Chapter 2: Whether the Damned Deserve Any Other Punishment

On the supposition, that future punishment is a mere discipline necessary and happily conducive to the repentance and good of the damned; it may be asked, whether such discipline be all which they deserve, and which can consistently with strict justice be inflicted; or whether they do indeed deserve a greater degree or duration of punishment, than that which is sufficient to lead them to repentance, and that additional punishment be by grace remitted to them. Let us consider both these hypotheses.

The first is, that the wicked deserve, according to strict justice, no more punishment, than is necessary to lead them to repentance, and to prepare them for happiness — That this is not a mere hypothesis made by an opponent of Doctor C. but is a doctrine implied at least, if not expressly asserted in his book, may appear by the following quotations. Is it not far more reasonable to suppose, that the miseries of the other world are a proper discipline in order to accomplish this end [the recovery of sinners] "than that they should be final and vindictive only?" If a final and vindictive punishment be entirely just, what has reason to object to the infliction of it, in some instances at least? — The consideration of hell as a purging fire, is that only which can make the matter sit easy on one's mind. But if hell, though not merely a purging fire, be justly deserved, why does not the thought of it sit easy on one's mind? So that it is manifestly implied in this reasoning of Doctor C. that no other punishment of the wicked can be reconciled with justice, than that which is adapted to their personal good.

The same is implicitly asserted by other writers on the same side of the question concerning future punishment. Bishop Newton, in his Dissertation on the final state of mankind, says, It is just and wise and good, and even merciful, to correct a sinner as long as he deserves correction; to whip and scourge him, as I may say, out of his faults. Therefore all the punishment of the sinner, which is just, and which he deserves, is correction, or to be scourged out of his faults. The Chevalier Ramsay tells us, that Justice is that perfection in GOD, by which he endeavors to make all intelligences just. Vindictive justice, is that attribute in GOD, by which he pursues vice with all sorts of torments, till it be totally extirpated, destroyed and annihilated. Therefore if GOD inflict any punishment with any other design, than to make the subject of that punishment just, and to extirpate vice from him, he violates even vindictive justice. M. Petitpierre in a tract lately published in England, and highly applauded by some, declares, that repentance appeases divine anger, and disarms its justice; because it accomplishes the end infinite goodness has in view, even when arrayed in the awful majesty of avenging justice; which was severe, because the moral state of the sinner required such discipline; and which when that state is reversed, by conversion and holiness, will have nothing to bestow suitable to it, but the delightful manifestations of mercy and forgiveness. The honor of the divine law is sufficiently guarded by the punishment of the sinner as long as he remains impenitent, and by the faithful and obedient adherence of the penitent offender. Divine justice is always satisfied when it attains its end; and this end is always attained, whenever the sinner is brought to repentance. So that it is evident, that all these writers implicitly held the proposition now under consideration, which is, that the wicked deserve according to strict justice, no more punishment than is necessary to lead them to repentance, and prepare them for happiness. This is not only a real tenet of those writers, but is most essential and important to their system; for if the contrary can be established, consequences will follow, which will greatly embarrass, if not entirely overthrow that system. I therefore beg the patience of the reader, while I particularly examine that tenet: Concerning it the following observations may be made,

1. It implies that the punishment which is necessary to lead the wicked to repentance is the curse of the divine law. Without doubt that punishment which amounts to the utmost, which strict justice admits, includes the penalty or curse of the divine law. The latter does not exceed the former; because the divine law is founded in perfect justice, and whatever is inconsistent with justice, is equally inconsistent with the divine law. If therefore the sinner deserve, according to strict justice, precisely so much punishment as is necessary to lead him to repentance and no more, then this is the true and utmost curse of the divine law — Yet such a punishment as this, is really [illegible] whole no evil, and therefore no curse even to the subject; because by the supposition it is necessary to lead him to repentance, and prepare him for the everlasting joys and glory of heaven.

