Inprimatur  
Gualt: Blandford, VICECAN: OXON. Aug. 1. 1664.   

Ἀξία Θεο̂υ κρίσις. judgement worthy of God. OR An assertion of the EXISTENCE and DURATION OF Hell Torments, IN Two occasional Letters, written several years since, by  
The most Learned, Reverend, and Pious Dr HENRY HAMMOND.  
TO WHICH IS ADDED An Accordance of St PAUL with St JAMES, in the great point of Faith and Works,  
By the same Author.  
— Who being Dead yet speaketh.  Heb. 11.4. 
OXFORD Printed by H. H. Printer to the University, for RIC: ROYSTON, and RIC: DAVIS, 1665.   

The Preface.  
SO servilely disingenuous is our Nature, and altogether brutish in the pursuit of sensual enjoyments, that the proposal of rewards does in no proportion lead us so forcibly to our Interests and duties, as do the threats and menaces of punishment. Insomuch that it may be said with perfect truth, that God is far more gracious in severity then in mercy; far more obliging and indulgent in creating of a Hell, then in furnishing a Heaven. Whilst the flaming sword and dreadful Cherubin, set at the Entrances of Paradise, though they seemed meant to hinder the return of our first Parents, prove really both theirs and ours best Convoy thither. We being such, whom vengeance only can reclaim, terrors allure, and even damnation itself preserve from ruin and damnation.  
Accordingly, it is an Observation verified by full experience, that our fears of Hell are balanced with our hopes of Heaven; and our beliefs concerning each, answer our Expectations of either. The Apostle's assertion of men's heaping to themselves Teachers according to their lusts, being as true of their choice of doctrines: and however in other things we live not answerably to our Principles, in this Instance we rarely deviate, and by the same degrees grow confident in doing ill at present, and disbelieving of our future sufferings for it: so that it proves a Contemplation of great variety to recollect what shifts men put themselves upon, to gain a truce and correspondence with their vices; how they sweat and labour, as to acquire the real punishments, so to elude the anticipated dreads and frightful Expectations attending their misdoings.  
1. And first of all; how being engaged in vicious practice, they strive to palliate its deformity with the beauteous appearances of neighbouring virtue; calling their anger's justice, their lust's friendships, their rapines zeal, and so of the rest. But when this Umbrage proves too thin, and the hypocrite has the ill fate never long to impose on others, and therefore much less upon himself.  
2. The next Attempt is made to lessen the regard of Virtue and shame of Vice, by suggesting that both are the production of opinion: That Nature knew no Ethics, but founding all things in Community made no proprieties excepting those of enjoyment and possession: whilst Law and right are the mere issues of preceding Wrong, the usurping on that freedom which was the native birthright of mankind; and honesty is nothing but a bondage unto common fame, the being a fool to escape the stile of Knave. But when this gourd is withered in the day of its appearance (dishonest practice; however fashionable and recommended by Example; being of ill mark and seeking Covert: never secure by any strengths, nor sheltered by Concelement: Nay more than this, the partial sinner condemning still in others, the very guilts he flatters in himself, which makes it evident that naughty practice has an horror in it which in despite of interest or prepossession confesses it detestable)  
3. A fresh expedient is sought, and men are taught to argue, that howsoever Wickedness be shameful in its nature, it will not much import if it at least be innocent in its effects; and followed by impunity. Which hope is countenanced by the indifferent and seeming casual dispensation of successes in the World; where one event happens to the good and bad, the clean and unclean; him that sacrifices, and him that sacrifices not; whilst providence is so far from punishing offenders as to allow to them the most signal liberalities; and good men in the interim rarely share in any thing but misery. Yet notwithstanding this; since conscious guilt by sad misgiving controls its most assured enjoyments; and reason adds her more concluding suffrage, retorting back the Argument, and from the impunity of wicked men at present demonstrates that instead of peace and safety a sure arrear of judgement must be looked for; it being most consequent, that if there be a God, he must be just; and if he be so, will punish in a future world the injustices which scape and thrive in this.  
4. Henc it grows needful for the vicious person to look out farther for security; and beaten from the former shelters, his next address is to religion, and with the troops of other Criminals he seeks for refuge at the Altar, which to all purposes besides he scorns and desecrates. And here he boldly claims the privilege of Saintship, of Faith, Predestination, and thousand texts of Scripture which promise mercy and forgiveness unto sinners. But when these flattering expectations are silenced by the voice of the same Scripture, which plainly says that no Whoremonger, Adulterer, unclean person, or the like, shall have any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God: and on the Contrary, that tribulation and anguish is on the Soul of every man that doth evil whatsoever his opinions be: and as to advantages from outward profession, they are but this; he that knows the Will of God and does not practise, has right unto this one prerogative alone, to be beaten with more strips than others:  
5. After these frequently repeated misadventures, the sinner encourages himself to try a yet unthought of Artifice: and since that in all addresses whither to Nature or Religion he meets with sad abodes of future punishments: he would fain please himself with putting far off from him the evil day: suggesting that these punishments both are and likewise will be future still; at least are so remote, as not to merit our regards, or stand in competition with a present satisfaction. But when the hourly possibilities of death and a succeeding state of torment, revenging with severe inflictions the broken minutes of reprieve, intrude upon the mind; then this fair dream of Comfort likewise vanishes as faithless and as empty as the rest. And now it were to be expected, that the sensual Man driven so often from his fastnesses and places of retreat, should yield and be content at last to part with ruin.  
6. But the Industry of vice is not so wanting to its self: for though it be made evident that virtue is a real being, and the demure pretention to it will no way satisfy our interest or duty: also that it appear religion has no Gospel for the wilful sinner: and no impunity can be expected to transgression, nor advantage in delay of suffering: One more, and indeed the only unattempted refuge is laid hold of▪ to try if that these punishments are really so formidable as is pretended; or such indeed as a generous and valiant sinner may meet and grapple with. The which is put in practice by framing easy Characters of the inflictions apportioned to transgression, and likewise shortening the date of their duration.  
And indeed this method of procedure seems to be the last effort of resolute Impiety: when men determined not to leave their sin, rifle the regions of darkness for their shelter, and seek a refuge in perdition: fulfilling the prophetic strain and high Hyperbole of making a Covenant with Death and being at an agreement with Hell. A method which though not perfectly unknown unto precedent generations, was rarely ventured on; but seems left like to the barbarous Western World to be invaded and possessed by this our Age. Even that, which having attempted Mischiefs beyond all common practice, was in reason to look out for salvoes and excuses no less peculiar. And as if these would not be authentic if only whispered in discourse, we have lived to see them made the Argument of Books and magisterially disputed as sober truths and maxims of Divinity. For besides the preparatory Doctrine of the Socinians, 
The Socinians opinion of the future state of Souls.  (who teaching men to disbelieve that Resurrection which God asserts, leave it an easy task to overthrow that which themselves contrived.) We have in our own language been solemnly instructed that the pains of Hell are nothing but the luxuries of Earth; the drudgery of getting Children, 
Mr Hobbs.  and living o'er again that age which sensual men would live for ever. 
Mr White▪  We have been likewise taught those pains dwell only in the fancy, nay in the Wishes and importunate desires of them that are tormented: as if the flames of the infernal Tophet had been the painted Fires of Purgatory, and every criminal were his own Hell and pain and Devil too.  

