the New Testament, I appeal to all who are acquainted with the Greek testament, or are capable of examining it. And if [in non-Latin alphabet] be used seventy-one times in the whole; sixty-six times beside those instances, in which it is allowed to be applied to future punishment: and if in all those sixty-six instances, except two, it certainly mean, or at least may fairly and most naturally be understood to mean, an endless duration; if in all, except six, it must necessarily be understood in the endless sense; what are we hence naturally, and may I not say, necessarily, led to conclude, concerning those instances, in which it is applied to the punishment of the wicked? Doubtless that in those instances too it is used in the endless sense.

But what are we to think of Doctor C's saying, that this word is, in the sacred pages, most frequently and almost perpetually, used in the limited sense? With all his parade of Greek learning, and of a thorough acquaintance with the Greek testament, was he in reality so little acquainted with it, as to fall into such an egregious mistake? If it should be here pleaded in defense of Doctor C. that he supposed [in non-Latin alphabet] to be used in the limited sense, in all those instances in which it is applied to the future life of the righteous; and that on this supposition, it is almost perpetually used in the limited sense: it may be observed, that Doctor C. did indeed suppose this; and he might as well have supposed, that the same word applied to future punishment is used in the limited sense. This latter supposition would have been no more a begging of the question than the former. But of this more presently.

Doctor C. thinks it is evident from the very texts that are brought to prove the strict eternity of hell-torments, that they contain no such doctrine. This proposition is supported by the following considerations — That in two texts the word everlasting is applied to the fire of hell, not to the punishment or misery of the wicked — That fire in its own nature tends to an end, and will by the laws of nature necessarily in time come to an end — That fire powerfully tends to bring on a dissolution of those bodies that are cast into it.

1. That the word everlasting is applied, in two texts, to the fire, not to the punishment, of hell; hence the Doctor infers, in words which he quotes with approbation from Nichol Scot, that though the fire be without end, it will not follow, that every individual subject, which is cast into it, must be so too. Did the Doctor then believe, that some of the subjects of hell-fire will not exist without end, but will be annihilated? This is to give up the salvation of all men. Besides; that the fire of hell will be kept up without end, and therefore eternal ages after all the subjects shall be either annihilated or delivered out of it, is a mere conjecture, unsupported by any evidence from scripture or reason. As well might the Doctor have said, The saints will indeed be received to everlasting habitations; the habitations will be strictly without end; but the saints will, after a while, be all either annihilated or sent to hell. What if the word everlasting be in two instances applied to the fire of hell? In other instances it is applied to the punishment, to the destruction, to the smoke of the torment, and to the torment itself of the damned, Revelation 20:10, "And" [they] shall be tormented, day and night, forever and ever. And if, when applied to the fire, it prove that to be without end, doubtless when applied to the punishment, to the destruction, to the torment, it equally proves them to be without end.

2. That fire as such naturally tends to an end, and will, in time, by the laws of nature, actually come to an end. This, like many other of Doctor C's arguments, if it prove anything, proves too much, and therefore really proves nothing. It depends on this very false principle — that whatever, according to the laws of nature, established in this world, would, without an immediate divine interposition, come to an end, will certainly come to an end in the future world. Now according to this principle, all the bodies of both sinners and saints, in the future world, as well as this, will be dissolved. In fact, as their souls too are constantly upheld in existence by the agency of God, and would in their own nature immediately cease to exist, were it not for that continued agency; it follows, according to the principle now under consideration, that all the souls of both sinners and saints will actually come to an end, in the future world. But as this consequence will be rejected, and as it will be granted, that the souls of all men will, by the agency of God, be upheld without end; so the same agency will be sufficient, to continue the fire of hell without end; and that whether it be material fire or not. If it be not material fire, it does not, in its own nature, more tend to an end, than the souls of men, or the faculties of those souls. If it be material fire, still it may, as was just now observed, be perpetuated to an absolute eternity.

If this argument from the tendency of fire to an end, be of any force, it will overthrow Doctor C's scheme, equally as the contrary. For it is equally the tendency of all the fire, of which we have any experience, to come to an end, in a short time, as to come to an end at all. No fire in this world will, without new supplies of fuel, last for ages of ages, or even for one age. But with a proper supply of fuel, any fire may be kept up without end. If therefore we are to conclude, that the fire of hell will come to an end, because the fire of which we have knowledge, will without a new and constant supply of fuel, come to an end; we are also to conclude, that the fire of hell will come to an end, before the expiration of one age. Indeed God can make the fire of hell last for an age: and he can with equal ease make it last without end. In fact, he can make our common fire last without end. The same power which shall make our bodies immortal, can make our common fire strictly eternal. To this end the nature of that fire needs no greater alteration, than the nature of our bodies needs, to render them immortal.

