makes use of the same means to perfect all mankind?

2. Believers in endless punishment have attempted to reconcile their doctrine with the attributes, particularly the love, or goodness of God; by arguing that his love seeks the greatest good of the universe, as a whole; and contending that the good of the whole may be consistent with the suffering of some of the parts which compose this whole. In order to illustrate this proposition, the simile of a diseased limb, which the good of the whole body requires should be amputated, is generally introduced. To show the futility of this argument, all that is necessary is to consider the similitude fully, and in all its bearings upon the point in question. If the surgeon who should be called to amputate the diseased limb, could as easily restore it to perfect health and soundness as he could amputate it, could it in any way be said that the greatest good of the sufferer required, not only the painful operation which he must undergo, but also the loss of his limb? And would not the surgeon who, with the ability to heal, should persist in his determination to amputate, be justly considered a monster of cruelty? And I ask further, cannot God as easily heal the sinner, and restore him to holiness, and consequent happiness, as he can cast him off forever, and consign him to hopeless agony and despair?

To this it may perhaps be replied, that God has instituted proper and suitable means for the conversion of the sinner, and his restoration to divine favor; and if any will be so hardened as to withstand the operation of these means, it is not consistent for him to confer salvation on any other terms, or by any other means than those he has instituted. I readily admit that it would be inconsistent, and not only so, but impossible for

God to save sinners by any other than his own appointed means; but, I ask, did he know, when he instituted the means of salvation, whether they would be effectual or not? and if so, does it argue, either infinite wisdom or goodness in him, to say he has established means to reclaim his children which he infallibly knew would be ineffectual? The more we examine this argument, the more clearly we discover its weakness and inconsistency; and we must, I think, be convinced, that it cannot be supported, either by reason or revelation.

It would seem to require but a very small degree of sagacity to discover the absurdity and falsity of the proposition, that the greatest good of the whole does not necessarily imply the good of every individual composing that whole; but as this argument has been frequently used, and by divines of considerable standing and reputation for learning and talents, we will give it a little further attention. Suppose the father of a numerous family should adopt this mode of reasoning; and finally come to the conclusion, that the greatest good of his whole family, instead of requiring the good of every member, was perfectly consistent with the severe suffering and misery of a certain part of his children; and should adopt this principle in regulating his conduct towards them. In order to have his practice correspond with his theory, it would become necessary for him to confine his favors to a part of his children, -to treat them with kind indulgence, and grant them every thing in his power to make them as happy as possible; while he treated the remainder, not only with cold neglect, but actually inflicted on them all the suffering in his power. Now suppose these neglected children were to inquire of their partial father the reason of his conduct towards them and his other children; would it be likely to satisfy them, and reconcile them to

their sufferings, were he to assert that his whole family,themselves included, were as perfectly happy as they would be if he treated them with the same affection as he did their brothers and sisters ? Would any reasonable person be likely to be convinced there was as much happiness in that family as there was capacity for enjoyment? But, I go further, and would ask, admitting the more favored members of this family possessed one spark of fraternal affection, or even one feeling of humanity, could there be any happiness enjoyed in such a family? My friends, you can bring this subject home to your own feelings; and answer the last question to your own satisfaction.

3. As I wish clearly and fully as possible to illustrate the subject before us, and to notice all the arguments of our opponents which have any bearing on it; I will examine one other which has been used for the same purpose as the one last considered. It is contended that God does all things with express reference to his own glory; and as this glory consists in the union, or rather in the perfect display of all his attributes and perfections, to the view and understanding of all intelligencies; and as justice is as important an attribute as mercy, it is equally necessary that justice should be eternally exhibited in the punishment of sin, as it is that mercy should be displayed in saving from it.

We have already seen, from the very nature of God and his attributes, that he must eternally have possessed within himself an infinite fulness of glory, as well as of happiness. If, therefore, we allow the argument under consideration to be correct, we must suppose that prior to the existence or sin of man, there must have been beings, both sensitive and intelligent, on whom justice had been eternally inflicting punishment

But who were these beings? And for what were they punished? I am aware of the answers which popular theology would return these questions; we should be told they were angels, or some other' high order of spiritual beings; and that they sinned in heaven, before the creation ofthe material universe. These answers will pass very well for good and sound doctrine, with such persons as never allow themselves to doubt the truth, or propriety of whatever may be advanced by their spiritual treachers; but I acknowledge myself too skeptical to admit such assertions without evidence of their truth; and I challenge any one to prove from the scriptures, that any sin was ever committed, in any part of the universe of God, previous to the transgression of our first parents in the garden of Eden.

But passing by this, and many other inconsistencies inseparably connected with this sentiment, let us come directly to the question, does the glory of God require the endless continuance of sin and misery? If we consider it necessary to promote and maintain this glory that he should be exhibited as a cruel, unfeeling, partial and revengeful tyrant, then I acknowledge, the question must be answered affirmatively; but on no other ground can such answer be correct. No one will deny that the glory of God consists in the union, or display of his adorable perfections; or, that a full display of justice is less necessary than a display of mercy; but it has been shown that these attributes are not and cannot be opposed one to the other-that justice equally with mercy seeks the final good of the sinner; and that it will inflict no more punishment than is necessary to accomplish this purpose. Is it not then obvious, that divine justice will be far more gloriously displayed, to the understanding and joy of all intelligencies, as having accomplished its whole ob

ject, in humbling the sinner, and preparing him for the reception of eternal happiness from God, than as having entirely failed of producing the happy effect? The good sense of my hearers will furnish a sufficient answer to this question

"God is love;" infinite, eternal, unbounded, and immutable love; not to a part, but to all his dependant offspring. As this love had no beginning, it can have no end; and as it was not produced, nor called into exercise by the goodness or merit of the creature; so the imperfections, follies, and weaknesses of the creature can never extinguish it, or suspend its operations. It was love which spake creation into being, aud gave existence to man. Love caused "the morning stars" to sing "together," and "all the sons of God" to shout "for joy." Unchanging love continues to us our existence, and all the blessings we enjoy. Eternal, deathless love brought the blessed Redeemer down from heaven to earth; and love attuned the harps of the celestial messengers, who announced his birth to men; and caused them to sing "glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men." And it is love and that alone, which can perfect the children of men in holiness and true happiness.

And think you, my friends, this eternal and allpervading principle, in which all the attributes of our heavenly Father centre and harmonize, will permit the endless continuance of sin and suffering? Think you that it can be overcome, or destroyed by any thing which is opposed to its heavenly nature? No; sooner shall the adamantine pillars of the heavens be shaken to their base,—

sooner

"The seas shall waste, the skies in smoke decay, Rocks fall to dust, and mountains melt away,"

than the love of God know any change,