Resolution concerning Origen.  Lastly, we have been taught that the severity of the day of judgement shall pass upon its self, when death shall learn to die, damnation be condemned, and perdition be destroyed. Whilst men have brought again from the infernal pit that monstrous Heresy, which should have justified its doctrine, by having been its self consumed there, and lost unto Eternity.  
Alas! who will from henceforth be afraid of sin, if it only punish by inflicting pleasure, torment by baiting us with keen desire, or end in painless deperdition? We can dwell with consuming fire, and peacefully cohabit with everlasting burning, if the flames be only those of lust, or of desire; or be they real ones, if they utterly consume, and are so great as to be withal most friendly, and calcine us in a moment.  
Which severals being thus nakedly premised, there will not need a farther Preface to manifest, how very seasonable the subjects of the ensuing discourses are: nor more to justify the Edition of them, unless it may be useful to declare, that these considerations were so weighty, as to persuade thereto the Right Reverend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of London, (who was entrusted with these Venerable Remains) though he otherwise is very jealous without much caution to commit (and will not suffer any other person to bring) the posthumous labours (especially the occasional private letters) of his friend to public light: lest, though every thing which fell from that Excellent Pen, merits its readers full reception, yet wanting the advantage of a review, it may not altogether merit and deserve its Author; that is, be not so exactly absolute, as whatsoever past his second view was sure to be.  
May the Charity of the one in writing, and the other in publishing these discourses be answered in the advantage of the Reader; who can only, by being convinced there is a Hell, escape the knowing what it is, and will happily confute these Papers by being a Proselyte unto them.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. judgement worthy of God. or, An assertion of the Existence and Duration of Hell Torments.  
SIR,  
AS soon as I had made my last dispatch to you, it pleased God to fasten me to my bed for some days, by the return of a fit, which hath been my frequent exercise; from whence being now after five days removed to my chair, I have some liberty to review your question; and think it best with my pen in my hand to offer to you (in the same order which you have used) my thoughts of every period.  
And first for the terms of the Question, they want somewhat of Expresness: For supposing, as you do, 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 linger 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 affirm the affirmative of this question: and so he, that advanced from 1000 ds to millions of years and ages of sufferings, concluded (at any the longest last) with abolition. And then the arguings that are after used from God's Justice &c: would be of little force, if no more but this were designed 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 doomsday sentence, and that no linger but swift destruction.  
Next then p. i for origen's opinion, granting it right stated (as I think it is) I demand for what reason that is mentioned? Is it not for this, because origen's Doctrine was deemed an Heresy in the Church, and that of some ill and dangerous consequence to be believed? If so, than it must be considered, whether they that deemed origen's Heretical, 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 origen's, i e. whether the belief of no future punishment to the wickedest Hypocrites in the world, save only of swift annihilation, will not be as forcible a means of securing wicked men that have no taste or spiritual joys) in the admitting of any gainful evil, as the belief that after a long space of horrible torments proportionably increased to their number of Sins, and the aggravations thereof, they shall one day, no body knows when, when the Devils have been punished 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 suffered all those torments, rather than 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 origen's 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 than must be, 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 acknowledged that these words properly signify the same that in English death or dying doth. But that this should be limited to utter destruction 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 mystical and metaphorical Senses▪ 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 used 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, that the one is the proper, but the other only metaphorical 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 add, that the Notion of Death for utter destruction i. e. Annihilation being only useful to the disputer, it will be hard for him to produce any one place, either in Old or New Testament, (I might add, or in any other Author) where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 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 less both, utterly perish. Nay the doctrine, for which the proposer of the questions disputes, supposes him not to mean death in that notion; for then Eternal death, the wickeds portion, must be eternal separation of Soul and Body, which is exclusive of all reunion or resurrection at the day of Judgement: which the Disputer averts as heretical. Nay 'tis to be observed 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 millstone hanged about the Neck and being cast into the midst of the Sea, which by an imperfect resemblance seemeth meant on purpose to signify annihilation: And yet it is also observable to the main question, that either of these states (and so annihilation) is better and more desirable, than the Lot which in God's decree awaits a betrayer of Christ, a wicked man, for that one fact. Thus far by way of evacuating all force in that Argument; To this I shall add somewhat Positive toward the laying foundation for the evincing the contrary, viz. That death in scripture use., is (as 'tis granted in the objection) opposed 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 spiritual life, both as that signifies living well, whereby the passages of spiritual virtue 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 God's favour and protection, of which under the style of God's 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 showed) but as literally, and with as full propriety as the union of Soul and Body is called Life, God being (as the School saith out of St Augustin) intimior cuicunque rei creatae, than 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 valere vita; but to greater or lesser degrees of happy and joyful 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 called 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 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 rational that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should both technically, and properly signify the 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. viij, 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 me 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 Devil 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 Devil; and so he hath power over them.  
Secondly 1. Joh. 3.14. Where he that loveth not his Brother is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abide in that which is there called 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 gained to the establishing the affirmative of the question, from this first objection, the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. for the punishment of the Wicked.  
Proceed we then to the second sort of words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there rendered destruction or perishing or perdition. For all these will be ruled by the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. none of them having any propriety to the sense of annihilation, but only opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the notions wherein they are visibly used for reskues or deliverances; sometime 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 bliss in the vision of God. And in proportion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is fitly used not only for the privations; but contraries to every one of those, the evils extremely 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 prepared for the Devil and his Angels, and Men also adjudged to have their parts of it Mat. 25.41. and the office of the Devils there to be Lictors, & tormentors, and jailors, which suppose space of detention and cruciating, but are irreconcilable with instant annihilation: see Mat. 5.25▪ 26. And against this sense 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 affirmed so to signify Mat. 10.39. it is certain it doth not. For there as it is once opposed to the losing this present life, (as our Saviour foretells the complying Jews, and Gnostics should in event do by those very means by which they intended to preserve them) so it is a second time applied to godly Martyrs who lose their lives for Christ's sake, of whom it will not be imagined that they are annihilated, when they so die. Thirdly, the Concession that when applied to a person, it signifies generally death in the proper sense, 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 lawful 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 crucified, not annihilated. And so in all other places, save only that of 1 Cor. 15.18. where upon a false assumption it would follow that (not the wicked, which alone were pertinent, but) good Christians should utterly lose all being, at least of the body, or be never raised 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 believed (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 v. 25. yea and out of the Temples and minds of men, which they possessed. 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 show of reason imagined, that the devils should know so little of their own doom, as to think 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 happiness, 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 desirable; especially when it would also have secured them from the fear of a yet worse condition, which we know was decreed them, and of which they cannot be doubted to have received presages, by being finally sentenced to it. If this argument be considered, it will certainly warrant my affirmation, that 'twas not annihilation that the devils with such horror expected from Christ, but, as appears by comparing with Mat. 8.29. amandation to torments.  
Fifthly, the uses of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for eternal destruction, exemplified by the Objector by many texts Jo. 3.15, etc. 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 annihilation. And yet it falls out, that several of the testimonies are impertinent to that to which they were designed; as 1 Cor. 1.18. 2 Cor. 2.15. where they that perish are impenitent sinners (abstracted from the doom that expects them) as opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the notion of penitents, and the next 2 Thes. 2.10. is of the same importance.  
