[...]. Iudgment worthy of God. or, An assertion of the Existence and Duration of Hell Torments.

AS soon as I had made my last dispatch to you, it pleased God to fasten me to my bed for some dayes, by the returne of a fit, which hath been my frequent exercise; from whence being now after five dayes remov'd to my chaire, I have some liberty to re­view [Page 2] your question; and think it best with my pen in my hand to offer to you (in the same order which you have us'd) my thoughts of every period.

And first for the termes of the Question, they want somewhat of Expresness: For supposing, as you doe, that the Wicked rise, and are judged, and adding from hence that their sentence shall be that they shall utterly be destroyed, yet it is uncertain, whether that sentence shall be immediately executed, or after some space; or if immediately, whether by a swift or lingering destruction. For he that should affirm the wicked to be at the last judgement com­mitted to a fire, which should tor­ment for many hundred or thou­sand years, and at last consume and annihilate them, would affirme the affirmative of this question: and so he, that advanc'd from 1000^ds to [Page 3] millions of years and ages of suffe­rings, concluded (at any the longest last) with abolition. And then the arguings that are after us'd from Gods Justice &c: would be of little force, if no more but this were de­sign'd to be gained by them. For it were sure as much Justice to punish eternally, as to punish milli­ons of years, and then annihilate, when the supposed ground of Inju­stice is the lightness, or shortness of the Acts so punished, which would in the Eye of Law, and Equity, bear as little, i. e. no proportion with ma­ny Millions of Ages, as with dura­tion absolutely infinite. I shall therefore take it for granted by him that proposeth the question, that he means destruction immediately following the dooms-day sentence, and that no lingering but swift de­struction.

Next then p. i. for Origens opi­nion, [Page 4] granting it right stated (as I think it is) I demand for what rea­son that is mention'd? Is it not for this, because Origens Doctrine was deem'd an Heresy in the Church, and that of some ill and dangerous consequence to be believed? If so, then it must be considered, whether they that deem'd Origens Hereti­call, can appear to have been more favourable to this, (which will not be found) or whether the ill conse­quences of this be not as dange­rous, as of Origens, i e. whether the belief of no future punishment to the wickedst Hypocrites in the world, save only of swift annihilati­on, will not be as forcible a meanes of securing wicked men that have no tast or spirituall joyes) in the admitting of any gainfull evill, as the belief that after a long space of horrible torments proportionably encreas'd to their number of Sins, [Page 5] and the aggravations thereof, they shall one day, no body knowes when, when the Divells have been punish'd enough for their highest rebellions and continued hating and opposing of God, be delivered out of their flames, and made partakers of vision of God, and society of Saints and Angels, which they e­ver hated, and never desire to see▪ or be in their company, and have suf­fer'd all those torments, rather then they would entertain or admit Communion (or desire and pra­ctices) with them. Tis possible it may be said, that the reason of the difference is because Origens opini­on was contrary to Scripture, and that this other is not. To this I shall make no further reply, then in the words of Vincentius Lirin: Imo planè nemo unquam Magistro­rum fuit, qui pluribus divinae legis uteretur exemplis. His only fault [Page 6] then must bee, that he urged divine Testimonies in uncatholick Inter­pretations: (And whether that have not place here also; I leave it to e­very one to consider) and so saith Lirinensis again, Dum parvipendit antiquam religionis Christianae sim­plicitatem, dum se plus cunctis sape­re praesumit, dum Ecclesiasticas tra­ditiones & veterum Magisteria con­temnens quaedam scripturarum capi­tula nova more interpretatur, meruit ut de se quoque Ecclesiae Dei dicere­tur, Si surrexit in medio Tui Prophe­ta—

Thirdly then, to come to your Testimonies from Scripture, of the N: T: especially, for proof of the affirmative. And 1. for the use of [...] and [...]: It is ac­knowledg'd that these words pro­perly signify the same that in En­glish death or dying doth. But that this should be limited to utter de­struction [Page 7] and annihilation, is most unreasonable. For, in the using of this argument it is foreseen and granted, that death is taken some­times for death in and unto Sin: On­ly 'tis suggested that those are my­sticall and metaphoricall Sences▪ Hereupon I infer, that if the words be taken sometimes mystically and metaphorically, and yet no assu­rance that they are so, but because they are us'd in a matter whereto death, as it signifies a separation of Soul and Body, is unappliable; then may they by the same reason be ta­ken so elsewhere, and not bound to that one which is thought to be the sole literal and proper significa­tion. If Death appear to signify in Scripture somewhat beside utter de­struction, then how can the wickeds utter destruction be concluded from the mentions of their death &c? Against this it avails not to say, [Page 8] that the one is the proper, but the other only metaphoricall notion of it: for it being granted that the scri­pture useth Metaphors in one in­stance, why may it not in ano­ther as probably? This is suffi­cient to the force of that argument. But then ex abundanti, I adde, that the Notion of Death for utter de­struction i. e. Annihilation being only usefull to the disputer, it will be hard for him to produce any one place, either in Old or New Testa­ment, (I might adde, or in any other Author) where [...] &c. signifies Annihilation. It signifies indeed the separation of Soul from Body very frequently; but that is not founded on supposition that in that separation either of the parts, much lesse both, utterly perish. Nay the doctrine, for which the proposer of the questions disputes, supposes him not to mean death in that notion; [Page 9] for then Eternall death, the wickeds portion, must be eternall separati­on of Soul and Body, which is exclu­sive of all reunion or resurrection at the day of Judgment: which the Disputer averts as hereticall. Nay 'tis to be observ'd that when our Saviour came nearest the expressing this matter or annihilation, he chooseth two other Phrases, (not this of death, or anything that way inclining) having never been born, and having a milstone hanged about the Neck and being cast into the midst of the Sea, which by an im­perfect resemblance seemeth meant on purpose to signifie annihilation: And yet it is also observable to the main question, that either of these states (and so annihilation) is bet­ter and more desirable, then the Lot which in Gods decree awaites a betrayer of Christ, a wicked man, for that one fact. Thus far by [Page 10] way of evacuating all force in that Argument; To this I shall adde somewhat Positive toward the lay­ing foundation for the evincing the contrary, viz. That death in scri­pture use., is (as 'tis granted in the objection) oppos'd to life. Life then ordinarily signifies that which results from the union of Soul and Body: but it also signifies the re­sult of another union (Unio Virtutis) betwixt God and the Soul, or be­twixt God and both. In the former of these it signifies spirituall life, both as that signifies living well, whereby the passages of spiritual vertue betwixt God and us, are kept open and free; and as it signifies pardon of sin, the contrary whereto is expressed by separating and hi­ding his face, and turning himself from us. In the latter (viz. be­twixt God and the Soul and Body, i. e. Person of man) it signifies [Page 11] Gods favour and protection, of which under the style of Gods pre­sence the Psalmist saith, that in it is life. And then as all felicity is the certain effect or consequent of this kind of union, so life oft signifies felicity, even that of the highest Magnitude. And all this not My­stically or Metaphorically, that I know of, (or if it did, that excepti­on is of no force as hath already been shew'd) but as litterally, and with as full propriety as the union of Soul and Body is call'd Life, God being (as the School saith out of S^t Augustin) intimior cuicun (que) rei creatae, then the Soul is to the Body: and so the several parts of that union more necessary to the several sorts of life signified there­by. Mean while it is evident that [...] life belongs not to being sim­ply; for all Ents have not life: or to miserable being; non est vivere sed [Page 12] valere vita; but to greater or lesser degrees of happy and joyfull being, the utmost of which is so naturally expressed by [...], that it wants not the addition of [...] (oft times) to do it: If thou wilt enter into life Mat. XIX, 17. and VII, 14. and XVIII, 8. i. e. the happy being in Heaven: Which is so properly that which is call'd life, that this we live here scarce deserves the appellation in comparison with it. Now in proportion to these acceptions of life must the Notion of [...] &c. be calculated. Had life signified most properly [being] simply ta­ken, there might have been some pretence, that the contrary [...] should denote the contrary to being viz. Annihilation: But when it si­gnifies those so many other things, and not simple entity, 'tis most rati­onall that [...] should both tech­nically, and properly signify the [Page 13] opposites to those severals, wicked life, the displeasure of God, a mise­rable being here, separation of Soul from Body; of both from God, and a­bove all endless torments in another World, Joh. viii, 51, 52. (and that as somewhat to be seen and tasted, which were not so well appliable to annihilation) and in many other places; I instance in one or two more, first, Heb. 2, 14. because there it seems to mee to have a mark di­stinguishing it both from death, the separation of Soul and Body, and from annihilation. For of neither of those I suppose the Divell can be said [...], to have power, e­specially not of the latter; which is a work of the same Omnipotency that creation is: Whereas of eter­nal torments of the wicked 'tis certain that the inflicting of them is entrusted to the Divell; and so he hath power over them.

[Page 14]Secondly 1. Joh. 3.14. Where he that loveth not his Brother is said [...] to abide in that which is there call'd death, which is some prejudice to the opinion of redactio in nihilum: for in that there is no abiding. So that I sup­pose it clear that there hath been little gaind to the establishing the affirmative of the question, from this first objection, the use of [...] &c. for the punishment of the Wicked.

