Henry Grew (Baptist) on state of the dead and annihilation
“... For the Christian Palladium. Future Punishment. By Elder Henry Grew.
[Concluded from our last.]
You justly remark, that, "To destroy the meaning of words is to destroy the Bible." The question is, who does this? is it the man who says that when Jesus Christ speaks of body and soul being destroyed in hell, Matthew X. 28, he means just as he says, that body and soul will be destroyed, or is it the man who says that he means that the happiness of the body and soul shall be destroyed? Who is it, brother, that adds to the words of the faithful witness in this case? Does he destroy the meaning of words who affixes to the words "die," "death," "second death," as the wages of sin, and penalty of the holy law of God, the meaning which is the direct opposite of life: or does he do this who affixes to these terms the meaning of life in a particular condition? Penalties to laws are not expressed in figurative language. The consequences of them may be illustrated by such language, but they are first expressed by plain literal terms. -- "The wages of sin is death." "The soul that sinneth it shall die." Here is the penalty of the law, plainly and literally given. This fearful doom is indeed illustrated by figurative language. The wicked are compared to "tares," and to "chaff," which are burned entirely up, if the fire, to which they are consigned, is not quenched. To say that the wages of sin is spiritual death, which is to be "dead in trespasses and sins," is to confound the penalty with the crime. It is to say, that the wages of sin is sin.
My brother's second argument is, "that Jesus assigns to wicked men the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Now angels cannot die; for Jesus affirms they cannot." But of what angels does [left to right column] Jesus affirm this? Did he promise his true disciples that they should be equal to the devil and his angels, or did he refer to the elect and holy angels? And why cannot these die? Not because they are necessarily immortal, which God only is, 1. Tim. VI. 16, but because of their election by the Almighty to eternal life and holiness, 1. Tim. V. 21. Surely, this is no proof that the angels who kept not their first estate err in their expectations, both of torment and destruction, (see Mark I. 24,) or that Jesus Christ will fail to destroy the devil according to the revealed purpose of God, Heb. II. 14.
The "third argument," that "if eternal punishment be eternal death, in the sense of eternal unconsciousness, then those who are doomed to this state are punished no more than the harmless dove," &c., is as harmless to my views as the harmless dove itself. You say, "they (the dove and the lamb) go into the eternal fire, with the devil and his angels, if that everlasting punishment and eternal fire be an eternal sleep," &c. The absurdity of believing or representing that eternal fire is eternal sleep, belongs not to me, nor, to my knowledge to anyone else. You confound the "unquenchable," and, consequently, consuming or devouring fire, with its ultimate effect, eternal death. Tribulation and anguish, at present inconceivable, will precede the final destruction of body and soul in hell. To compare the destruction of intelligent man, made in the image of God, and his banishment from the glorious presence of his Creator, which he was capacitated eternally to enjoy, had he been obedient, with the destruction of irrational creatures, who never possessed any such capacity, is entirely inadmissable.
Mr. Edwards has fallen into the same error in his fourth objection, of confounding the antecedent torment with final unconsciousness which entire destruction produces. Whether the threatening of the Almighty to debar sinners forever from the enjoyment [page 353-354, starting again left column] of his glorious presence, by destroying them utterly, "is to threaten them with putting an end to their miseries," or their joys, common sense may judge. That the loss of a glorious Immortality, by a destruction of being, implies a termination of conscious misery, is true but this is no part of the threatening. The threatening of a certain term of imprisonment for crime, implies a release (at the expiration of the term) from some evils to which the man was previously exposed. Shall we, therefore, say that the Judge threatens him with a release from prison? Mr. Edwards's argument founded on "different degrees of punishment" is obviously inapplicable to such as admit of different degrees of punishment before destruction.
You observe, "life is not simply being; nor eternal life, eternal being, but eternal well being; neither is eternal death the loss of being, or of consciousness, but the loss of eternal well being." How is this proved by the fact, that there is "something to be blessed," or tormented, independent of happiness and torment, I do not perceive. -- That the terms "life," and "eternal life," used in the scriptures, as a promise, gift, or reward, and applied to the righteous, import "well being," is very true; but this is not the meaning of the terms, abstractly considered. Life, in respect to man, is an animated state of being. it may be happy or miserable. The rich man is alive in hell. If the simple term "life" imports happiness, why do you speak of a wretched life? The term "eternal" is not a term of quality, but of duration. As the scriptures reveal no endless existence, but for those whose names are in the book of life, and represent eternal life as a gift, reward, and blessing, the qualifying adjective is unnecessary. The assertion, "neither is eternal death the loss of being, or of consciousness," is sustained by no proof. To say that it is not so, because "there will be something to be ----- tormented forever and ever," in the unlimited sense of that phrase, is taking for granted the very point to be proved. -- Now I will prove that the terms "death," and "second death," do mean "unconsciousness," and eternal death, eternal unconsciousness; first, from the obvious meaning of the terms, and secondly, from the positive testimony of Jesus Christ.
Death is the opposite of life, its direct contrast. Thus Webster defines it, a state "in which there is a total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions," &c. This theological definition indeed accords with your opinion, as well as that of baptism does with that of infant sprinklers. -- [left to right column] Whatever pain the body may endure, it is not dead until all sensibility and life are extinct. So whatever misery the soul may endure, it is not dead until its properties of knowledge, consciousness, &c., are extinct. The figurative use of the word death does not disprove this position. "Dead in trespasses and sins," is a figurative use of the term, denoting, not that the soul is not alive, but that it is not alive to holiness and God.
That the "second death" in the lake of fire, Rev. XX. 14, is to be understood literally, as terminating, after a state of torment, all conscious being, is evident from our Lord's words, Matt. X. 28. It is "to destroy the meaning of words," to say, that to destroy the happiness of the soul is to destroy the soul itself. "To destroy both soul and body in hell," and to destroy the happiness of the soul and body are two distinct propositions. To fill the soul and body with misery, and to destroy soul and body, are two distinct propositions. If "the second death" is figurative, how is it the second death? Will not the soul of the finally impenitent sinner have been always spiritually dead? How is it the second death of the body if it is not a literal cessation of all its vitality? If it is death because it is a state of pain, why is it not the twentieth or fortieth death?
One remark more remains to be considered. "The Apostles (you say) could have easily prevented all difficulty upon this subject by simply assuring us in definite language, "that all the wicked dead shall be raised and tormented a few thousand years and then annihilated as an eternal punishment, &c.* [At bottom, * Here Mr. C., after all he has written to the contrary, represents annihilation as a PUNISHMENT.] Now my dear brother, I beseech you, for the truth's sake, seriously and candidly t consider what language could more definitely express the doctrine of the "destructionist" than those of the true prophet, Matt. X. 28? If you say that to destroy soul and body means to destroy the felicity of soul and body, would you not have said that to annihilate soul and body means to annihilate the felicity of soul and body? If the words in Matt. X. 28, had not been recorded, would you not have said to the "destructionist," "the Apostles could have easily prevented all difficulty upon this subject by simply assuring us in definite language" that God's purpose, in respect to the finally impenitent is, "to destroy both soul and body in hell." If we believe not [page 354-355, starting again left column] the testimony of Jesus Christ, "neither would we be persuaded though one rose from the dead." Yours in Christian love. Henry Grew. ..."
- The Christian Palladium, Volume 7 (Devoted to the improvement and happiness of mankind. Religion without Bigotry -- Zeal without Fanaticism -- Liberty without Licentiousness. Joseph Badger -- Editor, under the direction of the Christian General Book Association), April 1, 1839, No. 23, section MISCELLANY by Henry Grew (Baptist). -
The Christian Palladium