Sixthly, the uses of the nouns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be concluded by what hath been already said of the verbs and nouns together, and indeed infer as little toward the undertaken conclusion. For to that two premises being requisite. 1. That the punishment of the wicked is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. That those words signify annihilation, only the former of these is pretended to be proved from the use of the words in the quoted places: the later, on which all the weight lies, being not pretended or endeavoured to be proved, but rather taken for granted, which is the great fallacy of petitio principii, not to be tolerated in the pressing any Argument.  
Seventhly, For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it avails nothing: for allowing it to be all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a word which by the way I must now add, having formerly omitted to insert it, signifies bodily smart inflicted by the devil, 1 Cor. 5.5. all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 12.7. buffeting, yet still it signifies not annihilation, but sometimes an effect of spiritual death, or separation of God from the soul: viz: abominable uncleanness, which in a Christian is the defiling of God's Temple 1 Cor 3.1, and that is granted by the Objector to be useless to him (and is not rendered more serviceable by pretending 'tis Metaphorical, for though to call a man a Temple may be deemed 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. 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 punishments that await the wicked, Gal. 6 8 and opposed to an happy everlasting state called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 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 opposed to eternal life, doth therefore seem to signify that which is most opposite thereto viz. real and eternal destruction, this is indeed scarce so much as a seeming or probability, very far from a demonstration. For sure eternal miserable being is most properly contrary and so opposite to eternal happy being. And though in Metaphysical consideration absolute not being be most opposite to being, and so to eternal being; yet in moral speaking it is not so. 1. For sure eternal ill being, eternal torments, are much worse than no being at all: the bare Bonitas Entis, which Dr Twiss, and some Predestinarians fly to, being, when joined with infinite miseries, very far from being valuable to him that hath it, If we believe Christ; having never been born, is more desirable than it. What is said on this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the interpreting of 2 Pet. 2.12. is in my opinion not to be adhered to: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are, I think, to be actively taken, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will signify those that take, and corrupt others, the filthy Gnostics; see Annot:) and in that sense, of which only the words are capable, the phrase hath no show of usefulness to the Objecter. For than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 readily signifies in their corrupting or debauching others, they shall be destroyed i. e. punished 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 discernible by that place, whether the punishment executed were to be swift or linger, it only signifies sharp, and not to be averted; and solemn, and exemplary, as for a great and provoking crime: and indeed the passage wherein we find that phrase being a Parable, the Notion of it must be accorded thereunto; and so cannot be other than such as a Prince executes on his rebel 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, consumed, and devoured, are utterly changed from their former state, not that they are annihilated. For what is utterly burnt is turned to ashes, but then ashes and not nothing are the term of that corruption. So likewise that which is eaten and masticated never so small and converted into Chyle, than blood, than flesh, the rest going out into the draught, is still but thus changed 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 imagined. And certainly this is all that can pretend to be deduced from common interpretation (which is referred to) of those Phrases. For if the wicked were granted to be destroyed exactly after the manner of Chaff etc. Yet as chaff is not annihilated, so would it not follow that the wicked are annihilated. But then withal 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 designed resemblance consisted, preserved, viz. 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 chaff, which licks it all up, and never ceaseth till it have consumed all, and in that respect is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (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 eternal 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 moral damage to them. As for the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13.11. of sacrifices burnt to ashes, Act. 19.19▪ of books burnt also, and Revel. 8.7. of trees, and green grass burnt up, it is no more than hath been yielded 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 joined with the burning of the wicked, as of chaff, 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 itself when the fuel 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 judgement: yet still this avails nothing to the desired conclusion, unless it be farther proved 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 offered here.  
Eleventhly, For the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it will never be useful 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) than 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.  
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 destroyed, a never ceasing State of being (though that most miserable) now takes place, and that is eternity of torments, far removed from annihilation: for though utter destruction of positive Entities may be deemed to signify annihilation, yet when attributed only to privative Entities, death and Hades, it can in no reason signify annihihilation, but the contrary restauration to being, i. e. to union of Soul and Body. But than 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 explained what they deemed already meant by the Hebrew word duly rendered dying: and there is no reason or colour for saying that that signified annihilation; die he might, yet not be annihilated. And the like is apparent of the other place Is. 22.14. so much therefore for that.  
To proceed then, will it be for the Objectors advantage that the second death is expressed 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 than the Fire and Brimstone, i. e. The terrible stinking, and furiously burning Fire, and that gains nothing to the disputer; The Fire of Hell may be as searching, and noisome, as is possible, without being finite, utterly consuming, or annihilating. Nay, secondly, when the Men of Sodom 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 probability is there, that either those walls that were burnt to ashes were annihilated, or else that all that people were then annihilated so as to be uncapable of being raised, and judged at the day of doom? Or if they were, wherein did their punishment appear to be greater than the portion of any other more moderate wicked man, which in the disputers sense shall be so finally annihilated; and sure reap no advantage by the state that expects him in the interval? Lastly, will his advantage be, that as death by being cast into the lake is supposed to be utterly destroyed, so whoever else is cast into the lake, shall be utterly annihilated? That I suppose the specially designed advantage: but as it was said, it will prove none, because death being a privative thing, the destroying of that necessarily infers not only a positive Resurrection, but consequent to it an undying State, and that is contrary to the disputers pretensions. And then though those privations be destroyed by being cast into the lake, yet it no way follows, 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 raised again, and their Souls eternally united to their bodies, and of those so raised, 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 Souls from Bodies, so there shall be no more punishing of wicked men, whereas indeed the very contrary follows: The destroying of death is the commencing of this endless miserable life, therefore proved to be endless 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 than death, annnihilation) should return 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, than the casting this into the lake, would be the finishing those torments, whether after origen's way, or any other, it matters not; but this as hath been said, is not the importance of hades, but the State of death, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Act of it.  
To what hath last been said, that which follows in the bottom 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, than 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 men's deeds (from which the book of life, following, is different) and the Dead were judged— the Dead indefinitely, i. e. sure all the dead, and yet more deictically by enumeration of all particulars concerned 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 Works. 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 destroyed to all that were under them, 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 destroyed, so equally to the Wicked; and then they are both rendered eternal; and then the Wickeds being cast into this lake, is not, cannot be to be destroyed there; but being a lake of fire, to be tormented there eternally, as is most apparent v. 10. where the Devil 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 useful to the cause I defend: for suppose a Wicked Man, whose impiety costs him dear here, (one of the Devil's saddest Martyrs) cruciated with the Diseases his Sins have brought on him in an exquisite manner many years, and at last either seized 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 rend 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 than this, and yet this second Death defined by a swift Annihilation? Certainly it cannot. Nothing but long continued if not endless Torments can be said worse than those so long continued Torments. But whereas it is added that the second Death is absolute and eternal 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 eternal. For the valley of Hinnom, 'tis known that Children were not burnt to Ashes there, but put into hollow brazen vessels, and there fried and scorched (a most linger pain,) and therefore called Tophet from the Timbrels that there used to sound to drown the noise of their dismal cries. And for the lake the Text is express, they that be tormented (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 Eternal but temporary punishments; yet that is no prejudice: for being to take a resemblance from earth and humane punishments where nothing was eternal, the most that could be was to take the sharpest and most linger Torments thereby to express those which, being most sharp, were eternal also. Thus much for the Texts of Scripture and phrases therein, which seem favourable to the affirmation, but duly weighed have not so proved.  