Proceed wee then to the second sort of words [...] and [...] and [...] there rendred destruction or perishing or perdition. For all these will be ruled by the for­mer [...] &c. none of them ha­ving any propriety to the sence of annihilation, but only oppos'd to [...] and [...] in the notions wherein they are visibly us'd for rescues or deliverances; sometime [Page 15] from greater, sometime from lesser dangers, sometime for forsaking of Sin, repentance Act. 2.40. coinci­dent with spiritual life: sometime for pardon of Sin, sometime for temporal cures; and sometime for that state of endless rest from pain, Sin, Frailties, Infirmities, together with addition of all positive blisse in the vision of God. And in pro­portion [...] is fitly vs'd not on­ly for the privations; but contra­ries to every one of those, the e­vils extreamly opposite to these good things. And nothing hin­ders but that [...] be taken Mat. 10.28. not for annihilating but tormenting in Hell, that being the known place for the inflicting of torments, and to that end the fire eternal prepar'd for the Divel and his Angels, and Men also adjudg'd to have their parts of it Mat. 25.41. and the office of the Divells [Page 16] there to be Lictors, & tormentors, and jaylors, which suppose space of detention and cruciating, but are ir­reconcileable with instant annihi­lation: see Mat. 5.25▪ 26. And against this sence of [...], nothing far­ther said hath force. For, first, thus 'tis certain, God both can and will punish, i. e. cruciate those that fear him not. Secondly, 'Tis denied that [...] most properly signi­fies the destruction of the being of the subject, or annihilati­on, and whereas 'tis affirm'd so to signifie Mat. 10.39. it is certain it doth not. For there as it is once oppos'd to the loosing this present life, (as our Saviour foretels the complying Jewes, and Gnosticks should in event do by those very means by which they intended to preserve them) so it is a second time apply'd to godly Martyrs who loose their lives for Christs sake, [Page 17] of whom it will not be imagined that they are annihilated, when they so dye. Thirdly, the Conces­sion that when apply'd to a per­son, it signifies generally death in the proper sence, is a manifest pre­judice to its signifying annihilati­on; for if the death of a person were the annihilating that person, all resurrection were superseded. And this is farther evident by the several proofs farther produced as Mat. 26.52. where they that take the Sword against the lawfull Magi­strate, shall i. e. are worthy to pe­rish by the Sword of the Magistrate, which yet I hope can annihilate no man, but only kill the body, Mat. x.28. And beyond that have no more that they can do: so Mat. 27.20. I hope Jesus was only crucify­ed, not annihilated. And so in all other places, save only that of 1 Cor. 15.18. where upon a false as­sumption [Page 18] it would follow that (not the wicked, which alone were per­tinent, but) good Christians should utterly loose all being, at least of the body, or be never rais'd again, so that it is far from being by that Cumulus of Testimonies concluded that the destruction or perishing or the wicked signi­fies utter destruction.

If these testimonies may be be­liev'd (some of which belong to Christ, some more to the godly, and no one to the annihilation of the wicked) the direct contrary will be concluded.

Fourthly, the places that are produced to prove this to be the expectation or the Devils, prove it not. Not Mar. 1.24. for there to destroy them] is to retrench their great power over the men of the World, to destroy their Dominion, to cast them out of the bodies [Page 19] v. 25. yea and out of the Temples and minds of men, which they pos­sest. The other of Luke 4.34 is to the same purpose, and so concludes no more, then that concluded. And indeed it cannot be with any shew of reason imagined, that the divels should know so little of their own doom, as to thinke it possible they should at Christ's coming be anni­hilated. Nay if they had, their pre­sent condition being so far from the least degree of happinesse, they could have no reason to deprecate it, or beg Christ to let them alone, and disclaim having any thing to do with him. Their annihilation (if that had been the signification of destroying them) the speedier it were, it were certainly the more de­sireable; especially when it would also have secur'd them from the fear of a yet worse condition, which we know was decreed them, and of [Page 20] which they cannot be doubted to have receiv'd presages, by being finally sentenc'd to it. If this argu­ment be consider'd, it will certainly warrant my affirmation, that 'twas not annihilation that the divels with such horrour expected from Christ, but, as appeares by comparing with Mat. 8.29. amandation to tor­ments.

Fifthly, the uses of the word [...] for eternall destruction, exem­plifi'd by the Objector by many texts Jo. 3.15, &c. if proved as manifestly, as freely granted by me, are still of no force to induce the desired conclusion, because it was said [...] signifies not annihilatiō. And yet it falls out, that severall of the testimonies are impertinent to that to which they were design'd; as 1 Cor. 1.18. 2 Cor. 2.15. where they that perish are impenitent sinners (abstracted from the doom [Page 21] that expects them) as oppos'd to [...] in the notion of penitents, and the next 2 Thes. 2.10. is of the same importance.

Sixthly, the uses of the nounes [...] & [...] must be concluded by what hath been already said of the verbs and nounes together, and indeed infer as little toward the un­dertaken cōclusion. For to that two premisses being requisite. 1. That the punishment of the wicked is ex­prest by [...] and [...]. 2. That those words signifie annihilation, only the former of these is preten­ded to be prov'd from the use of the words in the quoted places: the later, on which all the weight lyes, being not pretended or endeavou­red to be prov'd, but rather taken for granted, which is the great fal­lacy of petitio principii, not to be tolerated in the pressing any Ar­gument.

[Page 22]Seventhly, For [...] it availes nothing: for allowing it to be all one with [...] (a word which by the way I must now adde, having formerly omitted to insert it, signi­fies bodily smart inflicted by the devill, 1 Cor. 5.5. all one with [...] 2 Cor. 12.7. buffeting, yet still it signifies not annihilation, but sometimes an effect of spirituall death, or separation of God from the soule: viz: abominable unclean­nesse, which in a Christian is the defiling of Gods Temple 1 Cor 3.1, and that is granted by the Objector to be uselesse to him (and is not rendred more serviceable by pre­tending 'tis Metaphoricall, for though to call a man a Temple may be deem'd a Metaphor, yet to pol­lute, whether Temple or Man, is propriety of speech, and that the only importance of [...] in all places of the N. Testament, 1. Cor. [Page 23] 15.33. 2 Cor. 7. [...]. and 11.3. Eph. 4.22. Jud. 10. Revel. 19.2. and so very often [...] Rom. 8.21. vid. Annotat: 2 Pet. 1.4. and 2.12. twice and 19. Sometimes the cor­ruption of the body in the grave, 1 Cor. 15.42. and 50. sometimes for hurt to the man, Col 2.2 [...]. and sometimes for the pun [...]shments that await the wicked, Gal. 6 8 and op­posed to an happy everlast [...]ng state call'd [...], & by that opposi­tion not prejudiced but rather con­cluded to be an everlasting mise­rable state. For whereas the contrary is suggested without offer of proof, viz that destruction being oppos'd to eternall life, doth therefore seem to signify that which is most oppo­site thereto viz. real and eternall destruction, this is indeed scarce so much as a seeming or probability, very far from a demonstration. For sure eternall miserable being [Page 24] is most properly contrary and so opposite to eternall happy being. And though in Metaphysicall consi­deration absolute not being be most opposite to being, and so to eternall being; yet in morall speaking it is not so. 1. For sure eternall ill being, eternal torments, are much worse then no being at all: the bare Bo­nitas Entis, which D^r Twiss, and some Predestinarians fly to, being, when joyn'd with infinite miseries, very far from being valuable to him that hath it, If we believe Christ; having never been born, is more desireable then it. What is said on this word [...] to the interpreting of 2 Pet. 2.12. is in my opinion not to be adher'd to: [...] and [...], are, I think, to be actively ta­ken, and so [...] will signify those that take, and cor­rupt others, the filthy Gnosticks; see Annot:) and in that sence, of which [Page 25] only the words are capable, the phrase hath no shew of usefulnesse to the Objecter. For then [...] readily si­gnifies in their corrupting or debau­ching others, they shall be destroyed i. e. punish'd severely (I suppose e­ternally though that word enforce it not.)

Eighthly, For [...] Luk. 19.27. the full importance of it is to denote a signal execution of punishment on malefactors, brought forth and slain before the provoked King, but no more im­plies annihilation then any of the former. Nor is it at all discern­able by that place, whether the punishment executed were to be swift or lingering, it only signifies sharpe, and not to be averted; and solemne, and exemplary, as for a great and provoking crime: and indeed the passage wherein we find [Page 26] that phrase being a Parable, the Notion of it must be accorded thereunto; and so cannot be other then such as a Prince executes on his rebell subjects, neither annihilation on one side, nor eternal punishments on the other; & so that phrase will be argumentative on neither part.

Ninthly, For [...], and the o­ther words of the same nature with that, [...] and [...], the ut­most that can be pretended of them is, that those things that are thus burnt, consum'd, and devour'd, are utterly changed from their former state, not that they are annihilated. For what is utterly burnt is turn'd to ashes, but then ashes and not nothing are the terme of that corruption. So likewise that which is eaten and masticated never so small and con­verted into Chyle, then blood, then flesh, the rest going out into the draught, is still but thus chang'd [Page 27] not annihilated. 'Tis not indeed what it was, but thereby it only the more fitly represents those infernal torments, and state, which is as wide a moral mutation & departure from all good or desirable to any appe­tite, as can be imagin'd. And certainly this is all that can pretend to be deduc'd from common inter­pretation (which is referr'd to) of those Phrases. For if the wicked were granted to be destroy'd exactly af­ter the manner of Chaffe &c. Yet as chaffe is not annihilated, so would it not follow that the wicked are anni­hilated. But then withall it will be just to remember that Similitudes and Parables must not be bound to such accurate [...], as that e­very circumstance in the parable be accounted for strictly in the ap­plication, but only the main linea­ments, wherein the design'd resem­blance consisted, preserv'd, viz. [Page 28] that as after the threshing and wi­nowing the good corn, and laying it up carefully in the granary, the manner is to set fire to the chaffe, which licks it all up, and never ceaseth 'till it have consum'd all, and in that respect is call'd [...] (the wind conspiring with the fire, as in their open threshing flours on the tops of mountains the Jewish husbandry directed) so after the trying and purging and at length rewarding the godly with eternall Heaven, 'tis to be expected that God shall proceed to deal severely with the wicked, and then that se­verity be such as they shall not pos­sibly avert nor be able to undergo without the utmost morall damage to them. As for the use of [...] Heb. 13.11. of sacrifices burnt to ashes, Act. 19.19▪ of bookes burnt also, and Revel. 8.7. of trees, and green grasse burnt up, it is no more [Page 29] then hath been yeelded to the force of the former places. For still none of these were annihilated, they were burnt to ashes, not to nothing. Nay when the very phrase [...] is sometimes joyn'd with the burning of the wicked, as of chaffe, it is not obvious to render any reason for the choice of this phrase, but what will be founded in the eternity of their torments and being; for fire we know goes out it self when the fewel is exhau­sted: and so the Unextinguisha­blenesse of the one must be answe­red with the durableness of the o­ther.

Tenthly, For the same and like Phrases in the Old Testament, gran­ting (according to the mind of the Objector) that they include the second death after the gene­ral judgment: yet still this avails nothing to the desir'd conclusi­on, [Page 30] unlesse it be farther prov'd that those Words and Phrases do signify absolute utter destruction, or annihilation, for upon that on­ly the affirmative of the question depends, and for that there is no least pretence of proof offer'd here.

