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 self immolation 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 doctrine 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?

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. professes 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 false

hood 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.