in some form or other, it is embraced and cher ished by all the nations of the earth. As the principles of doctrine which are supposed to constitute religion, even the Christian religion, are various, and in many instances contradictory, so also the grounds on which they are embraced by different individuals are very different. Some continue through life to cherish the principles instilled into their minds in childhood and youth, without ever allowing themselves to doubt their truth, or examine the evidence on which they are founded. Others, in maturer years, embrace that form of faith which is most popular in the region where they live, and which they imagine best calculated to promote their respectability in life; and these seldom trouble themselves to ascertain whether their doctrine is true or false, so long as it answers their purpose, by promoting their popularity in the world. There are others, and we hope the number not small, who adopt particular system of faith from a full and firm conviction of its truth; and in such we generally discover the influence of their religion on their lives and conduct. There is still another class, who appear to have embraced a particular system, and who continue to adhere to it from a conviction, not of its truth, but of its necessity to their future and eternal welfare. This is particularly the case in relation to the doctrine of endless condemnation and woe; and there are many who believe, or profess to believe, that, however firm may be the faith of a person in God and Christ, however he may exercise love to them and his fellow men, and however he may trust in God for his eternal salvation, if he have not a belief that he will render some portion of hiạ children eternally wretched, his taith and hope are entirely vain, and he is not entitled to the ap

pellation or character of a Christian. Indeed, many appear to think, that without a belief in this sentiment, there can be neither fear nor love to God, or the least degree of true piety in the heart. Hence we frequently hear the assertion, that it is safer to believe in endless punishment, than in universal holiness and happiness.

We are not authorized to condemn any one on account of his religious sentiments; and we ought not to indulge in feelings of hardness towards any on account of a difference of opinion on this subject; especially such as are evidently honest and sincere in their belief. But we must be permitted to examine for ourselves, and bring every principle of doctrine to the test of scripture and reason; and it is our duty to regard the apostolic injunction, to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good." The doctrine of endless punishment, which has so long and generally prevailed in the Christian world, has already, as is conceived, been shown to be contrary to reason, opposed to all the acknowledged attributes and perfections of God, and unsupported by scripture. What now remains, in relation to this doctrine, is to show, that it is unnecessary, and entirely useless; and that neither the doctrine, nor a belief in it is calculated to benefit any being in the universe.

In order that we may investigate the subject understandingly, we will consider more fully than has yet been done the nature and design of punishment. Punishment is the infliction of pain, either corporeal or mental, for some criminal act, or neglect of duty; and intended for the production of some good as its consequence; otherwise the infliction of it is cruelty, barbarity, or revenge. In the infliction of punishment by human governments, the object is fourfold. 1.

The reformation of the offender, or person res ceiving the punishment. 2. To put it out of the power of the offender to be guilty of a repetition of his crime. 3. To serve as an example or warning to others. 4. For the security of the government. As the latter of these objects is incidental to human governments in consequence of their imperfection and weakness, and as it cannot apply to the divine government in which no such imperfection or weakness exists, no further remarks on this particular can be necessary; we may therefore confine our inquiries to the three first mentioned objects of punishment; and it will be our object to ascertain, if possible, whether either of these requires the infliction of interminable torment.

The

1. We will consider endless punishment with reference to the reformation of the offender, or individual doomed to endure this punishment.That this is the first, the great and the leading object of all punishment, whether inflicted by human or divine authority, is a proposition too obviously true to be denied; and it has been shown in a former discourse, that whenever, on this ground, the good of any individual required the infliction of punishment, the mercy, as well as the justice of God, would inflict it. question then arises, does the reformation, and consequent good of the sinner require that he should be punished eternally? or, will this punishment effect his reformation? If these questions can be answered in the affirmative, then we shall be able to discover the goodness of God in the infliction of endless torment, even to those who are its subjects. But where is the person so blind as not to discover at once the impropriety and absurdity of this supposi tion? In fact, the only ground on which inter

minable punishment can be sustained, is inter" minable sin; and it is therefore a most plai contradiction in terms to say that it will be in flicted for the benefit of the sinner; for no benefit can possibly be received or enjoyed by him while his suffering continues. Will it be contended that God designs it for the reformation of the sinner? Impossible; for if this be the case, and the sinner's obstinacy prevents its intended effect, then it is evident the design of God will be eternally frustrated; and after all, the infliction of the punishment do no good to the sufferThis supposition would therefore be an impeachment, not only of the mercy, but also of the wisdom of God; for to say that his purpose in what he does will not be accomplished, is only to say, in other words, he lacks wisdom in adapting his means to their desired ends.

er.

2. The next object of the punishment of of fenders against either the laws of God or man which we shall consider, is that of putting it out of their power to be guilty of a repetition of their crimes. In human governments, the infliction of capital punishment has this end in view, as well as to serve as an example to others. When an individual becomes so hardened in iniquity, as wilfully and malevolently to destroy the life of a fellow being, no pledge which he can give, or which can be given for him by others, can be sufficient to assure community that he will not, when a like provocation occurs, or temptation assails him, be guilty of repeating his atrocious crime; and consequently, public safety is supposed to require his death. Some, I am aware, believe the death of the murderer and the traitor to be necessary to make satisfaction to the violated laws of the country. But how, I ask, is this effected by the putting to death of the offender? The murdered father is not restored

to his family, nor the son to his parent, by the execution of the murderer; neither can it be said that the broken law is so restored that there has been no violation of it. Although many are opposed to the infliction of capital punishment for any crime, even for the accomplishment of this desirable object, it is readily admitted that this object is obtained when the punishment is inflicted; for the guilty person being dead, is no longer a subject to human laws, neither has he power to violate them.

But will this reasoning apply to the divine government? and to the infliction of endless punishment in the future and immortal state of existence? Can it be necessary under the administration of a perfect government? and will it accomplish this particular object of punishment ? Without the least hesitation we answer all these questions in the negative; and I will now give the reasons for thus answering. Had those who are appointed to administer human laws the power of changing the hearts of criminals; and could they implant within them a love to God and their fellow men, together with a sacred regard for justice and the rights of others; and could they so search the heart as to know that the person so changed would continue through life, a good and peaceable member of society, and that he would never again repeat his crimes, or violate the laws of his country, it would be the height of cruelty, not only to the convicted person, but to his relatives and friends, to put him to death. And does not the Almighty possess all this power? Cannot he who formed the heart, and who holds it in his own hand, change it as he pleases? and can he not infallibly know whether the change so wrought is effectual and perfect?But admitting it would be inconsistent with the