when the Sin for which it is inflicted is only Possible Hypothetical and on Supposition only That which would be never was in Act and it seemeth very hard and most unworthy Infinite and Soveraign Righteousness and Justice That there should be Punishment inflicted actually for sin that never was in Act. Non-entities have no Praedicates and can do Nothing if the Sin never was it can merit no Punishment 'T is â—rue the Intention of evil is sometimes Punisht where there is no evil Effect but then the Intention is the Crime In all I have said I suppose the Objection to proceed of the Event and not of the Design that the Damned would for ever sin if they liv'd for ever not that they Actually and explicitly resolv'd to sin for ever For this case is rare if possible In this the malice of the Will would be Infinite and so he that had an Actual Will or Resolve to sin for ever if he could would deserve for that to be punished for ever The will which is the Cardinal and Grand Principle of what is Moral in an Action might justly pass for the Deed. But of all the Damned few if any can be conceiv'd to have such Resolves and Intentions Nor is the second Opinion That the Damned are subject to Eternal Punishment in Hell because they sin there Eternally of more Importance than the former For though the Damned sin materially and perpetrate in Hell the same Actions some of them which they did on Earth and for which they suffer in Hell yet 't is a great Question whether they may rationally be affirmed formally to sin there since there is no Law there Hell is no part of Gods Kingdom those in it are not subjects but condemned Rebels and there is no Transgression and consequently no Sin where there is no Law Nor is their doing Actions which in themselves were sinful formerly and which perhaps are still so in Others an Argument they sin now in it For as the Beasts that are not under Law though they do the same Actions that men do yet do not sin in doing them as men sin so the Damned that do the same Actions yet being now Exiled and Banished by God from under his Protection and from his Kingdom into DUCER Darkness and consequently are no longer under the Law of his Kingdom they do not sin in what they do but suffer for what they sinn'd Hell is not a Place of Sinning but of Punishing Their Sin there is their Punishment Again a Person once condemn'd to dye for Treason cannot in our Law be Judicially called in question for any subsequent Act because he is Civiliter mortuus His former Attainder of Treason is the highest and last work of the Law in the eye of which he is Dead after that and so unable to commit offences And why after Sentence pronounced by Divine Justice on the Guilty Sinner may not he be looked on as Dead in Gods Law and as uncapable of doing any thing against it more Is not the State of Hell in Scripture call'd the Second Death But to Destroy the both Opinions at Once with one Argument Eternal Death is threatned unto men for sin in this life and the sentence of it is Pronounced on the Damn'd for this Depart from me you cursed into Everlasting Fire and why for I was an hungred and you gave me no meat I was a thirst and you gave me no Drink I was a stranger and you took me not in Naked and you cloathed me not Sick and in Prison and you visited me not Therefore Depart from me you Cursed into Everlasting Fire Now is Eternal Death be threatned unto men for sin in this Life and the Sentence of it be pronounced upon them for what they have committed here it cannot Rationally be presumed that the Everlastingness of the Punishment should not be founded on some thing in the sin already acted in the present world but only either on the Hypothetical Perpetuation of it in this or on a Fancied Continuation and Persistance in it Hereafter in the Other And having said thus much you cannot doubt of my sense of what the Learned Parker further offers out of the Schoolmen in his Treatise de Descensu which because it is a Learned Passage and one that by Representing the Variety of Opinions about the thing whereon I now discourse will also represent the Difficulty of deciding in it I shall give you entirely Atqui nostrum quòd in medio tutissimum iter est Christum nempe c. But our Opinion lyes in the middle in which it is most safe to go namely that Christ endured the very Pains of Hell as to their Substance which were due to us and yet avoided their Eternity To make this clear We Deny that Infernal Eternal Pain is absolutely due to All Sins and withal with the Schoolmen particularly with Iohanne's Scotus and with Iohannes Picus C. of Mirandula affirm that some Distinction must be made in this matter There are Three things then that ought to be considered by us in sin The first is the Aversion that is in it from God and to this the Pain of Loss which is Infinite is due forasmuch as it is the Amission of an Infinite Good The second is a Conversion to what is Perishing and Transient and to this the pain of sense is Due which is Intensively Finite Agreeably as that delight and pleasure the sinner takes therein is Finite But thirdly there is to be considered also in sin either the Continuation and Persistence of the sinner in it or his Cessation from it It is only with the first of these that Eternity of Pain doth hold proportion The second is adjusted by a but Temporal enduring of the Pain It is Objected that every sinner sins in his Eternity as Gregory speaks forasmuch as he hath cast himself upon a necessity of sinning from which he cannot possibly be Restrained by any endeavours of his own This indeed is true and therefore the Eternity of Punishment doth naturally follow their sin But yet this hinders not but that if sin be supernaturally interrupted by Repentance in that case Extremity only and not Eternity of Punishment should be the Due as which answers the greatness of the sin but finitely committed And this is that which Scotus contends for and which the Count of Mirandula demonstrates at large namely that to sin continued to Eternity both in the Guilt and Filth Eternal Punishment is due but that it is in no wise necessary nor exacted by Divine Justice that Eternal Punishment should be inflicted for sins that are not continued to Eternity but abandoned by Repentance Now things being so 't is easie for Every Body to discern how Iesus Christ endured the Pain of Hell without the Eternity especially That being remembred which we said before That He sustained not the Infernal Pains of those actually Damned but only of those that were to be so Non Damnatorum poenam
