LETTER VI. REPLIES TO OBJECTIONS. Sir, IN a former Letter, I suggested, that, whether the scriptures teach the doctrine of endless punishment, or not, they certainly appear to do so. Whether this suggestion was unfounded, the evidence in my last Letter must determine. You attempt, however, to discredit it, by alleging the few instances in which the terms ever, everlasting, &c. as connected with future punishment, are used in the scriptures. "Everlasting, as connected with the future punishment of men,” you say, “is used only five times in the Old and New Testament; and yet this same word is used in the scriptures at least ninety times, (very generally, indeed.) in relation to things that either have ended, or must end." You proceed, "As to the word eternal, which is of the same meaning, it is used in the text and margin upward of forty times in the whole Bible; out of which there are only two which can be supposed to relate to future punishment."* You should have proceeded a little farther, Sir, and have told us how often the terms ever, for ever, and for ever and ever, are applied to this subject; as the distinction between them and the words everlasting and eternal, is chiefly English, and as you have allowed, that it is from the use of the one, as well as the other, that I suppose the scriptures must "appear" to teach the doctrine of endless punishment. As a candid reasoner, you should also have forborne to mention Jude 6, with a view to diminish the number of testimonies; as it is not to the endless punishment of VOL. II. * Universalist's Miscellany, No. XXXV. p. 328. 48 men only, that you object. By these means, your number would, at least, have extended to eleven, instead of seven. But, passing this, I shall offer a few observations on your reasoning. First: If the term everlasting be applied to future punishment five or six times out of ninety, in which it is used in the scriptures, this may be as large a proportion as the subject requires. It is applied, in the scriptures, to more than twenty different subjects; so that to be applied five or six times to one, is full as frequent a use of it as ought to be expected. Secondly If the application of the term everlasting to future punishment only five or six times discredit the very appearance of its being endless, the same or nearly the same, may be said of the existence of God; to which it is applied not much more frequently. You might go over a great part of the sacred writings on this subject, as you do on the other: telling us, that not only many of the Old Testament writers make no use of it, but a large proportion of the New; that Matthew never applies the word to this subject, nor Mark, nor Luke, nor John; that it is not so applied in the Acts of the Apostles; and, though Paul once uses it, in his Epistle to the Romans, yet he closes that, and all his other Epistles, without so using it again; and James did not use it, nor Peter nor John, either in his three Epistles, or in the Apocalypse, And, when you had thus established your point, you might ask, with an air of triumph, "Is this a proof that the scriptures appear to teach" the eternal existence of God? Truly, Sir, I am ashamed to refute such trifling: yet, if 1 did not, your readers might be told, that doubtless, I had "cogent reasons" for my silence. Thirdly: If any conclusion can be drawn from the number of times in which a term is used in the scriptures, that number should be ascertained from the languages in which they were written, and not from a translation, which, on such a subject, proves nothing; but, if this had been done, as it certainly ought by a writer of your pretentions, we should have heard nothing of number two, nor of number five. : Fourthly You tell us, not only that "the word everlasting is used very generally indeed, in relation to things that either have ended, or must end;" but that the word which is so rendered was, by the Old-testament writers, most generally so applied.* By "the word which we render everlasting," I suppose you mean Dy, though there are other words, as well as this, which are rendered everlasting, and this word is not always so rendered. 1 have carefully examined it by a Hebrew concordance, and, according to the best of my judgment, noticed as I went along, when it is applied to limited, and when to unlimited duration; and I find that, though it is frequently used to express the former, yet it is more frequently, applied, even in the Old Testament, to the latter. I do not allege this fact as being of any consequence to the argument: for, if it had been on the other side, it would have proved nothing. It would not have been at all surprising, if, in a book wherein so little is revealed concerning a future state, the word should have been used much more frequently in a figurative, than in a proper sense but, as far as I am able to judge, the fact is otherwise. In looking over the various passages in which the word occurs, I perceive, that, in many of those instances which I noted as examples of the limited use of it, the limitation is such as arises necessarily from the kind of duration, or state of being, which is spoken of. When Hannah devoted her child Samuel to the Lord for ever, there was no limitation in her mind; she did not intend that he should ever return to a private life. Thus also, when it is said of a servant whose ear was bored in his master's house, he shall serve him for ever; the meaning is, that he should never go out free. And when Jonah lamented, that the earth with her bars was about him for ever, the term is not expressive of what it actually proved, namely, a three days' imprisonment, as you unaccountably construe it ; but of what it was, in his apprehensions, which were, that he was cut off from the land of the living, and should never more see the light. So far as my observations extend, the word, whenever applied to a future state, is to be taken in the endless sense; and, this you yourself will allow, except in those passages which relate to future * Universalist's Miscellany, No. XXXV. pp. 328, 329. + Universalist's Miscellany, No. I. p. 6. punishment. You, therefore, plead for a meaning to the term, in relation to this subject, which has nothing parallel in the scriptures to support it. In the New Testament, the future state is a frequent topic with the sacred writers; and there, as might be expected, the terms rendered everlasting, eternal, for ever, &c, are generally applied in the endless sense. Of this you seem to be aware; and, therefore, after asserting, that, by Old-testament writers, the term rendered everlasting was "most generally" applied otherwise, you only add, concerning New Testament writers, that they "use it but a few times in relation to future punishment; a remark, as we have already seen, of but very little account. If a particular term should be applied to one subject only five or six times, it does not follow, that the evidence is scanty. There may be other terms equally expressive of the same thing; and the foregoing letter, it is presumed, has given proof that this is the case in the present instance. And, if there were no other terms to convey the sentiment, five or six solemn asseverations on any one subject ought to be reckoned sufficient, and more than sufficient, to command our assent; and, if so, surely they may be allowed to justify the assertion, that the scriptures appear, at least, to teach the doctrine of everlasting punishment. In answering what I considered as a misconstruction of a passage of scripture, (Rev. xiv. 19.) I suggested, that the phrase, day and night was not expressive of a successive or terminable duration, but a figurative mode of speech, denoting perpetuity. "It fol lows then," say you, "that your best ground for believing that there is no successive duration after the end of this world, is only a figurative expression or two."* Did ever a writer draw such an inference! What I alleged was, not for the purpose of proving endless punishment, but merely to correct what I considered as a misinterpretation of a passage of scripture. If this be your method of drawing consequences, we need not be surprised at your inferring the doctrine of Universal Salvation from the holy scriptures. * Universalist's Miscellany, No. XXXV. P. 329. |