Eleventhly, For the Phrase [...], it will never be use­full to the disputer: for if the first death be the Act of separati­on of Soul and Body, and [...] not the torments of Hell, but the state or continuance of that sepa­ration (as it will be found to signi­fy in all the places of the Bible, and in the most and best heathen Authors) then the second death being the taking away them, must by consequence be founded in the reunion of the Soul and Body, that reunion being in propriety the dissolving of separation, Act and State both.

[Page 31]Granting therefore that the ca­sting of death and Hades (I must set that word instead of Hell, which in use signifies another thing, even that whereunto it is there said to be cast) into the lake of Fire, Revel. 20.14. is the second death: and the converting those (Act and State) into a State of sensitive and real misery: what can follow thence to the disputers advantage? That according to the Rabbinical Noti­on, it signifies final and utter de­struction? Why, let it do so; and the result is, that then death being finally and utterly destroy'd, a never ceasing State of being (though that most miserable) now takes place, and that is eternity of torments, far remov'd from an­nihilation: for though utter de­struction of positive Entities may be deem'd to signify annihilation, yet when attributed only to pri­vative [Page 32] Entities, death and Hades, it can in no reason signifie annihi­hilation, but the contrary restau­ration to being, i. e. to union of Soul and Body. But then second­ly that the Rabbins or Chaldae Pa­raphrast, Deut. 33.6. or Is. 22.14. meant by second death to denote absolute negation of all being, must not be allowed: for Deut. 33.6. the Hebrew reading let Reuben live and not die, and the Chaldae Pa­raphrast using the Phrase of the second death, that can infer no more, then by that Phrase they explain'd what they deem'd alrea­dy meant by the Hebrew word du­ly rendred dying: and there is no reason or colour for saying that that signify'd annihilation; dye he might, yet not be annihilated. And the like is apparent of the other place Is. 22.14. so much therefore for that.

[Page 33]To proceed then, will it be for the Objectors advantage that the second death is express'd by the lake of Fire and Brimstone, and that evidently referring to the utter destruction of Sodom and Gomor­rah? To this I reply first, that 'twas a tempestuous Rain of Fire and Brimstone that consumed So­dom, and not a Lake; and so the reference doth no farther hold then the Fire and Brimstone, i. e. The terrible stinking, and furi­ously burning Fire, and that gaines nothing to the disputer; The Fire of Hell may be as searching, and noysome, as is possible, with­out being finite, utterly consuming, or annihilating. Nay, secondly, when the Men of Sodome and Go­morrah, the inhabitants as well as the Walls, were burnt to ashes by that Fire and Brimstone, to which that lake bears some resemblance, what [Page 34] probability is there, that either those walls that were burnt to ashes were annihilated, or els that all that people were then annihilated so as to be uncapable of being rais'd, and judged at the day of doom? Or if they were, wherein did their punishment appear to be greater then the portion of any other more moderate wicked man, which in the disputers sence shall be so fi­nally annihilated; and sure reap no advantage by the state that ex­pects him in the intervall? Lastly, will his advantage be, that as death by being cast into the lake is sup­pos'd to be utterly destroyed, so whoever else is cast into the lake, shall be utterly annihilated? That I suppose the specially design'd advantage: but as it was said, it will prove none, because death being a privative thing, the de­stroying of that necessarily infers [Page 35] not only a positive Resurrection, but consequent to it an undying State, and that is contrary to the disputers pretentions. And then though those privations be de­stroy'd by being cast into the lake, yet it no way followes, that men by being cast in thither, shall be de­stroyed also. The concluding thus were, as if, putting off the prophetical expression, one should say in plain words, After the death of Adam and all his posterity, and their continuing in the state of se­paration some thousands of years, they shall be rais'd againe, and their Souls eternally united to their bo­dyes, and of those so rais'd, many should be cast into as eternal flames, (the former of these is parallel to the casting of Hell and Hades into the lake; the latter of the persons into the same lake) Ergo as there shall be no more separation of [Page 36] Souls from Bodies, so there shall be no more punishing of wicked men, whereas indeed the very contrary followes: The destroying of death is the commencing of this endless miserable life, therefore proov'd to be endlesse because death is de­stroyed, and so life comes univer­sally; and so to continue eter­nally instead of it: for else death and Hades (or that which is more then death, annnihilation) should returne to have their being again, which it was decreed they should not, and therefore they are said to be cast into the lake. 'Tis true indeed, if Hades signified the place of Hell or state of torments, then the casting this into the lake, would be the finishing those torments, whether after Origens way, or any other, it matters not; but this as hath been said, is not the importance of hades, but the State [Page 37] of death, as [...] is the Act of it.

To what hath last been said, that which followes in the bottome of p. 3. will be found no competent answer. The first Answer is, that the destruction of death and Hades is spo­ken properly in reference to them whose Names are in the Book of life.

But first, if this were true, then one of my former conclusions must needs be granted, that Hades si­gnifies not Hell Torments (for that being destroyed to those that were under it, the Godly were never un­der these) but the state of the dead in universum. Yet secondly, it is not true, for v. 12. I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the Books were opened, the Books of Register of all mens deeds (from which the book of life, following, is different) and the Dead were judged— the Dead indefinitely, i. e. sure all the dead, [Page 38] and yet more deictically by enu­meration of all particulars con­cern'd in it: The sea gave up its Dead, and Death and Hades deli­vered up the Dead which were in them, and they were judged every Man according to their Workes. Here 'tis evident that Death and Hades are properly spoken in refe­rence to all that were to be judged according to works, and not only to them whose names were written in the Book of Life. And so that evacuates the first Answer. The second Answer is, that they that are not written in that Book, shall never suffer such a Death as brings to Hades, but shall fall into a worse, the second Death. But to this I reply, that this distinction hath no ground in the text, but con­trary wise both Death and Hades are equally there said to be de­stroy'd to all that were under them, [Page 39] both whose names are, and are not written in the book of life. As therefore to the Godly, that Death that leads to Hades is destroy'd, so equally to the Wicked; and then they are both rendred eter­nall; and then the Wickeds being cast into this lake, is not, cannot be to be destroy'd there; but be­ing a lake of fire, to be tormented there eternally, as is most appa­rent v. 10. where the Divell was cast into this lake, and the beast and the false Prophet said to be there already, yet were not annihilated by being cast thither, but as it fol­lows, shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. That they fall into a worse death, I wil­lingly grant, and think it usefull to the cause I defend: for suppose a Wicked Man, whose impiety costs him dear here, (one of the Divels saddest Martyrs) cruciated [Page 40] with the Diseases his Sins have brought on him in an exquisite manner many years, and at last ei­ther seiz'd on by the hand of Ju­stice, and delivered to a wittily tormenting Death, or exercised many years with the rack of Stone and Strangury, or the like, and at last by these horrid miseries his Soul rent from his Body, and he continue in Hades many Hun­dred years, and certainly partake of no good in that estate, at the utmost, but rest from the labours of his former life. Can it in this case be said that the second Death is worse then this, and yet this second Death defin'd by a swift Annihilation? Certainly it can­not. Nothing but long continu­ed if not endless Torments can be said worse then those so long con­tinued Torments. But whereas it is added that the second Death is [Page 41] absolute and eternall destruction, as the scripture elsewhere speaks, I reply, that the scripture no where speaks so; never uses second death of any such thing as annihilation, nor ever seems in any other words to say of any wicked man, that he shall be annihilated. As for [...], I grant it parallel to [...], but can see no Argument producible thence that either of them denotes annihilation, being both so much more proper to denote Torments, and those eternall. For the val­ley of Hinnom, 'tis known that Children were not burnt to Ashes there, but put into hollow brazen vessels, and there fryed and scor­ched (a most lingering pain,) and therefore call'd Tophet from the Timbrels that there us'd to sound to drown the noise of their dismal cryes. And for the lake the Text is expresse, they that be tormented [Page 42] (without intermission) Day and Night (& without cessation) for ever and ever. And though the val­ley of Hinnom being on Earth was not a state of of Eternall but tem­porary punishments; yet that is no prejudice: for being to take a resemblance from earth and hu­mane punishments where nothing was eternall, the most that could be was to take the sharpest and most lingering Torments thereby to expresse those which, being most sharp, were eternall also. Thus much for the Texts of Scri­pture and phrases therein, which seem favourable to the affirmation, but duly weighed have not so prov'd.

Now for the Consideration taken from God's Attributes of Justice, and especially of Mercy p. 4. There seem to me to be three weak parts in the arguing. First that to those [Page 43] sins which are committed under temptations and infirmities of ours, not generally releiv'd by a sufficiency of auxiliary grace, God's eternal punishments are suppos'd to be affix'd by them, that maintain such punishments of eternal tor­ments. Certainly they that thus doe, doe amiss; and by so doing give great occasion to those that believe them to find other measures for justice in God, then those which he hath prescrib'd to men: (where­as in matters of this nature God is content to be judg'd by our Tribu­nal and measures, Judge I pray you betwixt me and my Vineyard, and Are not my wayes equal?) But they that maintain God's requirings Mic. 6. to be proportion'd to his shewings, and the sufficiency of the Divine grace, ready for all that will make use of it, and therein found the justice of punishing those that [Page 44] do despise or neglect those meanes so liberally and abundantly provi­ded for them by God, have given no cause for that exception. It is by them (on the contrary) marked out as an act of superabundant mer­cy, that God forsakes not upon the first refusals and not making use of his grace; he is long-suffering, and most willing, and most ardently la­bours that all should come to re­pentance, even such as have long resisted his Evangelical methods of rich grace. Secondly, that weight is laid upon the Temporalness of the sins committed in this world, inti­mating I suppose the unproportio­nableness of Temporal to Eternal, and therein founding an objection against the Justice of those punish­ments. This I suppose is believ'd to have force against those that are wont to answer it by compensating the want of weight in the tempora­riness [Page 45] of the sin and sinner, partly by the eternity of God against whom the sin is committed, partly by the preparedness and inclination of the man to sin eternally, in case he should live eternally. And I shall confess that I have alwaies look'd on those as [...], (such as the Schools have many) not able fully to satis­fy humane understanding, and have therefore been careful in several writings to offer surer grounds of satisfaction in this matter; by lay­ing the weight on the option, which is by God given us, of eternal blisse on one side, as the reward of our Evangelical obedience, as on the other of eternal woe on our wilful denying, and this finally and obsti­nately persever'd in: which makes it most just, that they that resolutely and inexorably make this choice of never so much ill to themselves, should have none but themselves [Page 46] to blame for the unhappinesse of their portion. Thirdly, that God in inflicting punishment is compar'd with man in respect of the compas­sion supposeable in him to see any the worst man thus afflicted. Where­as I conceive God is to be look'd on here only as the Rector of the Universe, whose office it is to pro­ceed in the work of Judicature without passion on either side. You may see it in a Judge on Earth, which if he be a well-natur'd man never willingly pronounces sentence, do­let quoties cogitur esse ferox: but yet must utterly disclaim his Office, if he do not secundùm allegata & pro­bata pronounce that sentence, which the Law prescribes against such or such a fact, and resist all temptations of his compassion in so doing. Such a severity is that of God's, which the office which belongs to him in the World exacts of him, even [Page 47] when he swears that he is far from delighting in the death of him that dies, and most passionately exhorts to repent and live, and imputes it to absolute wilfulnesse, for which no reasonable account can be given by any man, that he will thus suffer.

