sufferer. We deny this proposition and offer the following reasons for so doing.

1. There is no evidence to support it. That the scriptures teach that God does sometimes correct with a view to the reformation of the subject we heartily admit; but such corrective dispensations are mostly confined to those who are the people of God, in distinction from others, and are always limited to this life, during which sinners are in a gracious state of probation. Because God corrects his children to render them more fruitful, or because he punishes sinners during their day of gracious probation, to bring them to repentance, to infer from thence that all punishment, under all circumstances, is designed to reform the sufferer, is to draw a conclusion much broader than the premises from whence it is deduced. The following is one of the principal texts produced in proof of the point in question, when any effort is made to prove it from the word of God. Lam. iii. 33. "For he doth not afflict wil-. lingly, nor grieve the children of men." It must be perfectly plain that the Prophet, in this text, has exclusive reference to the afflictions of the Babylonish captivity; hence the subjects of the punishment were God's covenant people, and the time of its infliction was this life, therefore the prophet says, verse 39, "Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins." Now because God punished the Israelites for their idolatry with a view to their reformation, to infer from thence that sinners in hell are punished with no other design than their own benefit, is preposterous. But allow all that can possibly be claimed, namely, that the text relates to all sinners, proving that God punishes no sinner willingly, and still it will not furnish the least shadow of proof that all punishment is designed to reform the sufferer. If God punishes men not willingly, because he sees it is for their good, he may on the same principle punish them endlessly, because he sees that it is for the good of the whole moral system. Those who believe in the doctrine of endless punishment are very far from supposing that God inflicts any punishment, limited or endless, unnecessarily. There is then no evidence that all punishment is designed to reform the sufferer.

2. We object to the sentiment that all punishment is corrective, on the ground that it entirely overlooks the sinner's

desert. What the sinner deserves as a just punishment for his sins, and what he needs as a remedy for his spiritual disease, are two distinct points vastly different from each other. Taking this view, to suppose that all punishment is designed to make the sinner better, is to say that he deserves no punishment as a reward for his sin, but only needs it as a remedy for his disease. If all punishment is designed to benefit the sufferer, he can receive no more nor less of it than will really do him good; hence, the amount of punishment which the sinner is liable to endure, does not in the least depend upon what he deserves, but wholly upon what he needs. This is unscriptural, because the scriptures uniformly represent the sinner as guilty and deserving of punishment, and his punishment as a curse and real evil. Let us compare this sentiment with a few scriptural expressions. Gal. iii. 13. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." By the curse of the law must be meant punishment. Now, if all punishment be designed to reform the sinner, then, Christ has redeemed us from what would have done us good, and from what God designed as the means of bringing us to repentance and salvation. Matt. iii. 7. "Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come." Wrath here must mean

punishment, and if this is designed to make men better, the text should read, "who hath warned you to flee from what is designed by God to do you good, and make you better." Rom. iv. 15. "The law worketh wrath." Is not the law then the most efficient agent in man's salvation, if wrath be intended to effect it? Rom. v. 9. "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." As wrath is punishment, and as punishment is designed to make us better, on the above principle, this text must teach that Christ saves us from what is designed by God as the means of salvation from sin. 1 Thess. i. 10. "Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come;" that is, from a merciful remedy for our spiritual disease. 2 Thess. i. 9. "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." What then is everlasting destruction with which the sinner is threatened? Awful to relate! it is the only efficient and gracious means which God can employ to make sinners good and happy! Can any one in the light of these scriptures say that the

Bible threatens no punishment only as a gracious discipline, and effectual remedy for the intellectual and moral disease of the sinner? Such a sentiment is not only unscriptural, but it is unreasonable and an insult to common sense. The sinner is represented as being punished according to his works, not according to his wants. Every man is represented as receiving "according to that he hath done in the body," and not. according to that which is necessary to save him. Christ says, "Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me to give unto every man according as his works shall be,” not according to what is necessary to bring him unto repentance. Again the sinner is said to be cursed, to be punished, to endure wrath, wrath without mixture, indignation, fiery indignation, to perish, to be destroyed, &c. Now, if all these mean no more than what is for the sinner's good-no more than what is essential to his best interest-no more than what unmingled mercy deals out as the most tender physician administers a bitter medicine to a patient, there were never greater misnomers. Then are wrath and love the same; then between vengeance and mercy there is no difference; then is punishment the means of salvation from sin, the cause of punishment, and an effect proves a remedy for its own cause; then is a curse a blessing, and death leads to life!

