9. Some, with a view to invalidate the doctrine of endless punishment, assert that the principles of the Orthodox are selfish and revengeful. They charge them with anticipating a high degree of satis faction in looking down from heaven, and beholding the sufferings of their fellow-beings; that they "expect to feast their eyes on the smoke and flame of their torment ;" that parents in heaven will rejoice in seeing their children in hell; and that a great part of the happiness of heaven will result from seeing dear friends and near connections burning in the unquenchable flames of hell." Now this false and slanderous representation is one of the most successful means by which the unprincipled and vicious have been prejudiced against the doctrine of endless punishment, and in favor of universal salvation. Thus have the prejudice and rage of the wicked been awakened against the doctrines of the Bible.

But can we charitably suppose that this work of deception is done through ignorance? Have we not every reason to conclude that it originates from a malicious disposition? No doubt the whole administration of God, when rightly understood, will receive the high approbation of all holy intelligences. They will rejoice in the righteous government of God when they see rebellious subjects of his kingdom shut up in prison, and prevented from doing further mischief. The inspired writers frequently express themselves in anthems of praise, when the enemies of truth and of holiness are punished; not that they rejoice in the misery of any being, but that they rejoice in the wise and equitable government of the great Jehovah. Thus Moses, Miriam and Josiah sang a song of praise to God when he had destroyed their enemies. And ere long the whole Church will sing the song of Moses and the Lamb, as triumphing over the fall of every anti-christian power; and the Lord shall reign forever and ever to the eternal joy of his people, and the eternal confusion of his enemies. In their everlasting destruction the saints will be called upon to ascribe salvation and glory and honor and power unto the Lord their God.

Should a formidable conspiracy be raised against any good gorernment, would it not afford joy to all the loyal and peaceful subjects

of that government should the constituted authorities send out their forces, quell the rebellion, and call the offenders to justice? Suppose these good and loyal subjects, by the proclamation of their Governor, should celebrate a day of public thanksgiving to God in consequence of the overthrow of their enemies, would it not be false and unjust to charge them with selfish and revengeful feelings? The same objection which is urged against the Orthodox may urged against the principles and feelings of many of the saints recorded in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament. But it may be well for us to be careful how we judge of the principles and feelings of good men.

be

10. With a view of disproving the doctrine of endless punishment, the objectors are very fond of appealing to the sympathies of our nature. "What man," it is asked, "of common sensibility, could endure to see a fellow man tormented in the fire, or with devouring worms, for one year, or one month, or one day? What parent could take its own child and cast it into a furnace of fire, or confine it in a gloomy dungeon during its life? Would he if he were able punish it with endless misery, or inflict upon it intolerable anguish for a very protracted period? If a human parent who acted in this manner should be rewarded with universal execration, who can believe any hypothesis which attributes such conduct to the benevolent Father of men? God has more goodness than man, and more love than any earthly parent. How then can it be supposed that he will cast any of his children into the lake of fire and consume them forever ?"

This is a very favorite argument with many, and one which they wield with great success over young and unthinking minds. But in reply it might be asked, what parent could drown his chiidren in the ocean, or consume them in the fire, or leave them to perish with hunger? What parent could break their bones, or mangle their flesh, or send them pain, sickness and death? And yet God, the great Parent of all, brings all these things upon the children of men in the course of his providence. Has he then less kindness and love than earthly parents? This would follow according to the hypoth

asis we are now opposing. According to this principle Noah would not have expected the deluge, though warned of it by God himself and commanded to prepare for it. He would have said, "Are not all these human beings the children of God, the objects of his love and mercy, and can it be supposed that he intends to destroy them? True they have corrupted their way before God, but for this they are not to blame. They are just what their Creator made them to be. If they are sinners exceedingly, would it not be far better that they should be converted and rendered completely happy than to be destroyed?" So Noah would have reasoned had he believed in the doctrine of universal salvation. And so did the inhabitants of the old world in all probability reason, when warned of threatened and impending judgment. They did not believe that they should be destroyed; but the deluge came and swept them away.