Should he never make such lawes to represse Sin by assur'd expecta­tion of eternal punishment, we might easily judg what a World or rather Wildernesse of savage Creatures this Universe would be, by what it now is, even after all this severity of menace and interdict. Twas there­fore most just and most necessary, that he should thus have ordein'd and enacted these sad lawes; And therefore in great Justice and Wis­dome, and without any resistance from his infinite goodnesse and mercy, He thus enacted. And having done so, should he as oft as any one came to suffer accor­ding [Page 48] to those Lawes, retract or dispence with; set his Compassion to evacuate the processe, and fru­strate all the wise designes of this his Justice? Certainly no man would ever expect this of an all-wise lawgiver; or (after he hath set his Seal to this grand Indenture, so solemnly as by his Son's promul­gating and signing it with his blood) imagine that his Compassion should thus tempore non suo interpose, when there are so many more pro­per seasons, wherein he hath effe­ctually demonstrated himself to have as much of that to every the wickedst man that perisheth, as any the tender'st father, even David ever own'd to the most desperate rebel Son Absolon, that finally refuseth all returning to mercy, 'till at length he perisheth in the midst of his Sin to the wounding his Fathers heart. These are three [Page 49] competent exceptions to that part of the arguing taken from Gods at­tributes. And therefore to the additional considerations for the strengthening thereof the reply will be easy, that if they are the greatest part of the World that falls under this severity: this is but ne­cessarily consequent to that grea­test part being such as that sen­tence most justly and indispensa­bly belongs to, and consequently not such whose guilts are truly suggested to be thus more venial, and of an ordinary degree; but only such as proceed from malice and obstinacy, grosse negligence or groundlesse presumption. For for all other sins of infirmity, igno­norance, and even wilfull, timely retracted by repentance, there is remedy prepar'd under the Gospell. Only whereas to the two heads of [Page 50] infirmity and ignorance, as proofs of the more ordinary degree of guilt, the Objecter addes negli­gence, strength of temptation, cor­ruption of nature, affection, evil edu­cation and example; and then in grosse farther addes many other circumstances, both positive and privative, abating the hainousnesse of the guilt. This will deserve to be better consider'd, both because the most of these (as the case truely stands) yield no matter of just excuse to any, (for so 'tis sure of examples of men, when in evident opposition to the commands and intermination of God: so of affection or sensitive passion, when in con­tradiction to reason and humane nature, the upper soule which ought to exercise its dominion gi­ven it by God over those [...], the bestial part of the man; [Page 51] and not be corrupted and led cap­tive and blindfold by it: so again evill education, when contrary to the light of naturall conscience; cor­ruption of nature, when repair'd by grace; temptations of the flesh or world or Devill, when infinitely outweigh'd by contrary motives to obedience and good living) and because some of them have much of malignity in them, which may well enhance not lessen the guilt. Of this sort I chiefly instance in negligence, such as it may be supine and wretchlesse, which in a creature and servant containes all degrees of enhancing any sin: 'tis wilfull, for he might be more careful: 'tis obstinate, for he is oft warn'd of it by the noxious effects (which he cannot but discerne) of it, and the Master's continual precepts to the contrary: 'Tis presumptuous, still [Page 52] imagining he shall find mercy, when God assures him he shall not in this way, and upon that groundlesse confidence still presuming to of­fend: 'Tis most ungrateful scor­ning and contemning to make any use of the greatest treasures of grace, all ready for him that would use tolerable diligence: 'Tis an act of horrible pride, in despi­sing God himself, his precepts, threats, promises; of infidelity both active and passive, not believing God, not being faithful to his service; And it self being nothing in effect but height of Idlenesse, and that doing or admitting much more ill, omitting much more good (meerly to gratify that one swinish vile pleasure of sloth) then any covetous voluptuous man doth for his greatest treasures, or tast fullest sensualities; it hath as it [Page 53] were all the aggravations of all other sins collected into one sink or kennel. In this place the de­scription assign'd the worst of men, [viz. men of flagitious and con­tumacious lives] may perhaps de­serve some animadversion. For if this be the one measure, to which eternal punishments are thought commensurable, 'tis possible there may be great and dangerous mi­stake in it.

For 1. There are many princi­ples of godless living all meeting in the effect, casting off the yoke of God's obedience, and so equal­ly deserving to fall under the se­verity of those lawes by which the world was created and manag'd. [...] and [...] are the two com­prehensive names of them, but there are several under each. Un­der the first pride and rage and [Page 54] revenge &c. under the second voluptuousnesse of all sorts, Cove­tousnesse, desire of praise &c. And every of these have a foundation in our corrupt nature, and temp­tations from without also: And as one soyle is more unhappily qualify'd for the one; so another is for another. And if all the re­streints, commands, preventions, excitations, invitations, engage­ments, mercies, punishments of God; all his Methods of armature and fortifying each man against these domestick enemies and trai­tours of his, may not be permit­ted to have any force toward his rescue out of this slavery to any of these sins, there is little reason of excuse that will hold the plea­ding for any of these. The con­tumacy is in effect the same in each; in him that askes God for­givenesse [Page 55] for his intemperance e­very day, and every night wal­lowes in it; as to him that goes on sullenly and demurely, and hath no regret to it. The ag­gravations are several; but the difference of the degrees of mali­gnity hardly discernible: Or if the disadvantage be on the side of the stout flagitious offender, this is no more then is necessary to be suppos'd to the defining several degrees of torments in Hell, that the mighty sinners might be mightily punished; it doth not at all con­cern the justice of that sentence, that decrees every unreform'd im­penitent to those flames. For repentance, as it signifies some de­gree of sincere renovation, being the minimum quod sic, without which all shall perish even under the Gospel, (that utmost dispen­sation [Page 56] of strict Law that God will permit any to hope for, that doth not give the lie to his message in the mouth of his Son) they that come short of this have no more to plead from any other circum­stance imaginable, because that God which gave space for repen­tance, hath also provided such counterballances either of aids or pardon to such circumstances, as shall utterly frustrate and prevent all plea that can from thence be drawn either against his justice or his mercy. 2. It must be remem­bred that there be other states, to which those titles of flagitious and contumacious lives are not competible, which yet have no lesse of malignity in them by that consideration, such are that of the intricate disguis'd painted hypo­crite, that hath God alwaies in his [Page 57] mouth, and his glory the design of his foulest actions, and yet his damnation as just as any man's: that of the wicked Christian, carnal Gospeller, that under the vow of baptisme, i. e. Christs banner, e­quals the sinnes of Jew, Turk or Heathen Worshipper: that of re­cidivation into forsaken sins, A­postacy, Temporary adherence to Christ, (but in time of tempta­tion presently they are offended, the [...] or cowardly Gnosticks, that Christ in the Revelation ranks with [...] unbelievers) each of these upon other as just ac­counts, as those under which the flagitious and contumacious is acknowledged to fall, and perish, may as reasonably be re­solv'd to have their portion: the richest talents being rather more then less accountable for, then the [Page 58] meanest; and the utter darkness, where there is weeping and gnash­ing of teeth, peculiarly assign'd to the unprofitable servant, that being apt to object severity and austerity against God, did not yet endeavour by improving his Talent to ap­prove himself unto him. By the way, that parable forewarns us how possible it is for a man negligently to loose all his opportunities of graces and advantages toward hea­ven, and engulfe himself in endless woe, whilst his heart is secretly ob­jecting against the reconcileable­ness of God's judgments with those Attributes which he thinks fit to be vindicated in all his infli­ctions. In this Section (after the middle of the 4^th. p.) it is resolv'd, that the opinion of eternal torments, properly so call'd, is not to be ac­cepted upon less termes then of [Page 59] plain demonstration from Scripture: But what that signifies, I cannot guess; God's affirmation when once reveal'd, as there is no just cause to doubt the testimony to be divine, will bear down all difficul­ties, which any improbability of the matter will suggest to us. Rea­son it self thus judgeth, that God is to be believed rather then any hu­mane reasoning. If therefore Christ (who sufficiently testify'd himself to come from God, and to have the signature of his Authority on all his affirmations) did teach eternity of torments properly so call'd, and ex­press that doctrine in such plain words, as all that heard him and his Commissioners preach, were firm­ly resolv'd to signifie the real ever­lastingness of those torments, then I suppose here is as plain demon­stration, as the weightiness of the [Page 60] matter or the Objecter's exceptions can exact. And that thus it is, it may not be amiss briefly to shew in this place. Besides those testimonies which are by the Objecter produc'd (and as they are enervated by him, have and shall be vindicated and clear'd to have force in them, and so are not to be mention'd here) I insist on these three. 1. The pa­rable of Dives and Lazarus, which being yielded to be but a parable, hath yet from Christs using it these grounds of assuring our faith, that there is as certainly after this life a state of torments as of bliss, and those torments executed by scorching, but not devouring and consuming, much less annihilating flames. He that is in them hath nothing to beg but a present coo­ling of his tongue, and that may not be had, because Dives hath had [Page 61] all his portion of good things in this life, and so must have no more such, though it be but the least allay of his pains for one minute, which sure excludes annihilation, which is the perfect superseding of them. Again, there is a gulf fixed, which interscinds all entercourse between Heaven and Hell, whereby any aid or relief should come to them. These circumstances put together must conclude, that the fire being not such as of it self consum'd those that were tormented in it, and Abraham, that was now a Com­prehensor, knowing that there was now no place left for the least de­gree of release to the sufferer, and no relief being to be hop'd for from Heaven, from whence only it was possible to come, the fire and so the continuance in the tor­ments must be eternal. I foresee [Page 62] but one objection to this, viz: that this was before the Day of Judg­ment, and then, this non obstante, the fire after the day of Doom may annihilate. To this I answer, that the Parable is not bound to refer to the time wherein it was delive­red. Other parables of the King and the Bridegroom referr'd to after times, and this here by the seeing Dives bodily in Hell, and the scorching of the tongue and the mention of dipping the finger &c must refer to the state of con­junction of souls and bodies in Hea­ven and Hell, and that must be after the Resurrection; and so that supersedes that one objection, and I foresee no other.

