Page images

tion, because you say in your second answer to my ques tion, "I believe all mankind will be delivered from this curse [curse of the divine law] by the only name given whereby men can be saved.”

If all mankind, as you say you believe, will be delivered from the curse of this law, it must follow then, that no one will ever suffer or be punished according to his demerits; of course, they will not suffer all which according to strict justice might be inflicted on them. I have already hinted that this sentiment is at war with the word of truth, which you have professed to follow. That says they are judged according to their works are tormented day and night for ever and ever; have judgment without mercy; are confined in prison till they have paid the very last mite; and no greater punishment is threatened in the law, than that which the seriptures declare the wicked shall suffer in hell. But this argument is so plain I need not pursue it further. Your idea that the torments of hell are inflicted on man in a future state merely as a wholesome discipline to make them better and bring them to repentance, must be considered.

I had always supposed that the language of the Bible was intended to be understood by common people; and that it meant something different, when, what a common man, like myself, would suppose, were the most dreadful threatenings, and curses, and woes, pronounced on wicked men, from what it did when it spake of the chastisement of the child of God. Why, on your plan, are those who are sent to hell, said to be cursed; to lament; to be cast off forever; to be reprobates; to have judgment without mercy? Surely, they are lost, or cast off, or cursed, or out of the reach of mercy, according to your plan, in no other sense than the children of God are while in this probationary state. For some reason which you have not mentioned, they, you suppose, are sent to hell, and are put under more powerful means of grace. Now, as we understand lan-guage, can this be said to be a curse? It is a painful trial, no doubt; so it is for the sinner to be under conviction in this world. But should I see an unregenerate sinner under the most poignant anguish from a sense of his sirs, I could not believe that he was accursed, nor that God had


withdrawn his mercy from him; and even if I could know that his probationary state would be lengthened out to a million of years, and the sinner would continue till the last hour of his prebation, in the most intense pain, if this pain were absolutely necessary to make him better, and bring him to repentance, and qualify him for heaven, I could not call him accursed, nor believe that God had ceased to show him mercy. Certainly, if it be a mercy or a blessing to carry an intelligent being to heaven, and make him eternally happy there, it must be a blessing and not a curse to use those means which are absolutely necessary to qualify him for that place. If a man were sick, and must die unless some blood were taken from him, although the taking of the blood might be an operation somewhat painful, yet no one, I think, would call it a cursed remedy, if nothing else could Save the man's life. If your construction of the scriptures be correct, they speak a language totally different from what we suppose they mean. By we I mean common men. By a curse common men mean an absolute evil, and those who are cursed suffer real evil; but to put men under an administration of grace cannot be called an evil. It is certainly a great good, an unspeakable blessing, if no other means can bring them to endless felicity. Hear David; "Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord," &c. Also, St. Paul, "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth: if ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons."

[ocr errors]

Now, sir, I would ask, why this distinction in the language of the Bible, between saints who are disciplined on the earth, and the wicked who are sent to hell, to be put there under a course of discipline? If their punishment is inflicted on them for their own good, everlasting.good, why are they not said to be blessed? Why are they not called sons and said to be loved of God? It appears to be the idea of the Apostle, that there were some who did not receive mere chastisement, whom he calls bastards; all who are sons partake of chastisement; the wicked in hell, then, if they are only chastised for their own good, are sons, and

where to find the bastards, is uot for me to determine. No where can you find I believe, in the word of truth, the saints threatened with fiery indiguation, the vengeance, the fury, the wrath, &c. of God. He will, he says, visit

