bad." Common sense and common justice say, if the sinner is punished on principles of justice, his punishment must be proportioned to his guilt.

2. If the sinner is to be punished according to his works, having his punishment proportioned to the amount of sin he has committed, he must be sentenced to endure a term of punishment of definite length, if it be not endless. If punishment be endless it must be proportioned in degree to suit the degree of the sinner's guilt; but if it be limited in duration, it must be proportioned in length according to the degree of the sinner's guilt, and for a definite amount of sin, the sinner must receive a definite amount of punishment, definite in length.

3. If the sinner is still within the reach of salvation, and under the gospel dispensation, as he must be to be within the reach of gospel salvation, he may repent, believe the gospel and be saved, at any time or not at all, just as sinners are capable of doing in this life. Nothing can be more clear than that the gospel offers salvation in the present tense. Its language is, "to day if you will hear his voice," "now is the accepted time;" "ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters;""in the day that thou seekest me with all thy heart, I will be found of thee." &c. &c. Now, so long as the offers of salvation are held out to the sinner, he may accept at any time and be saved, and when the offers of the gospel shall no longer be held out to the sinner, it will be forever too late for him to secure salvation. From this it must appear, that if the sinner in hell has the offers of salvation he may accept at any time or not at all; for sinners are capable of receiving or rejecting the gospel. If then the sinner be consigned to hell for a term of punishment of definite length, and still have the offers of salvation, he may accept, before the expiration of his term of punishment, or may defer until a period far beyond the expiration of his term of punishment; either of which must involve the divine administration. Suppose then, that the sinner has lived in sin and unbelief fifty years, for which he deserves to be punished fifty years in the future world; that is, he deserves to be punished fifty years for the wrong done in this life. Suppose again that this sinner repent of all his past sins, and turn to God with all his

heart at the expiration of the first year of his term of punishment, which is perfectly a possible case. Now, we have presented to view in this case, an individual, having repented of all his sins, turned to God with all his heart, praying with his eyes lifted to his holy throne; and at the same time this individual is under a sentence of condemnation which dooms him to forty-nine years' suffering in hell, he having been sentenced for fifty years, but one of which has elapsed. What can God himself do with such a case? To punish the sinner longer would be a violation of every principle of the gospel, which alone promises salvation to any of our fallen race. It would be a violation of the promises which God has made to sinners in the gospel. John iii. 28. Christ says, "He that believeth on him is not condemned." But this doctrine of limited punishment, after the day of judgment, says the sinner may believe and still remain under condemnation and suffer for ages. This is a violation of truth and justice both, on the ground that God has promised in the gospel to save when the sinner will accept, saying, "now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation." This shows, beyond all dispute that the offers of the gospel cannot be continued to sinners after the day of judgment. Such a sentence as we have shown will be passed upon sinners at the day of judg ment, cannot take place, and the gospel offers be continued at the same time; for the sentence and the gospel must be directly opposed to each other. The gospel says, now is the accepted time," but the sentence says, now is not the accepted time-the sinner must suffer for fifty years, less or more, before he can be saved. God cannot sentence the sinner to endure a punishment in hell of any length, without contradicting the gospel, which ever offers salvation in the present tense, saying "to day, now," &c. We will now suppose the case to be a different one. Suppose the sinner to be judg' worthy of fifty years' punishment in hell, as above stated, and that this term expires and the sinner remains impenitent still. This is a possible case; for if sinners have the offers of the gospel in the future world, they may reject them. This view presents us with the case of a sinner, who has been sentenced to endure a term of punishment of defirite length, and having endured it all, he is impenitent, and

66

just as unholy and unfit for heaven as he was the moment God passed sentence upon him. Now, we ask what God can do with such a character? He cannot take him to heaven, for he is an impenitent sinner, and morally unfit for the society of the blest; and he cannot keep him longer in hell, for he has already suffered all he deserved to suffer, and all that the divine sentence determined he should suffer; hence, to keep him longer in hell must be unjust. Should it be said, in reply to this, that though the sinner in this case has suf fered all the punishment due to the sin committed in this life, for which only he was judged, yet he now deserves to be punished longer, for the sin which he has committed since the judgment, during the period of his punishment in hell, and therefore he may remain longer in hell on principles of justice, we reply,

1. This would require another judgment, and another sentence, of which the scriptures are entirely silent.

2. If it be admitted that the sinner is responsible, and liable to punishment for his conduct in hell, it will involve him in an eternal necessity of remaining in sin and punishment.

