sions, yet the very smallest degree will be unspeakable and unconceivable, such as almighty wrath alone can inflict. Then will the miserable wretches seek to return to God; but no place for repentance will be granted. Then shall they cry aloud for mercy; but they have entered a world of retribution, not of trial; their day of grace is past; and Jehovah mocks at their pain. They have incurred an infinite debt of vengeance; eternity itself is but sufficient to punish the irremissable guilt.

Such is a faithful though rather moderate statement of the popular doctrine of endless misery. And it is apparent, at first glance, that its several particulars have a general correspondence with the respective representations in those scriptures which are relied on for its support, and which, for the sake of the argument, we must now take it for granted, relate to eternity. Let the reader look back, and consult them again, and he will see that they assert the alleged process of a general judgment, the retrospective reference of the decision and of the succeeding punishment, and the terrible vehemence of the torment, together with the implacable character of the wrath of Heaven. This, then, is the proper, genuine state of the doctrine. So it has been taught, urged, and declaimed upon, for ages; and so it is held, at the present day, by the common mass of its believers.

But in this state, it is so manifestly the doctrine of infinite cruelty, that many of its staunch advocates themselves quail before its diabolical aspect. They cannot shut their eyes to the immeasurable

disproportion between eternal, almighty torture, and the sins of frail mortals in this momentary life; and if they attempt to cover the injustice of such an infliction, under the plea of divine sovereignty, conscience has something to say of the base and damning malignity of a spirit that perpetuates its revenge on a helpless dependant. In such a dilemma, is has been felt, that there remained but one way to rescue the favorite hypothesis from certain condemnation and that was, by amending it, by prudently sacrificing a part to preserve the general whole, and by shifting it from its native principles to others less shocking to our common sense of propriety.

Accordingly, when pressed upon this point, its defenders now tell us that men will indeed be punished eternally; not however, for sins of this life; for that, it is acknowledged, seems unreasonable; but for sins which the victims will persevere in committing, through the boundless ages of the future world. And since it is right, and even inevitable, that they should suffer so long as they continue transgressors, divine justice is, on this principle, fully vindicated in its everlasting retributions.

"The American Tract Society, the best authority, perhaps, for the present fashion of Orthodoxy in our country, have resorted to this principle. In answer to the objection, that endless suffering, inflicted as a punishment for sin are unjust, they demand, Can you see any injustice in God's leaving creatures, who have voluntarily rebelled against him, to continue in sin forever; and if they continue to sin forever, may not

God justly punish them forever? To this appeal they subjoin the following note: 'Sinners will deserve to be punished as long as they continue to sin. If they sin during the whole of life, they will be exposed to suffering during life: if for a thousand years after death, they will deserve to suffer during that time; if eternally, their punishment will have no end. To disprove the justice of future endless punishment, then, it must be shown, either that sinners will cease to sin, or that God is under obligation to reclaim to obedience beings who are voluntarily engaged in rebellion against him.' (Tract, No. 224. pp. 44, 45,) Before taking leave of the last sentence in this extract, we must, in justice, commend to competent casuists the question, how much strong er is the moral obligation to torture a sinner, than to reclaim him, when both courses are equally practicable?

Dr. Lyman Beecher, a gentleman of some influence among the Orthodox of New England, is reported to have used the following language, in defending the justice of endless misery: Again, we are not punished forever, for the sins of this short life. This is a mistake. Man is a free agent; and free agency extends through eternity. If there is such a thing as free agency, it may exist beyond the grave. The Universalists admit that sin is punished here, if not hereafter. The law, and the subjects of the law, must, in either case, be alike. For if sin exists, it must be purished while it exists; and if it exist forever, the punishment must be endless. The punishment of the eternal state treads upon the heels of eternal transgression. If the soul rebel in its future

state it will be punished 'where the worm never dieth, and the fire is not quenched,'-because sin is its fuel. The doctrine of the Bible is, 'If ye do not repent, ye shall all likewise perish:' if ye do not repent in this life, ye shall never repent. The Bible says not a word about punishing men forever for the evils of this life. Suppose a being to continue in sin,-when he dies, is he fit for heaven? And as he is a free agent, does he not deserve a punishment which never ends?' (Report of Dr. B's Sermon against Universalism, delivered at Dorchester, March 7th, 1830. Boston. pp. 8, 9.)

President Dwight, whose character and attainments give his opinions much weight with the divines of his school, has taken the same ground in combatting the objection, that God cannot justly punish the sins of finite creatures, with infinite or endless punishment. 'God may justly punish sin,' says he, 'so long as it exists; and it may exist forever. He who sins through this life, may evidently sin through another such period, and another, and another, without end.

That

while we continue to sin, God may justly punish us, if he can justly punish us at all, is equally evident.' Such is the principle on which he defended the justice of endless punishment. It may be well to observe, that the American Tract Society, by adopting this plea, have made it their own." (Tract, No. 181, p. 7.)

This, indeed, seems a very happy improvement. Who, now, can question the justice of the act, terrible though it is? But it must not

be overlooked, that here the doctrine is removed entirely from its old hereditary ground, where it has hitherto been so hotly defended. That famous position, the infinite demerit of sin, which was long maintained by the incessant repetition of one solitary scholastic argument, is abandoned; and endless punishment is now to be inflicted only for continued, endless transgression. What have we to say against the hypothesis, when thus explained?

Nothing, except that it ought to have, at least, some degree of affinity with the proofs claimed for its support, instead of being directly repugnant to them. What are they? Why, that the Scriptures assure us, (so it is alleged,) that hereafter, in the final judgment, Christ will consign those on his left hand, to everlasting fire, to everlasting punishment; not because of the sins they may still continue to commit, but for the reason, expressly stated, that they had heretofore, or while in this world, neglected to administer unto him: 'depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink; &c. Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as

ye did it not unto one of the least of these, ye did it not unto me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment'. Accordingly, we are told, it isas plain as language can make it, that they will be punished eternally; not for the sins of this life, it is added, but for those of the future. Let the reader mark this contradiction. Another proof, said to be equally decisive, is, that when the rich man lifted up his eyes in the torments of