their iniquities with stripes; but his loving kindness will he not take from them, nor suffer his faithfulness to fail. But dreadful indeed are the denunciations of woe against his enemies, or the despisers of his Son and the gospel. Isaiah, lix. 18. "According to their deeds, accordingly be will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies." St. Paul says, "God will render indignation and rath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil. "Vengeance is mine and I will repay, saith the Lord." "The Lord will be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Jude speaks of some who are set forth as an example, “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” I should find no difficulty in filling my paper with similar quotations, both from the old and new testaments. But sufficient has been adduced to show the different manner in which the sacred writers speak of the children of God, and the impenitent despisers of his Son; a difference wholly unintelligible on your plan of disciplinary punishment in hell. But again, The scriptures uniformly speak of God's peculiar and distinguishing mercy to his saints. He keeps them as the apple of his eye. He is their God, and no good thing will he withhold from them; while he sends wrath upon his enemies. But on the supposition that future punishment is inflicted to make those who suffer it better, I cannot understand why God is not equally merciful to all. Beyond all controversy he is infinitely merciful to those he punishes in a future world, merely for their own good. They would be infinite losers if not sent there; because we must go on the supposition that no other means could produce the desired effect. These are, of course, the best possible means which could be applied. Because if you suppose that milder means would effect the object; would bring these unhappy sufferers to repentance, you charge God with cruelty; charge him with inflicting unnecessary punishment without any good object. Possibly you may say that

Bilder means might have brought them to repentance în this life; but because they continued impenitent while in this world, God sends them to hell, and inflicts there more severe punishments. But this would be giving up the argu ment; would be granting that hell torments are inflicted for other purposes than merely the good of the sufferer. This would be punishing them for their crimes instead of training them up for heaven.

I might pursue this argument much further; but it was my object merely to hint at some things, just to let you see that the ground you have taken is by no means tenable. On the supposition which you have made in this anawer, that future punishment is inflicted to make those who are subject to it better and bring them to repentance, no one is punished for his sins; can in no sense be said to have judgment without mercy; for his punishment is mercy, rich mercy, the greatest mercy God could bestow upon him. He is not confined, then, till he has paid the very last mite. This you see, then, leaves you equally with the first answer, at war with the word of God.

Now, sir, I think I might fairly dismiss this subject, and rest till you have cleared up the difficulties which I have already mentioned; and should I rest till then, I apprehend my quiet would not very soon be disturbed. But as in what you call the main argument, you have taken your stand, and appear to think you stand strong, upon only two texts of scripture, I will endeavour to show you that those texts of scripture do by no means lend you that support which you suppose. John iii. 17; "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." I. John, ii. 2; "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only; but also for the sins of the whole world." From the first of these texts. you infer, it is the design of God to raise all mankind from their defectible state; or, you learn the design of God is the salvation of the world. You suppose by the world, in this text, is meant numerically every individual of the human race; and that Christ was speaking to Nichodemus of the universality of salvation. Now I suspect that it will be No difficult task to prove that you are mistaken in both these conclusions. The words world, all the world, the

whole world, as they are used in scripture, do not necessarily mean every individual of the human race. I will just quote a few texts to illustrate this. John xii. 19. "Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing. Behold the world has gone after him." John vii. 7. "The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth." But had not Christ some disciples when he spake this, who did not hate him? Were there none in the world who looked for the consolation of Israel, and the Saviour thereof? Christ surely would not charge such with hating him. John xvi. 20. "Verily I say unto you, ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice." And in the 17th chapter, where Christ prays particularly for his disciples and says, he does not pray for the world. He says, verse 14th, "The world hath hated them, because they are not of the world." These passages which I have taken from the same John, whom you quoted to prove youfirst statement, are sufficient to show you, that as that A postle frequently used the term world, it cannot mean nu merically every individual of the human race. But the universality of salvation was not the subject of discourse, nor how extensive this salvation should be.

You will allow I hope that our Saviour in the same dis course would be consistent with himself. But he tells Nichodemus in the next verse, "he that believeth not is condemned already." It is very easy to understand this chapter, and make it consistent with itself, if we are disposed. The Jews you know expected a powerful, temporal Prince in the promised Messiah. They misunderstood the prophecies which predicted a Saviour, and supposed it should have been he who would restore the kingdom to Israel. They expected the other nations would have LO share in the salvation which would be brought in by the Messiah. All except the Jews would be condemned. . . Nichodemus was a Pharisee, proud and conceited, yet ignorant, grossly so, of the "design" of God in sending his Son into the world. Christ endeavours to rectify his mistake, and tells him, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that nhoso ever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life." You are mistaken, says he, in thinking that God will send his Son into the world, to condemn the whole,

D 2

« PreviousContinue »