The Doctor informs us, that he sees not but an age, dispensation or period, for the continuance of this fire, will very well answer the full import of the word [illegible], everlasting; especially, if we suppose this age to last till the fire has accomplished the end, for which it was enkindled. But it is not allowed by the opponents of the Doctor, that the fire will ever have accomplished the end, for which it was enkindled: and to argue on that supposition, is to take for granted, what is as much in dispute, as any subject of this whole controversy. He adds, The words concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, They are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire, import no more than this, that this fire lasted till it had accomplished the design of heaven, in the destruction of those cities, for a standing example of the divine vengeance to after ages. And the fire of hell is doubtless called everlasting for the like reason. According to this then, the word everlasting, etc., applied to future punishment, gives no evidence, that that punishment is to last longer, than the time, during which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were in consuming, or longer than one day: and the flood of Noah, as it lasted till it had accomplished the design of heaven in the destruction of the old world, for a standing public example of the divine vengeance to after ages, was an eternal flood: The deaths of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, of Nadab and Abihu, of Zimri and Cosbi, etc., etc., were for the same reasons eternal deaths. But how is this sense of everlasting consistent with that for which Doctor C. abundantly contends, that it signifies the duration of an age? And if "the fire of hell be doubtless called everlasting," in the former sense, how does it appear, that it ever is, or that it can consistently be, called everlasting in the latter sense?

3. Fire powerfully tends to bring on a solution of continuity, in those bodies, that are cast into it; therefore the punishment of hell is not endless. So fire tends to bring on a dissolution of the human body in a very short time, in one hour, or in a much shorter time: therefore the punishment of hell will not last for ages of ages, or for one age, or even for one day. This argument is just as conclusive, as that now quoted from Doctor C. He who can make a human body endure the fire of hell for an age, can make it endure the same fire, for an endless succession of ages. Therefore though fire does powerfully tend to bring on a dissolution of those bodies, which are cast into it, it by no means from there follows, either that such dissolution will be effected in the wicked; or that their torment will ever come to an end.

The Doctor proceeds to argue, that future punishment will not be endless, because the wicked are not said to live always in torment without dying; or that their bodies shall be immortal, or incorruptible, or indissoluble: but that they shall reap corruption, be destroyed, perish, undergo death. On this passage it may be remarked,

1. That by dying, corruption, destruction, perishing, the second death, he evidently means something different from torment; as he sets those terms in opposition to torment or misery. Yet he tells us in the very same page, that the second death, which wicked men shall pass through, and their being cast into the lake of fire, mean — one and the same thing. In other parts of his book, he declares, that everlasting destruction evidently means misery, — that the being cast into the furnace of fire, where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, means the same thing, in the sacred dialect, with the second death, — that the scripture expresses going through the torments of hell, by being hurt of the second death.

2. If by death, destruction, etc., Doctor C. mean anything different from the torment of the damned, it seems he must mean, either annihilation, or a dissolution of the connection of the souls and bodies of the damned, and their transition from the state, in which they are to be immediately after this life, to the next succeeding state. If he mean the former, it is indeed opposed to their endless misery, and equally opposed to their final salvation. If he mean a transition of the damned to some other state, this is no proof against endless misery; because the Doctor himself supposes, that the damned, or some of them at least, will pass through several succeeding states of misery. And let them pass through ever so many succeeding states, there is no evidence arising from this bare transition, that they will ever be saved. So that let the Doctor mean, in this case, what he will, by death, destruction, etc., those words are either not at all opposed to the endless misery of the wicked, or they are equally opposed to their endless happiness. Whether they do mean annihilation or not, has been already considered in Chapter 5. The truth undoubtedly is, what Doctor C. himself abundantly holds, though in writing this passage, he seems to have forgotten it; that the death, destruction, corruption, second death of the damned, is their misery or torment, the smoke of which shall ascend forever and ever, and in which in (Revelation 20:10), they are expressly said to be tormented forever and ever.

3. If the express words "The wicked shall always live in torment, without dying" be not written in scripture, yet it is there written, that they shall go into everlasting punishment; that the smoke of their torment shall ascend forever and ever, that they shall be tormented forever and ever, etc. In Revelation 20:10, it is said, "The devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and they shall be tormented day and night forever and ever" [in non-Latin alphabet], in the plural number. Now so long as a person is tormented, he lives in torment without dying: and to be tormented forever and ever, is to live always in torment without dying. What right then had Doctor C. to say, that the wicked are not said to live always in torment without dying? And if the very words just quoted from Doctor C. had been inserted in the sacred volume, they might have been explained away as easily as the expressions just now quoted from scripture, and as the many other declarations of endless torment which are there to be found. It might have been said, "The wicked, while such, shall indeed always live in torment; but no sooner shall they repent and become righteous, than they shall be delivered from their torment, into endless bliss." The righteous are no more in the very words said to be immortal in happiness, than the wicked are said to be immortal in misery; and shall we therefore deny, that they are to be immortal in happiness? If it had been said, that the wicked shall be incorruptible or indissoluble in misery, it might have been pleaded, with as much plausibility, as attends many of Doctor C.'s pleas, that this meant, that while they are in misery, they are incorruptible, etc., not that they shall without end remain in misery.

