necessary to procure for men, positive happiness after thei amendment, I answer, that, as, by the supposition, every human being, either in this world or in the next, satisfies the law, i. e. endures the penalty, which the law threatens, he is, for ought,which appears, as fair a candidate for happiness by the law, as Adam was at the first moment of his probation. In regard to the law, he is perfectly right. If you tell him, that he once broke the law, he allows it; but immediately rejoins, that he has paid the penalty. If a person has, this day, dis charged a debt of ten years standing, he is as completely free from his creditor, as he was before the debt was contracted. If a person has been punished for some crime, by imprisonment, when the term of his confinement is expired, he is as completely under the protection of the law, as any individual in the community. So, if men satisfy the law by that suffering which corrects their vices and reduces them to obedience, one can, by no means see, how the atonement of Christ should be necessary to render them happy.

VI. If no punishment is just, but that which is disciplinary, it is evident, that offences can never be punished on account of the injury, which they occasion either to other individuals, or to the community. In civil governments, a man is not to be branded or imprisoned for dishonesty, be cause this crime renders property insecure, and exposes the owners to want the incendiary is not to be punished to prevent houses from being set on fire, and their inhabitants from being consumed in the flames; the murderer is not to suffer the penalty of the law, because he has shed human blood,— brought distress on a family, and terror to the public; but solely for his own advantage. The magistrate, unmindful of the public good, is to keep but one thing in view; and that is the good of the criminal.

Further, if this opinion were true, the Deity himself must proceed on the same principles. He must never punish envy, hatred, malice, and impiety, because these crimes are hateful in themselves, and dishonorable to his gov

ernment, and injurious to his creatures. He must place, and preserve the sinner precisely in that situation where his individual happiness would be most advanced, whatever injury may be sustained by other beings, or even by the universe itself. How perfectly inconsistent these things would be with the common feelings and judgment of mankind, needs not to be shown.

Nor is the opinion under consideration, more opposed to human judgment, than it is to scripture. Let any one read the divine declarations concerning the future punishment of ungodly men, and say, whether they describe merely parental dicipline, designed only for the recovery and final felicity of the sufferer. "Fear not them, who kill the body and after that have no more, that they can do: but fear him, who, when he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. What is a man profited, if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or, what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" The wicked, it is said, "shall be punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power. If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment, I will render vengeance to mine enemies; and will reward them that hate me." Christ it is said, "shall be revealed from heaven, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them, who know not God." The apostle speaks of "a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the former is represented, as requesting, that the latter might be sent to afford some alleviation to his extreme sufferings. Here was the fairest opportunity to suggest the sentiment, which we endeavor to oppose. Why did not Abraham say, what was well known to him, if this sentiment be just, "Your punishment is designed for your amendment; and, as soon as you repent, it will expire. After which, you will participate the same felicity and glory, which are now enjoyed by the saints." Instead of this Abraham replied, "Between

us and you, there is a great gulf fixed; so that they, who would pass from hence to you, cannot; neither can they pass to us, who would come from thence."

But it has lately been suggested, that there is something in scripture phraseology, which favors the idea of disciplinary punishment. "The word xolately, rendered to punish, in Matt. 25, and other places, properly signifies, we are told, correction, inflicted for the benefit of the offender." That this criticism has no foundation; and that this word has the same general signification, as our English word, punish, will appear by the following evidence. In the first Olynthiac of Demosthenes, speaking of those who should be found iniquitous in the war against Philip, he advises, that they should be punished, τους δ' αδικουντας κολαξειν, Considering the manner, in which the Athenians were in the habit of punishing such delinquents, frequently with death, it is impossible to suppose, that the orator is speaking of correction, inflicted for the offenders benefit. Surely persons were not put to death for their own advantage. Lysias, in his oration against Eratosthenes, advises, in regard to the thirty tyrants, that they should be punished by death. No one can doubt the meaning of this passage or imagine, that Lysias was recommending means, by which the oppressors of Athens might improve their morals. The use of the terms, in the New Testament, which are translated punishment and to pun ish is by no means such as to support the criticism, against which we object.

LECTURE XXIII.

-:000:

Eternity of future Punishment.

PREVIOUSLY to bringing forward the positive proof, which supports the doctrine of endless punishment, it may be necessary to notice the two following objections, in addition to those, which were considered in the last lecture.

I. It is believed by some, that those passages of scripture, which speak of the wicked, as being consumed, destroyed &c. do not relate to the persons, but to the crimes of men. By such passages they understand, that the vices and bad dispositions of men will be destroyed, while men themselves, thus happily delivered from guilt, will be raised to partake of honor, and life eternal. If this sentiment be true, you perceive, that the persons of the wicked will not only not receive eternal punishment, but will receive no punishment at all.

To show the absurdity of this opinion, many words cannot be required. The language, in which the laws of God are expressed, is, in general, similar to that which is used by human legislators. In civil laws, the crime is stated, and the punishment attached to it. Persons, who steal,

rob, or break open houses, shall be imprisoned, placed in the pillory, set on the gallows, or punished with death. So the laws of God, as stated in the divine oracles, are, “The soul, that sinneth, it shall die.-He, that believeth not on the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.-Except ye repent, ye shall all perish.-The wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment."

Now, should we allow, for a moment, that there is no absurdity in the idea of punishing sins, in the abstract, it would still be evident, that the language of scripture no more favors such an opinion, than the language of human laws. And a person, taking up a book of statutes, might as well understand, that neither dishonest persons, nor theives, nor murderers were threatened; but only knavery, theft, and murder in the abstract, as he could understand the scriptures to threaten sin, and not the sinner.

We ought not, at any time, but especially when attempting to explain the scriptures, to use language without ideas. Now, let it be inquired, what is meant by those, who say, that the sins of wicked men, and not wicked men themselves, will be punished, thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, the place, prepared for the devil and his angels? It is no more conceivable, that sins, abstracted from their authors, should be punished in another state, than in the present. Suppose then, that one person threatens the life of another; the guilty person goes free; but the threatening itself is taken to prison, or perhaps is required to give bonds for good behavior. Another person is guilty of for gery; he himself is to be acquitted; but the crime is to be branded or condemned to hard labor. A third person guilty of perjury; the person himself goes free, as in the former cases; but the perjury is punished with imprisonment, perpetual infamy or death. That reflecting persons should be satisfied, when the most alarming denunciations of scripture are explained in a manner, so palpably absurd, is not within the limits of possibility.

is