5: 44; to pray in faith; for we are told that whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14: 23; to lift up holy hands and pray without wrath and doubting, 1 Tim. 2: 8. But how can we pray in faith for the salvation of all men, unless we believe that all will be saved? And why pray for all men if God has determined that some shall not be saved, or if we believe that all will not be saved? The fact` that we are required to pray for all men, and to do so in faith, nothing doubting, is a strong proof of the doctrine for the truth of which we are contending.

21. Finally, we infer the truth of this doctrine from the fact that it is in accordance with the highest and holiest desires and expectations of all benevolently disposed and good men; and that the opposite doctrine does violence to the intellectual powers of man, and is repugnant to the better feelings of his nature. Just in proportion as the feelings of mankind become refined and elevated, and as their intellectual powers are cultivated, and light and knowledge increase, just in that proportion will this doctrine spread and prevail.

!

CHAPTER XXI

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS MISERY.

1. Ir makes God the author of an infinite evil. Misery is evil. The idea of misery infinite in duration presupposes the idea of infinite evil. No finite being can be the cause of an infinite evil. God is the only infinite being in the universe. If, therefore, infinite evil does actually exist, its existence must be referred to God. But to suppose God to be the author of an infinite evil, is to suppose that he is infinitely evil himself.

2. It impeaches some of the most glorious attributes of the Deity. If it be said that this evil is something which God did not foresee, wish, will, desire, appoint, permit, intend nor purpose, then his wisdom, foreknowledge and omniscience, are expressly denied. If it be said that he foresaw this evil, but could not prevent it, this impeaches his power, his goodness, justice, mercy and benevolence; because, to all those whom he created, knowing that their existence would be an endless curse, he is neither good, just, merciful nor benevolent. If it be said that this evil is something which he did actually will, wish, desire, purpose and appoint, this not only impeaches his goodness, justice, mercy and benevolence, but it makes him as malignant as malignity itself;-a perfect monster in cruelty, and as much worse than a Caligula or a Nero, or even the fabled god of hell, as he possesses more power than they to do mischief, to inflict pain and misery.

3. It teaches that our present existence is.one of extreme hazard; so much so, that no rational man could possibly choose to exist under such circumstances. It has been taught by the believers in this doctrine that ninety-nine out of every hundred of the human family would suffer endless misery; and, indeed, if there is any truth. in their general theory, this seems to be a necessary conclusion. Every man who is born into the world, therefore, stands ninety-nine chances of being endlessly miserable, to one of being endlessly happy. Now, suppose a narrow bridge erected over a deep chasm or gulf. On the opposite side there is a fine country, a healthy climate, and everything which can be conducive to the happiness of man. On this side we must experience the same toils, deprivations and sufferings, which fall to the lot of man in this life. . We are anxious to cross this gulf and better our condition. We approach to the brink of the gulf, and propose crossing the bridge. We are informed that we are at perfect liberty to do so; but says our informant, "before you attempt the passage, I feel in duty bound to inform you, that although thousands have attempted to cross this bridge, yet ninety-nine out of every hundred fail in the attempt, fall from the bridge, and are dashed to pieces in the chasm below." What rational man, under these circumstances, would be willing to attempt the passage? Not one. No-we should choose rather to And yet

remain where we were, than to run such an awful hazard.

this falls infinitely short of being a parallel case to that of the other. In the one case we only run the risk of our lives. In the other we run the risk of being endlessly miserable, when the chances are as ninety-nine to one against us. What rational man would not rather choose to sleep the quiet sleep of non-existence, than to receive existence on such terms, and run such a desperate chance?

4. If, as is contended by the advocates of this doctrine, man is the procuring cause of this misery, then it makes infinite consequences flow from finite causes, which is altogether unphilosophical.

5. It carries the consequences of men's actions altogether beyond the sphere in which they act; and involves the absurd idea, that we can sow our seed in one field, and reap the harvest in another. Man, by his sins, only injures himself and his fellow-men, “by destroying his own internal peace, and their external happiness.” He cannot injure God, nor any being superior to himself. His

actions do not affect the inhabitants of the moon, nor of any of the planetary worlds, nor of any in any part of God's universe except those living in this world. Why, then, should it be supposed that the consequences of his actions can extend beyond the present world, to which all of his actions are confined?

6. The doctrine, as it is held by Arminians, makes man the arbiter of his own destiny, and suspends an eternity of weal, or an eternity of woe, upon his own actions. Now, we appeal to every rational man, and ask if this is not too important a trust to be committed to so frail a being as man? Man, in his very best estate, is a frail child of mortality. He is extremely liable to err, and is surrounded with temptations on every hand. He is born into the world entirely ignorant and helpless, and all that he ever knows he is obliged to learn. The very first that he knows of himself, he is as he is, and he cannot help it. The very first sensations he experiences are those of appetite and want. He is very frequently placed (unavoidably by himself) under circumstances which are unfavorable to the development and cultivation of his moral nature. He is not unfrequently corrupted in his very youth by the teachings and examples of his fellow-beings. Now, to suppose that such a being is made the arbiter of his own eternal destiny, by Him who created him, is such a reflection on the wisdom and goodness of God, that we see not how the idea can be harbored for a single moment. Man manifests but little wisdom in the management of his temporal affairs. Can it be supposed then that he would manage his eternal interests any better?

7. It charges God with cruelty. It accuses him of inflicting pain upon his creatures with no good.object in view; that is, in reference to those upon whom it is inflicted. It needs no argument to prove that endless punishment can result in no good to the punished. If it be said that this misery is inflicted for the purpose of vindicating God's glory, justice, and his law; then we ask, - Cannot God's glory, justice and law, be vindicated only at the expense of the endless misery of millions and millions of his own children? Who would not rather think that no such being as God exists? The remark of Plutarch will apply here. "I had rather," says he, "that men would say that no such man as Plutarch ever existed, than to have them say, there was one Plutarch who devoured his own children as soon and as fast as they were born into the world."

Suppose you see a father inflicting punishment upon one of his children; he continues to lay on stripe after stripe, until the shrieks and cries of the unfortunate child cause your blood to chill in your very veins. You ask the father why he inflicts such severe punishment. He tells you, to vindicate his own parental authority, and the law which he has established for the regulation of the conduct of his children. You ask again, But have you no other object in view? Do you not intend the good of your child? He tells you, no; his only object is to vindicate his law. Now, suppose that father to have the power to perpetuate the existence of that child through endless duration; and that you ask him if he intends that the punishment which he is inflicting shall ever cease. He answers,

no; and informs you that he intends to perpetuate the existence of his child through eternity, and make him a monument of his eternal wrath and displeasure; and all to vindicate his own authority, honor and law. What would you think of the glory, and honor, and authority, and law, of such a parent as this? Why, the voice of insulted humanity would cry out and brand such a father with infamy. And every rational man would say that he was undeserv ing the name of parent. How, then, can we attribute such a character, and such conduct, to the God of heaven, as to suppose that he will inflict such pain upon his creatures as can never result in any good?

8. It can result in no good to any being or beings in the universe; and is, therefore, not only useless, but infinitely worse than useless.

9. No such penalty was ever annexed to any known law given by God to man.

10. God never threatened any man, nor any set of men, with any such punishment.

11. No such punishment was ever threatened to man, by any prophet, priest or king, mentioned in the Bible.

12. No person mentioned either in the Old or New Testament ever expressed any fears of suffering such misery.

13. No person mentioned in the Bible ever prayed to God to be saved from such misery.

14. It originated among the heathen. Of course it had its origin among those nations that enjoyed no revelation from God; and is, therefore, a mere chimera of the human imagination.