and in this the sinfulness of sin consists This importing in it Inexcusable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and contempt of God Such is the Nature and such the Object of Sin Now the Moral Evil is in any Action receives an Aggravation from the Object of it and that Relation the Offender stands in towards that for instance what is but Assault and Battery upon an Ordinary Man is Treason on the Prince To strike ones Soveraign is a Capital and hainous Crime Unexpiable but by the Blood of him that does offend in that kind when yet to give a Private Person a Blow is not so So Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any be so Hardy as to strike a Magistrate he ought not only to have Blow for Blow but to be severely Punish't Thus the Philosopher and it was one of the Laws of the Twelve Tables Re Persona Tempore Loco Atrociores injuriae judicantor That Injuries were to be esteemed to receive Aggravations by the Person offended so Labeo interprets it Persona atrocior injuria sit cum Magistratui cum Parenti Patronóve fiat The Injury is rendred more Atrocious by the Person when it is done to a Magistrate a Parent or a Patron And granting This Then How immense and infinite an aggravation must we of force Acknowledge in all sin when we consider in it that Contempt Scorn and Parvipension of God which does compose it That it is against a Majesty so Excellent and High against the King of Kings the Lord of Lords against the Heavenly Father the Great Creator the Great Benefactor him from whom the sinner hath Receiv'd his own Being and all the Goods Comforts and Advantages of it Most certain it is that those considerations in inferior Objects which scatter'd and dispersed do render Actions under greatest Guilt and aggravation are all Concentred to aggravate what ever Action man is guilty of against God For if it be an Aggravation of the Crime among men for the Subject to Affront his King for the Child his Father for the Vassal his Lord for the Obliged his Benefactor God is King is Father is Lord or Owne◠is Benefactor c. and the Sinner is his Subject his Child his Own his Obliged Yes and all the Aggravations Reflected on the faulty Action by this Transcendent Object are as much Superiour to those deriv'd from any other as those Considerations which in God are aggravating do transcend the same that are so in man As much as God himself in Excellency is above Man This King above all other Kings the Heavenly Father above an Earthly this Soveraign Benefactor above Inferiour Benefactors of so much greater Guilt and aggravation in all respects is a crime against the former than it can be against the latter The Degree of Aggravation bears Proportion to the Excellency which Effects it This the Antient Romans had some understanding of and therefore to Protect Persons invested with the Soveraign Power and Authority from all Affronts they were wont to style them Sacred to the End that by consideration of the Name and Character of God upon them Subjects Apprehending so much more Horror in the Crime might be scared from Attempting what otherwise perhaps without it they would have soon presum'd to do So Floccus Romanis Legibus cautum est saith he u◠omnes Potestatem habentes quò plus apud eos majestatis esset Sacrosancti appellarentur ut si quis quempiam in magistratu violasset Religio judicaretur By this time I make no question but a small Objection which hath ministred but too much matter of Perplexity to some will offer none to you namely that it will not follow that Sin is therefore Infinite because against an Infinite God no more than that it is Good and Iust and Holy and Omnipresent and the like because against a Good a Iust an Holy and Omnipresent God For you see I argue not the Infinity of the sin barely from that Infinity which is in God so as if this Attribute in him did Physically as some would speak and Naturally imprint its like upon the faulty Action no this Infinity in sin is not a Natural Infinity but a Moral not Infinity of Being but of Guilt and Aggravation and consequently such an one as cannot be derived but from such Considerations Moral as are able to Reflect it It is not deriv'd Physically but Morally I doubt not but you comprehend my meaning that Sin is not to be affirmed Infinite meerly because it has an Infinite and Transcendent Being for its Object For this the mentioned Objection fully evidences but because there are Perfections in the Divine Nature such as Goodness Greatness and the like that are of a Quality to Greaten the Offence and Fault against them which Perfections being Infinite do make the Aggravations they Reflect upon the crime or sin Proportionable For it is a manifest a Plain and an Infallible consequence that if a crime against obliging Goodness or the like Consideration for what is instanced in One will hold in All be great and against a greater Goodness it be a greater crime then a crime against an Infinite and inconceivable Goodness must needs be a crime of Infinite and inconceivable Guilt Ut se habet simpliciter ad simpliciter ita magis ad