confined Shimei to Jerusalem under pain of death, and afterwards put hian to death for transgressing that command. A FARTHER EXAMINATION OF HIS SCHEME, WITH REPLIES TO HIS ANIMADVERSIONS. I SIR, Do not know whether I fully understand your remarks on proper eternity. (P. 364.) It is certainly one of those ideas in which the human mind is easily lost, as it infinitely surpasses our comprehension: but whether "the Scriptures have revealed any thing past or to come besides what is connected with successive duration," and whether we be "left to infer a proper eternity only from the nature of Deity," are other questions. You will allow that the Scriptures attribute a proper eternity to the Divine Being, and to his allcomprehending purposes, which I should think is not leaving us to infer it from his nature. They speak also of a period when God shall be all in all, when the end cometh, and of the end of all things being at hand. They likewise promise an inheritance that shail be without end. I should think, therefore, that this inheritance, of which the New Testament speaks very fully, cannot be said to be connected with successive duration; not so connected, however, as to be commensurate with it. བ། By successive duration being ended, I meant no more than what I apprehend you must mean by the cessation of day and night, No. I. p. 8. and the state of things when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to the Father. Strictly speaking, it may be true that the idea of successive duration necessarily attaches, and ever will attach, to the existence of creatures, and that none but God can be said to exist without it: but there is a period, by your own acknowledgment, when the states of creatures will be for ever fixed; and if at this period sinners he doomed to everlasting punishment, the term everlasting must be understood to mean endless duration; this period I conceive to be at the last judgment. You extend it to ages beyond it. Here, therefore, is our difference. I did not allege Rev. x. 6. in favour of there being an end to tine. I did not apprehend it needed proof. Your formal answer to it, therefore, is only removisg an objection of your own creating; and if designed to prove that time will have no end, is as contrary to your own avowed principles as to mine. You contend that "the day of judgment is not the finishing period of Christ's kingdom;" for which you offer a number of reasons. То the greater part of them I have already replied The rest I shall briefly consider. "This earth (which is to be the hell of wicked men, see 2 Pet. iii. 7-13) is to be renewed, whereby hell itself will be no more*." If this gloss will bear the test, you have certainly for once hit upon a clear proof of your point; for note can imagine the conflagration to be eternal. But (1) The Scriptures speak of a hell already existing, wherein the angels who kept not their first estate are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day, and in which the departed spirits of wicked men lift up their eyes being in torment; and intimate that this, whatsoever and wherever it be, will be the hell of ungodly men : for they are doomed to depart into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. But this cannot be upon earth, as its present condition does not admit of it. (2) If the earth, as being dissolved by fire, is to be the hell of ungodly men, their punishment must precede the day of judgment, instead of following it for the conflagration is uniformly represented as prior to that event. It is described, not as your scheme supposes as taking place a thousand years after Christ's second coming; but as attending it. The day of the Lord's coming is the same as the day of God, which Christians look for and hasten to, WHEREIN the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved. Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him; and all this previous to his giving orders for his saints to be gathered unto him. And thus we are taught by the apostle Paul, that the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven IN FLAMING FIRE§. (3) I appeal to the judgment of the impartial reader, whether, by the perdition of ungodly men be not meant the destruction of their lives, and not of their souls? It is spoken of in connexion with the deluge, and intimated that as the ungodly were then destroyed from the face of the earth by water, in like manner they should now be destroyed by fire. You plead the promise that every knee shall bow to Christ," and consider this as inconsistent with a "stubborn knee even in hell." But the question is, whether the bowing of the knee to Christ be necessarily expressive of a voluntary and holy submission to him? The same inspired writer applies the language to that universal conviction which shall be produced at the last judgment, when every mouth will be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God We shall all stand, saith he, before the judgment seat of Christ: fór it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shail confess to God. But you will not pretend that every knee will in that day bow to Christ in a way of voluntary submission. ·P 365 † 2 Pet. iii. 4. 13. 12. Psalm 1. Rom. xiv. 10-12. “All things, you allege, are to be reconciled to the father by the blood of the cross: but while any continue in enmity against God, this can never be performed." (P. 364.) You refer, I suppose, to Col, i. 19, 20. But if the reconciliation of things in earth and things in heaven deuote the salvation of all the inhabitants of heaven and earth, it would follow, (1.) That the holy angels are saved, as well as the unholy, though in fact they never sinned. (2)That when the apostle adds, and you that viere sometime alienated, and enemies in your minds by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled, he deals in unmeaning tautology, Things in heaven, and things in earth, were at variance through sin, Men becoming the enemies of God, al his aithful subjects, and all the works of his hands, were at war with them; yea, they were at variance with each other. But through the blood of Christ all things ate reconciled; and under his headship, all made to subserve the present and everlasting good of them, who believe in him. Such appears to me to be the meaning of the passage, and which involves neither of the foregoing absurdities... *** Christ, you add, is to rule till his enemies are subdued, till there be no authority, power, or dominion, but what shall be subservient to him, till death the last enemy shall be destroyed; and as the wages of sin is death, the second death must be here included." (P. 365.). This language, which is taken from 1 Cor. xv., is manifeslty, used in reference to the resurrection of the bodies of those that sleep in Jesus, which is an event that precedes the last judgment: for WHEN this corruptible shall have put on incorruption→ THEN shall be brought to pass the saying, that death shall be swallowed up in victory; which is the same thing as the last enemy being destroyed. And THEN Cometh the end, the last judgment, and the winding up of all things, WHEN he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the father, when he shall have put down all rule, and authority, and power. (Ver, 24, 25) For you to interpret this language of things that are to follow the last judgment, and to say that it must include