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 sins which are committed under temptations and infirmities of ours, not generally relieved by a sufficiency of auxiliary grace, God's eternal punishments are supposed to be affixed by them, that maintain such punishments of eternal torments. Certainly they that thus do, do amiss; and by so doing give great occasion to those that believe them to find other measures for justice in God, than those which he hath prescribed to men: (whereas in matters of this nature God is content to be judged by our Tribunal and measures, Judge I pray you betwixt me and my Vineyard, and Are not my ways equal?) But they that maintain God's requirings Mic. 6. to be proportioned to his showings, 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 do despise or neglect those means 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 believed to have force against those that are wont to answer it by compensating the want of weight in the temporariness 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 always looked 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 bliss 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 persevered 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 to blame for the unhappiness of their portion. Thirdly, that God in inflicting punishment is compared 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 looked 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-natured 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 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 wilfulness, for which no reasonable account can be given by any man, that he will thus suffer.  
Should he never make such laws to repress Sin by assured expectation of eternal punishment, we might easily judge what a World or rather Wilderness 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 ordained and enacted these sad laws; And therefore in great Justice and Wisdom, and without any resistance from his infinite goodness and mercy, He thus enacted. And having done so, should he as oft as any one came to suffer according to those Laws, retract or dispense with; set his Compassion to evacuate the process, and frustrate all the wise designs of this his Justice? Certainly no man would ever expect this of an alwise 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 wickedest man that perisheth, as any the tenderest father, even David ever owned to the most desperate rebel Son Absalon, that finally refuseth all returning to mercy, till at length he perisheth in the midst of his Sin to the wounding his Father's heart. These are three competent exceptions to that part of the arguing taken from God's 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, gross negligence or groundless presumption. For for all other sins of infirmity, ignonorance, and even wilful, timely retracted by repentance, there is remedy prepared under the Gospel. Only whereas to the two heads of infirmity and ignorance, as proofs of the more ordinary degree of guilt, the Objecter adds negligence, strength of temptation, corruption of nature, affection, evil education and example; and then in gross farther adds many other circumstances, both positive and privative, abating the heinousness of the guilt. This will deserve to be better considered, both because the most of these (as the case truly 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 soul which ought to exercise its dominion given it by God over those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the bestial part of the man; and not be corrupted and led captive and blindfold by it: so again evil education, when contrary to the light of natural conscience; corruption of nature, when repaired by grace; temptations of the flesh or world or Devil, when infinitely outweighed 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 reckless, which in a creature and servant contains all degrees of enhancing any sin: 'tis wilful, for he might be more careful: 'tis obstinate, for he is oft warned of it by the noxious effects (which he cannot but discern) of it, and the Master's continual precepts to the contrary: 'Tis presumptuous, still imagining he shall find mercy, when God assures him he shall not in this way, and upon that groundless 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 itself being nothing in effect but height of Idleness, and that doing or admitting much more ill, omitting much more good (merely to gratify that one swinish vile pleasure of sloth) than any covetous voluptuous man doth for his greatest treasures, or taste fullest sensualities; it hath as it were all the aggravations of all other sins collected into one sink or kennel. In this place the description assigned 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 laws by which the world was created and managed. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the two comprehensive names of them, but there are several under each. Under the first pride and rage and revenge etc. under the second voluptuousness of all sorts, Covetousness, desire of praise etc. And every of these have a foundation in our corrupt nature, and temptations from without also: And as one soil is more unhappily qualified 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 domestic enemies and traitors 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 asks God forgiveness for his intemperance every day, and every night wallows 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 than is necessary to be supposed 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 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 remembered that there be other states, to which those titles of flagitious and contumacious lives are not compatible, which yet have no less of malignity in them by that consideration, such are that of the intricate disguised painted hypocrite, that hath God always in his 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 gospeler, that under the vow of baptism, i. e. Christ's banner, equals the sins of Jew, Turk or Heathen Worshipper: that of recidivation into forsaken sins, Apostasy, Temporary adherence to Christ, (but in time of temptation presently they are offended, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or cowardly Gnostics, 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 resolved to have their portion: the richest talents being rather more than less accountable for, than the meanest; and the utter darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, peculiarly assigned to the unprofitable servant, that being apt to object severity and austerity against God, did not yet endeavour by improving his Talon to approve himself unto him. By the way, that parable forewarns us how possible it is for a man negligently to lose 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 judgements with those Attributes which he thinks fit to be vindicated in all his inflictions. In this Section (after the middle of the 4th. p.) it is resolved, that the opinion of eternal torments, properly so called, is not to be accepted upon less terms then of plain demonstration from Scripture: But what that signifies, I cannot guests; God's affirmation when once revealed, 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 itself thus judgeth, that God is to be believed rather than any humane reasoning. If therefore Christ (who sufficiently testified himself to come from God, and to have the signature of his Authority on all his affirmations) did teach eternity of torments properly so called, and express that doctrine in such plain words, as all that heard him and his Commissioners preach, were firmly resolved to signify the real everlastingness of those torments, than I suppose here is as plain demonstration, as the weightiness of the matter or the Objecter's exceptions can exact. And that thus it is, it may not be amiss briefly to show in this place. Besides those testimonies which are by the Objecter produced (and as they are enervated by him, have and shall be vindicated and cleared to have force in them, and so are not to be mentioned here) I insist on these three. 1. The parable of Dives and Lazarus, which being yielded to be but a parable, hath yet from Christ's 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 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 intercourse 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 itself consumed 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 hoped 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 but one objection to this, viz: that this was before the Day of Judgement, 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 referred 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 Christ's words of Judas, that it were better for him never to have been born, and of him that should offend a tender disciple, and avert him from Christ, that it were better a Millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the midst of the Sea. Here I shall suppose annihilation as fully expressed by these two phrases, as by any it could be, and yet that somewhat worse than 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 determined by a swift destruction, as Christ supposeth, is not certainly and unquestionably worse than never having had a Being.  
Thirdly, I resume again (though I now perceive they are after mentioned) the express words of Christ Revel. 20.10. that the Beast and the false Prophets, i. e. some wicked men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be tormented in a lake of fire and brimstone day and night for ever and ever. Nothing could have been more express: And to these I add, 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 established the faith of this Article, that it was by the Apostles of Christ entered into that depositum which they left in every Church where they preached, as appears by the last words of the Apostles Creed, the life everlasting; which as it is expressly contrary to annihilation, which is excision and determination of life in respect of duration or lasting, so being subjoined to the resurrection of the body, must be indefinitely coextended to that, and so belong to all bodies that are raised. 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, subjoins 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 sense 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 of it from the testimony of Christ and of God. What follows 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 sermons 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 proposed 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 Postulatas, if all granted, (as they may in some limited sense) will gain him nothing. Not the first, for the letter of Scripture favours not him, as hath been showed; death and destruction no way signify or conclude annihilation. Not the second, for there is no one Text clear in phrase and signification yet produced 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 showed also. Then for the scandal of those disputes about Predestination etc. which is thought to be allayed by the opinion of Annihilation, I answer, that they which deny all irrespective decree of Reprobation or Preterition against Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians, that affirm universality of Redemption, and of the gift of sufficient grace (all which are maintained by Bishop Overall, to whom the disputer professeth to incline, and are known to have been maintained by concordant votes of all the Fathers of the Greek and Latin Church before St Augustin, and since him by a considerable part of the Church through all Ages, and the contrary never universally received as a Doctrine, and so remains to have been but a disputable question at the most) cannot be imagined to be under any part of this scandal, or consequently to receive benefit by the Alloy that is spoken of. And if the Doctrine of Reprobation etc. 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, than it is more than time that the favourers of that Doctrine should rather change their poisons for wholesome diet, then like the Mountebank on the Stage presume to swallow the poison 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 profess to do, and there is no more pretence for the denying of eternal torments of the Reprobates upon that account. As for the punishment of personal sins, and their circumstantial abatements, that hath been accounted for already.   