Secondly, I mention Christs words of Judas, that it were better for him never to have been born, and of him that should offend a [Page 63] tender disciple, and avert him from Christ, that it were better a Mil­stone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the midst of the Sea. Here I shall suppose annihilation as fully express'd by these two phrases, as by any it could be, and yet that somewhat worse then that expects wicked men, which must needs be founded in eternal mise­rable being: for eternal Being, if not miserable, is much better; and mise­rable Being, if not eternal, but im­mediately determin'd by a swift de­struction, as Christ supposeth, is not certainly and unquestionably worse then never having had a Being.

Thirdly, I resume again (though I now perceive they are after men­tion'd) the express words of Christ Revel. 20.10. that the Beast and the false Prophets, i. e. some wick­ed men [...] shall be tormen­ted [Page 64] in a lake of fire and brimestone day and night for ever and ever. Nothing could have been more expresse: And to these I adde, that there is no one seeming dissent of contrary testimony producible from the whole Scripture, but in­numerable that bear full consent with these, which consequently have establisht the faith of this Ar­ticle, that it was by the Apostles of Christ enter'd into that deposi­tum which they left in every Church where they preach'd, as appears by the last words of the Apostles Creed, the life everla­sting; which as it is expresly con­trary to annihilation, which is ex­cision and determination of life in respect of duration or lasting, so being subjoyn'd to the resurrection of the body, must be indefinitely coextended to that, and so belong [Page 65] to all bodies that are rais'd. And that it is thus comprehensive, ap­pears more manifestly by the Atha­nasian Creed, which to the rising and coming again of all men with their bodies, and giving account for their own works, which is parallel to the Resurrection of the body, sub­joyns as the Explication of Ever­lasting life this express Dogma, And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. And this was no doubt the concor­dant sence of the Churches, that had this depositum of Christian faith, both from the Scriptures and the preaching of the Apostles, and their Successors, committed to them. And so there remains no cause of doubt of the validity or plainness of demonstration, as far as any matter of doctrine is capa­ble [Page 66] of it from the testimony of Christ and of God. What fol­lowes of the incredibility of this doctrine, making some men despe­rately doubt of the truth of the whole body of Religion, can have no force against the truth of it. All Christ's duri sermones had that ef­fect of his teaching them, they were offended at him: and the meaning of that is, They forsook the whole Religion.

Having gone thus far in parti­cular Reply to all that have been propos'd in favour of the Affir­mative of the question, I need not accommodate any Answer to the remaining (fifth) page of the first part. The three Postulata's, if all granted, (as they may in some limited sence) will gain him no­thing. Not the first, for the let­ter of Scripture favours not him, [Page 67] as hath been shew'd; death and destruction no way signify or con­clude annihilation. Not the se­cond, for there is no one Text clear in phrase and signification yet pro­duc'd for the affirmative, nor any that by any age or orthodox Fa­ther hath been so interpreted. Not the third, because in our doctrine, set upon its due basis, there is no­thing so much as of a seeming disa­greeableness to piety, or the na­ture or Attributes of God, as hath been shew'd also. Then for the scandal of those disputes about Predestination &c. which is thought to be allay'd by the opinion of An­nihilation, I answer, that they which deny all irrespective decree of Re­probation or Praeterition against Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians, that affirm universality of Redem­ption, and of the gift of sufficient [Page 68] grace (all which are maintain'd by Bishop Overall, to whom the di­sputer professeth to encline, and are known to have been main­tained by concordant votes of all the Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church before S^t Augustin, and since him by a considerable part of the Church through all A­ges, and the contrary never uni­versally receiv'd as a Doctrine, and so remaines to have been but a disputable question at the most) cannot be imagin'd to be under any part of this scandall, or conse­quently to receive benefit by the Allay that is spoken of. And if the Doctrine of Reprobation &c. have need of this Antidote, to avert the ill and dangerous conse­quences of it, and to reconcile their dictates with piety and reve­rence to God Almighty, then it is [Page 69] more then time that the favourers of that Doctrine should rather change their poysons for wholsome dyet, then like the Mountebank on the Stage presume to swallow the poyson in confidence of this only antidote, which I have not yet heard that he believes to have any force in it. In a word, let us all renounce the irrespective decree of Reprobation, as I professe to do, and there is no more pretence for the denying of eternall torments of the Reprobates upon that ac­count. As for the punishment of personall sins, and their circumstan­tiall abatements, that hath been accounted for already.

The second Part.

IN the Second Part the view of the places producible for Eternall Pains, begins with a prejudice, viz. that it is no where plainly and directly denyed that the Reprobates shall be destroy'd. But that negative Argument as it is simply invalid, so it is most unsea­sonably prefixt to the setting down of Testimonies for the perpetuity of their Torments: For if one such Text be produc'd that shall really conclude their torments per­petual, (as certainly do the words of Christ Revel. 20.10. of their being tormented Day and Night for ever and ever) it is then most [Page 72] certainly consequent that the Re­probate shall not be destroy'd im­mediately after the day of Judg­ment: and what is that but the plain and direct denial of it. And to adde that it is no where said that they shall live for ever but that incorruption seems to be the privi­ledge of the Elect, is sure but ano­ther branch of the same paralogis­me, for they that are tormented for ever have sence and life for ever, but that being a life of misery eter­nal hath no semblance of the priviledge of the Elect, whose Crown it is to live and reign, not to live and be punisht for ever. And so this yields not the least mite of advantage to the former opinion. Now for the phrases [...] Mat. 18.8. & 25.41.48. [...] Mat. 25.46. [...] Mar. 3.29. [...] [Page 73] Mar. 9.43.44. & [...]. v. 45.46.48. [...]. 2. Pet. 2.17. Jud. 13. [...] ▪ Revel. 14▪ 11. and the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the prophet shall be tormen­ted day and night for ever and ever. Revel. 20.10. All these are endea­vour'd to be evacuated first by a general Answer; then by particu­lars accommodated to each parti­cular phrase. The general is, that the phrase [ [...] & [...]] do not alwaies si­gnify an absolute eternity, but ei­ther a long time, or an irreparable estate of things, or during unto the cessation of the subject. And without disputing the truth of this answer, it will be sufficient to my turn, if either some of these phra­ses do sometimes signify an abso­lute [Page 74] eternity, for then I shall have no reason to except against the In­terpretation of the universal Church of God for so many Cen­turies, which thus understand all, unquestionably most, of these pla­ces; or if they here denote an irre­parable state of those things that are spoken of; for then the wick­ed being cast into fire, are in that state irreparably, Math. 18.8.25.4 [...]. being in eternal punishment, Math. 25.41. are irreparably there, and so in the rest; which notion of e­ternal would never mind any man of the annihilation of those that are enter'd on such eternal flames or punishments. As for the testi­monies from Deut. 15.17. Ps. 37.29. and 14.6. they are all necessa­rily interpreted by the matter of them to refer to certain finite pe­riods, either of the man's life and [Page 75] capacity, either of serving, or enjoy­ing the earthly Canaan in the two former places, or to the end of this World, as the last of them, but no way prejudices the proper use of the words for absolute eternity, when the matter so requires, as I suppose it doth, whensoever it speaketh of a duration which is to commence at the end of this life or world of ours, as when eternal life is mention'd, the disputer will ac­knowledg; and yet with no more reason then I can render for inter­preting eternal punishment to this sence. But because the Objecter depends not on this his general Answer, let us descend to the par­ticulars: And first that of everla­sting fire. Mat. 18.8. and 25.41.48. Jud. 7. Here Jud. 7. is added over and above those places which were even now produced for this phrase, [Page 76] and on purpose, it seems, as a decoy to draw all the rest into the net. For herein is the answer founded, that the last of those Iud. 7. is by most Divines not understood to speak of the fire of Hell, but of that fire whereby their cities were de­stroy'd, which was only a deigma of hell fire, and so [...] shall not signify eternal burning, but ut­ter destruction, to which is added the consideration of a question, which may be made from Mat. 8.29 whither the Devils themselves, for whom eternal fire was prepar'd, be yet cast into it, who are said Iud. 6. and 2. Pet. 2.4. to be but priso­ners, and so not yet under the exe­cution of their doom.

