Hence, the apostle tells us he cannot deny himself;' and again, that it is impossible for God to lie.'

With the signification of the term love, we are all familiar. It is an affection or fondness of the heart for some particular object; as that which the parent feels for the child, and the child for the parent; the husband and the wife, the brother and the sister for each other; and that which usually exists between persons of congenial feelings and dispositions. Although the principle of love is the same, whatever may be its object, yet it receives different appellations, accordingly as it is called into exercise by different objects. Thus we are accustomed to speak of parental, filial, conjugal, fraternal, and social affection, or love, according to the object on which it is placed. This definition applies altogether to love as it exists in man, or as it is exercised by him; and is not properly applicable to the love of God. Man exercises the principle of love in consequence of something which he beholds, or thinks he sees in the object calculated to promote his interest, or increase his happiness. God can be influenced by no such motive. In man it is often, if not universally, prompted by self interest; but in God it is entirely disinterested. In us it frequently degenerates into lust and sordid passion; in him it is ever pure and holy. In us it exists in a very small degree, and operates in an imperfect manner; in him it is perfect and unbounded in degree and operation. In us it is liable to changes, interruptions, and finally to become extinct; but in him it admits

of no change, and can never end.

God's love

is parental, in the highest and most perfect sense of the word; and he has therefore appealed to the warm affections of a mother for her infant, to convey to our minds a proper and feeling sense of his love for his children. As he stands in the relation of Father to the whole creation, his love is universal, or unbounded; and seeks the good of all rational and sentient beings.

Truth is also ascribed to God as a divine attribute; and hence he is said to be a 'God of truth.' Perhaps the most simple manner in which truth can be defined, is to call it a perfect conformity to things, facts, and principles, as they really exist. If, in making a statement of facts, we conform our language to the facts stated, we are said to speak truth; and if we make a promise, and perform it acording to its terms, we give a true promise. From the premises now laid down we may deduce this allimportant proposition,-whatever God has revealed to us, either mediately through his works, or immediately in the scriptures, is immutably true; and whatever he has promised he will assuredly perform.

Divine justice will next claim our attention; and as this is the attribute of Deity on which the doctrine of endless punishment is supposed, by its advocates, more particularly to be founded, it will require a more full and particular investigation. Justice, when applied to man, consists in' giving to every man what is his due.' the administration of justice by civil judicatories,

In

it is as necessary to give to every one what of right belongs to him, as to inflict punishment on the guilty, to award to individuals property which has been unjustly taken, or witholden from them, or an equivalent for it, as it is to punish the person who has taken it. But when this attribute is contemplated in our heavenly Father, it is supposed, by too many, to consist altogether in the infliction of punishment. The justice of God has been considered two-fold, retributive, and vindictive. Retribution signifies 'repayment,' or 'return accommodated to the action.' A righteous retribution from God to man is not only a plain doctrine of the scriptures, but one which is conformable to reason, and our own experience. God is a God that judgeth in the earth; and not only the righteous' but the wicked and the sinner' are justly pensed' by him. None can transgress his laws with impunity; and none can obey them from the heart, without receiving an adequate reward. The righteous man, therefore, is as much entitled, in justice, to that peace of mind, and freedom from condemnation, which are the rewards of obedience, as the sinner is to the guilt and condemnation which are the consequences of unrighteousness.

' recom

It is acknowledged that all the punishments which God inflicts in this world are emendatory; or, in other words, that they are of the nature and character of parental chastisements, and intended for the reformation of the sinner. But in the coming and eternal world, we are told it will be different; for although the punishment

which will be there inflicted will be altogether more severe, and the suffering more intense than what can be endured in this life, yet it will not be intended for the good of the sufferer, and consequently, the justice which inflicts it will be vindictive. I can conceive of no sentiment more abhorrent to all the better feelings of the human heart than this. Vindictive justice is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. By vindictiveness we understand a revengeful temper or disposition of mind; and we have not the least hesitation in pronouncing such a spirit in man, most odious and detestable. Revenge always presupposes an injury received, either real or imaginary; and the reception of an injury as necessarily presupposes imperfection or weakness; otherwise there could be no liability to receive such injury. To say, therefore, that God can receive an injury, is to say he is imperfect; and to say he does, or can exercise vindictive wrath or anger, is to degrade his character to the level of the wild and ferocious savage, who exults in the groans and agonies of his expiring foe. Yea, it sinks him far below this level; for the most merciless savage could never be induced to inflict such tortures upon his offspring as we are taught the 'God of love' will inflict on his own children. Away, then, with this horrid and blasphemous sentiment; and let us no longer dignify with the name of justice that barbarous principle which at best can only claim the appellation of revenge, cruelty, and unfeeling ferocity.

We have considered the justice of God as retributive; and it has been show that this view

of it is both scriptural and reasonable. But I conceive this definition is not sufficiently full and explicit to give us a perfect view, or understanding of this divine attribute; and for this reason I shall proceed to introduce some others, which have been given by learned and eminent writers, and which have been generally received as correct. Perhaps there is no definition of divine justice which has been more generally received than that which represents it as goodness directed by wisdom. This will hold good with respect to parental justice in man, as well as in God; and can therefore be clearly defined. The natural love of a parent for his child will prompt him at all times to do those things which tend to promote the happiness of the beloved object. If the parent consulted only the present enjoyment of the child, he would withhold from him nothing which would contribute to present delight; but his wisdom, imperfect as it is, teaches him that some indulgencies which cause present pleasure will produce future suffering; and consequently, justice to his child impels him to withhold them. Such however is the imperfection of human wisdom, that many of our acts towards our children, though prompted by the best of motives, often operate to their injury or injustice. But not so with our heavenly Father; his unbounded parental goodness is directed by unerring wisdom; and consequently, in this view of his justice, no act of his can be a real, or final injury to any of his children. How then, I ask, can the infliction of endless suffering, without the least design of