magis maximè ad maximè Hence it follows that no sin is small For not to stand on this Subtilty that there is a kind of Boundlesness and of Infinity in Sin Sin being in its very Nature a transgression or Excess of Bounds the Law it setteth bounds and limits unto mens Affections but sin transgresseth them I say not to stand on that Consideration the Conclusion Evidently follows from what I have already offer'd For if every Sin be Transgression and essentially imply a Violation of the Law of God a Preferring of Our Unruly Profane Unrighteous Evil Wills before His which is Holy Just and Good and consequently be an offering of Indignity and as it were affront to Him it is easie to inferr that None is small since to violate the Divine Authority and Pleasure and to despise it and contemn it for our Own cannot be imagin'd so I the rather do Enforce this great Truth because I know many Atheistically inclined who deride the Doctrine of the Fall of man occasion'd by the eating of an Apple as a senseless and absurd conceit It cannot penetrate their Understandings that a Wise and Just and Good God should conceive so great Anger and Indignation for so small and poor a thing that He should expose the First man and all Descendants from him to the danger of Eternal Ruine for no more than eating an Apple And what is an Apple to be compared with Mankind and with all its comforts In the day thou eatest thou shalt dye the death looketh better like one of Draco's Laws which for their Inhumanity were noted to be written in Blood than like a Sanction of Gods And indeed an Apple is
such as your own is sufficient to account to any that Reflects upon it for the Difficulty he may find his Thoughts to make to conceive it consistent with Divine Goodness That Infinite and Eternal Punishments should be inflicted on the sinner but for Temporal and Finite Transgressions But for your fuller satisfaction in the present Scruple and an Impregnable and clear Assertion of Divine Godness as well as Iustice which also is concerned from all the Ignominious Apprehensions under which they seem to lye in this Matter I shall here particularly Evidence First That it hath pleased God to order and appoint for sin Infinite or Everlasting Punishments and Torments to be inflicted Hereafter Secondly That there is not any Inequality or Improportion between the Punishment ordained and the Sin but a great Equality and Proportion Thirdly That it is a great Instance of Divine Benignity and Goodness to ordain Eternal Punishments and to threaten men with them as a suitable means in order to their Reformation in the present World and to their salvation in the future Fourthly That it being Goodness to Ordain the Punishment and to threaten men with it in order to the compassing those Good and Gracious Ends upon them It is no Want of Goodness no more than 't is Injustice to Inflict it on the Obstinate and Irreclaimable on whom these Good Designs are lost and defeated Of these in Order And First That it hath pleased God to order and appoint for sin not only Temporal and Momentany but Infinite and Eternal Punishments and that he threatens men with them is a great Truth such an One as is so fully setled in the Holy Scriptures that I Admire how any who Pretend to read these can make any Qâ—estion of it For what expression can be more significant and full than that of Iohn that the Blessed Jesus when he once hath gathered â—all his Wheat into his Granary 〈◊〉 burn up the chaffe with Unquenchable Fire Alluding in it likely unto that of Isaiah their worm shall not dye neither shall their Fire be quench'd Nor is that of Iesus Christ himself in the Form of the Sentence hereafter in the day of Judgement to be pronounced on the Wicked less Pregnant Depart from me ye Cursed into Everlasting Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels And as full as either is this of our great Apostle that the Lord Jesus shall hereafter be Revealed from Heaven with his mighty Angels in flaming Fire taking Vengeance on them who know not God and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ who saith he shall be punished with Everlasting Destruction from the Presence of the Lord and from the Glory of his Power Everlasting Destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word to shew the Everlastingness of that Destruction as to shew the Everlastingness of God himself It is here 〈◊〉 Everlasting Destruction and otherwhere it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Everlasting God I know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes used to signifie a Duration that is not Everlasting but you see it also used to signifie One that is And the Subject Matter must determine the Sense And who can once Question the Perpetuity and Everlastingness of Future Punishments that seriously considers the Greatness and Infinity of the Wrath that shall inflict them They are to be the Issues of the Utmost Wrath of God and therefore are not simply called Wrath but Wrath in the Day of Wrath Men treasuring up unto themselves infernal Torments being Affirmed in the Sacred Writings to treasure up Wrath unto themselves against the Day of Wrath. And Judge how great a Wrath that is since all Resentments in the heart of God proportion and adjust him Without Question whatever is in God is in him according to the Vastness and Capacity of God so that seeing God is absolutely Infinite in Being and also is Immutable and Unchangeable Wrath and Hatred as well as Love and Good Will as they exist in him are also so The Wrath of the King is as the Roaring of a Lion what then is the Wrath of the King of Kings It is true the Anger of Almighty God is in the present Dispensation trusted in the hands of Jesus Christ All Iudgement is committed to the Son and therefore for the present since He who hath