giveness of sins; or the hypothesis, that the punishment, which is sufficient to lead to repentance, is the curse of the law, must be renounced.

5. All men who are by any means brought to repentance, whether by the torment of hell or any other cause, are on the footing of justice entitled to perfect subsequent impunity. By the supposition, the sole just end of all the punishment inflicted by the Deity, is the repentance of the sinner. But this end is already obtained in all who are the subjects of repentance. Therefore to punish them is to inflict pain or misery for no just end whatever. But that the Deity should inflict misery for no just end, is for him to commit injustice and wanton cruelty, which is impossible. What then is become of the curse or pen alty of the divine law? The apostle declares, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." This seems to import, that every transgressor is exposed to a curse. But he who transgresses in ever so many instances, and then whether sooner or later repents, whether his repentance be effected by mercies, or by judgments, or by any other cause, is exposed to no curse, no punishment whatever; nor can without injustice be made the subject of any. On this scheme, if there be any curse in the law, it must be repentance itself. By the curse of the law, is doubtless meant the ill consequence, to which the sinner is by law and justice subjected, on account of his transgression.— But according to the scheme now before us, repentance, whensoever and by what cause soever it may exist in a sinner, is all the ill consequence (if it may be so called) to which he is by law and justice subjected on account of any sin or sins. This therefore with respect to him is the whole curse of the law, and can this be true? "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,being made a curse for us." But hath Christ redeemed us from

repentance? and did he effect that redemption, by becoming himself a penitent?

6. On the hypothesis, that no man can be justly punished for any other end, than his own personal good; no man commits any sin or moral evil, by any damage which he does, or can do, to any being beside himself; and the whole evil of sin consists in this, that by it a man does more or less damage to himself; but he never does, nor can possibly commit sin, by dishonouring or doing damage to any other being created or divine, only so far as, in the same action, he does damage to himself personally considered. If God never do nor can justly punish a sinner, for any other end, than to lead him to repentance and to promote his good; and if all just punishment be a mere discipline necessary and wholesome to the recipient; then punishment inflicted for any other end is unjust. It is unjust to punish a sinner on account of any contempt of the Deity, any opposition to his designs, to his cause or kingdom in the world, or on account of any abuses of any man or men, excepting so far as he damages himself at the same time. If it be just to punish a sinner for any of those sins, further, or in any other respect, than as he damages himself; it is just to punish him for other end or ends, than his own personal good; which is contrary to the supposition.-But if it be unjust to punish for actions in any other respect than as in those actions a man damages himself or his own interest; it must be because there is no moral evil in those actions, on any other account, or in any other view of them, than that by them he does a damage to himself, and the whole evil of sin must consist in this, that it is disadvantageous to the sinner's own interest or happiness. The end of all punishment is the removal or prevention of evil : and the evil to be removed or prevented by punishment, and which is the only ground of punishment, is the only

evil of sin. But the hypothesis which we are opposing throughout this chapter is, that the only just ends of punishment, are the repentance and good of the sinner himself; that is, the removal or prevention of personal evil to the sinner, is the only just end of punishing him. Of course this personal evil to the sinner, is the only just ground of punishing him, and is the whole evil of sin.

Now if this be the whole evil of sin, and it deserve punishment on no other account than this; no wonder there is such opposition made to the doctrine of endless punishment. For truly, if the nature and evil of sin be such, as hath been just now stated, not only the endless punishment of it is unjust, but any punishment of however short duration is unjust; because sin carries its own full punishment in itself. All that punishment which it deserves, is either contained in sin at the time it is committed, or it follows afterward, as a natural and necessary consequence, without any pain inflicted by the Deity; and to inflict any, the least pain, on the sinner, as a punishment of his sin, is manifestly unjust and absurd. -If a child, in consequence of thrusting its finger into a candle, should suffer great pain, surely it would not, beside that pain, deserve chastisement: because all the evil of its imprudence consists in bringing on itself that pain, and that pain itself is the full punishment of the imprudence. Therefore to inflict any further punishment must be unjust and cruel.-To apply this; all the moral evil of which the sinner is guilty, consists in bringing pain or loss on himself, and to punish him for this, is as absurd, as to punish the child just supposed; or to punish a man because he will walk with pebbles in his shoes, will whip himself, or will bring on himself the pain of hunger, by going without his ordinary meal.

7. On this hypothesis, he that repenteth, shall be saved, from what? from that wise, wholesome and neces

sary discipline, which cannot be justly inflicted, after he becomes a penitent; or in other words, he shall be saved from a punishment which is entirely unjust.Therefore the promises of salvation to those who repent, amount to nothing more than assurances, that God will not abuse, injure or rob them of their personal rights. But do we want so many 66 exceeding great and precious promises," to assure us of this? Or are these promises so exceeding great and precious, as it seems they were in the judgment of an apostle? Have we not abundant evidence of the same truth, from the moral rectitude of the Deity, without the aid of even a single promise?

8. If the sinner deserve no more punishment, than is necessary to lead to repentance, then he experiences much more of the grace and mercy of GoD, while he is in hell, than he does while he is on earth, or than he does in his deliverance from hell. In hell he enjoys those means of grace which are far better and more wisely and effectually calculated to secure his everlasting happiness, than those means which he enjoys on earth. In hell he receives real and demonstrative tokens of the divine grace and mercy in that discipline which is so necessary and so happily conducive to his everlasting happiness. But in deliverance from hell on his repentance, he receives no favour; his deliverance is a mere act of justice which cannot be denied him.

9. On the same hypothesis, the curse of the law, and the greatest, most necessary and most desirable mean of grace with respect to the impenitent, are one and the same thing. This is so plain, that not a word need be said to elucidate it. Therefore if Christ were to save any man from the curse of the law, he would deprive him of the best mean of grace, which he does or can enjoy ; and this salvation itself, so far from a blessing to the sinner, would be an infinitely greater curse, than the curse

of the law; because it would deprive him of a necessary and most excellent mean of grace, the punishment which is necessary to lead him to repentance. Nor would the gift of Christ himself, his incarnation, sufferings, death, atonement, or any thing which he hath done, or can possibly do, to save us from the curse of the law, be any favour or blessing to the person to be saved, but utterly the reverse. It is evidently no blessing to any man personally, but the reverse, that any measures should be taken to deprive him of the best and most necessary mean of grace, without which he would not be prepared for heaven and could not be admitted to it.

10. The doctrine, that the sinner deserves no more punishment, than is necessary to lead to repentance, confutes itself in this respect; that while it holds forth, that no punishment can justly be inflicted on the sinner, but that which is merely disciplinary, at the same time it supposes, that such a punishment is in fact inflicted on all the damned, as is to the highest degree vindictive. What is a proper vindictive punishment, but that which satisfies the demands of law and justice? But that such a punishment is inflicted on all the damned, is supposed by all who espouse the principle, which I am now opposing. Therefore in that very doctrine, in which they mean to oppose all vindictive punishment, they in the fullest sense hold it, by holding that such punishment as is conducive to the good of the sufferer, is all which justice admits.

If they should say, that the punishment of the damned is not merely vindictive; but at the same time disciplinary too, and therefore just: though if it were merely vindictive, it would be unjust: I answer, the present question entirely respects punishment which is merely disciplinary. Therefore to allow, that the punishment of the damned is partly vindictive, is to give up this question, and to substitute another.-Beside; if a vindictive punishment