* grow necessarily out of accountability; and all the punishments inflicted by God are founded upon the same principle. Now if it be cruel in God to punish men according to their deeds in a future state, it is equally so in the present. And on the other hand, if punishment apportioned to our deserts, inflicted in this world, be not only just, but merciful, then punishment founded on the same principles, will be just and merciful in a future state. We do not pretend that punishment in a future state, differs either in nature or design from punishment inflicted in this world. Men after death are not punished on the principles of revenge or retaliation, but with a design to humble and reform; or, in other words, to qualify the creature for the enjoyment of happiness. We do not believe that those will be punished in a future state, who have been duly punished, and have become penitent here; no-this discipline will be experienced by none but those who have not been equitably recompensed in this state, and who go out of the world in rebellion. Now on this view of the subject, what reasonable objection can be brought against a future, disciplinary punishment, which does not weigh equally against all punishment in this world? Why then are you so averse to this sentiment? You will agree with me that virtue and happiness are inseparably connected. Now religion is valuable only as it makes men happy, that is, as it makes them virtuous. Why then insist so strenu ously that all punishment is confined to this world? Do you really think that this sentiment is more productive of piety and virtue than a future limited discipline? Can you lay your hand upon your heart, and say in the presence of God, that you think a future retribution corrupts I will here state for the information of the reader, that I shall not, in this or any future Letter, labor to prove any position which is held in common by the writer and him to whom these Letters are addressed. the morals of society; that it weakens the motives to virtue, and leads to the perpetration of crime? In the discussion of the question before us, much has been said about the ground of the controversy, and the method of argumentation. You maintain that all the labor of proof devolves upon the believer in future punishment. You insist that future punishment must be proved true, or else you are justified in believing the opposite; and when you are called upon to produce the = evidence in favor of your scheme, you complain that this is burdening you with proving a negative, which `is incapable of proof. In a discussion of this question with Mr. Turner, you say, "Although you persist in contending that it is incumbent on me to prove the negative of our general question, I am still disposed to maintain the reverse, and to contend that it is incumbent on you to attempt to prove the positive of our general question by the testimony and word of divine inspiration. Until this is done, and the doctrine of future punishment is proved from the word of God, this doctrine is not entitled to our belief."* Again you say, to prove positively and directly that all misery is confined to this life, "is, to say the least, throwing all the labor on one side." Now, Sir, if to prove that all misery is confined to this life, is "throwing all the labor on one side," then to prove that men will be punished after death, is "throwing all the labor on the other side." This then is the only ground on which you' will consent to meet your opponent in this controversy; he must go forward and prove his doctrine true-he › must pursue a course which according to your acknow-~ ledgement, is "throwing all the labor on one side." He must pursue a plan which appeared to you "so unreasonable," that you rejected it at once.‡ Gospel Visitant, Vol. 3, p. 312. + lb. p. 20. The course which you have adopted, is pursued by all the principal advocates for your views. They all decline producing any evidence in favor of their system, being, as would seem, determined to "throw all the labor on one side." Mr. Kneeland says, "It is not pretended, as we know of, that the scriptures prove there will be no future punishment; for how can they prove a negative ?" From these citations, and to these others might be added, it appears that you consider our system as the positive, and yours as the negative of the question before us. But permit me to ask you, have you no positive to your faith? does your doctrine consist entirely of negation? does your faith rest solely upon disbelief? One would think so by your method of meeting this discussion. When you are declaring your views to the world, you are not at all deficient in positive affirmation; but as soon as you are engaged in controversy on this subject, your doctrine is all negation! But, Sir, you cannot be insensible that in questions of this nature, the positive and negative are transferable from one side to the other. If the doctrine of future punishment is advanced, that side of the question becomes the positive, and yours the negative. But if the doctrine which limits all punishment to this world, is advanced, then that becomes the positive, and future panishment the negative of the question. Thus the great cry which has been raised about proving a negative, has no bearing in this case; because it can be used on one side as well as on the other. But, Sir, the doctrine which bounds all punishment by temporal death, for which you contend, must be either a positive or a negative. Is it a negative? Then it is incapable of proof; then you have no evidence in favor of your hypothesis-not a solitary text of scripture, • Christian Messenger. nor a single argument from reason; then your system is only a negation, and your faith disbelief-a creed which would better become a sceptic than a professed Christian. Thus by pretending that your side of the question is only a negative, you in reality renounce all scripture evidence, and are compelled to say with Mr. Kneeland, "It is not pretended that the scriptures prove there will be no future punishment."-But are your views a positive? Then let us no longer be told, that future punishment must be proved true, or else it is not entitled to belief. If your scheme is a positive, then it is hoped that you will not refuse to meet us on this ground. You then have an affirmative as well as we, and you are under as great obligation to prove your affirmative, as we are to prove ours. Now if you refuse to meet us in this manner, you refuse to meet us on equal ground, and will give the public reason to make unfavorable remarks relative to your conduct, and the strength of your cause. I trust you will not attempt to support your side of the question by asserting that the scriptures are silent upon future punishment; for this is only preparing a weapon. for yourself. This is the popular defence which is set up by the abetters of your system. But in fact, it is acknowledging that your system is only a negation of belief. But popular as this mode of defence is, it is far from favoring those into whose service it is constantly pressed. This argument, if it deserves the name, may be retorted upon you with all its force. Thus, if you. ask proof of future punishment, I will give you the silence of the scriptures on the opposite doctrine. Feeling disposed to treat the subject with all possible fairness, I will endeavour to state the case in a manner which I think must be satisfactory to all candid inquirers, and objectionable only to those who fear to meet the subject on its proper ground. Let the question be, Is all misery confined to this life; or does it extend beyond death? In this two-fold question, your opinion and mine are both stated. You believe in the affirmative of the first question, as much as I do in the affirmative of the last. And it is as incumbent on you to prove your affirmative, as it is on me to prove mine. This state ment is so fair and equitable, that I cannot believe that you will object to it. But should you attempt to evade this statement as some have done, and insist that the question should be,-Does the bible teach the doctrine of future punishment? I shall regard it as shrinking from the subject in debate; or, to use your own words, as "throwing all the labor on one side." And were I disposed, I could avail myself of the same art, and insist that the question should be-Does the bible teach the doctrine of the happiness of all men at the article of death? In this way we might dispute eternally without coming to the merits of the question. But I am not desirous of throwing all the labor on either side. I wish you to defend your system both positively and negatively, and I am perfectly willing to do the same. I should show the weakness of my cause by refusing to advance evidence in favor of my side of the question, and you would betray the same weakness by refusing to do the same on your part. I hope therefore I shall not be told that the burden of proof ought to be with the plaintiff; for this again, is avoiding the question, as this plea can be made by us as well as by you. The doctrine for which I contend, is the doctrine as held by our order, from the third century down to the present day, with a very few exceptions. From this it would more naturally appear that you are the plaintiff, and we the defendant. We can call upon you, therefore, for proof, with more propriety than you can upon us. We are willing, however, to waive this right, and meet |
