Page images
PDF
EPUB

unto heaven to boast of any thing he had done, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner; O be merciful to all sinners. "O thou that hearest prayer, unto Thee shall all flesh come." Which was the most acceptable prayer?

SERMON V.

"Shall not the judge of all the earth do right," Gen. 18. 25.

unan

Mr. P. says, "since we have proved from several unanswerable arguments, that God will punish some men eternally; we may infer with perfect safety, shat eternal punishment is strictly and properly His assertion that his arguments are just." swerable, does not make them so. If he can read what we have written in reply to him, and then say he thinks his arguments unanswerable, we are mistaken in the man. It is true, our arguments may not appear to others as they do to us-therefore we think it better to leave the decision to be made by others, than to make it ourselves. We admit it might be safely inferred that eternal punishment is just, if it had been proved "that God will punish some men eternally." But we are perfectly satisfied that Mr. P's attempt was an entire failure.

We do not object to the similitude of a supposed man of affliction, used by Mr. P. On the contrary we think it is necessary, not only to know the truth, but to know how it applies to our particular case, as far as may be practicable.

Mr. P. says it is not our object in this lecture, to prove that God is just in the eternal punishment of the wicked. We have proved that he will inflict it, and we take it for granted that the judge of all the earth will do right." We will here meet assertion with assertion-and confidently appeal to the

arguments we have used on this important question. We say Mr. P. has not proved that God will inflict endless punishment on any portion of mankind.

His fifth lecture is designed to show "the consistency of eternal punishment with perfect justice." He says "If we fail altogether, it is still a fact that God will punish the wicked eternally &c." This we think, should be altered thus, If we fail altogether, it is still a fact that God will not punish the wicked eternally &c.

Mr. P. says "if our theory should not be perfectly satisfactory, yet the threatenings of God will be executed, and the justice of his proceedings will finally be made manifest." This we fully believe. We think all the threatenings of God will certainly be executed: but he has never threatened endless misery to man.

[ocr errors]

that we

Again he says "For the same reason, rebuke the rashness of those who would reason from the justice of God against the punishment which he has declared he will inflict &c." This is uncandid. Universalists would not reason from the justice of God against the punishment which he has declared he will inflict-we do not believe God has ever dedared he will inflict endless punishment. Our opponents have affirmed, times without number, that God has threatened endless punishment; but they have never adduced any proof of that affirmationand we think they never will, because they can never find such proof in the bible.

Mr. P. says "All punishment is designed to support the authority of a violated law." If that be the only design of punishment, how does it differ from

I

retaliation? We think punishment is not only designed to support the authority of law, but also to reclaim the offender. This latter object is never overlooked by any good being who has authority to punish and ability to reclaim. The only reason why human laws ever throw away human life, and thus evidently disregard the good, or reformation of the offender, in this life, is, because men do not pos sess the power to control the heart, or reclaim the offender. We seriously question the rectitude of those sanguinary laws, by which the lives of criminals are ruthlessly destroyed-laws which have the sanction of barbarous ages-but are evidently not required by the dictates of humanity-the temporal welfare and reformation of the criminal-the safety of community-nor the mild gospel of Christ. But this is not the time,nor place to discuss this question The evil of sin should "be so turned upon the transgressor, that his punishment shall exert a counter influence against the influence of his crime:" but this may be effectually done without eternally excluding the sinner from enjoyment. That "we have laws enacted against various crimes, with penalties differing from one another" shows that common sense teaches mankind that there are different degrees in criminality-consequently, it is fair to conclude that no sin is of infinite demerit.

1. Mr. P. says "there are good reasons for thinking that no other penalty to the divine law could produce so much holiness and happiness in the universe, as eternal punishment." A most curious position indeed! If eternal punishment would produce more holiness and happiness in the universe, than could be

derived from any other penalty to the divine law why should not all mankind be punished eternally, that the full benefits of eternal misery might be received by all the creatures of God? If it be said, the endless misery of some is necessary to the highest happiness of others; I reply; that is begging the question. Where is the evidence that God cannot make some of his creatures as happy without, as with the never ceasing misery of others? That evidence does not exist-the supposition is a mere subterfuge. Mr. P's. position seems to admit that the production of the greatest holiness and happiness in the universe, is an object most worthy of the divine Being. How strangely the minds of men are blinded by their prejudices! Is it not intuitively certain that the greatest degree of holiness and happiness in the intelligent universe cannot be produced without the perfect and endless felicity of every rational being? Does it require a labored argument to show that a part is less than the whole?

It is

perfectly clear that a punishment designed to effect the reformation of sinners-a punishment accomplishing that design, and admitting of the ultimate reception of eternal life by every sinner, would produce far more holiness and happiness in the universe, than could be produced by eternal punishment. Eternal punishment would be an eternal diminution of the felicity of the moral universe. Mr. P. says "there is something in the thought of punishment's being final and remediless, which gives it more influence over the mind than all other considerations put together." How does this sentiment accord with what he advanced in a preceding discourse? In his third

« EelmineJätka »