The second Part.  
IN the Second Part the view of the places producible for Eternal Pains, begins with a prejudice, viz. that it is no where plainly and directly denied that the Reprobates shall be destroyed. But that negative Argument as it is simply invalid, so it is most unseasonably prefixed to the setting down of Testimonies for the perpetuity of their Torments: For if one such Text be produced 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 certainly consequent that the Reprobate shall not be destroyed immediately after the day of Judgement: and what is that but the plain and direct denial of it. And to add that it is no where said that they shall live for ever but that incorruption seems to be the privilege of the Elect, is sure but another branch of the same paralogism, for they that are tormented for ever have sense and life for ever, but that being a life of misery eternal hath no semblance of the privilege of the Elect, whose Crown it is to live and reign, not to live and be punished 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 endeavoured to be evacuated first by a general Answer; then by particulars accommodated to each particular phrase. The general is, that the phrase [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] do not always 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 eternity, for than 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 entered 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 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 mentioned, the disputer will acknowledge; and yet with no more reason than I can render for interpreting eternal punishment to this sense. 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, 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 jud. 7. is by most Divines not understood to speak of the fire of Hell, but of that fire whereby their cities were destroyed, 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 prepared, be yet cast into it, who are said jud. 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 judgement of most Divines (which I acknowledge to have been mine own formerly, but have changed it since) concerning that place jud. 7. and their authority deemed by him that urgeth it worth the heeding▪ then is the more united consent of all Catholic 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 established, I shall not need contend for (nor should ever have produced) that one place of jude, because some Interpreters, and even mine own 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 been the judgement 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 affirmed to have given themselves over to fornication, which sure not the walls but the inhabitants did: and then sure those that suffered 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 Walls but the Inhabitants also. By the way, it is not the praeter tense or sense, or in the aorist, (as when of the Angels v. 6. it is said they kept not but left, and 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 judgement than began, but still continuing upon them without any release; they still suffer that vengeance of fire which withal 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 confined thither, as after the judgement, when there is no farther place for those ends, they shall be, yet still the souls of the men of Sodom may now suffer in that fire, and the Devils that are tied 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 cleared this place, it follows, that as yet no least probability is produced 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than it burns everlastingly, and if they that are in it suffer the judgement of eternal fire, than they must be eternal also, and that is here affirmed and Rev. 20.10. As for the four considerations that next follow to evacuate the belief of eternal torments being signified by eternal Fire, 'tis certain they have no show of force in them severally; and then jointly they will have as little. For 1. If the word Fire (in that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) be a Metaphor, as indeed it is not deemed 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 Judas. 7. is the only place pretended, and that hath been 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 opposed to life Mat. 18.8. yet this engages 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 showed; And therefore though everlasting Fire should be granted to signify everlasting destruction, (as with any propriety it cannot, Fire being the Instrument of destruction, not destruction itself) yet in that case everlasting destruction would reasonably signify as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eternal perdition doth 2. Thes. 1.9. and of that we have already given account, that it signifies notorious judgements here concluding in the flames of Hell, and that it no way signifies or infers annihilation, but the contrary to the joys of a blissful life, i. e. the pains of Hell.  
For the rendering this phrase more applicable to the desired notion, 'tis thought fit to compare it with another like phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 9.43, 44, 45. as that is rendered, that shall not nor never shall be quenched; of which 'tis suggested, that it necessarily signifies no more, then that that Fire shall not go out, till the matter or fuel of it be consumed or destroyed, and thus 'tis used Isay 66.24. and that this appears to be the importance of our Saviour's 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 applied to divers matters, one to the burning of chaff, t'other 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, the chaff and tares interpreted of wicked men, which are known to be figuratively expressed by them, as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be regulated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so wicked men thought in the same manner to be consumed by the fire, as the chaff and tares are. 2ly, That for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be granted that it necessarily signifies no more than that the Fire shall not go out, till the fuel of it be destroyed, yet 1. it as fairly follows, than it may (when the context requires) very conveniently signify more; and that 2ly There will be no ground of doubt, whither when 'tis applied to those who are affirmed 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 place of Isaiah, I shall appeal to ancient 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 prophecy as great a reputation among learned men as any; I shall give you his sense, that the Prophet in the conclusion of the Prophecy speaks of the Saints of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Shall pass into the most eminent heavenly City, the mansion set apart for the kingdom 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placed far off from them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You see his sense of the words, which undoubtedly they will bear, as the description of the final reward of the pious believing Jew's 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 Jews destruction by the Romans, which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet still this interpretation is founded in the supposition, that the worm that dyeth not, and the fire that is not quenched, signified an undying punishment, and as such is used to signify in prophetic stile that which is next degree to absolute eternal; pursuing the Jews 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 applied 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 compatible to the burning of Tares or chaff to ashes; yet being applied to the wicked, the thing signified by those tares, it may still abide in its full amplitude, and signify the tormenting and not consuming, and so the everlastingness 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 deemed conclusible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied to that, is not unquenchable fire, than it will be as well worth observing that wicked men are capable of everlasting duration in Fire, and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied 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 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 called everlasting punishment. To these I answer, to the first, that the opposition to everlasting avails 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 judgement 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 Christian age, must be commensurate to that age to which it refers, and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there, being consequent to the judgement 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 called everlasting punishment, because though death should infer annihilation wherein there is nothing, ergò no punishment, yet Death itself is something, and is joined with real pains as well as privations: but of those or any other reality the state of annihilation is not capable; and then to say everlasting punishment, though that were supposed to signify no more than 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 divesting 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, if it were into the furnace of fire, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Secondly, 'tis replied, 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 myself (but either present care of others good, or perhaps irrational fancy) 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 loser, 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 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 than 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.  
The Sadduces had a being when they desired 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 mere shadow and fancy 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 lose, and because death itself though it were thought to enter him on a state of nothingness, yet was itself 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: however he still had a being, and was to be unwilling to lose 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 no, as non entis non est affectio, so I have always found it hard to satisfy myself concerning any thing of that which is not. Only I rest myself in this, that my mistake, if it be such, is sure of so nice a making, that I cannot myself 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 than 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 judgement I acknowledge it signifies no more than 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 sentence, wherein the eternity of him that is judged, is concerned.  
Next for their worm never dying, I have three things to add, First, that the worm in dead bodies devoureth very slowly and leisurely, and so is as fit as any thing could have been to express lingering 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 threatened by Christ, which is fit to be expressed by the style of an immortal worm, nothing could have been more adequate 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 acknowledged it the fountain from which our Saviour Mar. 9 derived it, but have showed how little is gained from thence toward proving it a present, because a visible, destruction. Abraham is supposed to behold Dives in hell, but that proves not that Dives his punishmen were present of this world. Procopius hath showed, how the pious in heaven might behold the punishments of the wicked in another world, and in what sense to be said to come forth to worship before the Lord, and go forth, and look etc. And indeed if it be unquestionable, that in Christ's speech the future miseries of the wicked are thus expressed (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 judgement; 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 quenched fire take away all ambiguities imaginable in the worm, and incline it more strongly to those punishments which are elsewhere expressed by eternal fire: and if they, to whom Christ spoke, 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 sense, than 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 be cast into the Fire, and burnt, or destroyed there; but in what sense of destruction, whither in that of annihilation, (which is not compatible 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 than not being, is not so much as intimated in the phrase, any farther than by the conjunction thereof with the Eternal never dying Worm and Fire, it is reasonably to be interpreted; and that is quite contrary to the disputers interests.  