To all this I answer, First, that if the suggestion be true, that such is the judgment of most Divines (w^ch I acknowledg to have been mine [Page 77] own formerly, but have changed it since) concerning that place Iud. 7. and their authority deem'd by him that urgeth it worth the heeding▪ then is the more united consent of all Catholick interpreters, none ex­cepted, for the notion of the same phrase in all other places of far greater authority for the admitting the eternity of that fire which is asserted in them: and if by those other places the Article be esta­blish'd, I shall not need contend for (nor should ever have produc'd) y^t one place of Iude, because some Interpreters, and even mine owne former doubting of that one, can be no prejudice to their consent with me for the many other, any one of which if it truly conclude the eternity of hell fire, is as good as a thousand. But then, Secondly, as I do not consent this to have [Page 78] been the judgment of most Di­vines, which is said to be; so I now upon better consideration of the Context, see no reason that could induce me or any to make that, so as to reject the more literal inter­pretation. That Sodom and Go­morrah, and the Cities about them signify the inhabitants of those Cities, is apparent there by their being affirm'd to have given them­selves over to fornication, which sure not the walls but the inhabi­tants did: and then sure those that suffer'd the vengeance of eternal fire, and therein are set forth for an ex­ample or essay, what we Christians following the like sins are to ex­pect, are not the Wals but the In­habitants also. By the way, it is not the praeter tense or sence, or in the aorist, (as when of the Angels v. 6. it is said they kept not but left, and [Page 79] of these [...] having given themselves over to fornication) but in the present [...] suffering, either as not at all looking back in this part of the period to their destru­ction on earth by fire and brim­stone, or else as to a lasting judg­ment then began, but still continu­ing upon them without any release; they still suffer that vengeance of fire which withall is [...] also, never likely to have an end. So no good firm ground is there in this Inter­pretation, which I remember I had long since out of Socinus, but is not, that I know of, the resolution of most Divines. As for the question whither the Devils are yet cast into eternal Hell, there will be no need of discussing it here, because if for God's wise and just ends they are not so confin'd thither, as after the judgment, when there is no farther [Page 80] place for those ends, they shall be, yet still the soules of the men of Sodom may now suffer in that fire, and the Devils that are ty'd to their dark prison (which appears not to be any other place but that Hell, where the spirits of wicked men are) be ready at hand to tor­ment them. Having clear'd this place, it followes, that as yet no least probability is produc'd how [...] in other places should si­gnify any thing else but eternal tor­ments of them that are cast into it, and the Section that follows at the top of p. 8. hath nothing in it that exacts return, for if the fire of hell be [...] then it burns everlasting­ly, and if they that are in it suffer the judgment of eternal fire, then they must be eternal also, and that is here affirm'd and Rev. 20.10. As for the four considerations that next [Page 81] follow to evacuate the belief of eternal torments being signify'd by eternal Fire, 'tis certain they have no shew of force in them severally; and then joyntly they will have as little. For 1. If the word Fire (in that phrase [...]) be a Metaphor, as indeed it is not deem'd to be the same with our culinary fire, and it differs from it in that it enlightens not, but leaves the place dark where 'tis, yet still it may be really fire to all other the punitive effects, and no doubt it is so in respect of burning and scorching and tormenting, or else the Scripture would not so oft affirm it of it. 2ly, If the word [...] do not primarily or perpe­tually signify everlasting, yet 'tis not once found in the new Test­ament to signify otherwise: the place Jude. 7. is the only place pre­tended, [Page 82] and that hath bin compe­tently vindicated. 3. Though Fire be a destructive thing, yet it is not able to annihilate by any its na­tural force, and besides it is a cru­ciating thing, and thus was it in the valley of Hinnom, from which the Fire of Hell takes its denomi­nation, and thus the beast and the false prophet are said to be tormented day and night for ever and ever in it, and then sure 'tis neither Ex­pression nor Instrument of anni­hilating destruction. 4. If ever­lasting fire be oppos'd to life Mat. 18.8. yet this ingages it not, no nor inclines it to signify utter de­struction ▪ but the most unhappy cruciating state which is more con­trary to happy life then absolute annihilation would be, as hath for­merly been shew'd; And there­fore though everlasting Fire should [Page 83] be granted to signify everlasting destruction, (as with any propriety it cannot, Fire being the Instru­ment of destruction, not destru­ction it self) yet in that case ever­lasting destruction would reaso­nably signify as [...] eter­nall perdition doth 2. Thes. 1.9. and of that we have already given account, that it signifies notorious judgments here concluding in the flames of Hell, and that it no way signifies or infers annihilation, but the contrary to the joyes of a blissful life, i. e. the paines of Hell.

For the rendring this phrase more applicable to the desir'd notion, 'tis thought fit to com­pare it with another like phrase [...] Mar. 9.43, 44, 45. as that is rendred, that shall not nor never shall be quenched; of which 'tis sug­gested, [Page 84] that it necessarily signifies no more, then that that Fire shall not go out, till the matter or fewel of it be consumed or de­stroyed, and thus 'tis used Isay 66.24. and that this appears to be the importance of our Saviours meaning, from other places Mat. 3.12. Luk. 3.17. where tis applied to the chaff and Tares which ad­mit no everlasting duration in the Fire, but are very capable of utter destruction. To all this I answer, 1. That there is no such affinity between [...] & [...], that one should regulate the notion of the other; when they are applyed to divers matters, one to the bur­ning of chaff, tother to the pu­nishing of wicked men. Or if there be, it may as reasonably hold, that [...] should be interpreted by [...]; and in order to that, [Page 85] the chaff and tares interpreted of wicked men, which are know'n to be figuratively expressed by them, as that [...] should be re­gulated by [...], and so wicked men thought in the same manner to be consum'd by the fire, as the chaff and tares are. 2ly, That for [...] if it be granted that it necessarily signifies no more then that the Fire shall not go out, till the fewel of it be de­stroyed, yet 1. it as fairly fol­lowes, then it may (when the con­text requires) very conveniently signify more; and that 2ly There will be no ground of doubt, whi­ther when 'tis applyed to those who are affirm'd to be tormented in a Lake of Fire day and night for ever and ever i. e. to wicked men it shall not signify this more, viz. eternal burning. 3. for the [Page 86] place of Isaiah, I shall appeal to antient interpreters; not only whither it may, but whither it do not, signify eternal fire, or that which is not extinguished for e­ver. Procopius, I suppose, hath on this prophesie as great a reputa­tion among learned men as any; I shall give you his sence, that the Prophet in the conclusion of the Prophesy speaks of the Saints of God [...], &c. Shall pass into the most eminent heavenly City, the mansion set apart for the kingdome of God, where they shall be for ever serving God, placed under the great high priest, and they shall all see the destruction of the wicked, and think what good things they have lost by despising God. Is. 1. Whom they shall behold [...] [Page 87] placed far off from them, [...]. You see his sence of the words, which undou­btedly they will bear, as the de­scription of the final reward of the pious believing Jewes and Hea­thens on one side, and of the im­pious obdurate on the other. And if, as he tells us, some will have it understood as a prediction of the Jewes destruction by the Romans, which were [...], yet still this interpretation is founded in the supposition, that the worme that dyeth not, and the fire that is not quenched, signifyed an undying pu­nishment, and as such is us'd to sig­nify [Page 88] in prophetick stile that which is next degree to absolute eter­nal; pursuing the Jewes where­soever they are to be met with, without any the least mitigation or mercy. 4ly, For the use of the same words Matth. 3. and Luk. 3. of the chaff and tares, 'tis sufficient to say that, those parabolical ex­pressions being undoubtedly set to denote the wicked, the word [...], which properly signifies that which never is or shall be quenched, being applyed to the tares in the para­ble, but to the wicked in the appli­cation of the parable, must be al­lotted such a notion in either, as the matter requires; and so though spoken of Tares, it be not taken in its full amplitude of significa­tion, but in that inferior degree which is competible to the bur­ning of Tares or chaff to ashes; [Page 89] yet being applyed to the wicked, the thing signifyed by those tares, it may still abide in its full ampli­tude, and signify the tormenting and not consuming, and so the everlastingnesse of that Fire. And indeed if it be argumentative in the disputer, that chaff admits no everlasting duration in the Fire, from which it may be deem'd con­clusible that [...] applyed to that, is not unquenchable fire, then it will be as well worth obser­ving that wicked men are capable of everlasting duration in Fire, and therefore [...] applyed to them (as it is Mar. 9.43, 44, 45. signi­fies everlasting Fire.

Next for [...], that that may be reconciled with the ob­jecters notion, He notes first, The opposition of it to everlasting life, Matth. 25.45. which may incline [Page 90] it to signify everlasting death. 2. That [...] doth not by absolute necessity signify everlasting. 3. That [...] doth not necessarily signify tormenting punishment but may be understood of a privative punish­ment, and then death being a punish­ment, ever lasting death may be tru­ly cald everlasting punishment. To these I answer, to the first, that the opposition to everlasting availes no­thing; everlasting life being undou­btedly everlasting bliss, and then e­verlasting misery is most directly op­posite to that. To the Second, That [...] spoken of that which begins after the day of judgment must de­note such a duration as is proporti­onable to the [...] following that, as [...] spoken in relation to any o­ther age, whither to the year of Jubi­lee, or the age of the Jewish state, or the age of this world simply or the [Page 91] Christian age, must be commen­surate to that age to which it refers, and therefore [...] there, being consequent to the judgment of the great day descri­bed in that Chapter, must in all reason be of the same duration as [...] in the same place. To the third that [...] generally sig­nifies positive punishment, not mulct, as [...] and perhaps [...] doth; however the reason cannot hold, that if death be a punishment then eternal death may be truly cald everlasting punishment, because though death should inferre annihi­lation wherein there is nothing, ergò no punishment, yet Death it self is something, and is joyned with real paines as well as priva­tions: but of those or any other reality the state of annihilation is not capable; and then to say ever­lasting [Page 92] punishment, though that were supposed to signify no more then everlasting poena damni, yet must it be founded in everlasting being, for no man can be punished everlastingly by deprivation of bliss that hath not a being at all, to be thus capable of devesting or deprivation: for non entis nulla est affectio. But to this it is repli­ed, that the text saith not the wick­ed shall be everlastingly punished, but they shall go into a punishment, and that punishment shall be ever­lasting; and such is everlasting death. To this I answer; that there is no ground of this di­stinction in the Text, which saith together, they shall depart into e­verlasting punishment which is cer­tainly the very form that would be used, if the [...] were designed to be never so positively puni­tive, [Page 93] if it were into the furnace of fire, where there is weeping and gna­shing of teeth. Secondly, 'tis reply­ed, that a man may suffer or be pu­nished by that which he doth not actually feel, and many attempts are made for the proof of this. But it is sufficient in a word to say, that none of the proofs come home to the state of annihilation whereof only our question is. A mad man or fool may suffer though they di­scern it not; a dead man, who is not annihilated but lives in his better part, may suffer in his memory, chil­dren, friends here; much more while he lives may he without folly desire to avert such sufferings, but he that is not, is not capable of any of these: and if I were sure, that to mor­row I should be nothing, no real consideration of my self (but either present care of others good, or per­haps [Page 94] irrational phansy) would in­cite me to make any provision for after that morrow. So again pri­vation of possible felicity is to any one that hath being a real punish­ment, because he is a looser, though not sensible of what he hath lost; but to him that is not, 'tis an abso­lute nullity, and were a man sure to be annihilate, the fear of this were unreasonable, for that time when he should be nothing, and the only thing that renders it reasonable now is because he hath a being, and hopes to continue it, or (whatsoe­ver he is seduced to believe to the contrary) yet still he desires it, and as long as he hath life, may well de­sire, and cannot choose but wish all the accomplishments and even ima­ges of it: and at once fear the loss of life, and all felicities which either do or may accompany life. But still [Page 95] this man's being subject to this fear, because capable of the causes of it, is no proof of his being puni­shed, who is supposed not to be: he that hath a being, and desires the continuance of it, suffers when he looseth it; but he that hath no be­ing, is not to be esteemed by these measures, any more then he that hath never yet been, is this day pu­nished by not being created, or con­ceived till to morrow. Nor to this is it any way consequent, as is objected, that the desire of everla­sting life should not be a reasonable desire. For though it be reasona­ble to fear the privation of a rea­sonable desire, yet this fear is only incident to him that hath a being, and he that hath no being cannot have desire, how reasonable soever it is for him, that hath a being, to have it.