Doctor C. has given us his idea of a curse, in his Five Dissertations, in the following words, "A testimony of the divine displeasure against man's offence": "A testimony of the vengeance of GOD, which is a judgment on his part and a real evil on man's part." In the same book, he states his idea of a blessing to a man, to be, "That which is greatly to his advantage." But the pains of hell, if they be absolutely necessary, and most happily conducive to the repentance and endless happiness of the damned, are no real evil on their part, nor any judgment or testimony of vengeance on GOD's part: and therefore are no curse at all; but are according to the Doctor's own definition a real blessing, and a real testimony of the benevolence of GOD to the damned. Surely a medicine of disagreeable taste, but absolutely necessary to preserve the life, or restore the health of a man, and administered with consummate judgment, is no evil or curse to the man to whom it is administered; but is a desirable good, or a blessing to him; and the administration of it, is a full proof of the benevolence of the physician to his patient. A proof equally demonstrative of the divine benevolence to the damned, is the whole of their punishment in hell, if it be designed merely to lead them to repentance and to prepare them for happiness: and this fruit of the divine benevolence can, according to Doctor C's own definition of a curse, be no curse.

It is granted by Doctor C. and in general by other advocates for universal salvation, that the torments of hell are not only wisely adapted, but that they are absolutely necessary to lead the damned to repentance; that no more gentle means would so well answer the proposed end; that therefore the divine goodness and wisdom have chosen and applied those torments, as the means of good to the damned. But certainly that which is on the whole necessary for a person's own good, is to him, on the whole, no real evil, and therefore no curse; but a good, a blessing; a wise man would choose it for himself, as it is, in its connection, really and properly eligible or desirable. If the torments of hell taken in connection with repentance and endless happiness be a curse, then repentance and endless happiness taken in connection with the torments of hell, are a curse too. If some bitter pill, considered as connected with life, be a curse; than life connected with that pill, is a curse too. That and that only is a curse to a person, which taken in its proper connections and dependences, renders him more miserable, than he would be without it. On the contrary, that is a blessing to a person, which taken in its proper connections and dependences, renders him more happy than he would be without it. It is just as great a blessing and just as great a privilege, as happiness itself. And with what propriety this can be called a curse, I appeal to every man acquainted with propriety of language to determine. To call this a curse is to confound a curse and a blessing. This being the true idea of a curse and a blessing, it immediately follows on the supposition now under consideration, that the torments of hell are no curse, but a blessing to those on whom they are inflicted; because the very supposition is, that they are necessary to secure and promote their happiness and are inflicted for this end only.

The absurdity then, to which on the whole we are reduced is, that those means, which are the best that infinite wisdom itself could devise and apply, for the salvation of those who die in impenitence, are the curse of the divine law; and that the greatest evil which God can consistently with justice inflict on the greatest and most obdurate enemy of himself, of his Son our glorious Savior, of his law, of his grace, and of mankind, is, to put him under the best possible advantages to secure and promote his highest everlasting happiness: Which is no more nor less than to say, That the greatest curse which God can consistently with his perfections inflict on the sinner dying in impenitence, is to bestow on him the greatest blessing, which it is in the power of omnipotence and infinite bounty to bestow on him, in his present temper of mind; that the divine law has no curse at all annexed to it; and that the penalty of the law is an inestimable blessing, the blessing of repentance, or of that discipline, which is absolutely necessary, and most wisely adapted to lead to repentance, and to prepare for the greatest happiness.

If on this view of the matter, it should be said, that the punishment of hell is not the greatest blessing which God can bestow on the sinner who dies in impenitence; that it would be a greater blessing, to grant him repentance by immediate efficacious grace, and then receive him to heavenly happiness — concerning this I observe, that it gives up the only ground, on which the supposition now under consideration rests, and on which alone it can be supported. The supposition is, that the punishment of hell is inflicted with the sole view of leading the sufferers to repentance, and of promoting their good. But if their good might be as effectually secured and promoted by other means, as is now asserted, then the torments of hell are not inflicted to promote the good of the sufferers. So far as their good is concerned, those torments are needless, in fact they are a wanton exercise of cruelty. But as cruelty cannot be ascribed to the only wise God, he must, if this objection be valid, inflict the torments of hell, for some other end, than the final happiness of those who are sent to that world of misery.

