would it be necessary to suffer murderers to live, and the guilty in general to go unpunished? You clearly perceive, that this apparent humanity to the guilty would issue in extensive danger and harm to the innocent.

Let us apply the reasoning to other cases, which happen more directly under the divine government? Reasoning in this way, Noah would not have expected the deluge, nor prepared for his own safety. He would have said, 'God has indeed declared his purpose of destroying all flesh from off the earth; but as such severity would be most abhorrent from paternal feelings, it is not to be imagined, that such purpose can be entertained by him, who is parent of the universe. Therefore, the divine declaration, though apparently obvious, must be explained away, or considered only as a menace, designed to produce salutary alarm.'

Now, this was probably the reasoning of the antediluvians, who were destroyed; but surely it was not the reasoning of Noah, who was saved.

In like manner, when the angels announced to Lot the approaching ruin of Sodom, he might have persuaded himself, that no such event would happen. God is the parent of men. These inhabitants of Sodom are part of his family. He is better and more full of compassion, than earthly parents. But who, among the latter, could endure, that his children should be destroyed by fire, enraged with brimstone? Therefore though the celestial messengers have threatened ruin to the city, they must have had some meaning altogether different from that which their language seems calculated to convey.

In all attempts to disprove the doctrine of endless punishment no argument perhaps is so much relied on, as that which is founded on the divine benevolence. This attribute the Scriptures extol in the strongest language.

Now, it is readily granted, that the doctrine in question, if really inconsistent with the goodness of God, cannot be defended. But though it is perfectly safe to make this concession, you must carefully consider how inadequate we are to deter

mine what measures the highest benevolence will dictate. This benevolence is undeniably consistent with all the sufferings, which are actually endured by men. It is consistent with that vast aggregate of evils already noticed, as having been endured, in various periods of the world, by individuals and nations : though it is far beyond our power to discern how these are made to accomplish benevolent designs. Of this we are sure, that the benevolence of God will never inflict a punishment, which justice condemns?-i. e. a punishment which is disproportionate to the offender's demerit. But such is our ignorance of the scheme of God's moral government, and the connexion, subsisting between its various parts, that we cannot determine, in regard to any given instance, that the execution of justice will be inconsistent with benevolence. In civil governments, there are many cases, in which benevolence requires, that the law should be rigidly executed. Whenever the infliction of just punishment on individuals, tends to promote good order, and the happiness of society at large, to dispense with such punishment argues, not the exuberance of good will, but the want of it. In like manner, if it be just to punish the sinner without end, such punishment may contribute to the order and well being of God's moral kingdom. If it does, that benevolence, which regards the whole more than the parts, and that which is greater, more than what is less, requires, that such punishment be inflicted.

It becomes highly important, therefore, to ascertain whether endless punishment be consistent with justice; in other words, whether it be proportionate to the sinner's character. This, you perceive, is perfectly distinct from the main question; and may be answered in the affirmative, without proving the actual perpetuity of future punishment.

Towards rational creatures God sustains the character of a lawgiver. From the fact, that God maintains a moral government over intelligent beings, it follows, that there are some things, which he approves and will reward: others, which he disapproves and will punish. God is a legislator, and that he will reward the observance of his law, and punish violations of

it, is more clearly taught in revealed, than in natural religion. The punishment threatened to disobedience, is in the dialect of Scripture, termed the curse of the law.

In Deuteronomy 27: 26, it is said: Cursed is he who confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. To which passage the apostle evidently refers, in his epistle to the Galatians : As many, as are of the works of the law, are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them. To ascertain the duration of the evils, comprehended under this curse, may be of use towards determining whether endless punishment be consistent with divine justice. For, that the law of God is just, will not be denied. Of course the penalties, which it threatens, cannot be unjust. These penalties must consist either in limited or unlimited evils; i. e. sufferings, which are either temporary or endless. It is likewise certain, that the wicked will, after death, endure a punishment, to which the Scriptures apply the term everlasting: They shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

This language, however powerful, is supposed by those, who deny the perpetuity of future punishment, to mean nothing more, than a limited duration. If so, it may be equal to the evils, which are threatened in the law, or it may be greater or less. If the future punishment of the reprobates is just equal to that which is threatened in the law, it is in fact precisely the same. And if the impenitent will endure the curse of the law, it is evident that they will not be saved. They will be treated with as much severity, as if no Saviour had been appointed. For, in that case, more than was threatened in the law could not have been required.

