02.03.07. Chapter 7
CHAPTER 7 The Author’s Opinion of the Annihilation of the dying Infants of ungodly Parents examined and refuted; The Death threatned in the Law, intends not the Destruction of the Being of a Sinner, but his Well-being, and Annihilation is proved to be no Punishment.
I. THIS Gentlemen seems to take it for granted, that the Death threatened in the Law is the Destruction of the Being of a Sinner; but produces not one Text of Scripture, wherein the Term Death, is so to be understood: This he ought to have done, since he hath not, we may reasonably suppose, he knew of no Place, where it is capable of such a Construction, his Opinion therefore of the Infants of ungodly Parents ceasing to exist at Death, is not founded on Scripture; but is entirely foreign to it, which is a Reason sufficient for our Rejection of this novel Opinion.
II. If Christ suffer’d that Punishment, which the Law denounces against Sin, in order to make Satisfaction for it, the Death threatned cannot be the Destruction of the Being of Transgressors, this must be evident to every one: And if the same Penalty was not inflicted on Christ, to which sinful Men are obnoxious, for their Offences against God, then Satisfaction is not made, by his Sufferings, nor are we heal’d by his Stripes: Should it be said, that it was endless Punishment, the Law threaten’d in Case of Disobedience; and that since Christ’s Sufferings were short in Duration, they were not the same Penalty we should have sustain’d. I would answer, the Eternity of our Punishment, is only a Circumstance, arising from our Incapacity to suffer it, in its whole Weight, in any imaginable Part of Time, and our Unworthiness, who suffer Punishment, and that herefore the Shortness of the Duration of the Sufferings of Christ, is no Objection to the Identity of the Penalty, tho’ in this Circumstance different; but if it was His of Being the Law threatned, it is certain Christ could not bear it, nor hath made Satisfaction for Sin.
III. The Wages of Sin is that Death the Law threatens, and that Death is the Opposite of eternal Life, which cannot be Loss of Being, but of Wellbeing only; and therefore it was not the Destruction of our Being, the Law intended by Death, but an eternally miserable State of Being.
IV. The Punishment which is executed on Men for Sin, is that Punishment the Law threatened, and not Penalty of another Nature, and specifically different from it: Loss of Being, and a being for ever miserable, are as distinct, as, To be, and Not to be, than which, nothing can be more opposite, and therefore it was a being eternally miserable, which the holy Law of God denounced against Man, in Care of his Disobedience: For we have not the least Hint, that the Punishment is changed, or that a different Penalty is to be inflicted on Men, from that which the Law at first threatened.
V. I humbly apprehend Annihilation is no Punishment at all, for these Reasons following.
1. Man hath no Right to a Continuance of his Existence, even in Case he offends not. A Right he hath to be happy, according to the Law under which he was originally placed, if God should will him still to be. His existing was absolutely dependent on the sovereign Pleasure of his Maker, but his Well-being depended on his Observation of that Law, which was given to him.
2. Man could not by his Sin forfeit that to which he had no Claim: No Right he had to continue in Being; this cannot be supposed consistent with his absolute Dependence on the sovereign Will. of God, as to his Existence, or Nonexistence; for if this is allow’d, God was under an Obligation to preserve him in a State of Being, in Case he did not sin against him, his Sovereign Lord and righteous Governor.
3. God may, if he pleases, annihilate the most perfect of his Creatures: They all rose into Being, by Vertue of his absolute Will, and their continuing to be, must be resolv’d into the same Cause, unless we raise an innocent Creature to a State of Independence on God, which would deify the Creature, and deprive the Almighty Creator, of his unalienable sovereign Right, Power and Dominion over the Works of his Hand.
4. Disobedience God cannot but punish, and therefore in Case of Sin, he cannot annihilate and destroy the Being of an offending Creature. That God by Necessity of Nature wills, and yet freely wills to punish Sin, hath, as I hope, been fully prov’d in the first Part, to which the Reader is referr’d. Now if God cannot but will to punish Sin, he cannot will to take away the Being of a Sinner. This may at first View seem strange, and it will perhaps be ask’d, What, may God of his absolute Pleasure, destroy the Being of an innocent Creature? and can he not annihilate a guilty Creature? How is this? Does Sin raise the Subject of it, to an Independence on the Will of God? Answer. No; by no Means: But the Case is thus: The Righteousness and Justice of God’s Nature, necessarily, but freely determines him to will the Punishment of Sin, and of Consequence to will the Being of a Sinner, the Subject of Sin, and of the Penalty that Sin demerits.
Object. The Destruction of the Being of a rational immortal Creature, deprives that Creature of Happiness, which is a great Punishment.
Answ. 1. Its deprived of Happiness, either before or upon its Annihilation: If you shall say before, that is an Infliction of Penalty while it exists, and is not the Annihilation of it. And if you say after or upon Annihilation, the guilty Creature is deprived of Happiness, it is a very manifest Contradiction; for this necessarily supposes the annihilated Creature to still exist, which it does not. Annihilation is a Privation of Being, but properly speaking, it is not a Privation of Happiness: For a Privation of Happiness necessarily infers the Existence of some Being, which is the Subject of that Privation.
2. All Punishment causes Grief and Pain to the Subjects of it. But, 1. No Grief and Pain follow upon Annihilation is certain, the Reason is clear, that which is not, cannot be the Subject of Joy or Grief, of Happiness or Misery. 2. It therefore is so far from being a Punishment to annihilate a Creature under the least Degree of Pain and Torture, that it puts an End to his suffering Pain, and of Consequence, Annihilation Is no Punishment, nor is threatened by the Law as a Penalty. And therefore Adam did not subject himself or any of his Descendants, to the Loss of Being by his Disobedience. And of Consequence, this novel Opinion, of the Annihilation of the Infants of ungodly Parents, who die in a State of Infancy, is not founded on the Word of God, or right Reason; but is an Invention of his own, and is very deservedly rejected. This is not a Place to examine the Author’s Sentiments, concerning the State of the Children of pious Parents, during their Infancy, and therefore I decline it.