Thus by admitting Dr. C's sense of Matt. 25: 46, we erase from the scriptures every promise of endless life and happiness to the righteous, and overthrow the gospel. Indeed Dr. 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 Dr. 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 Dr. C's construction of Matt. 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 Matt. 25: 46, and as he expressly holds in page 222, his whole scheme falls to the ground. That Dr. 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 Matt. 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, Rom. 5: 12, etc. Chap. 8: 19, etc. 1 Cor. 15: 24, etc. be no promises of endless happiness, they afford no assurance or evidence, that all will be finally saved. In the same manner in which Dr. C. restricts Matt. 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 Rom. 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 Matt. 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 Matt. 25: 46, how does it appear, that a destruction of death for any more than a limited duration, is promised in 1 Cor. 15: 26," the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death?" And how strange is it, that Dr. C. should from Rom. 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 Matt. 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 Matt. 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, aiovios, 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 wick+ p. 282. * Page 283. † p. 11. § p. 284. ed 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 VIII. The Doctor's last reason is, "That we are naturally and obviously led to interpret aiovios, everlasting, when joined with the happiness of the righteous, in the endless sense, from other texts which determine this to be the 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 232, etc.; and in view of the observations there made, the reader will judge, whether those texts do any more decisively, than the word aiovios, everlasting, prove the future happiness of the righteous to be without end." To confirm his construction of Matt. 25: 46, Dr. C. mentions two texts in which he supposes the word aiorios, everlasting, is in the same sentence used both in the limited and endless sense. One is Rom. 16: 25, 26, "According to the mystery which was kept secret [zgóvois aiovious] since the world began but is now made manifest-according to the commandment [rov aiariov to] of the everlasting God." Concerning this text it was before observed, that zoóvois alorious 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 Tit. 1: 2, "In hope [sons aiariov] of eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised [700 zoovv aiorior] before the world began." On this text, it has been observed,‡ * Page 285. † p. 287, 288. ‡p. 221. 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 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 aid in the singular number almost perpetually signifies an age, or a limited duration,t-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 alov is most commonly, if not always, used, in the New Testament, to point out a limited duration ;§-That is rous alāvas tāv alávar is applied in Rev. 11: 15, to the kingdom of Christ, and therefore must mean a limited duration ;||—That is αἰώνα αἰῶνος, and εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος are always in the Septuagint to be understood in the limited sense.¶ 1. Aiv in the singular number almost perpetually signifies a limited duration. Answer. It is by no means granted, that aiv in the singular almost perpetually signifies a limited duration; especially when governed by the preposition is. In p. 222, etc. the use of air, 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. Page 295. Ibid. p. 296. § p. 297. || p. 298. ¶ p. 301. But if the assertion were ever so true, the consequence, which Dr. C. thence draws, would by no means follow. If alov in the singular did almost perpetually signify a limited duration, it would not follow, that oi alaves tov aivov 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 οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων to mean generally or universally an endless duration, this is enough to settle the present question, let air mean in the singular what it may. Or if we must reason metaphysically on this subject, it may be asserted, that ὁ αἰών τῶν αἰώνων or oἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων is no absurd or unintelligible mode of expressing an endless duration. If av 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. One thing more ought to be observed, that air, whether in the singular or plural, governed by the preposition is, invariably in the New Testament, signifies an endless duration. But in the phrase in question, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων it is governed by that preposition, 2. That though alaves, 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 alves 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 Ps. 145: 13, "Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom; ßasileia návrov ræv alávov." Dan. 2: 44, "In the days of these kings, the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom-and it shall stand forever, is rous alvas." Though the Doctor endeavors to prove, that in these texts a limited duration must be intended, because in 1 Cor. 15: 28, Christ is represented as delivering up his kingdom to the Father; yet it is at † p. 296. * Pages 297, 298. > |