the letting out of Wrath is partaker of the Flesh and Blood of the Brethren and so of kin to us no wonder if it be let out according to Humane Measures and with some consideration and respect for man which yet hereafter in the World to come when things shall be no longer in a Mediators hands but God himself who is inexorable and inflexible but in his Son shall immediately be All in All and do All in All is not to be presumed or hoped So that though Divine Wrath break not out on sinners altogether in this World yet in another it will There is a Day of Wrath and of the Revelation of the Righteous Judgement of God Here perhaps it may be offer'd that Jesus Christ is so invested in the Government of things that he has not only the managery of them before the day of Judgement but is also to conclude the Scene in it and consequently that the Sentence then to be pronounced since it is to be so by a man will be past on men with some allay and abatement But it must be minded that though the Son of man shall Judge the World yet that he shall come to do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Glory of his Father or in Divine Majesty as who would say that when he Judges He will lay aside those Humane considerations and Respects he had before and as he appeared more like man in all Precedent Transactions so that He will shew himself like God in this last Beside He will immediately resign the Government assoon as he hath passed sentence and as I noted before then God shall be All in All so no Mutation no Alteration after that of States or Things I confess Philosophy as clear and quick-fighted as she was in other Articles of Christian Doctrine was but obscure and dimm in This. For though she saw a day of Judgement and Rewards and Punishments in the Future Life for whatever should be done in the Present as is evident not only in Plato both in the Story of Erus in his Rep. and in that fabulous tradition of which in Gorgias he maketh Socrates Relater but also in Plutarch in his Consolation to Apollonius and in his Golden Treatise of Divine deferring of Punishment So in Seneca in Iamblicus and in many other of the grave and antient Philosophers Yet for want of Understanding of the Interest that Jesus Christ hath in Things Now and by consequence unhappily mistaking in taking measure of the Distribution of Rewards and Punishments hereafter by what is at present She saw not their Eternity and Infinite duration For whoever readeth Plato in his Book of Laws
gehennalem sustinuisse sed Damnandorum tantum Verily the Use of this Distinction here is very great since those that are Actually Damned sin far otherwise than the Elect that were to be so So that Eternal Torment is in Justice due to Them but to these Extream Torment indeed is but not Eternal This is clear in a simile Imprisonment is no part of the Debt but is Justly due to him that abides in Debt And thus it is in the Elect and Reprobate of which the former paying the Debt in Jesus Christ and renewed by the Holy Spirit ceasing from sin are freed from that Eternal Prison of Hell in which the Damned are Tormented for ever because they are for ever in Debt and abide for ever Polluted with the Filth and with the Guilt of Sin The Case then is thus Christ suffered only for the Elect who were to be Damned to whose sins ceasing by Repentance not Eternity but Only Extremity of Punishment was due So that Justice Requir'd not that Christ should Endure the Eternity but only the Extremity of the Torments of Hell This is the Notion of the Learned Parker which yet I must acknowledge I cannot Entertain a thought of but with Repugnance for to me it seemeth very Harsh if not directly contrary to Sacred Scripture That Death Eternal should not be the Due of every sin For though indeed Perpetual Torments are not inflicted on every sinner and for every sin yet they are deserved and merited by every sin and due to every sinner The wages of sin is Death Death Eternal for it is opposed to Eternal Life And if Almighty God be pleased to forgive and Pardon upon Repentance it is his Free-Grace and not his Justice but in respect of that well-order'd and Immutable Covenant wherein he has oblig'd and ty'd himself to do so so indeed he is faithful to forgive Nor is Hell a Sheriffs Ward in which the Debtor is Imprisoned till he pay his Debt For Imprisonment on Account of Debt is not so intended as a Punishment upon the Debtor for not having paid as to be in lieu of Payment and satisfaction of the Debt But 't is ordain'd to Necessitate him and to compell him to Pay it Whereas all Infernal Torments are truly Poenal Design'd for satisfaction to the Law and Justice and Not by way of compulsion to make the Prisoner pay a Debt which when he is in Hell it is impossible for him to Do since that Design were Irrational In vain are those means which are Referred to Ends that they can never compass Nor can it consist with Wisdom to Institute such The Punishments of Hell are Debts Nor are there are Other which they are ordained to constrain the Prisoner to pay If the Scripture speak of lying in Prison till men Pay the Utmost Farthing it must be Understood of the Eternal Punishment to be Undergone in Hell This is the Only Debt there to be paid of which no Abatement can be had It is expected to the Utmost Farthing and this is all that that Phrase imports Thus you see I differ both from this and other Excellent and Learned Persons and why I do so about the Ground on which the Perpetuity of Infernal Punishment is rais'd I say the Perpetuity for though I have acknowledged Infernal Punishments to be Perpetual yet I cannot easily be brought to own them to be Infinite but with Distinction they are not Infinite in Essence or Being ' but only in Duration or Continuance and consequently are not to be called Infinite in any