false?

Further; they inveighed against every error, however powerful and popular or weak and contemptible. Why then did they not lift a warning voice against the belief of the doctrine of endless punishment?

There is not a single passage in the Bible that directly asserts or even implies the final salvation of all men. This doctrine is not derived from plain and direct declarations of scripture, but from strained explanations, from far-fetched inferences, and from a wretched perversion of language. In short, that theory which denies the doctrine of endless punishment and advocates the final salvation of all men, is but "the baseless fabric of a vision," advocated by those only who wish to find happiness apart from holiness. Every one who is willing to give his heart to God, will be satisfied to seek admittance into the kingdom of heaven by becoming holy in Christ Jesus, and will think too much of its purity to dream of meeting there the impure; while he will have too much good sense to assume the idea of any purification which is not commenced in this life. But others will wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. Those of them who should watch for souls as they that must give account, will prophesy smooth things in saying to the wicked it shall be well with him, and lead thousands of deluded beings blindfold to hell with themselves. "O my soul come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly mine honor, be not thou united." That this may not be your sin and punishment may the Lord prevent by his grace, and may you all strive to enter into heaven at the strait gate.

T

LECTURE IX.

ON THE ARGUMENTS WHICH THE OBJECTORS TO

THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT URGE

AGAINST THAT DOCTRINE.

Gen. iii: 4.-"Ye shall not surely die."

FROM the sacred annals of the Hebrews, the only authentic account of primeval ages, we learn that after the Deity had spake into being this mighty globe, he created and placed upon it the father and founder of the whole human race. "And God said, let us make man in our image; after our likeness.”—(Gen. i: 26.) Adam was created in the image and likeness of his Maker. His understanding was enlightened, his will was holy, and his passions and affections were pure. With him there was no warfare between the flesh and the spirit. The propensities of his nature were in sweet accordance with the dictates of his pure mind. And as he was without any principle of imperfection or corruption, the past, the present, and the future with him had no regret, no guilt, no

terror.

He was placed in the garden of Eden, where, with countenance glowing with the lustre of perfect innocence and beauty, and with an intelligent mind that raised him high in the scale of created beings, he walked the shady groves, gazed on the majestic scenery of nature, and looked "through nature up to nature's God." He was a very glorious being; the favorite of heaven, and the lord of this lower world. But though every object around and within was adapted to fill him with the most exquisite delight, still his paradise

was incomplete. Endowed with a social nature, he had no society. Of all the creatures which God had made, there were none with whom he could associate; none to share his pleasures; none to whom he could communicate his sentiments. He was alone. This defect however scarcely existed, before it was supplied by the goodness of his Maker. Thus were things peculiarly adapted to the accommodation of man. The positive command of God to Adam in paradise not to eat of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” which was given for the trial of his obedience, so exactly accorded with his holy nature that it did not infringe upon his happinesss.

Happy were the human pair amidst the delightful garden until a certain prophet, and the first of Universalist prophets, in his journey came that way and disturbed their peace and tranquillity by endeavoring to reverse the prohibition of the Almighty, and predicting as in our text, "Ye shall not surely die." All his endeavors were very artful. He assumed the form of the serpent that he might the better succeed with his temptations, and hence he is called the "old serpent, the devil."

He begins by first calling in question the truth of God, and insinuating that the terms which he had prescribed were severe, if not capricious. "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" He then deals in positive assertions. In contradiction to the divine assurance, he affirms with unhesitating effrontery, that our first parents should not die, even though they tasted of the fruit of the interdicted tree. As truth and falsehood are directly opposed to each other, Satan hesitates not to make God a liar, and to echo his words with a flat contradiction, "Ye shall NOT surely die!" And he confidently asserts that God knew if they eat of the forbidden fruit they would be advanced to honor, and happiness, and power. Alas, how often has man been flattered and enticed into sin at the expense of God himself. Surely we need not be at a loss in judging whence those doctrines proceed which invalidate the divine threatning, and teach sinners going on still in their tresspasses, "ye shall not surely die." From that day in which our first mother was beguiled by the subtlety of the serpent,

to the present, Satan has been carrying on the same delusion in the hearts of the children of men, tempting them to sin, and lulling their consciences into security by whispering to them, "Ye shall not surely die." While they are committing the very acts, and indulging the very propensities, and walking in the very courses, of which God has declared that the "end is death," Satan tells them that they shall not die; and he teaches them "while they hear the words of God's curse, to bless themselves in their hearts, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of my heart." Do we not perceive a striking resemblance between the labors of certain classes of errorists and those of the deceiver of mankind? What I propose on the present occasion, is to consider some of the modes of reasoning adopted by the objectors under consideration to support the doctrine of universal salvation and overthrow that of endless punishment. But in doing this I feel no little embarrassment, for they appear to possess no uniformity of character. They are Restorationists, Destructionists, Rellyanists, moderate and ultra Universalists, Fatalists, Unitarians, Deists or Athiests, as will best serve their purpose, which is to get rid of the doctrine of endless punishment. And they are followed by the impenitent multitude who seem to say, "Only tell us we shall all get to heaven; only assure us there is no danger of that eternal fire, which we have been taught to dread and expect; and only prove it by denouncing the Orthodox, and talking much, in general terms, about the love of God, and all is well." And the methods by which they endeavor to get rid of the doctrine of endless punishment are as various and contradictory as their systems of religion or rather irreligion. Some profess to rely upon the atonement of Christ as securing the salvation of all men. Some expect to escape punishment through some opening made in the remissness of the divine government. Others rely upon the goodness of God. Others assert that all men are punished in the present life. Others hold that future punishment is disciplinary and limited. Others again build their hopes of future blessedness on the ground of fatalism; rather than admit the doctrine of future punishment, they deny the guilt and demerit of sin.

"All things," say they, "happen by an irresistable necessity, and therefore our actions which are denominated sinful are not deserving of punishment, and consequently all men must be happy." And others again deny the conscious existence of the soul in a future state.

Now it will not be expected that I should in one lecture follow these errorists through all their shifts and windings. It would be a task as unprofitable as it would be tedious. I shall therefore only notice some of the more popular and plausible arguments which are urged against the doctrine of endless punishment. And if these can be shown to be fallacious, you will not I trust rest upon those which are more evanescent, and display more of the subtlety of the deceiver who assured the first parents of our race that they should not surely die.

1. Some rely upon the death of Christ as overthrowing the doctrine of endless punishment and securing the salvation of all men. They assert that Christ died for all, and consequently all will be saved; whether willing or unwilling, prepared or unprepared, they must be saved. The death of Christ is an event that holds a most prominent place in the history of man's redemption. The sacred writers have interwoven it with the most interesting considerations and events. It is the centre and soul of the great system of grace revealed in the Bible. It is the common nucleus around which all the great truths of revealed religion cluster.

But the expiatory sacrifice offered by our Saviour on Calvary is no where represented as securing the salvation of all or of any of mankind. The sufferings of Christ have no respect to commutative or to distributative but to public justice. They did not satisfy commutative justice. Though Christ gave himself a ransom for all, and bought us with a price, yet man while under sin is a slave, a prisoner, and a captive. In the death of Christ there was no exchange of benefits. It is not to be regarded in the light of a commercial transaction, where one commodity is exchanged for another. Nor did Christ by his death satisfy distributative justice, since that respects personal character only, and consists in an equal distribution of