Reasoning on this principle, Lot would not have believed the message of those celestial beings who came to announce the destruction of Sodom. "Is not God," he would have said, "the Parent of these Sodomites, and is it possible that he should destroy them with fire enraged with brimstone? Who of all these parents could be so cruel as to design such evil against their tender offspring? And is not God, the Parent of all, more merciful than they? True these heavenly messengers have announced that the Lord will destroy this place with fire from heaven; and they appear to be sincere and to give lucid evidence that they are sent by God to announce this judgment. But their language cannot be understood in its literal import; it must have a figurative meaning. God is merciful, and he will not be so cruel as to bring such a judgment upon this place. This fire which he threatens, must signify the fire of his love." So Lot would have reasoned had he been a Universalist, and so did reason the inhabitants of Sodom. But the fire from heaven did descend at the appointed hour notwithstanding, and destroyed them all. But if Lot did expect this judgment to be a merciful chastisement designed for the good of the Sodomites, why did he warn and intreat his sons-in-law to escape from the city, and assign as his reason that the Lord would destroy that place? This

would be defeating the very object of that salutary discipline under which they were to be placed. You see then, my hearers, how absurd the arguments drawn from the sympathies of our nature against the doctrine of endless punishment. The argument drawn from the circumstance that endless punishment is abhorrent to their feelings, and that God will not inflict it, lies as we have seen equally against the sufferings of this world and against matter of fact, and therefore it cannot be sound. The truth is, on this subject and all others, feelings must all yield to matter of fact, and to actual experience. Whatever is, is truth, and whatever contradicts it is falsehood.

11. It is said that the proper meaning of the term Gospel is glad tidings, and it is glad tidings to all men. But if only a select number are to enjoy its benefits, how can it be glad tidings to all? It can certainly be no favor, no matter of joy to those who are finally lost.. In reply to this argument, I would enquire is it necessary in order to impart value to a favor, that it be actually received? Did the 1 man in the parable who made a splendid feast and bade many, manifest no kindness to those who rejected his invitations? Suppose a hundred criminals under sentence of death and waiting their execution, would it be no favor to them if the chief magistrate should order the doors of their prison to be set open and a full and free pardon to be offered to them, on condition of their confessing their guilt and promising amendment, unless all should accept his offer? Would not the offer in itself be glad tidings, even if they should all reject it, and die in prison or be led forth to execution? Are not the tidings of an infallible remedy for a disease with which we may be afflicted good tidings, whether we regard them or not? And are not the tidings just as good if we neglect them and die through our neglect, as if we obtain the remedy and thereby secure a restoration to health? The invitation of the gospel is full and free. None are excluded from the offers of mercy who do not exclude themselves. All who will may accept them, and this is all that is necessary in order to render the gospel glad tidings. Whether it be received or rejected does not in the least alter its

nature and design. It does not cease to be glad tidings by being perverted, abused, and rejected to our ruin.

*

12. It is said men receive in this world all the punishment they deserve, and therefore cannot be justly punished beyond this life. This argument we have already noticed, but it may be expedient and proper to give it a further examination. This argument takes for granted that wicked men are punished in the present life according to the guilt and demerit of their sins.

But this is false in fact. Admit if you please that the more aggravated crimes are usually followed by something like a speedy retribution; what punishment, let me ask, do they endure who contemn God, who are unjust, cruel, proud, selfish, avaricious and revengeful? Do you say remorse of conscience? The consciences of some are seared as with a hot iron, so as to be past feeling. What remorse of conscience has a West India pirate, a highway robber, or a nightly assassin. They do not feel half so much as a tender-hearted christian feels for neglecting family or secret devotions, or indulging in a worldly minded spirit for a single day. The truth is, the more wicked a man is, the less he suffers from remorse of conscience, so that if this be the appointed punishment of the wicked, the more sinful they are the less punishment they will have to endure. Let such a sentiment be exhibited, and will it deter men from the commission of sin?

This doctrine is impossible in the very nature of things. If the sinner must suffer the whole punishment of his sins, must bear the whole weight of his transgressions, how can he receive all bis punishment in this life? How can that man who commits suicide, and by that sin passes beyond the boundaries of time into eternity, suffer the punishment of his sins? He commits one of the greatest crimes, and yet does not remain a moment in the world to suffer for it. Hence he must suffer in a future state, as he does not remain a moment after his crime to suffer in this.

This doctrine is contrary to scripture. The general course of Providence is accurately described in the words of our Saviour,

Lecture v.