sense but because they are Endless For questionless the Torments which the Damned suffer in Hell are intrinsecally and subjectively Finite and as Finite as the sins themselves intrinsecally and subjectively are for which they be Inflicted For since all Reception is according to the Measure and Capacity of what Receives the Torment Pain or Punishment inflicted on a Finite Creature and received by it neither is intrinsecally and subjectively Infinite nor indeed can possibly be So that if the sin subjectively and intrinsecally be Finite the Punishment ordained is not subjectively and intrinsecally Infinite which was the third thing to be proved And this Re-minds me of the fourth thing I promised namely to Represent expressly the Proportion between the Sin of man and the Punishment of it And this Proportion is manifest For if the Sin of Man subjectively be Finite and Unequal as well as Finite the Punishment of that sin subjectively is also Finite and Unequal as well as Finite there are Degrees of Torments in Hell as there are Degrees of Guilt in sin and if the Punishment be Infinite Protensively and in Duration it is because the sin is so Objectively and in Aggravation And Infinite objective Aggravation for such is that of sin as we have formerly evidenced it cannot be Proportion'd in the Punishment of a meerly Finite Being but by its infinite Duration and Extent Once the sin is some way Infinite but the Punishment of a meerly Finite Being neither is nor can be any wise so but in Duration Wherefore the Punishment would be Unequal to the sin if as this is Infinite in Aggravation that were not also so in Duration But this I hinted before And now Sir upon the whole you will be pleas'd to Judge what Inequality there is or what Unjustice or rather what great Equality and Justice in Divine Proceeding wherein you cannot but receive abundant satisfaction as to the Equity and Righteousness thereof if to what Considerations have already been presented you concerning it you but add the following First That the Proportion which is observed in Distributive or as Aristotle calls it Dianemetic Justice is not Arithmetical but Geometrical or as they love to speak the medium it observeth is not medium Rei but Personae that is that Persons are as much consider'd in the Distribution of Rewards and Punishments as things themselves Yea and more Secondly That in Proportioning of Punishments to make them Just and Equal it is not Requisite that their Duration should exactly be adjusted unto that of the sin 's A short and momentany sin if aggravated in the circumstances may in great Justice have allotted to it long and tedious Punishment A Truth so obvious that were it not Unnecessary I might abundantly enlarge in instancing it and I would have offer'd somewhat of mine own in that kind but that the grave St. Austine from whom I make no question but you will take it better hath happily prevented me He tells us Some of the Adversaries of Gods City hold it Injustice for him that hath offended but temporally to be bound to suffer pain Eternally this they say is utterly Unjust As though they knew any Law that adapted the time of the Punishment to the time in which the Crime was committed Eight kinds of Punishments doth Tully affirm the Laws to inflict Damages Imprisonment Whipping Like for Like Publick Disgrace Banishment Death and Bondage Which of these can be
id jus habet at jus puniendi non punientis causa existit sed causa communitatis alicujus Poena enim omnis Propositum habet Bonum commune ordinis nimirum conservationem onem exemplum ita quidem ut rationem expetibilis non habeat nisi ab hoc fine cum jus Dominii Crediti per se sunt expetibilia Hoc sensu Deus ipse Dicit se poena eorum qui puniuntur non delectari And I will add to Grotius his Testimony for the Resemblance and Conformity it hath therewith that of a Worthy Person of our own who also tells us as the Author last mentioned That the Obligation to Punishment arises from the Injury the Publick sustains by the Impunity of Crimes of which Magistrates are to take care for the Reason of Punishment is not because a Law is broken but because the breach of the Law tends to dissolve the Community by Infringing of Laws and the honour of those who are to take care of them For if we consider it the measure of Punishment is in a well ordered State taken from the Influence which crimes have upon the peace and interest of the Community therefore Pride Avarice Malice are not Punish'd by Humane Laws as severely as Theft c. So that the common note talked of Fiat Justitia pereat mundus is a piece of Pedantry rather than true wisdom And that hence it appears in Humane Laws the Reason of Punishment is not that such an Action is done but because the Impunity in doing it may have a bad influence on the Publick interest but in debts the right of Restitution depends upon the Injury received by a Particular Person who looks at no more than the Reparation of his loss by it I make no question but whatever Perswasion you may possibly have had before you have this now that I will do you all the right imaginable in the Argument seeing I acknowledge that the Notion that is its Basis and Foundation hath such Authority to countenance and favour it which that I may I shall reduce the Reason which you urge to Form and so display it in its Utmost Evidence and Force and then joyn Issue upon it And in Forms it runs thus All Punishment which is inflicted justly is inflicted either for the Good of the whole or of the part But Everlasting Punishment as such is neither inflicted for the Good of the whole nor for the God of the Part. Therefore Everlasting Punishment as such is not inflicted justly and consequently not at all For Everlasting Punishment is none if not Just. Or thus All Iust and Righteous Punishment is