fore if their sins are eternal, it is just that their punishments should be so likewise." This has become rather the fashionable hypothesis. "6 'God may justly punish sin," says Dr. Dwight, "as long as it exists, and it may exist forever. He who sins through this life, may evidently sin through another such period; and another; and another; and another without end." Dr. Beecher says, "We are not punished forever for the sins of this short life. This is a mistake. Man is a free agent, and free agency exteuds through eternity. . . . . If sin exists it must be punished while it exists, and if it exists forever, the punishment must be endless." The Am. Tract Society adopts the same hypothesis.

I need not remark that this involves a total departure from the old hypothesis of infinite sin. Those who adopt it recognize moral freedom as an indestructible element of human nature, and therefore believe that it must exist in the future

state as well as in the present. But here again the very premise which needs to be proved is assumed. If men sin forever they must be punished forever. Very true, I reply. Now prove that men will sin forever, and I renounce Universalism at once. But how is this to be done? Either man is a free agent in the future world or he is not. If he is not a free agent, on what principle is he to be punished? If he is, who can say that he will never reform? Dr. Beecher tells us that

do not repent

"the doctrine of the Bible is, if ye ye shall all likewise perish; if ye do not repent in this life, ye never shall repent"! But if "free agency extends through eternity," why may not a sinner repent beyond this life? Does not such freedom imply the power of repentance and reformation? If it does not then it means nothing. Dr. Dwight lays it down as a fact that "the Scriptures teach us that sinners who die impenitent, will not cease to sin through eternity," and to prove so important a position, he introduces two passages of Scripture, Rev. xxii. 15, and Eccles. ix. 10, to which the reader may refer. It is enough to say that neither of them has any reference to the subject, and I am only surprised that Dr. Dwight should ever have used them for such a purpose. So far are the Scriptures from favoring this notion that they stand decidedly opposed to it, and teach plainly that Christ must reign till he has subdued all hearts to himself.

But if it were conceded that men would sin forever, do not the advocates of this hypothesis perceive that they deprive themselves of every proof-text of endless punishment in the Bible? If those passages which are used to support this terrible doctrine are legitimately employed, they prove that endless punishment is to be inflicted for the sins of this life, not those of the next; for deeds done in the body, not those to be done in the spiritual state. They say nothing of damning

sinners day by day, for sins which they may daily commit. "Eternal death," says Dr. Burthogge, "is threatened unto men for sin in this life, and the sentence of it is pronounced on the damned for this. Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire. And why? "For I was hungered and ye gave me no meat,” etc.

This hypothesis, then, plausible as it seems, labors under two fatal objections. It assumes what no mortal can prove or has any reason to believe: viz. that sinners will continue to sin through all eternity. It predicates the doctrine on grounds entirely aside from those on which the proof-texts usually quoted for its support, represent it to

rest.

SEC. 12. Sinners, when convinced of sin, feel that they deserve endless punishment: therefore endless punishment is just.

"Far the greater share of those who pretend to be disciples of Christ," says Rev. Dr. Parker, "acknowledge that they deserve an endless punishment. These facts can scarcely be accounted for on any other supposition than that such a punishment is really deserved." The learned Dr. who here appeals to the feelings and convictions of men, should have informed us whether these feelings were the fruit of a true inward consciousness of desert, or whether they do not on the contrary flow from mere education. The worshipper of Juggernaut thinks it right and feels it to

be a duty, to throw himself beneath the wheels of the idol car and be crushed to atoms; but would Dr. Parker argue hence that this kind of selfimmolation is either right or a duty? Thousands and thousands who are now members of the church, when convinced of sin, were also convinced that they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, and were beyond the reach of mercy; and this feeling was as deep and sincere as that concerning their desert of endless punishment. Yet facts show that they were greatly mistaken. They had not sinned against the Holy Ghost, nor were they beyond the reach of mercy. It was all a horrible delusion produced by the false preaching to which they listened. It is so with respect to the deserts of sin. Let Dr. Parker adduce a single text of Scripture which teaches that endless punishment is the just desert of sin, and I shall bow to it; but let him not insult common sense by assuming that it is just, because men under certain peculiar circumstances, the influence of a false religious education, or the terrible representations of ministers of wrath, acknowledge or feel that they deserve to be damned everlastingly. Poor souls! they do not know what endless punishment is, and can form no conception of it. How then can their feelings or acknowledgements furnish even a presumption in favor of its justice or reality?

SEC. 13. We do not know, nor can we even conceive why endless punishment is inflicted.

As I have before remarked, there are some who have attempted no explanation of the doc> trine in question, but, as they pretend, receive it on the authority of Scripture alone. Of this class is Archbp. Whately, who very frankly tells us that "if we are to measure the dealings of God by the standard of our own reason, we shall find ourselves at a loss to explain any future punishment at all; for it is certain that the object proposed by human punishments is the prevention of future crimes, by holding out a terror to transgressors; we punish a man, not because he has offended, but that others may be deterred from offending by his example: now how any such purpose can be answered by the future punishment of the wicked, whether for a time or forever, we can by no means conceive."

Is not this a confession of one of the most learned and thoughtful men of the age that no reason for endless punishment can be assigned? Is it not virtually saying that it is perfectly idle to attempt any rationale of it. True, the Archbishop does not say in plain terms that the doctrine of endless punishment is unreasonable, but he leaves us to receive it on mere textual proof, or not receive it at all. But does our author suppose that the christian world will long maintain such a tremendous doctrine under circumstances like these?