Next then for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judas 13. 2 Pet. 2.17. there is no pretence that it should in these places be meant for death any more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 2 Pet. 2.4. It signifies the sad uncomfortableness of that state, which, being in respect of the torments expressed by Fire in other places, hath not yet the one comfort of ordinary Fire belonging to it, viz. lightsomness, but chose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 darkness 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 here be taken in that sense which in those places belongs to it there are these reasons, 1. Because the New Testament most explicitly affirming a resurrection from that Old Testaments darkness; 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 Angel's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being applied to Angels, it cannot signify that death, as if 'twere applied to living men, it might. 2. Being joined with chains, it thereby seems to signify some positive state, but especially 3. Being joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must denote that state, which all sorts of men, Heathens, as well as Jews and Christians, understood by Tartarus, that sure is a place of suffering after death. 3ly. 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 blissful life imaginable, there is joined 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 prophetic style, and not exact them to strict literal interpretation; accordingly as Jer. 7.20. and Is. 34. 4.10. signify utter final vastations, (as appears by their smoke going up for ever and ever, lying waist and none passing through it, from generation to generation, for ever and ever, and the not quenching of God's wrath, but burning upon man and upon beast) so where the like circumstances either enforce, 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 ruin of Babylon 'tis most reasonable to interpret to that sense the smoke of her burning, by her meaning that great City in the end of the verse, and so again chap. 19.3. her smoke 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 than this. But 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 etc. the intermination goes out thus, if any man shall do thus vers. 9 the same shall drink etc. vers. 10. where the bitter wine of God mixed, unmixed 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 enforced 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 sentence of Christ with his assembly of Angels in judgement, and so vers. 11. the smoke (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 Magic etc. (i. e.) the eminent supporters of the former by Magic and auguries, the principal factors for the holding up the Heathen Worship, Apollonius Tyanaeus etc. (See note on Rev. 13. g.h.i.k.) that they were 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 destroyed or consumed, but as infallibly removed to that place of Torments, as if they had gone down quick Bodies and Souls together into Hell.  
Here indeed is nothing said of the perpetuity of those Torments, but that is expressly set down chap. 20.10. not only as far as concerns the Devil that was to bear them company, and was cast into the Lake where they are (which by the way must either infer that the Devils 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 then in the same condition with the Devils 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 Prophetic 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 judgement, is not so Prophetical and therefore not so probable a sense; I answer that all that is future (as surely all that follows the last judgement 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 deter any man from following their steps, if we were not admonished 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 mentioned 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 be understood of that which follows the last Judgement, yet no expression used in any of those Texts doth necessarily signify an absolute eternity of positive Torments; I answer that undoubtedly some do. I instance in Rev. 20.10: as it hath been formerly enlarged 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 pains, for so we know the Rack is among men.  
Now for the exceptions to Rev. 20.10. I must add somewhat. 1. 'tis suggested that that seems not to be spoken of the last final judgement. I grant it is not, but of the hour of death, whereon I suppose those wicked men's Souls cast into the Fire of Hell, and never rescued from thence, till Body and Soul together at the day of doom being joined 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 than possible that such notorious sinners might go, Bodies and Souls together, to Hell, without any previous separation by death; by the same analogy whereby we believe that Enoch and 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, than the phrase will signify as suddenly and really to be cast into those Flames, and there to be tormented, as they could be imagined 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 entering 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 I answer, that 'tis but a panic 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 repeated passages of Christ in it, designed on purpose to excite men to the studying of it. Secondly, there are evident characters, which serve as keys 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 strain higher, and seek farther off, to find what was never intended by the inspirer, or the Amanuensis, are the men that have 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 pains are but two or three, and those opposed to as many hundreds, which are to be alleged against this sense; 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 prophetic. Secondly, there is no one (much less many hundreds) producible to the contrary sense, as hath hitherto appeared by examining all such as were pretended to be opposite, but were found very reconcileable with the sense. Thirdly, when the obscurity of the writer is again mentioned, 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 acknowledge that importance of the word eternal, whether to bliss 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 sense of eternity in the promises, so those that were thought to seem to oppose the absolute eternity of the threats, having been brought to trial have been found very light; and, secondly, the doctrine of eternal torments truly stated and vindicated 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 die, as the eternal promises are reconcileable to all the attributes of God. Thirdly, that as there are negatives that irrefragably confirm 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 it's not being corruptible from any outward principles, 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 denied it, that the Jews now adays care for none but themselves, and so make no provision for other men, that there have been Origenist Heretics, and some such as Augustine mentions Enchir: c. 12● de civet: Dei. l. 21. cap. 17.18. ('tis no news that there should have been false teachers and believers in the world.) But that Augustine, who is confessed 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 wrote elsewhere so contrarily, or were written by him before he had competently considered the grounds, whereon afterwards he establisheth his acknowledgements of the truth. But the truth is, I 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 torments of the wicked on the one side, as the eternity of the joys and bliss of the Godly on the other side; and that as far as the Catholic 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 Catholic Tradition, truly so called, 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 fastened me; I now find the use of my foot returned again, and so take my leave of this paper and my chair together, and by the length of it suppose I have your full leave so to do. When you have surveyed 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 Church's sense 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.  

SIR  
IN your account of the eternity of infernal punishments you make them consist in the persevering appetition and aversation of those things (than impossible to be obtained or avoided) which formerly in via men have desired and averted. To this stating of this matter much what the like with Sr Ken: Digbies and Mr Whites, I have more to object then is fit for a Letter. Some few heads of Exceptions I shall briefly note to you. First, I see not how this agrees with the nature of the judgement to come: the giving and executing a sentence upon wicked men. This we are every where taught in Scripture and our Creed: But your stating, which only leaves men with those desires and aversions wherein they lived here, and so die, without sentencing them to any other punishment but what they thus bring with them, and so is already inflicted on them, and needs no Devils to execute it, seems not reconcileable herewith. Secondly, the Matter of this sentence is expressed in Scripture to be a lake of Fire and Brimstone, into which they are cast, which must be a very strange figurative expression, if it signify no more than their own voluntary acts, appetitions, and aversations. Thirdly, it is manifest, that those diseases which precede many Men's deaths, do change their appetitions and aversations. The luxurious Man on his sick Bed hath not those vehement desires of Women, delicate meats, etc. which he had in his health: Why then should I think that after Death his appetites, of what he desired in via, viz. in his life and health, should continue to him? Nay, 4. When Souls are divested of those Bodies which were the necessary Instruments, and also the fomenters of those carnal sins; and again when the body before its reunion is so changed as not to be sustained, as in via it is by eating and drinking, 'tis not imaginable it should retain those natural desires which in via it had: And when they no more marry in Hell then Heaven, and are as equal to evil Angels, as the Saints in Heaven are to good ones, and the natural end of all carnal desires ceasing; it is not imaginable God should continue those desires to them for ever. Or if any should so conceive, many strange wild consequences unfit to name, would be equally probable & equally unimaginable. 5. By this stating, the loss of Heaven will from hence only be penal, that Men desired Heaven in via, or judged it fit to be desired. And if so, it will be no punishment to them that never thought of it at all, as infidels, or despised it (as they did all spiritual joys, and thought it not worth desiring) as they that placed all their appetites on carnal and material pleasures; which are the worst sort of men, who in consequence hereunto must be least punished in Hell poena damni.  
