when palliated with the declaration that a limited future punishment is of minor consequence? Do they, who believe such doctrine, preach and practice consistently, while charmed or frowned to sepulchral silence? Let Walter Balfour, the oracle in erudition, answer, while reasoning with such brethren, admitting the correctness of their views. He says: "Even allowing this little eternity of punishment is at last to end, the thought is enough to take sleep from our eyes, lead us to weeping and wailing; and to warn each other, lest we come to this place of torment." It is well known that Universalists have always been perfectly indifferent to the enterprize of domestic and foreign missions; but admitting that the doctrine of a limited future punishment be true, the conduct of the Universalists is grossly inconsistent in the judgment of Walter Balfour; and he interrogates them in this wise, "But why not engage in them with great zeal, unless a thousand years of punishment in hell is all a farce? Religion out of the question, common humanity says-save them from so many years of mental misery, if money, zeal and exertion can effect it?" That this rebuke is merited and legitimate, under the circumstances and profession, is palpable and should have been heeded. But Mr. Balfour's most controlling object was, to shame his brethren out of such notions, and establish as well as disseminate his own opinion, that the doctrine of a limited future punishment is "all a farce."

The effort has been made strenuously, and to a great extent success has attended the effort, of bringing the Universalist fraternity upon the ground of denying all future punishment, whether limited or eternal, or at least to assert and preach that the punishment of sin is wholly confined to this life. That this position is assumed, might be argued from the fact that their pulpits are muffled, yea, silent on the subject but not more so than their publications. The

energy of the controlling talent, and influence, and learning has been and still is sedulously employed to bring the denomination to assume the position that all sin is, and will be punished in this life, and that at death all punishment will cease-t —thus turning their eyes and attention from the doctrine of a limited future punishment which has occasioned so many corrodings of conscience, fears and doubts, and vacillation in the faith of Universalism. To prove this, we shall advance the testimony of their own writers on the subject.

All punishment is confined to this life, and shall never pass beyond the curtain drawn over man by death, for as sin will cease at death, so will punishment; for sin and punishment hold the relation of cause and effect and will run commensurate in point of duration. This is the doctrine propagated by Universalists; but the question which stands at the base of their fabric, that sin will cease at death, is arrogantly assumed instead of proved. It is certainly a debateable question, whether the sins of this life must necessarily cease to exist at death, to say nothing of the possibility of sins being committed in the spirit-world. But to waive the investigation of this question for the present, to be resumed in its proper connection, we shall proceed to present the views of Universalists as expressed in their own language.

Hosea Ballou states the question thus: "That in order to prove that a man will be miserable after this mortal life is ended, it must first be proved that he will sin in the next state of existence." Then he draws the conclusion, that man will cease to sin after death, for he will then possess such a constitution of existence in which no such crimes can ever be committed," therefore he is "fully satisfied that all which the Scriptures say about sin and the punishment of it, relate solely to this mortal state." This master

66

spirit of Universalism, should first prove that the sins of this life can not transcend the bounds of time; and that no one pretends that any crime can ever be committed" in the eternal world. Nevertheless, the opinion of Hosea Ballou goes to prove, that the present position of Universalists, so far at least as their principal men are concerned, is that they teach and defend, that the punishment of sin is confined solely to this world.

A. C. Thomas, in his Philadelphia discussion, declares his belief, that "the Bible furnishes no evidence of a punishment beyond the present life."

Mr. Le Fevre states his views thus in his " Gospel Anchor:" "Man's sins, like himself, are of a mundane or earthly character, man dies, and with him die all those temptations which have led him astray from the path of duty, and constituted him while here a wicked man." Thus when man dies, all which constituted him a wicked man dies likewise, therefore wickedness and sin shall not exist beyond death. This is the avowed opinion of this champion of Universalism.

A certain writer in 1838, while speaking of the origin of sin as confined to the propensities and appetites of the body, declares that the mind or soul "never is the source of iniquity, and so far as enlightened, never consents to it;" he then asserts, that since the body dies and mingles with the mother-earth, "that sin can not exist beyond the death of this body, and the extinction of its lusts." We have heretofore shown the downright absurdity of the doctrine, that the soul is not the origin of sin and never consents to it, and that sin is altogether confined to our corporeal body; therefore the very premises from which the Universalists reason to show the cessation of sin and consequently of punishment at the last breath of man's earthly existence, remain not only not proved, but even defy all sound and logical argumentation.

The quotations we have made are sufficiently numerous and explicit to mark out the position of Universalism in reference to the punishment of sin-that it is wholly confined to this mundane existence of man. The prominent reason, why they labor to prove that all sin has its origin in the corrupt propensities of the flesh, and that the soul is unstained and never consents to actual wrong, therefore when the body perishes and is mingled with the motherearth, all sin and all occasion of sin, yea, even all capacity to sin, will also cease, is, that if the soul is capable of sinning, then the ever active mind may sin after death, and so destroy and explode the opiate theory of no future punishment. And while some believe that the wicked may be punished in the intermediate state, but will be raised immortal and incorruptible in the resurrection, and thus be forever free from sin and suffering; others have invented the theory that the soul will be in an unconscious sleep from the time of death until the general resurrection, and have thus exploded the last citadel of the opinion of a limited future punishment. Indeed, they have plunged so far into error as to receive and advocate the foolish system of materialism,

As we have now sufficiently shown, in order to escape the charge of misrepresentation and of bearing false witness, that the Universalists, as a body, do most solemnly aver and advocate the theory, that all sin and its deserved punishment must necessarily have an existence in this world only, and can never reign beyond the empire of natural death; therefore, without entering upon a regular confutation of this doctrine, which we reserve for another place, we shall proceed to show, that Universalism teaches and defends the following doctrine in reference to the punishment of sin:

2. That sin punishes itself, therefore there is no infliction of punishment by our Creator.

If sin punishes itself, then there can be no infliction of punishment, properly considered, for the infliction of punishment supposes that the victim receives more misery than what is entailed by the act of sin. The infliction of punishment presumes that the sufferer endures positive misery, imposed upon him under the just administration of our universal Sovereign. If sin, therefore punishes itself, such additional misery and woe cannot have place.

That some Universalists believe that the sinner must suffer the penalty of the divine law, and the direct inflictions of misery from the hand of God, we are not inclined to deny; but that a great portion of them hold, that sin punishes itself, admits of undeniable proof. And it appears to be of no small importance to the consistency and the establishment of their theory; for if sin does not punish itself, where do the murderer and the suicide receive adequate punishment? They can not in the spirit-world, for according to their theory, punishment and sin do not exist there. The time has been when death was looked upon to solve the difficulty, and to be considered adequate punishment for that murderous and sinful act; but since it is denied that death is the result of sin, and asserted that God created man mortal, and that man was destined to die, whether sin were introduced into the world or not, there must needs be a change of theory. And what invention could wily ingenuity project, which would appear so satisfactory and consistent, as that sin contains the elements of immediate punishment. Sin punishes itself, is the watchword as their own writings shall prove.

A writer in the Universalist Trumpet, while in the agonies of giving birth to this new theory of his own mind, and in the joy of his transcendental exultation, holds the fol