inflicted not to torment but to amend the Party Punished or the Society whereof he is a member that both may enjoy the sweets But Infernal Everlasting Punishments are not cannot be inflicted to amend the Punished or the Society but only to Torment the Offendor Therefore c. This is your Argument in Form wherein I take it to be so conclusive so cogent against Mr. Hobbs and men of his Perswasion that I see not how on his Principle the force thereof is avoidable The Answer he vouchsafech it is utterly uncapable of being applyed Neither of the Propositions in the mentioned Syllogism are in the least considered A Truth you will assoon acknowledge as you shall have read what he sayes Concerning Revenge saith he which by the Law of Nature ought nor to aim as I have said r. 3. sect 10. at present delight but future Profit there is some difficulty made by such as object the continuance of Punishment after the Day of Iudgement when there shall be no place neither for amendment not for example This Objection had been of some force if such Punishment had been ordained after all sins were part but considering the Punishment was instituted before the sin it serveth to the benefit of mankind because it keepeth men in Peaceable and Vertuous Conversation by the terror and therefore such Revenge was directed to the Future only Who seeth not how unapplyable to either Proposition in the mention'd Argument this Answer is besides the great Harshness that Revenge should not regard the Past but the Future and as great a mistake or Ignoratio Elenchi as if the thing is question were the Instituting and Ordaining of Eternal Punishment whereas indeed it is the Inflicting between which there is no little Difference since if the Menacing and Threatning of Revenge respects the Future yet the Execution and Performance of that Revenge doth in common sense regard the Past. Wherefore seeing Mr. Hobbs's Answer will not satisfie a thinking man I must Essay to give the argument another wherein though I might content my self simply to deny the Major namely that All Punishment which is inflicted justly is inflicted either for the Good and Reformation of the Party Punished or for Example to Others yet considering of how great advantage it may prove not only to detect a false Notion of Punishment but instead thereof to Settle and Establish a true One I shall in order thereunto expartiate in my Answer And there are four things that I will do in it First I will consider Punishment in general as Abstracting from Divine and Humane and so from common Notions endeavour to explain the Nature of it and the Ends Where I will shew it to be Vindictive Secondly I will shew that the Notion of Revenge is not incompetent to God but that He is a Revenger Thirdly I will shew that all Infernal Punishments are Vindictive or that they are Revenges Fourthly I will answer those Objections that either Mr. Hobbs's Principles or other mens suggest against what I say concerning Eternal Punishment and â—he Person than God sustains in punishing To the First And what is Punishment in the common sense and Notion which all the World has of it but Infliction of some Evil of Pain on an offender for some Past offence Or as others judge it fitter to express it An Infliction of a Natural for a Moral Evil. Malum Pane propter malum Culpe Malum Passionis propter malum Actionis Evil of Suffering for evil Doing Indeed the Notion strictly taken immediately agreeth but to Corporal Punishment as it is distinguisht from Pecuniary That being called Poena properly this Mulcea But yet it Secondly agrees to Mulcts also For these though in Propriety of Language they be not called Pains are yet called Penalties to signifie they are not Punishments but in that Respect wherein as Evils they do Afflict and Pain This then Is the true and proper Notion and the most agreeable to Holy Scripture of Punishment as it abstracteth from Divine and Humane and it importeth in it somewhat as the matter somewhat as the form For the matter it importeth Pain for the term Pain in English is deriv'd from Poena the word for Punishment in Latine and indeed what ever is inflicted could not be a Punishment unto the Party if it did not some way
Pain him For the Form it importeth a Relation to committed sin in recompence of which and as a thing deserved the Pain or Evil is inflicted for Pain inflicted without Relation unto some Offence and Transgression may indeed be called an Affliction but to make that Pain a Punishment it must regard some Injury some wrong done for expiating which it is inflicted Thus Punishment it is Retributive and that it is so the very Terms that signifie it in the Greek do also manifestly show in which Language it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which imply a Retribution and so the Learned Selden understood it who sayes Ex ratione essentiâ Poenae proprie dictae est ut pro peccato seu culpa aliqua impendatur c. Omnigena enim est partim Retributiva c. In this Notion Punishment is really Revenge and indeed in general is styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Revenge by Plato in Gorgias Vindicta by A. Gellius and Ulpian that great Lawyer defineth it Vindicta noxae A Vindication of received wrong For what other is Revenge than what I have described Punishment a Retribution of Evil a rendring Evil back again for evil received or a making him to suffer evil that hath first done it Only it looks in common Usage as if in some formalities they differ'd and that to make Revenge Punishment there were requir'd a Sanction of it by Law as if to render Evil where there is no Law to countenance and favour it were bare Revenge but where there is it were Punishment This I say it seems for whether any such Distinction be indeed to be allowed or not I make a great Question For as much as