Having said thus much against your Scheme, I owe myself the pains of adding a word or too for the defence of the way that I have used in the Practical Catechism, viz. by considering the option given to us by God, wherein you seem to me not to have observed that, on which the chief weight of my account was designed to lie.  
That God proposed to Men life and death, blessing and cursing, eternal joys and eternal pains, as the Rector of the Universe; I take for granted; and so do you, as an Article of our Faith: So that of the an sit the question is not, but considering the transitory short pleasures of sin, the only question is, How eternal pains are with any justice proportioned to them: and to that the answer is, Not that they are proportioned to them, but that there is no need they should be, because God having proposed the joys of Heaven, and (much more) immunity from these pains upon terms put absolutely in our power, it is merely our own fault, not imputable to the decree of God, if we fall under those hardest pains. The extremity of which was primarily designed, as by all prudent Lawgivers punishments are, to deter men from those sins which are fenced with so thorny an hedge; not that they may be inflicted on any, but that all may be kept innocent: and in this sense 'tis ordinarily observed, that the everlasting Fire which is threatened men, was prepared for the Devil and his Angels. Yet when such threats are entered into those laws, whereby the Universe is governed; it is just and reasonable that they should be also actually performed on the disobedient: else it were as good, nay better to all political ends, that they had never been made or promulgate. And if still, when they come to be inflicted, they appear to be hard, or above the proportion of the offence, there are yet other ways of superseding that exception beside the evacuating the decree: viz. The several branches, of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which the Gospel hath provided in this matter.  
First, That those which we could not (either by Physical or moral possibility) avoid, should not be charged upon us to this condemnation, as Original sin; sins of Weakness, Ignorance, sudden surprise, Indeliberation, etc.  
Secondly, That know deliberate voluntary sins, if timely retracted by repentance, Humiliation, Confession, change of mind shall not fall under it.  
Thirdly, That God gives sufficient grace to avoid all wilful sin, and again sufficient grace to repent, when it hath been committed; and inflicts it not till he sees men go on obstinately, and that they will not repent.  
Fourthly, That he calls, and warns, and importunes them to consult their own safety, to make use of his grace timely, and not obstinately to harden their hearts against their own mercy, and so to perish in despite of mercy.  
Fiftly, That he offers not only deliverance from these torments, but over and above, eternal joys upon so easy terms of so moderate nay desirable performances, that they which will neglect so great Salvation proposed to them, with so many advantages and concurrence of all rational motives; and finally make so mad a choice as to take Hell as it were by violence, cannot but be thought worthy to take their portion in that lake be it never so punitive and endless: Because though in respect of that one sin (the short pleasure that comes in to them by sin compared with intensive endless flames) there is no proportion, yet 1. In respect of their obstinacy and unexcusablenesse. 2. In respect of God's tenderness, using all wise means of moderating the rigour of his Law by the Gospel (though not by utter abrogating his Laws, which becomes not either a just or wise Lawgiver, or Rector of the Universe) all show of Injustice is removed: particularly by the second taken alone, (much more in union with the first and third) the rule being owned by all rational men volenti non fit injuria, be the evil never so great, 'tis just they should have it, that finally make it their choice, (so doth the persevering Impenitent) and that not only an hasty passionate choice as Nero's Mother's, Occidat modò imperet, (which yet Historians observe to have brought her death justly upon her) but a deliberate, staunch, obstinate constant choice, when their Creator, and Redeemer, and Sanctifier have used all prudent probable means to gain them to better counsels and choices, but all in vain, they die because they will die: When yet they are oft warned (and expostulated with) of the irrationalnesse of that will or choice. 'Tis true, when they come to suffer their own choices, they are far from liking them (as Xiphilin observed of Nero's Mother in the forementioned case) and then 'tis likely would fly from them, call to the mountains to cover them from the wrath of the Lamb: But their choices being primarily terminated in the pleasant sins, and but consequentially in the pains annexed to them by God's Law, 'twill be as unreasonable that they which have chosen the former should be freed from the latter, as that he that hath bought a Commodity at a price, and bound himself to a day of payment, should, after he hath enjoyed and spent the Commodity, be excused from paying the price of it by pretending it was not really worth so much, when it appears by his bargain that he himself thus valued it, and willingly took it at this price, and hath now changed his mind on no other consideration, but because the enjoyment, for which alone he valued it, is passed, and none but the payment behind, which considered by itself, every man acknowledges to be the ungrateful part; and so he did when yet on intuition of the more pleasant he made choice of it.  
I have thus far enlarged to give you a clearer view of the force of the option in this matter, than I can discern you to have had of it; and consequently to show you the insufficiency of the reason on which you reject it, when you say, that upon this Hypothesis it should seem to be concluded, that eternal life is owing to Piety ex justitia. But to this I reply: 1. That it were no news from St Paul's words [That God the righteous Judge shall give the Crown of righteousness to all that keep the faith etc.] too conclude that that Crown is some way due to Piety ex justitia. But than Secondly, My Argument from the Option hath no least need of so affirming, but becomes much the stronger the less that be affirmed; For the less rewardable in itself our Piety is, the more mercy and superabundant goodness it is in God thus to decree the rewarding it; and the more undeserved that Mercy, and the easier the condition of it, the more Criminous is the guilt of those that despise and contemn it, and prefer sin, and impenitence, and eternal death before it.    

An Accordance OF St PAUL with St JAMES, in the great point of Faith and Works.  
By The most Learned, Reverend, and Pious Dr HENRY HAMMOND.  
OXFORD, Printed by H. HALL. Printer to the University, for RIC: ROYSTON, and RI: DAVIS. 1665.   

Of Faith and Works.  
HE that saith with St Paul, a man is justified by faith and not by works, and to reconcile St James with St Paul, affirms, that good works are the effect of true faith, means either that true faith, where e'er it is, is able to produce good works, though it do not always actually produce them; or else, that it actually and necessarily produceth them. If the former be his meaning, than I conceive it true in some degree, but not pertinent to his purpose of reconciling St. James with St. Paul, because faith may be able to produce them, and yet never actually produceth them; and so the man that is supposed to be justiffied by faith, never be able to show his works, which St. James requires of him, and consequently his faith be a dead faith, i. e. not able to justify. But if the latter be his meaning; that true faith, wheresoever it is, actually and necessarily produceth good works, I conceive it false; yet can I not dispute against him in those terms, by instancing in any particular to the contrary. Because he hath a guard or hold for himself to fortify him against any assault, by affirming to any such instance of mine, where good works were not produced, that that faith was not true faith; which yet if he should be put to prove, he would have no other reason to confirm it, but only because it produceth not good works; being ready, if it did produce good works, to acknowledge it true faith; which how guilty it is of those two faults in disputing, circulus and petitio principii, I think is manifest to any. Yet being by this Sophism of his interdicted this way or proceed●ng, I have but one way of arguing left me; first, to demand his definition of true faith, and whatsoever definition he gives, to prove that faith, in that notion of his, is the cause of good works, at the most, but as a man is the cause of a child, a true perfect, univocal cause of the effect, when the effect is produced; but yet such a one, as might have suspended that action, by which it was produced, and so might have been as truly a man without the actual producing of that effect, as he is now, he hath produced it: that is, that faith is a rational or moral, not natural agent, working freely, not necessarily.  