The Doctor tells us, that the texts which join [in non-Latin alphabet], everlasting, with the misery of the wicked, are very few in comparison with those, which join with it a dissolution, destruction, or death. That this observation may be at all to the purpose, it ought to be shown — 1. That destruction, death, etc., as applied in scripture to the damned, are inconsistent with their endless misery, and are not at the same time, equally inconsistent with their final salvation. 2. That whenever there is a seeming inconsistency between several passages of scripture, and to relieve the difficulty, we are necessitated to understand some of them in a figurative sense; we are to determine, that the truth is according to the literal tenor of the greater number, and that the minority, as in popular assemblies, is always to give way to the majority, and complaisantly submit to a figurative construction.

A view has now been taken of Doctor C.'s arguments to prove, that [in non-Latin alphabet] eternity and [in non-Latin alphabet], eternal, do not in the sacred writings properly mean an endless duration. Concerning the validity of those arguments, it is the province of the reader to judge.

We are next to attend to the Doctor's answer to the argument drawn from the circumstance, that the same word in scripture is used to express the duration of the misery of the wicked, as is used to express the duration of the happiness of the righteous, and that in the same text; as Matthew 25:46: "These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The Doctor's first answer to this argument is, that the state next succeeding the present, is not final, either with respect to the wicked or the righteous: and therefore the word eternal, even when applied to the life of the righteous, means not an endless duration. For this hypothesis he gives no new reasons, but refers us to what he had said before, which we have already considered, and the sum of which is, that Christ's kingdom is not to continue without end, but is at last to be delivered up to the Father; that the reward promised in scripture to the righteous is to be bestowed upon them in this kingdom of Christ; that that reward therefore cannot be without end. In opposition to this, it has been shown, that the scriptures abundantly assure us, that the kingdom of Christ is to be without end; and that whatever is said in scripture concerning Christ's resignation of the kingdom to the Father, must be understood in a consistency with the endless duration of Christ's kingdom: and an attempt was made, to show in what sense of resigning the kingdom, a consistency can be preserved.

Further; the idea now advanced by Doctor C. cannot be admitted, in a consistency either with the scriptures, nor with Doctor C. himself.

1. Not with the scriptures. For if Matthew 25:46, and the many other texts, which promise eternal life to the righteous, do not promise them an endless life and happiness, there is no promise of such happiness to the righteous in all the scripture: and with at least as much plausibility, as the Doctor evades the force of Matthew 25:46; may the force of any text be evaded, which can be brought to prove the endless life of the righteous. Let us consider those, which the Doctor supposes determine the future life and happiness of the righteous to be endless. Luke 20:36; "Neither can they die any more." This may be evaded two ways; it may be said to mean no more, than that they shall not die during the continuance of Christ's kingdom; and the original happily favors this construction. [in non-Latin alphabet]. Neither can they die as yet; their death will be deferred till the end of Christ's kingdom. — It may also be evaded thus, If they cannot die any more they may live in misery. 1 Corinthians 9:25; But we an incorruptible crown. True, the crown may be incorruptible indeed! but the possessor may be very corruptible: as Doctor C. supposes the fire of hell may be endless, though the wicked shall all be delivered out of it in time. And when the bodies of the saints are said to be raised incorruptible, to put on incorruption, immortality, etc., this may mean indeed, that they shall exist and live, but not that they shall be happy without end. We receiving a kingdom, which cannot be moved (Hebrews 12:28); the kingdom may indeed be immovable; yet a great part of the subjects may be removed. 1 Peter 1:4; He has begotten us — to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fades not away. All this may be true concerning the inheritance, yet all the heirs from among men, of that inheritance, may be removed from the possession of it, and in that sense, may fade away. Revelation 2:11; He that overcomes, shall not be hurt of the second death. He may however be hurt of the third, fourth or fifth death. Chapter 21:4; God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death. Here also I avail myself of the original: it may be literally rendered, The death shall not be as yet. 1 Thessalonians 4:17; So shall we be ever with the Lord. The word ever, [in non-Latin alphabet], properly signifies not endlessly, but constantly, continually, uninterruptedly. In this sense it is manifestly used in every other instance in the New Testament. Nor is it in any instance, beside this 1 Thessalonians 4:17, applied at all to the future state. Therefore 1 Thessalonians 4:17, means no more, than that the saints, while they are in heaven, shall be uninterruptedly with Christ; as John 12:8, means, that while we are in the world, we uninterruptedly have the poor with us.