Suppose then, that the punishment, threatened by law, is limited; yet of greater duration, than that which reprobates will in fact experience. But that which reprobates will experience, is declared to be eternal ;-to continue forever and ever. Now, whatever these terms may signify, it is evident, that none, more powerful, are used to express the curse, denounced by the law;

and therefore no person can assert, that the law threatens a greater punishment, than that which reprobates will endure, unless he can show, that such punishment is more than eternal, and will continue longer than forever and ever. It will hardly be said, I suppose, that the punishment, threatened by the divine law, is less than that which the impenitent will endure. For, in that case, the Gospel is a dispensation of more severity than the law; and if, as will be readily granted, the law threatens all the punishment which is just, the Gospel threatens that which is unjust. It appears, then, that the curse of the divine law, is neither a temporary punishment greater nor less than the punishment which reprobates will endure; nor yet, admitting the latter to be limited, are the two commensurate; it follows then that the punishment, threatened by the law, is not temporary; by consequence, it is eternal. Now, if eternal punishment be threatened in the divine law, the justice of such punishment cannot be denied. Nothing can be more evidently dishonorable to God, than a supposition, that he should threaten a punishment, which it would be unjust to inflict. In all human governments, this is so far from contributing to the support of authority, that it excites either contempt or rebellion.

If in this argument, which has been suggested by a late American divine, there be any thing liable to objection, it must be in that proposition, which asserts, that the curse of the law cannot be the same which is actually inflicted on the impenitent, on supposition the latter is temporary. Some persons, it is probable, believe that the limited punishment, which reprobates will suffer hereafter is precisely what the law threatens ; and that the culprit, after enduring such punishment, will experience no salvation, but sink into primitive non-existence.

It is readily acknowledged, that this opinion is not affected by the preceding reasoning, which holds good in regard to those only, who believe in universal salvation. Whatever others do, they cannot deny the justice of endless punishment; but must acknowledge, conformably to their own sentiments, that such punishment is consistent with justice.

There is another ground, on which the justice of future unlimited punishment may be defended. It is this. As long as a person sins, he deserves punishment. If he sin during his whole life, he will be exposed to sufferings during life. If he sin for a thousand years after his death, he will suffer during that time. If he sin eternally, his punishment must have no end. This, I have no doubt, is as truly the dictate of natural religion, as of revelation. From the moral perfections of God, it follows that he is friendly to virtue and hostile to vice. To make known his true character, this friendship and this hostility must be expressed. It will be far from him to suffer "the wicked to be as the righteous." Of course, if the righteous be happy, the unrighteous must be miserable. And if the divine purity would require a difference at one time, it would require that such difference be continued, as long as their respective characters remain unchanged. If, therefore, sinners continue to exist forever, it seems fairly to result from the first principles of natural religion, that they will suffer without end.

Objections will probably be made to the supposition, that any, known by Deity to be incorrigible, should forever be sustained in being.-A reply to this objection is obvious. If to support in punishment a being, foreknown to be incorrigible, for the space of ten, or even twenty years, be consistent with divine wisdom and benevolence, it can never be shown, that these attributes would militate against his being sustained a longer time, or even forever. There may be as good reasons for his continuance the year to come, as the year past, and so on without end.

That the punishment of a future life will, in fact, have any respect to sins, then committed, and not exclusively to deeds, which are done in the body, I do not assert. The last argument is designed only to prove, that eternal punishment in itself, is not incredible.