To bring this operation to practise, I will suppose this definition of faith to be given me (which by them that affirm good works to be an effect of faith is ordinarily given) that it is a fiducial assent to the promises of Christ. Where that I may not mistake him, I must first demand, whether he conceives these promises, which are the object of his faith, to be absolute, or conditional. If he affirm them absolute, made to men's persons, or individual Entityes, without respect to their qualifications or demeanours, then surely that faith, which supposeth all kind of qualifications of the subject so unnecessary, will never so much as move me to produce good works, because I may as well be saved without them, the promises being supposed without condition; and therefore he that affirms good works to avail nothing in the business of attaining to salvation, cannot, without contradicting himself, say, that his faith must necessarily produce good works, if it be a saving faith: for sure all that necessity proceeds from a believing, that without good works there is no salvation to be had; which if it be not believed, that necessity ceaseth. But if he affirm the promises, which are the object of his faith, to be conditional, than I must ask, what he takes this condition to be, either faith alone, or good works alone, or faith and good works together: if faith alone, then (beside the ridiculousness of that, in making the believing that I shall be saved, the only ground of my believing I shall be saved) the former inconvenience recurrs again, that that faith which supposeth faith only to be a condition of the promises, will find good works as unnecessary, as that faith which supposed the promises to be absolute, and so will never incline me to them neither. If he affirm the condition of the promises to be good works alone (I mean by good works all other graces besides faith, contrition, amendment of life, charity▪ holiness etc.) than he acknowledgeth, that these good works are of themselves simply required of a man that is, or will be a believer; and so that they are no necessary effect of faith, for if they were, it would be enough to require faith alone, and they would undoubtedly follow without requiring. For I conceive it ridiculous to make the condition of an Indenture something that is necessarily annexed to the possession of the demise. If he affirm faith and good works neither single, but both together to be the total adequate condition of the promises, which St. Paul calls faith consummate by charity, St. James, faith made perfect by works, St. Paul again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which certainly is the truth) then first I must admonish him, that his fiducial assent, by which he defines faith, must not signify a believing with reliance, that he is one of them that shall be partakers of what is promised, which they are wont to call special faith, or particular application; for that must either suppose them to have performed the condition, and so good works in them (yea and faith) must be before faith; or else it is the believing confidently of a lie, it being absolutely false, that the thing promised belongs to any that hath not performed the condition.  
But his fiducial assent, if it be a tolerable definition of faith, must be (answerable to the promises) only this, a believing and relying conditional; that he shall be partaker of what is promised, that is, a believing (and depending on it) that God will not fail him, if he fail not God; that God will give him heaven, if he perform sincere obedience, and rely upon the gift of Christ, not on any merit of his obedience for the attaining of it. Now to say the truth, this fiducial assent thus expressed (and none but this) may truly be affirmed to be a most powerful motive to me to produce good works; but than it is as true, that it is as powerful a motive to me to rely on the gift of Christ, and so in that respect faith may be said to produce good works, faith may also be said to produce that which they call faith, i. e. the believing, that if I obey and rely, I shall be saved, is a motive thus to produce actual relying; and in this sense I will acknowledge both (if he, with whom I dispute, will thank me for it.) But then, secondly, it follows not that that which is a powerful motive, is a cause necessarily producing, because that motive is but a moral motive, persuading not enforcing, and man by corruption, or by some prevailing temptation may resist that motive, and I think 'twould be no Paradox to say, that some men have made no doubt of the truth of God's conditional promises, i. e. have verily persuaded themselves, that if they served God sincerely, they shall be saved, and yet quite neglected God's service: and if it be objected, that they want the fiducial, though they have the assent, and that if they had the affiance, they would assuredly produce good works; I answer, that by that affiance they mean either absolute assurance that they shall be saved, (and that, if it be not an error, supposeth good works, if it be, produceth them not) or else a conditional affiance; and then again I affirm of that, that it is no more than what I expressed by making no manner of doubt, but if they serve God sincerely, they shall be saved; which though I believe to be a most powerful motive to obedience, yet I conceive not a necessary irresistible cause, (because 'tis only a moral motive) nay nor that that always produceth the effect. First, because the foolish virgins had as much of this as the wise, for aught we see; and after the door is shut come as confidently, Lord Lord open to us, & yet it seems did not watch and make ready their Lamps, which was the act of obedience required of them; and the want of it forfeited their hopes. 2. Because the unprofitable servant that professeth he knew that God reaped where he sowed not, yet hid the Talon in a Napkin, put it not out to the exchangers. 3. Because the exhortations of Christ and the Apostles are generally to good works, as well as to faith, nay much more frequently, which argues to me that faith doth not necessarily produce good works, and they that are supposed to have faith are exhorted to add to their faith virtue, 2. Pet. 1.5. which (if Faith were a necessary cause of Works) were all one as to exhort the Fire to burn, the Water to moisten etc. 4. Because there is a difference observed in Scripture between a working and a non working Faith, and the privileges are bestowed only on the first, by which it is plain, that it is possible for it not to work. 5. Because faith is said to be made perfect by works Jam. 2.22. which sure an agent cannot be said to be by producing an effect, which it cannot but produce; as the act of Humectation adds no degree of perfection to the water. Nay 'tis a general rule, that the producing of what effect soever adds no perfection to the cause, save only relative; as the begetting of a Son adds only the relation of a Father, but nothing else more than he was before; it rather supposeth him perfect before, which is the importance of the Logic axiom, effectus est extra naturam causae. All that can truly and in propriety of speech be said of Faith in this matter, is this; that Faith is so strong a motive to obedience, that if it be drawn as a Weapon to the purpose, and used as it should, it would in reason out-ballance all the contrary temptations to disobedience: & if the will, which hath the casting voice, give its suffrage, as in reason it ought, it shall then infallibly produce obedience▪ but yet not irresistibly, because that will being still a free faculty at least to evil, may after all the proposal of motives either suspend its Action, or else do that which it should not. For sure it is an error of Socinus to affirm cognitionem rerum pulchrarum aut turpium, quales praeter alias sunt res honestae & vitiosae; harum odium, illarum amorem necessariò gignere; and that Socrate's speech (praesente scientia fieri non posse ut quis incontinens sit) was true, with this Caution, ut quis sciat res honestas, eas facienti magnum commodum allaturas def. disp. de loco c. 7. ad Rom. & in 1 Joh. 4.8. If by amor and odium he mean prosecutio and aversatio, as 'tis plain he doth by that which follows. For sure Medea was not deceived in herself when she said, video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor. And so many, who make no doubt of an Heaven to belong to all penitent reformed Servants of Christ's, and that that Heaven contains joys above all that the World can afford, do yet choose the pleasures of sin for the present season; like Ephraim that is likened to an heifer that loved to tread out the Corn, betook herself to that course which for the present yielded some profit (as the Heifer being by the Law then unmusselled, might eat as she trod it out) that had its reward at that minute, that she did the Work. Whence is all this? but from hence, that the carnal pleasures of sin for the present obtain the consent of the will against all the future pleasures and joys of Heaven, joined with the sourness of present obedience; which could never be, if believing the promises always either necessarily, or infallibly produced good works.  
FINIS.