duration or intensity of their sufferings, which would give to the death of these rebels an extraordinary efficacy? In general their pains were neither very tedious nor very severe. The experience of many can attest that there is comparatively little pain in drowning: The agony is in coming to again. Whether those who perished in the general deluge and in the Red Sea were disciplined into holiness by their death, we may conjecture by the example of the Canaanites and many others who suffered much, before their death, and were only hardened under the means of softening, and blasphemed God on account of their plagues. The several systems which have been described are so nearly related, that they may harbour the advocates of each other, without any material change of ground; as a prisoner may go from one cell to another, without escaping from confinement. In this they resemble the Arians and Socinians, whose subtle vacillations have been exposed by Wardlaw of Scotland and Miller of America. "When they feel pressed by a text or an argument which bears hard on the Socinian hypothesis, they take refuge in Arianism, and endeavour to maintain that the difficulty vanishes, on the plan of the pre-existence and super-angelick nature of Christ, as held by Arians. On the contrary, when pressed by a passage of Scripture, or a consideration, which wears an aspect unfavourable to Arianism, they can with equal dexterity avail themselves of the Socinian doctrine. and argue with the lowest Humanitarian." The younger Edwards has shewn that Dr. Chauncey has been guilty of the same tergiversation in the Universalist controversy. While professedly defending the doctrine of a future penitentiary punishment, he is not ashamed, in passing certain fortresses, to hoist the colours of the Destructionists. My opponent also, `in the 206th page of his Lectures, appears to adopt a similar policy, in order to escape the force of Matt. 10: 28, and Luke 12: 5, which direct us to fear God, who, "after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell" In this passage my opponent sees two difficulties. One is that God hath power to cast into hell. This he removes in a note, by saying, "because God has power to destroy, it does not neces sarily follow that he will." But knowing that this assertion is a direct contradiction of the word of God, which says that he will destroy them that destroy the earth," and that with an "everlasting destruction;" and recollecting also 66 M 66 that the second difficulty in the text is that this takes place, not in this life, but after he hath killed," my supple opponent seeks relief by resorting to that very use of the word destroy, which gave to the Destructionists their distinctive appellation. His words are these; But I have no objection in the supposition that this text is to be understood in a higher sense; and that it refers to the sovereignty of God, who has power, as all will admit, to render any being whom he hath made, extinct. He who created man, is able to destroy him in every sense in which he exists as man." Here he explains the scriptural threatening of the destruction of the wicked, to mean the destruction of his existence, the extinction of his being, which is annihilation. My opponent is equally wavering as to the reason why our Creator punishes the wicked. In his Lectures and in that clause of the question which he has undertaken to defend, he represents God as all mercy, punishing the wicked only for their good. In that brief summary of the Universalist faith which is annexed to the system of psalmody used (as I understand) by that society in this place, God is represented as an inexorable judge, without any forgiveness except upon the ground of our making full satisfaction to the law by our own sufferings. The words are "We believe it to be consistent with the character and government of God, and perfectly consonant to the design of his law, to punish all wilful offenders, and to administer to every transgression and disobedience a just recompence of reward." That my opponent sometimes preaches this doctrine of a condign instead of a disciplinary punishment may be seen in the 35th page of his duodecimo sermon published in the present year, where he declares that all the hell there is, (and we believe in all the punishment of which the scriptures speak,) is inevitably certain to the wicked: and their portion in this lake of fire and brimstone,' in these sorrows of death,' and 'pains of hell,' not only is, but ever will be, in exact ratio to the measure and magnitude of sin. It is on this principle that God rewards every man according to his works." The same adherence to the doctrine of satisfactory punishment is found in the spurious edition of Buck's Theological Dictionary. My opponent has there said, under the article "Universalists," that "they contend that the wicked receive a punishment proportioned to their crimes." I should like to know what the condign punish 64 ment of the wicked means, if it is not that which is " pro portioned to their crimes," and "in exact ratio to the measure and inagnitude of sin." When this is laid upon an adequate surety, and the offending individual is pardoned, there is an exercise of mercy; "for to the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses," "keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." Yet when this punishment is laid upon the offenders themselves, and full satisfaction is exacted from them, however just it is, there is no display of mercy intended in it. In this plan there is no room for Christ, although the scriptures say "through him is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins." My opponent, not satisfied with thus contradicting the Gospel of Christ," in whom we have forgiveness of sins," contradicts himself in the very next words to those last quoted. by saying that punishment itself is disciplinary, and not inconsistent with mercy." What! is it an exercise of mercy to inflict upon all men, in their own persons, "a punishment proportioned to their crimes?" Is it like parental discipline to punish all men individually "in exact ratio to