Thus by admitting Doctor C's sense of Matthew 25:[4]6, we erase from the scriptures every promise of endless life and happiness to the righteous, and overthrow the gospel. Indeed Doctor C. expressly holds, that there is no promise in the gospel of endless happiness to any man; how consistently with himself, the reader will judge. The reward promised, under the administration of Christ's kingdom, in the present state, in order to persuade men to become his good and faithful subjects, is not the final happiness God intends to bestow upon them; but the happiness of that state, which intervenes between the resurrection and God's being all in all. Yet he quotes the texts remarked on in the last paragraph, and says they determine, that the happiness of the righteous is to be endless: and were not those texts supposed by Doctor C. to be promises, given under the administration of Christ's kingdom, in this present state, in order to persuade men to become his good and faithful subjects?

2. Nor is Doctor C's construction of Matthew 25:46, any more consistent with his own scheme, than it is with the Bible. His whole scheme supposes, that all men will be finally happy: and he believed that the doctrine of final happiness is taught in scripture. He professes to ground his whole book immediately on scripture. But if there be no promise in scripture, of endless happiness, as is implied in his construction of Matthew 25:46; and as he expressly holds, in page 222; his whole scheme falls to the ground.

That Doctor C. does in other parts of his book, hold that there are promises of endless happiness, does not relieve the matter. To be inconsistent and to contradict one's self, clears up no difficulty. Who is answerable for that inconsistence, I need not inform the reader. It is manifest, the Doctor was driven into this inconsistence, by the pressure of the argument from Matthew 25:46, That the punishment of the wicked is of the same duration with the happiness of the righteous, because in the very same sentence it is said, The wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment, and the righteous into everlasting life.

If there be no promise in scripture, of final happiness, then all those texts from which the Doctor argues universal salvation, are altogether impertinent, and prove nothing to the purpose for which they are brought. A promise is an assurance of the bestowment of some future good. If therefore, Romans 5:12, etc., Chapter 8:19, etc., 1 Corinthians 15:24, etc., etc., be no promises of endless happiness, they afford no assurance nor evidence, that all will be finally saved.

In the same manner in which Doctor C. restricts Matthew 25:46, to a limited duration, may every text from which he argues universal salvation, be restricted. If the life promised in the last quoted text, be a limited life; a life to be enjoyed before the kingdom is delivered up to the Father; what reason can be given why, in Romans 5:18, "The free gift came upon all men to justification of life," the life promised is not the same, and of the same limited duration? If life for a limited duration only be promised in Matthew 25:46; then the destruction of death for a limited duration only, is of course all that is promised in the same text. And if the destruction of death for a limited duration only be all that is promised in Matthew 25:46; how does it appear, that a destruction of death for any more than a limited duration, is promised in 1 Corinthians 15:26, "the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death?" And how strange is it, that Doctor C. should from Romans 8:21, The creature shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God, argue the certain salvation of all men, when he himself holds, that the glorious liberty promised the children of God, does not mean final salvation.

The Doctor's second answer to the argument from (Matthew 25:46), is founded on the supposition, that the next is the final state with respect to both the righteous and the wicked. If the next state of the wicked be final, the Doctor abundantly declares, that all men will not be saved. If the next state is a state of punishment not intended for the cure of the patients themselves, it is impossible all men should be finally saved. If the wicked are sent to hell as so many absolute incurables, the second death ought to be considered as that which will put an end to their existence, both in soul and body. Thus this second answer of Dr. C, wholly depends on the supposition, that the wicked are to be annihilated; and to evade the argument from (Matthew 25:46), to prove endless punishment, he is necessitated to adopt the scheme of annihilation, and thus to give up his whole system of universal salvation.

The Doctor gives us three reasons to show, that even on the supposition, that the next is the final state, it will not follow, from the endless happiness of the righteous, that the wicked will suffer endless misery. The first reason is, That the word everlasting, [in non-Latin alphabet], when applied to the righteous, is mostly joined with the word life: whereas this word, when applied to the wicked, is never connected with their life, but always with the fire, or with their damnation, punishment or destruction. Now this observation is wholly impertinent, on any other supposition, than that the wicked are to be annihilated: for Dr. C. himself makes this observation, supposing that the next state of the wicked will be final. And if it be final, the wicked must be without end in that state, which is allowed by all to be a state of misery; or they must not exist at all. Thus still the Doctor is obliged to give up his favorite scheme of the salvation of all men.

His second reason is, that it perfectly falls in with our natural notions of the infinite benevolence of the Deity, that he should reward the righteous with endless life; but not that he should punish the wicked with endless misery. But our notions of the benevolence of the Deity, are to be conformed to divine revelation; and only when they are conformed to that standard, are they right. And to suppose, that the endless misery of those, who live and die in wickedness, is not agreeable to scriptural representations of the benevolence of the Deity, is a mere begging of the question. This subject has already been largely considered in Chapter 8.

