a rational and Scriptural definition of the curse of God's law.

To this we object in the first place, because the Scriptures represent this curse as positive suffering. It is a pain that gnaws like a worm that never dies; that burns like a fire that is never quenched; it is torment; it is wringing out, and drinking the dregs of the cup of trembling; it is suffering indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish,-it is enduring an agony that begets weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth; it is to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. But none of these expressions are applicable to the mere cessation of being or of consciousness. If it should be said that these expressions are applicable in case of annihilation, because in passing through this change from entity to non-existence, the objects of the Divine displeasure will suffer pain; we reply that this is to give up the argument; because it is saying that the curse of the Divine law, as described in the Scriptures, is not the loss of existence, but the suffering endured before existence is lost; and therefore the reasoning destroys the premises, and at the same time implies an act of injustice, in that it represents the sinner as enduring the curse of the law while in being, and after all, in addition to the curse, losing his existence. Again it may be objected to this idea of the curse, that it destroys all degrees of punishment, which is contrary to Scripture and reason. Annihilation, then, is not the curse

of the Divine law, and therefore this curse must imply an existence, affected more or less, longer or shorter, by some kind of suffering. To this point, therefore, we turn our attention.

What may be the nature or degree of this suffering will not now be inquired into; that it will be exceedingly grievous none can doubt who credit God's word. Our present inquiry will be this, What is the duration of suffering threatened in the curse of God's law? It must be endless or limited. If limited, it must come under one of the four following heads: it must be less than the damned actually suffer, or it must be more than the damned actually suffer, or it must be just what the damned actually suffer, or it must be an indefinite period of suffering, just enough to bring the sinner to repentance and salvation, be the same more or less. Upon all these points let us institute a serious and a cautious investigation: if any one of them is found consistent with the Scripture representation of the Divine government, and the Gospel economy, then we will give up the idea of an endless hell; if none of them is true, then it must be acknowledged that the damned must suffer the penalty of an endless curse.

1. On the first supposition, viz. that the curse of God's law is less in duration than the damned actually suffer, we need not dwell a moment; for none, it is presumed, would charge upon God the injustice of inflicting suffering upon his creatures beyond what his law requires; and this he would do, if the

damned were made to suffer more than the penalty threatened.

2. We pass then to inquire, secondly, whether this curse is a limited punishment, but more than the damned will actually suffer? If so, this greater curse is threatened in the law: if it is not revealed, it does not exist, for surely God's law is not so imperfect as to contain only a part of its penalty. But I ask, what words are made use of to express the penalty of God's law, which convey the idea of more suffering than the damned actually endure? It is said, the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever; that they suffer the vengeance of eternal fire; that they shall actually go into everlasting punishment, &c. Now whether these words are used in a limited, or an unlimited sense, is not the question; but the question is, are any stronger words than these used to express the curse of God's law? I answer no; fearless of contradiction: for these, and similar words, are the very terms used to express the penalty of the law; therefore there is no greater curse revealed than the damned will actually suffer, whether that suffering be in this world or the world to come, and of course the supposition, that the curse of God's law is limited, but greater than the damned will actually suffer, is false.

The absurdity of this supposition may be seen by another argument. If the curse of God's law implies a state of suffering more than any sinner will ever suffer, it follows that there

is more in this curse than any sinner is ever exposed to. God then has threatened more than he ever meant to perform. Whether this threatening is the result of his injustice, or of his inconsistency, or whether the failure in the execution is to be attributed to his impotency, we are not informed; but to something of this kind it must be attributed, if the supposition be true. And when once this is supposed true, we may just as well suppose that the sinner is exposed to no part of the curse of God's law, and thus a speedy conclusion is put to the whole controversy between Universalists and anti-Universalists. But who is prepared to say that God has threatened a penalty which never will, and never can be executed? that he has announced a curse which no sinner is ever exposed to? If none, then none will say the curse of God's law is limited punishment, but greater than the damned will ever experience.

3. As it appears this curse, if limited, can be neither more nor less than the damned will actually suffer, we will next examine whether it be just equal to what the damned will actually suffer. To this view of the subject there are several insurmountable objections: for, in the first place, this would destroy the idea of salvation altogether. Salvation is deliverance from sin and its consequences-it is deliverance from the guilt of sin, and the condemnation of sin, and the punishment of sin. But this idea supposes that we are not delivered from these, but actually endure them to their full extent. It is

not being saved from the curse of God's law, for it is taking the whole of that curse; it is wringing out and drinking the very last dregs of the cup of wrath. It would be ludicrous for a criminal to say he had been saved from the state prison, and from a fine, because he had actually suffered out his full term of confinement, and had had his goods confiscated to satisfy the law. It would be the height of absurdity to say that Christ was saved from that hour, and from the cup of affliction that his Father had given him, because he endured it all, and exhausted entirely his full cup of sorrow. Equally ridiculous and absurd is it to talk of salvation where the sinner is damned to the full extent of his guilt. When salvation and damnation can be made to mean the same thing, then, and not before, may this supposition be maintained. But yet, absurd as this idea is, it is a very popular one at the present day. We have been told in this desk again and again that all men suffer to the full extent of their crimes : and this sentiment is taught by most modern Universalist preachers, and by almost all their periodical publications. Never was there a greater misnomer than to call this the doctrine of universal salvation; it is to all intents the doctrine of universal damnation,―universal damnation not only as it relates to its extent of application to the whole human family, but also as it relates to the universal qualities of the doctrine itself, for there is not a particle of salvation about it.