We have supposed the sinner to deserve fifty years' punishment, for having spent fifty years in sin, in this life. Now, nothing can be more plain than that this fifty years spent in punishment can form no part of the sinner's obedience; for the law no where requires suffering, as a duty, but inflicts it as a penalty for having failed of our duty. If then it be admitted that the sinner is reponsible for these fifty years spent in punishment, it cannot be denied that at the expiration of this term of punishment, the sinner will be just as guilty as at its commencement; and on this principle one age of punishment will only prepare the sinner to enter upon another ad infi

nitum.

Should it be said, in reply to the above arg hent, that God will bring the sinner to repentance by irresistible grace at the expiration of his term of punishment, we reply, that if it be consistent with the principles of the divine government irresistibly to save sinners, it would appear more to the advantage of the divine wisdom and benevolence, to save sinners in the commencement of their career, and thereby prevent an age of suffering in hell. It must appear evident that

God can as easily save a sinner from going to hell as he can save him from hell after he has fallen into the gulf of perdition, especially if it is to be done by irresistible grace.

XIV. If sinners in the future world are still subjects of grace and salvation, they must be subjects of prayer also, and we should pray for the dead as constantly and fervently as for the living. The Romish church does offer prayers for the dead, and, if the doctrine of universal restoration be true, they must be correct in this, however erroneous they may be in relation to other matters. Among all the Restorationers we ever heard pray, we never heard one offer a petition for his brethren, who have gone to try the realities of the future world, and are, like the rich man lifting up their eyes in hell, (hades) being in torment. If they really believe that sinners in the future world are still subjects of grace and salvation, why do they not pray for the death of the worm that never dies, and that the fire may be quenched, which shall never be quenched?

CHAPTER VII.

A Reply to the Arguments employed by Universalists. HAVING closed the argument in favour of our own theory, we will devote a brief chapter to the consideration of the arguments of our opponents Universalists generally argue in the use of negative propositions, which are intended to prove that certain points are not true; yet they sometimes advance direct arguments, in proof of the doctrine of Universal Salvation, and to the principal of these we will now offer a reply. We may not consider them in the same order in which a universalist would state them; but as universalists have no standard work, in which their sentiments are stated, and the arguments by which they pretend to prove them, systematically arranged, we shall have to pursue the order which to us appears most consistent.

I. Universalists argue the salvation of all men from the perfections of God. Ås there are several arguments professedly drawn from the divine perfections, we will first offer

some general remarks on the uncertainty of any conclusions drawn from the divine attributes, on this subject, and then notice each argument separately. Rev. Mr. Morse, in a controversial letter published in The Christian Advocate and Journal, Vol. VIII. No. 2. holds the following language: "The attributes of God form the basis of religious truth." To this we object, and make our appeal to the word of God for a decision on all points of faith and practice. This we do on the ground that the attributes of God, aside from revelation and matter of fact, do not furnish sufficient data from whence to deduce conclusions concerning man's future destiny. In support of this position we offer the following considerations:

1. God cannot make a full revelation of himself; to us, in view of our want of capacity to comprehend infinity. The attributes of God can be fully known only to himself; hence, any conclusions drawn from the divine perfections, are deductions drawn from premises which we do not understand, and our conclusions must be as uncertain as our knowledge of the premises is imperfect We do not say that we cannot know what some of the divine perfections are; God has revealed to us that he is almighty, wise, just, holy and good; but we cannot so understand these perfections, as to be able to determine from them, aside from scripture and matter of fact, what is, and what is not, consistent with them. We can determine what is, and what is not, consistent with the attributes of God, only by what we see actually exist, or from what God has said in the scriptures. If universalists will prove from the bible that all men will be saved, we shall be bound to admit that it is consistent with the divine perfections to save, in a future world, those who only abuse his mercies in this, and die in unbelief and contempt of his authority; and if we can prove from the scriptures, that some men will be endlessly miserable, universalists must be bound to admit that endless punishment is consistent with the divine attributes, though they may not be able to see any reason in the divine attributes why it should be so. That we cannot discover what is, and what is not, consistent with the divine perfections is clear, from the simple fact that providence has already developed many things for which we can see no rea