The Doctor's last reason is, That we are naturally and obviously led to interpret [in non-Latin alphabet], everlasting, when joined with the happiness of the righteous, in the endless sense, from other texts which determine this to be its meaning. "This" adds the Doctor, I call a decisive answer to this branch of the objection, upon supposition, that the next is the final state of man. Now all those his determinate texts have been already considered in page 262, and in view of the observations there made, the reader will judge, whether those texts do any more decisively, than the word [in non-Latin alphabet], everlasting, prove the future happiness of the righteous, to be without end.

To confirm his construction of (Matthew 25:46), Dr. C. mentions two texts in which he supposes the word [in non-Latin alphabet], everlasting, is in the same sentence used both in the limited and endless sense. One is (Romans 16:25-26): According to the mystery which was kept secret [in non-Latin alphabet] since the world began — but is now made manifest — according to the commandment [in non-Latin alphabet] of the everlasting God. Concerning this text it was before observed, that [in non-Latin alphabet] is perfectly capable of the endless sense. The mystery was kept secret from all eternity, or during the eternal ages which preceded creation; or through the eternity a parte ante, as some call it. So that this text answers not the Doctor's purpose. The other text produced by the Doctor, is (Titus 1:2), In hope [in non-Latin alphabet] of eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised [in non-Latin alphabet] before the world began. On this text, it has been observed, that there is no absolute certainty, that it means a limited duration. But supposing that this indeed is an instance to the Doctor's purpose: when it shall be made as evident from the very nature of the case, or from any other source of evidence, that the wicked cannot be punished without end, as it is, that God could not give a promise before eternity; doubtless we shall all give up the doctrine of endless punishment.

At length we come to the Doctor's criticism on the expression forever and ever. He seems to suppose, that expression in scripture does not refer to the future punishment of all the wicked, but only of the worshippers of the beast, and to a certain "rabble rout of men," as he calls them. Be this as it may, it equally overthrows the Doctor's scheme, as if it ever so confessedly referred to the punishment of all the wicked. But on the supposition, that forever and ever refers to the punishment of the wicked in common, the Doctor thinks that that phrase is obviously capable of being understood of a limited duration. His reasons are, That [in non-Latin alphabet] in the singular number almost perpetually signifies an age, or a limited duration — That though this word in the plural is to be met with in several places in the Septuagint, yet in them all it signifies a limited duration — In like manner the plural of [in non-Latin alphabet] is most commonly, if not always, used, in the New Testament, to point out a limited duration; That [in non-Latin alphabet] is applied in (Revelation 11:15), to the kingdom of Christ, and therefore must mean a limited duration — That [in non-Latin alphabet], and [in non-Latin alphabet] are always in the Septuagint, to be understood in the limited sense.

1. A[⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] in the singular number almost perpetually signifies a limited duration — Answer: It is by no means granted, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] in the singular almost perpetually signifies a limited duration; especially when governed by the preposition [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. In p. 250, &c, the use of [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], in the New Testament, was traced, both in the singular and plural, and it was found, that it is much more frequently used in the endless, than in the limited sense. If the use of the singular number only be traced, in even this number it is still most frequently used in the endless sense, as the learned reader may see, by examining the texts, in which it is used in the Greek Testament, all which have been already noted. Dr. C's assertion therefore, that it almost perpetually signifies a limited duration, is a mere assertion, and stands for nothing until it shall be proved: and to make a mere assertion a ground of an important consequence, is not warrantable by the laws of reasoning and philosophy.

But if the assertion were ever so true, the consequence, which Dr. C. from there draws, would by no means follow. If [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] in the singular did almost perpetually signify a limited duration, it would not follow, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] too signifies a limited duration. Language is not made metaphysically by philosophers, but by the vulgar, without metaphysical reasoning: and the meaning of particular phrases is wholly determined by use, not by metaphysical reasoning on the natural force of the words. If therefore use have determined [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] to mean generally or universally an endless duration, this is enough to settle the present question, let [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] mean in the singular what it may.

Or if we must reason metaphysically on this subject, it may be asserted, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] is no absurd or unintelligible mode of expressing an endless duration. If [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] signify an age, and the phrases just mentioned be rendered, the age of the ages and the ages of the ages, the strictest philosophy will justify those phrases, as applied to eternity. We have no idea of eternity, but as an endless succession of ages. Therefore, that age, those ages, or that duration, which comprehends all those successive ages, is a proper eternity. The Doctor undertakes to reason metaphysically on this subject, and observes, that a duration for eternities of eternities, is a very uncouth mode of expression. But it is not more uncouth, than the expression of An eternity added to an eternity, or an eternity and an eternity. Yet this is the strict analysis of forever and ever, an expression rendered abundantly proper by use. P. 297, 298.

