to be blessed with justification through faith.* By this passage we learn that the promise to Abraham included means, tho those means were not stated in the promise itself. And who can say that a future disciplinary punishment was not one of those means? The Lord revealed to Abraham more than is recorded by Moses, or he did not. If he did not, then Abraham was ignorant of many truths which have been made known to Christians by the gospel. And it is no more absurd to suppose that Abraham might be ignorant of the doctrine of future punishment, admitting it true, than that he was ignorant of other truths which are brought to light by the gospel. But if the Almighty revealed more to Abraham than is recorded by Moses, who knows but that future punishment was also revealed to him? We shall endeavor to show in the sequel that the Jews were believers in a future punishment, and it is altogether probable that Abraham did not differ from the rest of the nation in this respect, especially as they looked to him as their guide and director. But after all, the promise to the fathers cannot be well understood without admitting a future discipline. The promise asserts that all nations shall be blessed in Christ. And as many nations became extinct before the appearing of Christ, it is manifest they were not blessed in Christ in this world; and hence the blessing must extend into a future state. If the inhabitants of the old world, for instance, were translated to glory by the flood, they were saved by death, and not by Christ. For it would be absurd to say that Jesus Christ, after his appearing in the world, saved those who had been in heaven two thousand years. It appears therefore, that the promise before us overlooked all the means, and consequently future punishment among the rest, and spoke of the final consummation of the gospel; and that the old * Gal. iii. 8. > world, for example, will receive a chastisement after death, before they will come into the enjoyment of the blessing. This is clearly taught in St. Peter's account of Christ's preaching to the "spirits in prison," which will be treated of in a subsequent Letter, to which the reader is referred. The next argument which claims our attention is drawn from the case of Adam, Cain, the old world, Sodom, Korah, Pharaoh and Judas.* The argument drawn from these examples, is this:-in all these cases, though punishment was inflicted, there is nothing said of punishment after death; hence there is none. As all these cases furnish precisely the same argument, we shall treat them together, or rather select one as a specimen. I will therefore call your attention to the case of Sodom. 'Tis true that there is no intimation in the nineteenth of Genesis, where Sodom's destruction is treated of, that the Sodomites would be punished after death. But are we authorized to infer from hence that no such punishment awaited them? If the silence of these scriptures on the subject in question, be evidence that there is no future punishment, then the silence of the same scriptures on the subject of future existence, is evidence that there is no existence after death. Thus does your argument, on which you rely with no small share of confidence, disprove a future state of being, as much as it does a future state of punishment. But perhaps you will say in answer to this, that punishment was the theme spoken of, and if punishment in a future state awaited them, it is natural to suppose that it would have been mentioned, whereas the duration of man's existence was foreign to the subject. To this I answer, the punishment, as in the case of the old world, Sodom, Korah, and Pharaoh, was to terminate their earthly existence. This rendered Lect. pp. 8, 311, 315, 316, 317, 319. Gos. Visit. Vol. II. P. 190. the duration of existence a theme in view, as much as the duration of punishment. And as man's earthly existence was ended by this punishment, it is as natural to suppose that a future state of being would have been mentioned, if it were true, as that a future punishment would have been mentioned, if that were true. Endless existence is certainly a subject of as much importance as a future limited punishment; and destroying man's earthly existence would seem to cut off a future existence much more naturally, than punishment in this world would cut off punishment in a future state, endless existence being admitted. And as these scriptures are silent upon future existence, it is natural to suppose that they might be silent upon future punishment. And this silence in the one case, proves as much as in the other. It destroys a future state of being as much as a future state of punishment. But probably you will say, that it is derogatory to the character of God to admit that his children are exposed to a punishment of which he has given them no intimation. It would argue cruelty on the part of the Deity, if he should punish Cain, Sodom, &c. in a future state, when he had given them no intimation that such was the penalty of his divine law. To this we reply, any argument however plausible it may appear, must be given up, if it contradicts plain matters of fact. Now your argument is this; that God never punishes his creatures with any punishment, without first informing them that such a punishment would be inflicted in case of transgression. But this statement is contradicted by sober facts. Cain was punished by being a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and Sodom by being destroyed with fire from heaven, when neither Cain nor the Sodomites had any intimation beforehand that such would be their punishment in case of transgression. But though the Lord gave them no particular intimation that such would be their punishments in case of transgression, yet these punishments were actually inflicted. And if God could inflict these punishments without giving any previous intimation of them, he could inflict a punishment in a future state, and one would not impeach his character any more than the other. Thus do the very cases before us furnish a sufficient answer to your argument. But if the old world, Sodom, Korah, and Pharaoh were introduced immediately into heaven, then they were saved by death, and not by Christ; so that the declaration that Christ is the Savior of the world, must be used in a restricted sense. In relation to the old world, St. Peter informs us that they were in prison in the days of our Savior; and with reference to the Sodomites, the same Apostle says, that they were reserved to the day of judgment to be punished. But these passages will be considered in a future Letter. Most of the cases you have mentioned, instead of opposing a future retribution, show the propriety and need of such a measure. Take Sodom for example. Though we are taught that there were not ten righteous persons in that city, still I presume you will agree with me that this was spoken with reference to adults, and not to infants. There were in all probability many innocent infants in that city. But according to your views these little innocents were punished as severely as the greatest adults in wickedness. And among those who are denominated wicked, there was in all probability a considerable difference in their characters. Some were of course much more vicious than others. But they all fared exactly alike. One common destruction befel them all. Now as God has declared that he will reward every man according to his works, it is manifest that unless a future retribution takes place, the inhabitants of Sodom are not dealt with according to their moral characters. The same remark will apply to Pharaoh and his legions. Though the scriptures assure us that Pharaoh was obstinate and hard-hearted, we have no reason to believe that all his troops possessed this character. But still they were destroyed as well as he. Since the virtuous and the vicious were destroyed alike, it argues the necessity of a retribution beyond death. Besides, in the case of Sodom, Korah, and Pharaoh, their only punishment was instant death. But do you regard temporal death as a punishment for sin? No, you do not. You maintain that temporal death results from a mortal constitution, and is no punishment for sin.* The Sodomites, &c. would have suffered temporal death, if they had been as virtuous as the Apostles of our Lord. So that according to your own acknowledgment, they were not punished at all. Their deaths, instead of being more aggravating than ordinary, were more easy. They were taken away in a moment. Their destruction, therefore, was no punishment at all; but in fact, was a means of rendering their departure out of time more easy than it would have been, had they been virtuous. Now with what propriety can you call that a punishment for sin, which, in fact, you maintain is no punishment, and which lessens the pains of temporal death, and introduces men into heaven much quicker than they would otherwise have been? But according to your views, while these abandoned wretches were thus rewarded (I say rewarded, for surely that cannot be called a punishment, which lessens the pains of death, and introduces men sooner into heaven,) for their iniquity, the righteous were left in this state of affliction. The Lord then was as merciful, nay he was vastly more merciful to the wicked than to the righteous. Thus if all men are introduced into heaven at death, then the inhabitants of the old world were snatched to immediate felicity as a reward of their * See Lect. p. 93. Aton. p. 59. |