the second death, proves nothing but the dire necessity to which your system reduces you, a cath la Finally, the character of God is LOVE which, is expressly against the horrible idea of the endless misery of any of his rational creatures." (P. 395.) So, Sir, you are pleased to assert, Another might from the same premises assert that the punishment of any of his rational creatures in hell for ages of ages, where there shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth; and this notwithstanding the death of his Son, and the omnipotence of his grace, which surely was able to have saved them from it, is horrible and incredible! Is it inconsistent with the benevolence of a supréme magistrate that he dooms certain characters to death? Rather, is it not an exercise of his benevolence? Should a male factor persuade himself and his companions in guilt, that his majesty cannot possibly consent to their execution without reasing to be that lovely and good character, for which he has been famed, would not his reasoning be as false in itself as it was injurious, to the king? Nay, woultbit not be inimical to his own interest, and that of his fellow criminals, as by raising a delusive hope they are prevented making a proper and timely application to the throne for mercy? Such are your reasons for successive duration, and final salvation after the last judgment; which, whether they ought to satisfy any other person, let the reader judge. I shall close with replies to a few of your animadversions. Your misrepresentation of what I have advanced concerning the Jews as a distinct nation, I should hope needs no correction. If any of your readers can mistake what you have said for a just statement of the views, or an answer to the argument of your opponent, they are beyond the reach of reasoning. You inferred from what was God's end in punishing Israel in the present life, that (seeing he was an immutable Being ) it must be the same in his punishing others in the life to come. (No. II. pp. 43, 44.) I answered, that I might as well infer from what appears to be his end in punishing Pharoah and Sodom in the present life, which was not their good, but the good of others, that such will be the end of future punishment. (No. XXXIII. p. 262.) You reply by supposing that these characters were destroyed for their good. (P. 367.) What, in the present life? Nož but in the life to come! And do you call this reasoning? You say," If any be finally incorrigible, it must be in consequence of the divine purpose, or else the purpose of God has been frustrated." I have in my last letter replied to the substance of this dilemma. I may add, you need be under no apprehension that I shall be tempted to give up the infrustrableness of the divine purpose; and if I admit that God in just judgment has purposed to give some men up to stumble, and fall, and perish, it is no more than the Scriptures abundantly teach. You talk, of "the LAST state of a creature according with the divine purpose:" but I know of no evidence for this which does not equally apply to every state. If you be tempted to ask, why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will? You may possibly recollect that these questions have been asked before, and answered too; and it may be of use for you to study the answer. A kin to this, is your dilemma, “that God cannot, or will not, make an end of sin; that there is not efficacy enough in the blood of Christ to destroy the works of the devil; or else that the full efficacy of the atonement is withheld by the divine determination." It has been already observed, and I hope proved, that the Scripture phrases, making an end of sin, &c. convey no such idea as you attach to them. (P. 264.) And as to your dilemma, to which you ascribe great" weight," I answer again, you need be under no apprehension of my limiting the power of God, or the efficacy of the Saviour's blood; and if I say that both the one `and the other are applied under the limitations of his cwn infinite wisdom, I say not only what the Scriptures abundantly teach, but what you yourself must admit. Can you pretend that your scheme represents God as doing all he can do, and as bestowing all the mercy which the efficacy of the Saviour's blood hath rendered consistent? If so, you must believe that God cannot convert more than he actually does in the present life, and that the efficacy of the blood of Christ is not equal to the saving of more than a part of mankind from the second death. You think "the Scripture is not silent concerning the future èmendation of the ancient Sodomites," and refer me to Ezek. xvi. 44. -63.; arguing that "Sodom and her daughters must be taken literally for the city of Sodom, and the neighbouring cities of the plain-that the, prophecy must refer to the very persons who were destroyed, seeing, they left no descendants-and that there is the same reason to expect the restoration of Sodom, as the fulfilment of God's gracious promises towards Jerusalem." (P. 368.) But if your interpretation prove any, thing, it will prove-I will not say, too much, but too little.-It will prove not that the ancient Sodomites will be saved from "the, vengeance of eternal fire," and introduced into the heavenly world; but barely that they are to return to their former estate. (Ver. 55.), And do you seriously think, that after the last judgment the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha, of Samaria and Jerusalem, will be rebuilt, and repossessed by their ancient inhabitants? if so, it is time for me to lay down my pen. The former part of the above passage, (ver. 46–59.) I apprehend to be no promise, but the language of keen reproof; and instead of intimating a return to either Sodom or Jerusalem, the latter is reasoned with on the footing of her own deserts, and told in effect not to expect it any more than the former*. The latter part (ver. 60-63.) contains the language of free mercy; not however towards the same individuals against whom the threatenings are directed, but to their distant posterity, who under the gospel dispensation should be brought home to God, and by a new and better covenant have the gentiles given to them. The conversion of the heathen is expressed by this kind of language more than once; as by bringing again the captivity of Moab, of Elam, and of the children of Ammon, in the latter days. Jer. xlviii. 47. xlix. 6,39. I You have not discernment enough, it seems, to perceive the gross absurdity" of maintaining that there can be no diversity in future" punishment, unless it be in duration; that is, that the reflections of sinners on their past life, must all be exactly the same. It may be so; but I cannot help it. Your answer amounts to this: Diversity of degrees in future punishment may be accounted for by varying the duration of it; "for every one knows there needs not so much time to inflict a hundred stripes as to inflict ten times that number"-Therefore that must be the way, and the only way; and if you do not admit it, you confound all degrees of punishment in giving infinite punishment to all." See pp. 42, 264, 369. You believe, you s say, that those who die in their sins cannot go were Christ is." "You must mean to say merely, that they cannot follow tr * See a similar kind of phraseology in Jer. xxxiii. 19-→→→26,541 .zi VOL. IV. Šam 120V or galesid ap 15 1 yert a gnitor før kɛnnidwa |