One thing more ought to be observed, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], whether in the singular or plural, governed by the preposition [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], invariably in the New Testament, signifies an endless duration. But in the phrase in question, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] it is governed by that preposition.

2. That though [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], the plural, is met with in several places in the Septuagint, yet in them all it signifies a limited duration. Answer 1. It does not appear, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] in the Septuagint always signifies a limited duration; nor is it used in this sense in all the instances, which Dr. C. produces to prove, that it always means a limited duration: as (Psalm 145:13) Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom: [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. (Daniel 2:44) In the days of these kings, the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom — and it shall stand forever, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. Though the Doctor endeavors to prove, that in these texts a limited duration must be intended, because in (1 Corinthians 15:28), Christ is represented as delivering up his kingdom to the Father; yet it is at least as clearly proved by (Luke 1:33), "Of his kingdom there is no end," and the other texts before quoted, that the texts now in question are to be taken in the endless sense. Besides, how does it appear, that (Psalm 145:13) refers to the kingdom of Christ, as distinguished from the kingdom of the Father? And the kingdom of the Father Dr. C. allows, is without end. P. 296. P. 235, &c.

There are other texts, in which [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] seems beyond dispute to be used in the endless sense; as (Psalm 77:7) Will the Lord cast off forever, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]? And will he be favorable no more? The latter expression explains the former to mean an endless duration. The next verses further confirm this idea. (Daniel 4:34) I praised and honored him, that lives forever, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. Chapter 6:26: For he is the living God, and steadfast forever, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. If [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] be not in these instances used in the endless sense, it is in vain to search for instances, in which it is used in that sense; and it may be presumed, that it is incapable of any application, by which it shall appear to be used in that sense.

Answer 2. But if it were ever so true, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] is never used in the Septuagint, but in a limited sense; it by no means follows, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] is in general, or at all, in the New Testament, used in a limited sense.

3. In like manner the plural of [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], is commonly, if not always, used in the New Testament to point out a limited duration. The answers to this argument are the very same, with those given to the preceding. (1) The plural of [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], in the New Testament, even when it is not redoubled, is not commonly, much less always, used to point out a limited duration; but is generally used to point out an endless duration, as the reader may see by the texts in which it occurs, all which are noted in the margin. Dr. C. quotes (Luke 1:33), He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, as an instance, that [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] means a limited duration. But if he had quoted the whole verse, the latter part would have effectually confuted his sense of the former part. The words are, and of his kingdom there shall be no end. (2) If [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] by itself did commonly point out a limited duration, it would not follow, that the same limited sense belongs to [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. P. 297. In the endless sense, (Matthew 6:18; Luke 1:33; Romans 1:25; Romans 9:5; Romans 11:36; Romans 16:27; 2 Corinthians 11:1; Ephesians 3:11, 21; 1 Timothy 1:17; and Hebrews 13:8.) — In the limited sense, (1 Corinthians 2:7; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Ephesians 2:7; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 11:3.) — In (Ephesians 3:9) and (Colossians 1:26), it is capable of either sense.

4. [in non-Latin alphabet] is applied to the kingdom of Christ, in Revelation 11:15; and therefore must mean a limited duration. Answer: The application of that phrase to the kingdom of Christ, is no proof at all, that it is ever used in the limited sense: because it appears by Luke 1:33, Daniel 7:14, Isaiah 9:7, and more largely by what was said, page 235, etc., that Christ's kingdom is without end.

5. The phrases [in non-Latin alphabet], and [in non-Latin alphabet] are always in the Septuagint, to be understood in the limited sense.

Answer 1. It is by no means a conceded point, that those phrases in the Septuagint are always to be understood in a limited sense. The contrary appears even from the instances quoted by Doctor C. to prove that they are used in the limited sense; as Psalm 119:44, So shall I keep your law continually forever and ever. Psalm 145:2, "I will praise your name forever and ever." To suppose, that these texts contain no more, than a professed intention of the psalmist, to obey and to praise God, as long as he should live in this world, is as arbitrary a supposition, as to suppose, that when the scriptures speak of God as living forever and ever, they mean no more, than that God will live as long as men live in this world.

Answer 2. But if those phrases in the Septuagint did ever so certainly mean a limited duration, it would not follow, that also the very different phrase [in non-Latin alphabet] in the New Testament, means a limited duration. The truth is, this last phrase is not to be found in the Septuagint, though it frequently occurs in the New Testament. Be it so therefore, that those phrases in the Septuagint, mean a limited duration; is it not very singular argumentation, from there to infer, that a very different phrase found in the New Testament, means a limited duration too? This is just as if Doctor C. had argued, that because the word lion in the Septuagint means a four-footed beast, therefore the word man in the New Testament means a four-footed beast too.