the measure and magnitude of sin ?" Is there no room for " repentance and remission of sins?" "Is there no balm in Gilead, is there no physician there?" In the gospel we are taught that God inflicts a condign punishment upon our Divine surety, and a disciplinary chastisement upon those whose sins are fully and freely forgiven through his blood but when my opponent, leaving a Saviour out of view, attempts, in the very same sentence, to make these two descriptions of punishment meet in the individual offenders, he shows either the most licentious inconsistency, or a want of acquaintance with the plainest terms in technical theology.Yet great as the incongruity of these two systems is, they are not more at war with each other than they are with scripture and common sense, when, as at present, they reject the doctrine of future punishment. How can that man be said to receive in this life, either a disciplinary or a satisfactory punishment for the most heinous crime, in the very perpetration of which he dies instantaneously? How can either of these punishments be inflicted on a suicide, in this life, for a crime which, in the very act, removes him beyond this life? : It is hardly necessary to shew the multiplied inconsisten cies of my opponent by reminding you that on this very occasion, he has added a penitentiary punishment to the descriptions mentioned already He has promised that if I prove the first clause of our question, he will then prove that the punishment of the sinner is only temporal and salutary, to be succeeded by his repentance and never ending happiness."* Without dwelling on the impossibility of a suicide's repenting in this life, of a crime which, in a twinkling, terminates his life, I would observe that this shifting of the question from one system of Universalism to another, is effectually precluded by the question adopted by the parties. One of the most remarkable characteristics of a Christian is, that he is willing to make a distinct and unequivocal profession of his faith iu the presence of the universe. But the anxiety of my opponent to secure opportunities of shuffling has led him into a most pitiable. though abortive attempt,† to elude the trammels which our rules have placed upon him, by coufining him to one particular scheme of error. But why should he so repeatedly‡ make my proving the first clause of the question a prerequisite to his attempting the establishment of the second? Are they not substantially one question? Is not the establishment of eternal punishment a refutation of Universalist limitations? And if these limitations be proved, does not my system fall of course? The only reason why the second clause was proposed on my part, was to compel my opponent to take a decided stand with that particular sect and class of Universalists to which he chose to belong. This stand he has taken by the very fact of adopting the question. If the transaction be insincere, let the censure lie upon the guilty person. It seems also strange that my opponent should, in the commencement of this discussion,§ complain that my first half hour did not contain more evidence, and that he should throw the blame of his sterility upon my supposed remissness. Let the cause be what it may. his complaints are truly doleful. In order to the application of a remedy, let the evil be well understood. It is described in his own words, as follows, viz: "But as he has brought forward nothing for me to answer, nothing in support of his argument, I have nothing to refute. I do not know even how to consume my thirty minutes." "I feel anxious to consume my thirty minutes, but in truth, I know not what * Minutes, p. 44. Minutes, pp. 28, 44, + Minutes, p. 15. to say." This, then, is the evil; he has nothing to say; he knows not how to fill up his time. If this sorrow be imputed to my mode of managing the controversy, I will endeavour to supply his deficiencies by the aid of Universalist authors, and thus give a better defence of Universalism than my opponent has done. In the fear of God, this shall be done in a conscientious way, by selecting the several heads of argument, which our antagonists advance against us, and by marshalling their scripture authorities adduced in support of these arguments, to the best advantage, beginning with the weakest and ending with the strongest. This is not only the most honest but the most politic plan; because if their best array cannot be defeated, we had better capitulate at once, and if it can be overthrown, it had better be done immediately. UNIVERSALIST CANONS. Preparatory to this measure, it is necessary to pay some attention to the numerous factitious rules of exegesis by which the Universalist writers deceive themselves and others. The proof which God has condescended to give will not answer their purpose. They must have such as they choose in their sovereignty to demand. The Jews disregarded our Saviour's miracles, and said, "let him now come down from the cross and we will helieve him." So these authors disregard volumes of plain inspired evidence, and demand that which would be exactly right to their perverted judgments, which take wrong for right and right for wrong. In this view they require that our proofs should be drawn from the right book aud the right part of the book. These texts must be in a right style, the same as the context; and of a right composition. invulnerable to heretical conjecture. These rules are recognized by my opponent, in the 209th page of his Lectures, in a note which he has copied from the improved Unitarian Version of 2 Pet. 2:4, which informs us that " God spared not the Angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell." The following are his words; viz "If God spared not the messengers who had sinned, i. e. the spies who were sent to explore the land of Canaan, &c. See Simpson's Essays, p. 205, &c. But if the common interpretation be admitted, it will uot establish the popular doctrine concerning fallen angels. For, 1. The epistle itself is of doubtful authority! 2. From the change of style, this is the most doubtful portion of the epistle! 3. By * Minutes, pp. 27, 30. |