all Revenges antiently were called Punishments Genuine and Proper So Pausanids 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Antients were wont to call Revenges Punishments Nor is Castigation or Chastisement whatever Scaliger and others think to be excepted for as Punishment it is Retributive it looketh backward and is inflicted in the name of merit for some transgression past and consequently is Revenge though as it looketh forward to the Future and is intended to Reform the Party and to prevent his doing so again it is but a Remedy or Medicine I say it again that Castigation in the Prospect of it is not Punishment and in the Retrospect it is Revenge and so saith Selden in the place before quoted Omnigena enim est partim â—altom Retributiva tametsi simul etiam fuerit medicinalis ut in Scholis loquuntur seu emendationi sive ipsius peccantis sive aliorum adhibita Neque sanâ— Platonicum illud neminem Prudentem Punire quia Peccatum est sed ne peccetur verum satis esse potest nisi intelligas c. And from what I have already offer'd it doth evidently follow First That it is not warily expressed by you that Punishment is not inflicted to Torment the Criminal you might as well have said that Punishment is not inflicted to be Punishment it is Essential unto Punishment to be Afflictive for otherwise it could not be the issue and effect of Wrath or Anger which yet I shall evince it presently to be To vex and grieve the offender is the proper end of Anger and its proper design and it is in this as Aristotle tells us that it differs from Hatred and Malice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this brings me to the Second Consectary That all Punishment as inflicted on transgressors for Offences Pâ—stâ—iniaâ— issue and effect of Anger for what else is Anger but as Aristotle hath defin'd it and as our own Experience sensibly evinces it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Appetition in Desire of Revenge and consequently Punishment is in satisfaction and contentment to Anger Hence the Scripture Paraphrases Punishment by the letting out of wrath or Anger I know the famous Scaliger defineth Anger otherwise that it is not Appetitâ—â—s Ultionis but Depulsinis not a Desire of Revenging but â—verting Evil. A Notion not a little opposite to common sense and to be admired how possibly it could be his who was so wrathful and Vindictive a Man and when from his own experience was as capable is ever any was of knowing better But I take the Answer to him to be very Pertinent which Cardan a Scholar as Substantial and as Real and every way as great as himself has given long ago on this occasion Verum locum saith he 〈◊〉 open invenit quibas suaes ineptias dissunderet Utinam vera esseâ—t quae definit saepe anim â—â—lia quaerâ—râ— soleo que non nvenio â—piud uliquem Sed absit ut ab illo accipiam qui nec ab aliquo veterum significata haec accipit nec ostendit quod ita fiâ—â— sed vult quae simplics narrationi 〈◊〉 dictatori atquiâ—e ovacula â—â—ipiam c. Again the Sentiment of Sâ—necâ— that Noble Stoick which also Gratius owns as his That Justice is not Ira but Ratio that Justice is Reason and not Aâ—ger is alledged Aâ— if it were impossible that Justice should be Reason if it were Anger A Notion worthy only oâ— Persons who believe the Affection to be Intrinsecally evil or who understand them in their Irrationâ—â— excesses only as Seneta did when he talked so and not of those that can believe that they be natural that they are ascribed to God that under Regulations and within their Bounds they are not Evils but Perfections We may be â—ngâ—â— and not sin For my part I am with those Philosophers of whom I read in Plutarch who think that there is Reason in Passion Once Animal in man is Rationale Humane Passions Regulated and Conducted by the Mind are no Irrational Extravagancies or Emotions Opposite to Humane Reason but Vertues that partake it and in themselves Accomplishments that Integrate the Humane Nature without which it would be Lame Imperfect Defective In a word Vindictive Justice as Justice it is Reason as Vindictive it is Anger and though it be not that Anger which is excessive and extravagant a thing so far from being governed by Reason and participating of it that 't is inconsistent with it and is a Perturbation that transports a man beyond all Bounds Yet Anger it is as Anger is that Rational Inclination that a Person hath to vindicate himself for those Indignities and those Affronts that are done him In this sense all Punitive Justice is Anger and in this sense also 't is Reason so that 't is not true to say that Justice is Reason and not Anger For Punitive Justice is both it is Reason and Anger or Reasonable Anger In fine I oppose to Seneca's Authority that of Plato and of Aristotle So much in general for the Nature of Punishment Now touching the Ends of Punishment and that Division which is made thereof in reference to them I say that seeing there are several Parties in every Punishment that is Inflicted of which the One is Agent