The Doctor holds, that it is of no significancy, that this phrase is sometimes applied to God: because, if from this application merely, we argue the absolute eternity of God; we may argue the absolute eternity of the land of Canaan, and of the successive generations of men, from the application to them, of the same or an equivalent phrase. But the same phrase is never applied, either to the land of Canaan, or to the successive generations of men: and whatever other phrase is applied to them, is by that very application proved not to be equivalent: because we have no other possible way to know, that any phrase is equivalent, than by its application to those subjects alone, which are of equal duration with those, to which alone the phrase in question is applied. The Doctor proceeds; Reason assures us, that the duration of God will have no end — for this cause, not from the force of this phrase, we interpret it when applied to God, as meaning a duration without end. But is not the eternity of God revealed in scripture, as well as known by reason? If so, where and in what words is it expressed? Let any more determinate expression of it be pointed out in the scriptures. If the divine eternity be clearly revealed in scripture, and this phrase be as determinately expressive of it, as any in the Bible, doubtless it determines the future punishment of the wicked also, to be without end, because it is repeatedly applied to that.

Finally, the Doctor observes, that it is as certain, that the phrase [in non-Latin alphabet], ought to be construed for ages of ages, as that the wicked in the resurrection state, will not be incorruptible, but shall die a second time. That the wicked shall reap corruption, and shall suffer the second death, is not in the least inconsistent with their endless misery, unless corruption and the second death mean either annihilation or final happiness. If they mean the same with the destruction of the wicked, they mean misery, as Doctor C. himself allows; and no man will say, that the declarations of scripture, that the wicked shall reap misery, or suffer misery, are a proof, that that misery is not endless. Or if corruption and the second death mean a transition from the resurrection state, to the next succeeding state, if any such there be, still that succeeding state, or the final state of the wicked, may be a state of misery. But if corruption and the second death mean annihilation, they overthrow the salvation of all men. Is it not therefore surprising, that Doctor C. should over and over again, insist on an argument, as fully demonstrative of his scheme, which argument either wholly overthrows his scheme, or is utterly impertinent to the subject?

On the whole, it is left with the reader to determine, whether the reasons offered by Doctor C. prove, that [in non-Latin alphabet] means a limited duration. That the reader may judge concerning the true force of that expression, every place, in which it is used by the inspired writers, is noted in the margin.

Next occurs Doctor C's answer to the argument from Mark 9:43; The fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. The Doctor's answer consists of these particulars — That the fire of hell may never be quenched; yet the wicked may not live in it endlessly — That in hell, or while the wicked are in the next state of existence, their worm indeed shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched; but their torment shall be continued during their existence in that state. As to the first observation, That the fire of hell may never be quenched, though the wicked shall be delivered out of it in time, by either salvation or annihilation; it has been observed to be a mere wild conjecture, and probably would never have been thought of, had not the scheme been in distress, and must be relieved by some means or other. Other remarks have been made on this conjecture, to which I refer the reader. Nor does the latter observation, especially as connected with the former, appear to be more rational or pertinent. According to these two observations, the sense of Mark 9:43-44 is merely this; It is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into the fire which never shall be quenched, though you may soon be delivered out of it; and in which while you continue, your torments will not cease. But where is the evidence of the truth of this proposition? How does it appear to be better for a man to cut off his right hand, and be forever after maimed, than to go into a fire which is indeed endless, and in which while he continues, he will be uneasy, and even feel torment; though he may not continue in it two minutes or two seconds? Who would not choose to suffer even a very painful torment, for a few seconds, or minutes, rather than to lose a hand or an eye? Thus the sense which Doctor C. puts on Mark 9:43, etc. utterly frustrates the manifest design of our Lord, which was in that passage to exhibit a most powerful motive to the greatest self-denial. But according to the Doctor's construction, the passage contains no powerful motive to self-denial, or anything else.

Besides; is it not flat and insipid, to tell a man, that he shall go into a fire which never shall be quenched, though he may be immediately taken out again? Yet this is the sense which Doctor C. puts on those words of our Savior! But how is it to the purpose? Or how does it concern any man, if he be not in the fire of hell, that that fire shall never be quenched? Suppose a man is to be burnt at the stake. It would be a matter of indifference to him, whether the fire, in which he should be put to death, be continued burning for five hundred years, after his death, or be extinguished immediately: and to tell him by way of threatening, that that fire shall be kept up five hundred years after his death; or to threaten a criminal who is about to be executed on the gallows, that the gallows on which he shall die, shall stand a thousand years after his execution; would be perfect impertinence.