[Page 96]The Sadduces had a being when they desir'd praise, and though they believed no immortality of souls, yet they believed durability of memory, and memory was a kind of image of life; and they that de­spaired of the body might take some content in the shadow; but even that a meer shadow and phansy too, which also would be at an end, whensoever their being were sup­posed to be so. So again the same Sadducee whilst he lived might fear death, because he enjoyed some­what which he was unwilling to loose, and because death it self though it were thought to enter him on a state of nothingness, yet was it self something, both respectu sensus & damni. And beside the Sadducee could hardly be Sadducee enough in the point, so as not to have some fear of the contrary: [Page 97] however he still had a being, and was to be unwilling to loose it. But that having no being should be real punishment to him that is not, is above my comprehension. As to what is said in the objecter's per­son p. 10. at the beginning, that if he believed annihilation, he would yet as much fear the punishment, as he desires everlasting life, I shall grant it on this presumption; that he now believes he shall enjoy ever­lasting life: but then he that thus desires and fears, is supposed to exist, and to him 'tis granted that deprivations are penal; and again, though he would fear that, yet sure he would never fear [...] in the notion of eternal sensible punish­ments and scorchings of fire. I know not whether all that I have said of the nature of the privative punishments be maturely said or [Page 98] no, as non entis non est affectio, so I have alwaies found it hard to sa­tisfy my self concerning any thing of that which is not. Only I rest my self in this, that my mistake, if it be such, is sure of so nice a ma­king, that I cannot my self discern it, and therefore it is not to be imagined that the truth of Christ's speech should hang on so weak a string as it must, if by [...] Christ meant no more then eternal deprivation of being. For if that which is not, cannot be eternally punished, how can the wicked be said to depart to eternal punishment when they are annihilated?

For everlasting judgment I ack­nowledg it signifies no more then the former imported; and so is to be concluded by the discourse on that. 'Tis the adjudging to a state which shall last to all eternity, or a [Page 99] sentence, wherein the eternity of him that is judged, is concern'd.

Next for their worme never dy­ing, I have three things to add, First, that the worm in dead bodies devoureth very slowly and leasurely, and so is as fit as any thing could have been to express lingring tor­ments. Secondly, that the worm devoureth not the whole body, the bones and firmer pars are not liable to her malice; and so 'tis most unfit to express utter annihilation of the whole. Thirdly, that the worm be­ing peculiar to dead and putrified bodies, is a most lively representa­tion of gnawings and miseries after death; and then when instead of mortal worms, which are the only instruments of gnawing on dead bodies, there is somewhat else threatned by Christ, which is fit to be expressed by the style of an im­mortal [Page 100] worm, nothing could have been more adaequate for the ex­pressing the eternity of torments in hell; those especially of a gnaw­ing tormenting conscience, which, if it be but the conjecture of Di­vines, is, as appears, a very pro­bable conjecture. Of the mea­ning of the place in the Prophet Is. 66.24. I have formerly spoken, and acknowledg'd it the fountain from which our Saviour Mar. 9. derived it, but have shewed how little is gain'd from thence toward prooving it a present, because a vi­sible, destruction. Abraham is supposed to behold Dives in hell, but that proves not that Dives his punishmens were present of this world. Procopius hath shewed, how the pious in heaven might be­hold the punishments of the wick­ed in another world, and in what [Page 101] sence to be said to come forth to wor­ship before the Lord, and go forth, and look &c. And indeed if it be unquestionable, that in Christ's speech the future miseries of the wicked are thus express'd (as the disputer himself yields) there can be no difficulty to understand the words so in Isaiah also. If therefore the place in Isaiah, so referred to the future torments of the wicked after the day of judgment; if the expression of future punishment by fire and worms, proportionable to the several customs of disposing dead bodies by interring and bur­ning, was frequent among the Jews (as the disputer grants to the force of the other Texts which Grotius quotes) if the addition of the never quench't fire take away all ambiguities imaginable in the worm, and incline it more strongly [Page 102] to those punishments which are elsewhere express'd by eternal fire: and if they, to whom Christ spake, the Jews which generally agreed to the Pharisees opinion of the eter­nity of another life, so understood the phrase, and Christ speaking agreeable to their opinion and in­terpretations of Isaiah, gave no least cause of conjecture or imagi­nation, that he meant the words in any other sence, then it was sure they would understand him; what cause of doubting can remain in this mat­ter? None certainly from the subsequent words, v. 49. for ad­hering to that interpretation of [...] for consumption of the sacrifice, as in the Holocausts, to which the wicked are fitly com­pared, there follows no more, then that the whole of the wicked, bodies and souls shall like the Holocaust [Page 103] be cast into the Fire, and burnt, or destroyed there; but in what sence of destruction, whither in that of annihilation, (which is not competible to the holocausts, and wherein 'tis never found to be ta­ken in the Sacred dialect when the Heavens are said to vanish or melt, as Salt Is. 51.6. this is not for the Heavens to be annihilated, and the [...] used for vestimenta detrita seu evanida, Jer. 38.11. were not annihilated) or in the other, having lost all the advantageous parts and effects of life, and being engaged in a most sad estate far worse then not being, is not so much as intima­ted in the phrase, any farther then by the conjunction thereof with the Eternal never dying Worme and Fire, it is reasonably to be interpre­ted; and that is quite contrary to the disputers interests.

[Page 104]Next then for [...] Jude 13. 2 Pet. 2.17. there is no pretence that it should in these places be meant for death any more then [...] is 2 Pet. 2.4. It signifies the sad uncomfortablenesse of that state, which, being in respect of the torments expres'd by Fire in other places, hath not yet the one comfort of ordinary Fire belong­ing to it, viz. lightsomnesse, but contrariwise [...], as dura­ble as the flames. The Texts pro­duced Job. 10.21, 22. 1 Sam. 2.9. Eccl. 11.8. Ps. 88.7, 11, 12. Job. 17.13. Eccl. 6.14. are Pertinent to prove what they designed, that darknesse denotes the State after this life: but that no way prejudi­ces the use of it for a positive state and not that of annihilation: for for that 'tis not used in any of those places. Yet that it shall not [Page 105] here be taken in that sence which in those places belongs to it there are these reasons, 1. Because the New Testament most explicitely affirming a resurrection from that Old Testaments darknesse; doth yet threaten this [...], which therefore must commence after the resurrection, and so can­not be that death from whence men rise in the resurrection, of which those Old Testament places were understood. 2ly, Because in the same Chapter 2 Pet. 2.4. 'tis said of Angels [...], where [...] being applied to An­gels, it cannot signifie that death, as if 'twere applied to living men, it might. 2. Being joyn'd with chaines, it thereby seems to signi­fie some positive state, but especi­ally 3. Being joyn'd with [...] it must denote that state, which [Page 106] all sorts of men, Heathens, as well as Jewes and Christians, understood by Tartarus, that sure is a place of suffering after death. 3^ly. Because though there be no further men­tion then of the privative part of Hell, in the [...], yet in the other places of the N. T. where the same is mentioned under the name of [...], the utter or utmost darkness, the farthest recession from lightsome or blisfull life imagina­ble, there is joyned with it wee­ping and gnashing of Teeth, Matt. 8.12. and 22.13. and 25.30. which sufficiently differenceth it from the notion for death.

As for the places in the Revela­tion, it is granted to be reasonable to interpret them according to pro­phetick style, and not exact them to strict literal interpretation; ac­cordingly as Jer. 7.20. and Is. 34. [Page 107] 4.10. signifie utter final vastations, (as appeares by their smoak going up for ever and ever, lying wast and none passing through it, from generation to generation, for ever and ever, and the not quenching of Gods wrath, but burning upon man and upon beast) so where the like circumstances either inforce, or but incline, the interpretation of passa­ges in the Revelation, I shall make no scruple to yield, as Revel. 18.18. speaking there of the ruine of Ba­bylon 'tis most reasonable to in­terpret to that sence the smoak of her burning, by her meaning that great City in the end of the verse, and so again chap. 19.3. her smoak rose up for ever and ever, Heathen Rome was destroyed, so as never to be rebuilt again; there is nothing in the context's that in­clines to any more then this. But [Page 108] then for Rev. 14.9, 10, 11. I cannot thus yield. There, to deter all from yielding to Idolatry in the least degree, worshipping the beast and his image &c. the intermina­tion goes out thus, if any man shall do thus vers. 9. the same shall drink &c. vers. 10. where the bitter wine of God mixt, unmixt in the cup of his wrath, is properly such a vengeance as hath 1. No mixture or allay of mercy. 2. All the embittering spices added to it, and so fitly signifies deprivation of life and all that is precious here, and very much more of bitterness after it. And this is further inforced by their being (not consumed) but tormented with Fire and Brim­stone (not here as Sodom was in the presence of men, but) in the pre­sence of the Holy Angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. i. e. by the [Page 109] sentence of Christ with his assem­bly of Angels in judgment, and so vers. 11. the smoak (not simply as Rev. 19.3. nor of their burning or consuming as in Isay it was, but) of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night (quite contrary to death whereby men rest from their labours, and to annihilation much more, which is a perfect cessation and that eter­nal, as opposite as was possible to having no rest day nor night) so chap. 19.20. where 'tis said of the beast and the false prophet, the Roman Idolatry and Magick &c. (i. e.) the eminent supporters of the former by Magick and auguries, the principal factors for the hol­ding up the Heathen Worship, Apollonius Tyanaeus &c. (See note on Rev. 13. g.h.i.k.) that they were [Page 110] cast alive into a Lake burning with Fire and Brimstone, the meaning in all reason must be, that they were from this life sentenced to be cast into exquisite torments, not that they were utterly de­stroy'd or consumed, but as infal­libly removed to that place of Tor­ments, as if they had gon down quick Bodies and Soules together into Hell.