not man's I will repay And no less than this did Seneca imply in saying Let this therefore be for our comfort that although our frailty omitteth Revenge there will be some one who will revenge us on an Audacious Proud and Injurious Enemy But you will ask me why doth God Appropriate Vengeance and how doth he Execute it I answer First to the first Question that therefore Vengeance is appropriated unto God because in every wrong iniquity injury or sin which in its utmost comprehension and extent he hath severely forbidden there is contempt of him and his command so that though the Hurt and Injury be done to man yet there being also in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Neglect of God it were an Insolence that could not be excused for the Creature to take the matter out of his Creators hands who is infinitely more concerned in it than he This were for man to frustrate and defeat as much as in him lyes the Vindication and Revenge of his Superiour and Lord and by a Presumptuous execution and Pursuit of his own God sayes Vengeance is mine I am more concerned in the Injury than Thou Thy Enemy wrongs thee but he contemns me and therefore since it is so much my Interest to see it taken do thou leave the Revenge to me And to leave it to God is but a piece of Deference and Respect we owe him So Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is Pieâ—y as one doth Paraphrase it to leave the matter to God who if there be any fraud or cozenage will surely Revenge And How is Vengeance executed by him which was the Second Question I supposed you to put but either immediately and in his own Person or mediately and by his Ministers of State and Magistrates Vengeance is God's but he hath betrusted it with men to execute and let it out I have said ye are Gods Magistrates that bear the name they have the keeping of the Honour and Vengeance of God it is God hath put the Sword into their hands and to appeal to them for Vengeance is to go to God for it God doth Revenge when they do Vengeance is mine and I will repay This is the Charter wherein the Magistrates vindictive Power or Right of the Sword is conveyed Men must not right themselves it is God must right them For this End he hath appointed men on earth in his name to do it this is the Basis and Foundation of Magistratical Power and this is the sole consideration that makes the Prosecution of Injuries Lawful Were not Magistrates Gods there could be no complaining to them for redress of Grievances nor going to Law before them in Vindication of our Rights and Properties for Vengeance is Gods I make no question but by this time you see the little excursion I have made in this Particular is not impertinent but that I was obliged to it to obviate the Prejudices some have taken up against the Vindictiveness of Punishments in general and consequently of Divine Ones namely that Humane Punishments are so Rectoral as not to be vindictive or effects of Anger But you see now that Magistrates as Rectors are Gods that as such they are invested with Vindictive Power and are in the Place and Stead of God to execute His Anger for all Dishonour and contempt done him so that the Obligation unto Punishment in a rightly instituted Common-wealth ariseth not only from the Danger that not unlikely may accrue unto it by the Impunity of crimes but also from the dishonour and Affront is offer'd in them unto God the Soveraign Rector So far is Fiat justitia ruat coelum from being a piece of solemn Pedantry Yes it is a Principle of solid and substantial Wisdom God is the First Author and therefore He is the Utmost End of Humane Societies 't is by him and therefore for him that Kings Rule and Princes decree Justice Of this Perswasion were such Illustrious Romans as accused of Parricide for having murdered his Sister that Horatius one of the Tregemini to whom all Rome was so obliged and so freshly and what they Urg'd in order to procure Justice upon him evinces that they thought the doing of it on All Wisdom and that as much as Common-wealths are interessed and concerned in Punishments All-mighty God is more Hi longa oratione proserebant Lges sayes Dionysius que nemini quempiam indemnatum occidere permittunt recensebantque exampla Deorum irae in civitates que inulta sivissent scelera Yes and in the same cafe so scrupulous and tender was the King himself that though the People upon Appeal made to Them had acquitted that Deserving Criminal yet Tullus Hostilius out of the great Respect Fear and Reverence which he paid to his Deities would not but in the way of Expiation and Sacrifice Rex ramen non contentus hominum calculis de Religione solicitus accitis Pontificibus jussit placari Deos atque Genios caede Iuvenem expiari legitime Nor is what I now assert with so much confidence more than what the Great Apostle hath asserted long before me in Rom. 13.1 2 3 4 5. For nothing can be plainer than that in the Text alledged Paul affirms what I have 1. That the Magistrate is a Revenger for he not only calleth him a Terror to the Evil which implyes it but in terms a Revenger He is the Minister of God a Revenger 2. That Revenge taken by the Magistrate as the Sword with which he takes it is God's He beareth not the Sword in vain He is the Minister of God 3. That Punitive Justice is Vindictive and Punishments Effects of Wrath not the Wrath of Man but the Wrath of God He is the Minister of God to Execute What Justice to be sure But that Justice is Wrath Divine Wrath He is the Minister of GOD to Execute WRATH And my Assent to these Assertions is unshaken notwithstanding that I find objected that the measure of Punishment is taken from the Influence that crimes have upon on the Peace and Interest of the Community Pride Avarice Malice not being punished by Humane Laws as severely as Theft c. But this moves not me For First Humane Laws as also Law-givers are not alwayes what they should be And we must distinguish Humane Laws For these are either Universal such as are coincident with Laws Divine and do Prohibit or Injoyn what they do or else Municipal and more Particular founded only on the Profit and Utility of such as Consent to them Now Humane Laws of the first sort which I called Universal are properly Laws and do oblige the Conscience as being of Divine Appointment and Sanction and the Punishments annexed to them must be executed on offenders they being Vindicts and concerning God But Humane Laws indeed of the second sort which I would rather call Agreements of the People or Compacts under a forfeiture do oblige no farther than as they are of Advantage Nor by the breaking