(97)

CONVERSATION IV.

THE nature and duration of punishment-the magnitude of sin-and the terms everlasting, forever, unquenchable fire, undying worm, &c. considered. See book of Job xxii, v; Matthew xxv, 46; and Mark ix, 43-49. The meaning of kolasis, aion, aionios, &c.-The rule by which to know, whether everlasting is used in a limited or unlimited sense. - Dr. Clarke's criticism examined. The strongest terms by which final happiness is represented. The fire of the lowest hell. Deut. xxxii, 25; Isaiah lxvi, 24, and xxxiv, 9-11, compared with Rev. xiv, 11.—God a consuming fire. Heb. xii, 29.

Inquirer. The subject which I propose for consideration this evening, is, the nature and duration of punishment. And now, friend Universalist, if you are able to reconcile the scripture declarations concerning "everlasting punishment," with the doctrine of Universal Salvation, you will remove one great obstacle from my pathway. But I suspect you will find it difficult to accomplish that object.

In

In the first place, I maintain that it is the design of punishment, to reward the sinner according to his desert, instead of his interest. other words, it is the nature of punishment to vindicate the honor of God, by magnifying his holy, violated law, without regard to the welfare of the punished. Sin, therefore, being an infinite evil, deserves endless punishment.

Universalist. Sin an infinite evil? And is not endless punishment an infinite evil, also?The meaning is, then, that an infinite evil deserves an infinite evil! which is a solecism. sin itself were an infinite evil, it would render the

If

punishment unnecessary, since there would be evil enough to satisfy infinite cruelty without it. But if you mean that the sinner inflicts unbounded evil on some other being, and the divine lawgiver retaliates on him, by the infliction of similar evil, you make a bad matter worse; because it ascribes the same disposition to God, which renders the sinner infinitely criminal. It represents the Deity as causing an infinite evil, without the intention or possibility of doing any good and no sinner in the universe could do worse. This is "rendering evil for evil," in an unlimited degree. You certainly would not advocate that merciless sentiment. Nor can 1 believe you will persist in the notion, that sin is strictly infinite; and if it is not, it does not deserve endless punishment, or any degree of suffering, inconsistent with the final reformation and good of the punished. No law, which "is just, and holy, and good," can be magnified by the infliction of unnecessary and cruel tortures.

Inq. But sin is said to be infinite in the Bible. Here is proof to that point: Job xxii, 5. "Is not thy wickedness great? and thine iniquities infinite?" Iniquities mean the same as sins. I perceive you smile, Sir, but I have quoted the text correctly.

Uni. O yes, you have recited the passage as it is. I was pleased to see what authority you had produced to establish the doctrine of sin's infinity. You might just as easily prove, that "stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant;" that our Saviour was "a deceiver," "a gluttonous man and a wine bibber," and "cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of

devils;" that "John had a devil," and the apostles were "pestilent fellows and blasphemers." All these things are named in the same volume from which you have quoted. But as it happens, they are false accusations, like the charge which Eliphaz brought against pious Job. If the allegations which are preferred against the "perfect and upright man, one who feared God and eschewed evil," are true, he was a fit companion "for thieves and robbers." He was accused of being such an unprincipled wretch, as to take a pledge from his brother for nought, strip the naked of the shreds of worn-out garments, refuse water to the weary, withhold bread from the hungry, send widows away unblest, and break the arms of the fatherless; bringing on himself trouble' and darkness! I am astonished that the clergy should set so bad an example, as to credit such ridiculous slanders against a character, which they venerate as vastly their superior. Nothing but an idolatrous attachment to the doctrine of infinite sin, could have made them overlook these startling circumstances. Carefully examine the whole chapter, and you will see the impropriety of giving any credit to the allegations of the Temanite.

Inq. Indeed, I never thought of these facts before. And if this is the only text in which sin is represented as infinite, I must yield the point,

at once.

Uni. The matter is settled then, of course. The word infinite, is found but three times in the received translation of the Bible, and once only, in its true and unlimited sense. In Psalm cxlvii, 5, it is said, "The understanding of the LORD is

infinite." Here the word is used in its proper acceptation. And even Job's accuser could not be so unreasonable as to mean, that his iniquities were infinite, like the understanding of the Almighty. But in the book of Nahum iii, 9, it is written, that "populous No, situate among the rivers," had "Egypt and Ethiopia for her strength, and it was infinite ;" but not as God is infinite in strength! The words infinite, great, mighty, &c. must be understood with limitations, when ascribed to any finite being. You will not fail to perceive, therefore, that the notion of infinite or unlimited criminality, is as unscriptural as it is unreasonable.

Inq. Well, what say you of the nature of punishment? It is recorded in Matt. xxv, 46, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment." These are the words of Jesus, who well understood the meaning, force, extent, and limitation of the terms he used. If we arrive at a clear definition of punishment, as here named, it will apply to all other texts, which speak on the same subject.

Uni, Igrant, Sir, that our Lord employed the word punishment in its true sense, and that when we get at his real meaning, we must go no farther. Nor shall we have a wish to, as you will soon perceive, unless we are determined to maintain the dogmas of men, at the expense of the truth of God.

Our first object is, to obtain clear and correct views of the nature of punishment, as a means in the Divine administration. By a course of fair reasoning we must come to the conclusion, that howsoever long and severe the punishment might

be, inflicted by an infinitely Good Being, it must have been designed for wise and benevolent ends. All punishment or sufferings inflicted for sin, may be resolved into two kinds, namely, the punishment of benevolence, and of revenge. To punish, therefore, from the impulse of benevolence, would mean, to inflict pain, for the purpose of preventing evil and doing good, or restraining sin and reforming the sinner. But to punish, or torture, from the impulse of revenge, would imply, the infliction of pain, with the view of gratifying an unholy passion, and doing injury, or to ! cherish sin and injure the sinner, by confirming him in vice and misery. These positions are undeniable, providing the word punishment can have such a latitude of meaning, as to be applied to the gratification of revenge. Now I hardly need remind you, that the punishment which is designed to do good, cannot, in the nature of things, be endless. And who, in the day-light of these facts, would be so blasphemous, as to ascribe merciless revenge to the Giver of every good and perfect gift? A kind father punishes a refracto- ' ry child, to answer the ends of parental benevo- - · lence; but a cruel savage punishes or tortures a captive enemy, to gratify merciless revenge.

The contrast between benevolence and revenge, has, by this time, I trust, been made sufficiently obvious; if so, you will discover that all punishment, inflicted by the Author of human existence, must be intended to correct the sinner, overcome evil, and do good. And, to "overcome evil with good," in the various ways in which it may be done, is no less an object in the divine administration, than an important branch of chris

4