Here indeed is nothing said of the perpetuity of those Torments, but that is expresly set down chap. 20.10. not only as far as concernes the Divel that was to bear them company, and was cast into the Lake where they are (which by the way must either inferre that the Divels who are not deemed to enter on their full punishment till the day of Doom, shall then also be annihi­lated, or that the wicked who are [Page 111] then in the same condition with the Divels shall not be consumed or annihilated) but particularly as to them [...] the Beast and the Prophet shall be tormented for ever and ever. And if you shall demand, why I said not this thus particularly in the Paraphrase and Annotations on the places of the Revelation? I answer that it was not agreeable to my design on that Book, which was only to set down the grand lines and branches of that obscure Prophetick Writing, and not more nicely to descend to every minute expression in it.

Where it is said pag. 12. l. 8. That to apply any passages in the Revel. to that which is to follow after the last judgment, is not so Prophetical and therefore not so probable a sence; I answer that all that is future (as surely all that [Page 112] followes the last judgment is) may well be ingredient in a Prophecy and so in this probably enough, if either speaking of vengeance on wicked men this be added over and above their visible portion (for that sure is very fit in a Christian Prophecy, when wicked men oft thrive very prosperously here, 'till the day of full iniquity and their accounts comes, and then they die oft but as other men, and would not deterr any man from follow­ing their steps, if we were not ad­monisht that after death they must meet with a dismal Portion) or speaking of the end of the World and the day of doom, the several allotments of men be there seaso­nably mention'd also, as we see it is in Rev. 20.12, 13, 14, 15.

As for the last reserve, that if the punishment here described be to [Page 113] be understood of that which fol­lowes the last Judgment, yet no expression used in any of those Texts doth necessarily signifie an absolute eternity of positive Tor­ments; I answer that undoubtedly some do. I instance in Rev. 20.10: as it hath been formerly inlarged on, (day and night for ever and ever expresseth an absolute eternity, as much as any words of man can do; [...]) doth plainly denote positive torments, and referring pe­culiarly to a rack, doth thereby de­note the kind of positive torments to be such, as are not designed to ending the life, but to continuing it in great paines, for so we know the Rack is among men.

Now for the exceptions to Rev. 20.10. I must adde somewhat. 1. 'tis suggested that that seems not to be spoken of the last final [Page 114] judgment. I grant it is not, but of the houre of death, whereon I sup­pose those wicked mens Soules cast into the Fire of Hell, and ne­ver rescued from thence, till Body and Soul together at the day of doom being joyned in those tor­ments, they are shut up thither to all eternity. Secondly, 'Tis sug­gested that it seems not to be meant of Hell (i. e.) Gehenna, into which none were ever cast alive i. e. be­fore the first death. To this I an­swer, that to be cast alive into Hell is a phrase like to that of going down quick into Hell, used of them whom the earth swallowed up. Wherein 'tis more then possible that such notorious sinners might go, Bodies and Soules together, to Hell, without any previous separa­tion by death; by the same analogy whereby we believe that Enoch and [Page 115] Elias went up, bodies and souls, in­to heaven without seeing death; and whereby we believe the same of those that shall be found alive at Christ's coming, both wicked and Godly. But then, secondly, if this be not certain enough to be adhe­red to, then the phrase will signify as suddenly and really to be cast into those Flames, and there to be tor­mented, as they could be imagin'd to be, if bodies and souls together, they should be cast alive thither; and so this is a direct prejudice to the sleeping of their souls, or recei­ving any interval of rest from their passing out of this life, and their entring into the torments of hell.

Of the places in the Apocalypse some things are added, to the ta­king off from their force. First, a desperation of any certain under­standing of that book. To which [Page 116] I answer, that 'tis but a panick and popular fear, which is the author of that desperation, and keeping men from the study of it, makes it necessarily unintelligible; whereas First, there be many repeted pas­sages of Christ in it, designed on purpose to excite men to the stu­dying of it. Secondly, there are evident characters, which serve as keyes to the understanding of it, and nothing but the seeking and fancy­ing depths and mysteries in it, hath made it so mysterious: the mea­ning nearest to literal, and such, as by comparing it with other pro­phecies, appears to be the one pro­phetical signification of each pas­sage, will be found to be the truest; and they that strein higher, and seek farther off, to find what was never intended by the inspirer, or the A­manuensis, are the men that have [Page 117] made this Prophecy obscure, which would otherwise be as perspicuous as any one of the greater Prophets of the Old Testament. Secondly, when 'tis suggested, that the places for interminable paines are but two or three, and those opposed to as many hundreds, which are to be alleaged against this sence; I an­swer, that as few or as many as they are, (it matters not for num­ber, one affirmation of God's will establish a truth) First, they accord with many others in writings not obscure or prophetick. Secondly, there is no one (much less many hundreds) producible to the con­trary sence, as hath hitherto appea­red by examining all such as were pretended to be opposite, but were found very reconcileable with the sence. Thirdly, when the obscuri­ty of the writer is again mentio­ned, [Page 118] that hath been already spoken to on the first place.

Concerning the reasons which are used to secure the places for eternal life for to signify that, though eter­nal torments be not allowed to be properly eternal, I have little to say, because I fully acknowledg that importance of the word eter­nal, whether to blisse or wo. And I think it hath already appeared, that there are not these reasons of difference between them as now are mentioned. For, first, as there are no texts in the Gospel which seem to oppose the absolute sence of eternity in the promises, so those that were thought to seem to oppose the absolute eternity of the threats, having been brought to tryal have been found very light; and, secondly, the doctrine of eter­nal torments truly stated and vin­dicated [Page 119] from the mistakes by men introduced into the doctrine, hath appeared most credible also to those that believe the Gospel; and as ne­cessary to God's justice as he is Re­ctor of the Universe, and as agree­able to his goodness, who earne­stly averts their dying that will needs dy, as the eternal promises are reconcileable to all the attri­butes of God. Thirdly, that as there are negatives that irrefraga­bly confirme the truth of the arti­cle concerning eternal life, so there are affirmatives and negatives both (each is therefore is not quenched) that as irrefragably establish the truth of the doctrine of eternal tor­ments. As for the Philosophical doctrine of the immortality of the soul, I yield it can import no more, then either its not being corrupti­ble from any outward principles, [Page 120] nor destructible from any created power; I yield it (for all that) de­structible by God, but have for­merly answered how that place Mat. 10.28. hath nothing to do with his will or purpose to annihi­late it.

Lastly, as for tradition, as that signifies the suffrages of all the men in the world, Heathens of all sorts, Jews of all sects, Mahometans, Chri­stians heretical as well as orthodox, it matters not though this doctrine be not deduced by such absolutely universal tradition. I yield that many Heathens there were that be­lieved it not, that the Sadduces de­nyed it, that the Jews now adaies care for none but themselves, and so make no provision for other men, that there have been Origenist Hereticks, and some such as Au­gustine mentions Enchir: c. 12 [...] de [Page 121] civit: Dei. l. 21. cap. 17.18. ('tis no newes that there should have been false teachers and believers in the world.) But that Augustine, who is confest frequently to assert the doctrine, and frequently to defend it against adversaries, should yet be believed to doubt, lib. de serm. Dom. in mont. tom. 4 super Mat. 5.25.26. I am not apt to give heed to it. Because, first, if the same Augustine should be so uncertain and uncon­stant, he were little worth heeding on either side. Secondly, there would be reason to resolve, that the place, where the doubting is found, was either not written by him, who wrot elsewhere so contra­rily, or were written by him before he had competently considered the grounds, whereon afterwards he establisheth his acknowledgments of the truth. But the truth is, I [Page 122] discern not how those words [ne­que ita hoc dixerim, ut diligentio­rem tractationem videar ademisse, de poenis peccatorum quomodo in Sacris dicantur aeternae] should be interpreted, so as to express him a doubter in this matter. In other circumstances he might well give men liberty of expression, yet him­self never have the least suspicion or doubt of the truth of the main Article. It remains there­fore that the Scripture, as that hath been found consonant and agreea­ble to all other places of its self, and as it hath been interpreted by all learned Orthodox men of all ages, and as from the Apostles time to this day their doctrine hath been delivered down in the Creed of the Apostles, and other occasional explications thereof, doth as evi­dently affirm the eternity of the [Page 123] torments of the wicked on the one side, as the eternity of the joyes and bliss of the Godly on the other side; and that as far as the Catholick Church in all ages hath extended, in opposition to the heterodox and haeretical, so far the tradition of this Article for eternal pains is uni­versal, and therefore in no reason to be doubted of by a meek Son of this persecuted Church, which professeth readily and uniformly to receive all Catholick Tradition, truly so call'd, as that includes the writings and preachings of the A­postles. Having gone thus far, and at last arrived to the conclusion, in the same posture (with some inter­missions) of the Chair, wherein the Gout had fastned me; I now find the use of my foot return'd again, and so take my leave of this paper and my chair together, and by [Page 124] the length of it suppose I have your full leave so to do. When you have survey'd it as deliberately as you desire, I desire that you will return mine own to me, not weigh­ing too severely what was written thus hastily. But remember, if any one text of Scripture, or testifica­tion of the Churches sence of all times (including the Apostles) be producible, it is sufficient for the establishing this truth, though ma­ny passages produced, or defences made for the farther confirming of it, should not be found rigorously Concludent or Demonstrative. The God of Heaven, Author of all Grace and Truth be now and ever with you.