Doctor C. seems to insist much on this, That in Mark 9:43, etc., a reference is had to the punishment of those whose bodies were either burnt in the valley of Hinnom, or permitted to lie upon the ground, to be fed upon by worms. But it does not from there follow, as Doctor C. supposes, that as the fire of the valley of Hinnom went out, when the bodies were consumed, and the worm died, when the bodies were eaten up; so the fire and worm of hell shall cease. The sense may be, that as those bodies in the valley Hinnom, were consumed by fire and worms, which after a while ceased; so the wicked in hell shall be tormented by fire and worms, which shall not cease. Indeed this is expressly asserted: and as Mr. Hopkins justly observes, it cannot be granted, that our Savior, by those words, Where their worm dies not, and their fire is not quenched, means a worm that dies, and a fire that is quenched very soon. For this would be to suppose, he means directly contrary to what he says.

The Doctor argues against endless punishment from the smallness of the number of those who are saved in the next state. That "only a few of mankind" should be saved finally, and "the greater part eternally perish" he thinks not reconcilable with the great mercy of the Christian dispensation; or with the glad tidings of great joy, and the divine good will celebrated at the birth of our Savior. This argument is built on the supposition, that it would not be dishonorable to Christ, that a minority of mankind be lost. But this would be equally inconsistent with Doctor C's scheme, as that a majority be lost. This argument, as it grants that some will not be saved, gives up the grand question, and disputes concerning the number only, which is to be saved. But this is no subject of dispute in this controversy.

Is it then no instance of great and glorious mercy, to institute a scheme, by which salvation may be offered to every creature; by which whoever will, may take the water of life freely, and no man shall perish, but in consequence of his own voluntary rejection of that institution? Is not the certain information of this institution indeed glad tidings of great joy to all people? Is not the institution a clear proof of the abundant good will of God to men, even though sinners, through their voluntary opposition, obtain no good by it? It certainly is, if we may believe Doctor C., for it is a maxim with him, that we must not judge of the divine goodness, by the actual good, which we see produced, but must take into view the tendency of the divine administration, etc., see the quotations made page 139.

The Doctor says, It is incredible, that God should constitute his Son the Savior of men, and the bulk of them be finally damned. But why is it incredible? Is it not an undertaking worthy of Christ, in a way most honorary to God, to open a door of mercy and salvation to all mankind, though by the wicked and ungrateful rejection of Christ by the majority, a minority only will actually be saved? If it be not credible, that God should constitute his Son the Savior of men, and "the bulk" of them be finally damned, is it credible, that Christ should be constituted the Savior, and a bare majority of mankind be saved? If not, how large must the majority be?

As to the observation, that it is a gross reflection on the Savior, whose proper business it is, to destroy the works of the devil, and rescue mankind out of his hands; to suppose, that the devil should finally get the better of Christ, by effecting the everlasting damnation of the greater part of men; there are some particulars in it, which want explanation. First; what is meant by destroying the works of the devil? If this mean to abolish all sin, and all the misery consequent on sin to any of the human race; it is not granted, that this is the proper business of our Savior, nor is this the proper meaning of the original in 1 John 3:8, the text to which Doctor C. refers. The verb is [illegible], dissolve, take to pieces, and thus prevent the ill effect of the works of the devil. But if destroying the works of the devil mean, to defeat and to prevent the ill consequences of those works, so that no final damage shall from there arise to the interest of God's kingdom, or of the universe; it is granted, that this is the proper business of Christ. But it is not granted, but that this may be effected, without the salvation of all men. Again, what is meant by "the devil's getting the better of Christ?" This doubtless means, that he defeats Christ more or less, as to some object of his mediatorial undertaking. But Doctor C. has no more made it appear, that the final salvation of only a part, and a small part of the human race, implies such a defeat; or that it was not the original intention of Christ to save a small part only; than he has made it appear, that it was the intention of Christ to save all men.

Doctor C. seems not to have reflected, while he was urging this argument, that it equally militates against his own last resort, annihilation. For if an end be put to the existence, both in soul and body, of all who die impenitent, as the Doctor allows will be the case, if universal salvation be not true; then on his principles, the devil will not be vanquished by Christ; the works of the devil will not be destroyed, but he will get the better of Christ, by effecting the everlasting destruction of the greater part of those whom Christ came from heaven to save. So that when this objection shall be answered, so far as it lies against Doctor C.'s last resort, doubtless an answer will be supplied to those who believe in endless misery.

After all, it is not an article of my faith, that only a small part of the human race will be finally saved. But my faith in this particular is not built on abstract reasonings from the divine goodness and the mission of Christ. That divine goodness which suffered all the apostate angels to perish finally, might have suffered all, or a greater part of the apostate race of men, to perish in like manner. My faith is built on several representations and prophecies of Scripture, particularly concerning the millennium, and the general and long prevalence of virtue and piety in that period. Therefore in this view, the foundation of the objection from the smallness of the number saved, is taken away.