3. To suppose that all punishment is designed to bring the sinner to salvation, entirely overlooks the atonement of Christ, the efficacy of the gospel, and the influence of the Holy Ghost. As we have shown, in a preceding chapter, that there will be a day of general judgment when sentence will be passed upon sinners, it follows that if punishment is still inflicted with a design to reform the sufferer, it must be as a last resort, after all other means have failed. It must be perfectly plain that all the means connected with the gospel must be resisted by the sinner before the judgment, for it is for rejecting these that he is punished; hence, if punishment be inflicted after judgment, to reform the offender, it must be a last resort. This supposes punishment to be more efficacious than all other means. The gospel is preached without effect, the story of the Father's love and of the Redeemer's suffering, are insufficient to reclaim the hardened sinner; and the Holy Ghost woos him, but wins him not.

Now, if after all this the sinner is to be reformed by punishment, then must wrath do more towards winning the sinner than mercy; then must hell fire do more towards reforming transgressors than the blood of Christ, the preaching of the gospel, and the Holy Ghost combined; and then must the sinner be more indebted to hell torments for his reformation than to all other means which God employs to bring sinners to repen

tance..

4. To contend that all punishment is designed to reform the sufferer is to abandon one of the main principles of universalism, viz. that love is the only proper incentive to obedience. Oft have their presses teemed with this sentiment; oft have their pulpits resounded with the unmingled delight of that sentiment which triumphs over all fear of punishment, and with sarcastic declamations on the slavish fear and perpetual horror of darkness, which must pervade the minds of those who believe in an endless hell. As a mere specimen of these very lofty strains, we will introduce the following from Mr. Morse's reply to the Rev. J. Parker, page 20. Concerning those who believe the doctrine of endless punment Mr. M. enquires as follows: "We are induced to ask, do christians worship the true God, who is good to all,' or do they worship a moloch burning with immortal vengeance, and pouring the sulphureous streams of never ending wrath on millions of his own creatures." This quotation clearly shows how universalists treat the views of those who appeal to the fears of sinners to excite them to repentance from a dread of the punishment which awaits them; and yet by holding to the corrective design and nature of punishment, as they do, they make this very dread of punishment the strongest incentive to repentance that can be brought to bear upon fallen spirits. Punishment becomes the sinner's last safe hope, which will surround him and force him in when he shall have broken through every other barrier in his course to ruin. Thus we see that no class of people declaims so vehemently against the fear of punishment, as an incentive to obedience, as universalists do, and yet no class depends so much upon its efficiency in effecting the sinner's salvation. In this they are inconsistent with themselves. They must cease to urge the corrective design and nature of punishment, or 23*

else give up one of their first principles, viz. that love is the only incentive to obedience, and preach hell torments and the horrors of the damned as the means of bringing sinners to repentance.

5. If it were admitted that all punishment is designed to reform the sufferer, still it would not prove the salvation of all men. The gospel is designed to bring sinners to repentance, and yet it does not effect this object universally; for if it did, there would be no necessity of corrective punishment, and if so, punishment, though designed to reform the sufferer, may, notwithstanding, fail to secure this end. The scriptures unequivocally teach that sinners sometimes harden themselves and grow worse under the dispensations of divine punishment as has been shown, Chapter VI. Argument V. Taking this view, we see that if it were admitted that all punishment is designed to reform the sufferer, still his reformation would remain a matter of uncertainty.

III. Universalists sometimes argue the salvation of all men from the universality of the atonement made by Christ. They contend, that as Christ died for all men, all will be saved. So far as this argument is urged by that class of universalists who deny all future punishment, it possesses no force, and is undeserving a reply; for they deny the atonement outright, and contend that the death of Christ does not save sinners from one pang of deserved suffering, that every man suffers for all the sin he commits. Now, we ask if the death of Christ does not save sinners from the least degree of deserved punishment, how can his death for all men disprove the endless punishment of obdurate sinners? But this argument, when urged by restorationers appears somewhat plausible, and is entitled to serious consideration. We admit the premises, that Christ died for all men, but deny the conclusion, that all will therefore be saved. The fallacy of the argument consists in supposing that the death of Christ unconditionally and absolutely secures the object for which he died. If it be shown that the death of Christ does not absolutely secure the object for which he died, the argument vanishes at once, and universal salvation will not necessarily follow from a universal atonement. Now, it is a sufficient reply to any argument, or a sufficient refutation of any principle, to show that it con