as the Bible declares has already been inflicted? Would an earthly parent punish thus? Is there not enough, in this ascertained infliction of punishment for sin, to destroy all confidence in the government of God, unless sin deserves it all? And if it deserves all this, we know not how much more it may deserve.

It will be observed, in addition, that Christ does not tell us, they that have done evil, but by the power of discipline, shall have repented, shall come forth to the resurrection of life, and the incorrigible to the resurrection of a further discipline. How is this?

Has not the long interval between death and the resurrection resulted in the salvation of any? Strange that some of the more hopeful of the wicked should not have availed themselves of the opportúnity between death and the judgment to confess and repent.

It is contrary to all analogy that it should be necessary to punish men so long before they repent. On the deck or in the rigging of a burning vessel at sea, when death is absolutely certain, it is to be presumed that it does not take a wicked man very long to decide with what feelings he will meet his God. When the soul after death finds itself on the way to hell, can we suppose that an opportunity to escape by repentance, if it were offered, would be rejected? If the only object of God is to reclaim the sinner, he will release him the first moment that he repents. It is so in this world. "And when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion and

ran and fell on his neck and kissed him." If the soul, at the sight of its punishment, relents and agrees to the terms of pardon, does a Universalist believe that God will say, "No; you must suffer in hell for your sins, even though you have now repented?" Would an earthly father inflict punishment in such a case? But the Bible represents the wicked to • have been in hell from the time of their death till the resurrection, and at the resurrection they must yet come forth to the resurrection of damnation." It is incredible that so much time and so much suffering should be necessary to make sinners repent. Either they repent, and God still contínues to punish them

ages on ages;" or they do not repent between death and the resurrection, nor at the judgment seat of Christ, nor in the immediate prospect of going away to the society and the punishment of the devil and his angels. If a soul which is finally to be reclaimed, can pass through such experience and not repent, it requires larger hope and faith than is common to men to expect that future punishment can be a means of salvation.

That the guilt of a finite creature, man or angel, should merit thousands of years in hell, or that thousands of years should be requisite to bring him to his right mind, no more accords with our natural feelings or with what we call "reason," than does the idea of endless punishment. But if, the Bible conveys any. thing intelligible to our understanding, it teaches that angels and men have been subjected to punish

ment for a longer period than is "reasonable" for mere discipline.

Surely the end of future punishment cannot be merely the recovery of the sinner. Were it so, more. over, it would follow that sin injures no one but the sinner himself. It violates no duties toward God, no interests of fellow creatures. But the law of God refutes this; the threatenings against those who cause others to fall, and the frequent punishment of men who made others to sin, prove that the punishment of the sinner will have some other end than his reformation.

It being frequently argued that the sins of a finite creature cannot be punished forever, because a finite creature cannot merit infinite punishment, it will be enough to meet this, in passing, with a single remark, viz: That, if this be so, then, even if the whole universe should sin forever, the whole universe cannot be punished forever, because the whole universe, after all, is but finite.

V. THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THE LAW OF GOD HAS A CURSE: WHICH IT HAS NOT IF FUTURE PUNISHMENT BE DISCIPLINARY.

The punishment, however long and severe, which shall result in restoring a soul to holiness and an endless heaven, under the kind and faithful administration of its heavenly Father, it would be unsuitable to call "a curse." The theory of Restorationists is, that mercy, having failed to recover sinners in this world, will go on hereafter, in the same direction, with more

vigorous methods, till it succeeds,-the same undying, unfaltering love pursuing the wanderer, which here never ceased to plead. Hereafter it will mingle stronger ingredients, and cure the disease of sin. What" curse" there is in such loving-kindness it is hard to see. In this world we experience just this treatment,

"Afflictions sorted, anguish of all sizes;

Fine nets and stratagems to catch us in ;"

and sometimes all the waves and billows go over us. Men are stripped of property, family, health, reputation, and finally they turn to the hand that smites them, grateful that God did not spare the rod for their crying; and they testify that through the loss of all things they have gained eternal bliss. Do they call their affliction their "curse ?" Have they suf fered "the curse of the law ?" All the ordinary medicines having failed, the physician brings some extreme remedy and saves the patient. Was that a "curse?" He amputates the limb, and thus prolongs a precious life. Did he "curse" the man, in doing so? We must, therefore, expunge large parts of the Bible, if future punishment be only a wholesome discipline. "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." No, he has only redeemed us from a further dispensation of infinite mercy, if punishment be only for discipline; indeed, he prevents the bestowment of a greater proof of love than he himself gave us in dying on the cross; for if, after all his love for us, he will persist in disci

plining us in hell, willing to see us suffer that he may finally save us, "herein is love!" The cross is not the climax of his love, but the lake of fire. How it is in any sense a curse, we fail to see. Christians here never look upon the means of sanctification as "the curse of the law." The sinner who by the severest discipline is brought to Christ, feels that he thereby escapes "the curse of the law." But we cannot find that curse, neither here nor hereafter, unless there be punishment which is not intended for the recovery of the sinner.

VI.

THE SENTENCE PASSED UPON THE WICKED INDISCRIMINATELY FORBIDS THE IDEA OF DISCIPLINE IN FUTURE PUNISHMENT.

Among the impenitent at death and in eternity, there is, of course, great variety of character. If the object of future punishment be to reclaim them, the wise and considerate methods of earthly discipline seem to be utterly discarded after death. We hardly need to be reminded how indiscriminate are the threatenings which are said to be inflicted on the wicked. The last sentence evidently regards none of them as probationers, there is no forbearance in it toward the more hopeful; they are all addressed as "ye cursed." We are considering the testimony of the Scriptures. What evidence do they afford of any discrimination in the treatment of the finally impenitent, notwithstanding the vast variety which must exist among them? I answer, not any. But the following passages, among others, teach plainly that the