Banish all the reasons assigned for the infliction of endless punishment, and its faith would be universally renounced in a single generation. That they are all futile is certain, and Archbp. Whately is clear sighted enough to see, and honest enough to acknowledge it. But all are not sensible how vain and trifling they are, and so long as they can rest on any one of them, they can half satisfy themselves of the truth of the doctrine in question. The learned Archbishop, then, virtually betrays his cause; for to acknowledge that no reason can be assigned for a great act of divine government, which so nearly concerns us all, is virtually equivalent to a confession that it is unreasonable and unjust.

SEC. 14. Endless punishment is threatened, in order to deter men from sinning, but God may remit the infliction of it, if it pleases him.

This is the famous argument of Archbp. Tillotson. He conceded, however, that the measure of penalties is not taken " from any strict proportion betwixt crimes and punishments," but "from the ends and reasons of government, which requires such penalties as may, if possible, secure the observation of the law, and deter men from the breach of it." This is a total surrender of the intrinsic justice of this punishment at once. The Archbp. concludes therefore that God " may beforehand threaten what penalties he thinks fit and necessary," and that "if any thing more terrible

than eternal vengeance could have been threatened to the workers of iniquity it had not been unreasonable, because it would all have been little enough to deter men effectually from sin."

But will so terrible a penalty be inflicted? That it is plainly threatened the Archbp. profess es to believe, but that it will be inflicted he dares not affirm, nor could he well pretend it, so long as the penalty was designed only to deter from sin, and was altogether disproportionate to the crime. He maintained therefore that God was under no obligations to inflict the threatened penalty "any farther than the reasons and ends of government do require." To remit the penalty would be no injury to the sinner, because in so doing God would be better than his word, of which no one could complain; nor could it be regarded as an impeachment of his veracity, since it is no falsehood not to do what one threatens.

This opinion has been adopted by several divines both in England and on the Continent, as Le Clerc, Godfrey Less, Bahrdt, Busching and others. Such men virtually acknowledge that they cannot reconcile the infliction of endless punishment with the divine justice and benevolence. Tillotson has ever been regarded, both by friends and foes, as favorable to Universalism, or at least to have done the doctrine of endless punishment a great disservice, by thus confessing that it is indefensible on any rational grounds.

CONCLUSION.

I have now examined all the more important and popular grounds on which men have attempted to rest the doctrine of Endless Punishment. A few others, of a very trifling character, might be added, but they do not deserve attention. Of the merits of those exhibited I need not speak farther, though I can hardly forego the remark, that they are all obviously the result of an exigency which the advocates of endless punishment feel, if they do not acknowledge. They were invented, not to satisfy the reason and conscience, which the doctrine in question outrages, but merely to soothe them, and make the dogma of endless punishment sit more easily upon the mind. Nothing is more certain than the fact, that the doctrine before us must be believed without any explanation whatsoever; or sin must be shown to be infinite; or, finally, it must be proved that men will continue to sin forever. The first of these is an insult to our common sense; the second is absurd; and the last rationally incredible.

I need not observe that all which the majority of the advocates of endless punishment ever attempt, is, to show that it is not unjust; and justice, we know, is, in their conceptions, at an infinite remove from all the amiable attributes of the Deity. The task of proving such a punishment to be consistent with infinite goodness is yet to be assumed seriously, and in a manly

spirit. Infinite benevolence, and infinite misery! Who shall reconcile them? Who will soberly attempt it?

It would be curious to pursue this subject still farther, and show how various have been the modifications introduced, for the purpose of softening down the torments of hell, or lessening the number of those who are to suffer them. Prof. Stuart rejects the notion of a local hell; Dr. Brownlee scouts the doctrine of literal fire and brimstone. Dr. Burthogge believes that none will be endlessly damned but such as are absolutely incorrigible, and whom no means could reclaim. Dr. Parker makes hell a mere prison of the universe, with scarcely one in a hundred millions of the human race within its dismal walls; and Archbp. King soberly doubts whether the condition of the damned in bell may not be preferable to non-existence. Nor do these men, with their respective opinions, stand alone. On the contrary, they may be taken as representatives of large classes, who thus acknowledge their inward abhorrence at the doctrine of endless punishment, as commonly held. But such modifications will not long avail; the tide of public feeling, the improving sensibilities and sympathies of the human heart, a better exegesis, a deeper love of God, and a more enlightened respect for his honor, will, before another century has passed, sweep the revolting dogma of endless punishment from the creeds, or at least from the hearts, of the American churches forever.

THE END.