Besides, Doctor C. and other opposers of endless punishment, are no friends to the doctrine of efficacious grace. According to their system, efficacious grace destroys all liberty and moral agency, and reduces men to mere machines. Therefore in their view, to be led to repentance by efficacious grace, is not a greater blessing, than to be led to repentance by the torments of hell; because it is not a greater blessing to be a watch or a windmill than to be a rational moral agent. In fact, according to their system, there is no possibility of leading by efficacious grace any man to a repentance which is of a holy or of a moral nature: because according to their system, a necessary holiness is no holiness, and a necessary repentance is no more of a moral nature, than the working of a machine.

2. If all who are saved, be delivered from wrath on account of the merit of Christ in any sense, then that punishment, which leads to repentance, is not the curse of the law, or is not all the punishment which justice admits. They who suffer the curse of the law, satisfy the law, and therefore stand in no need of the merit of Christ to satisfy the law or to deliver them from the curse of it. They can no longer consistently with justice be held under that curse. To hold such persons still under the curse of the law, unless they can obtain an interest in the merit of Christ, can never be reconciled with the moral perfection of God. Yet this is the very fact, if that punishment which leads to repentance be the curse of the law and at the same time, as Doctor C. abundantly holds, salvation in the deliverance from wrath, as well as in the bestowment of positive happiness, be granted to no man, but on account of the merit of Christ.

3. On this hypothesis, our Lord Jesus Christ will not save all men, nor will all men be saved, whether by Christ, or without him. Deliverance from the curse of the law is essential to salvation. But if the curse of the law be that punishment, which is necessary to lead to repentance; and if, as the advocates for universal salvation hold, a great part of mankind will suffer this punishment; it follows, that a great part of mankind will not be saved. For to be saved, and yet to suffer the curse of the law, is a direct contradiction. To suffer the curse of the law is to be damned, and is all the damnation to which any sinner is exposed, and to which justice, the most strict and rigorous justice, can doom him. If then any man have suffered this damnation, from what is he or can he be saved? Certainly from nothing, because he is exposed to nothing: unless we say, that by the just law of the God of perfect justice, he is exposed to unjust punishment.

If to this argument it be objected, that though all men are not saved from the curse of the law, whether by Christ, or without him; yet all are finally admitted to happiness; those who repent in this life, are admitted to happiness through the merits of Christ; those who die impenitent, are admitted to the same, in consequence of enduring in their own persons, the curse of the law: and that this is all which is intended by the salvation of all men — with respect to this I observe.

(1) This is no proper salvation, which in its primary meaning signifies a deliverance from evil. But according to the case now stated, some men are not delivered from any evil, to which they ever were exposed; but suffer it all. Therefore they are not saved.

(2) That this objection entirely sets aside, with regard to a great part of mankind, salvation in the way of forgiveness of sin, and the free grace of God in the pardon of the sinner, which is contrary to the whole gospel.

But to proceed; as Christ, on the present hypothesis, does not in fact save all men; so it would be no favor to them, for him to attempt the salvation of all those who die impenitent. An attempt to deliver them from the curse of the law, would be an attempt to deprive them of the most necessary, wise, desirable and merciful means of grace, on which their eternal happiness depends: an attempt not to deliver them from anything which on the whole is an evil, a disadvantage even to themselves; but to deprive them of that on which their supreme interest depends; of that which is in fact the greatest good, which they, in their present temper can enjoy, and the greatest blessing which at present God can possibly bestow on them. Now to deprive them of this, is certainly no favor, nor any fruit of grace, mercy or goodness to them personally. Even to take them to heaven, before they have passed through this discipline would by no means be so great a favor to them, as to cause them to pass through this discipline; as it would be to take them to heaven before they were prepared for it, or could enjoy happiness in it.

Further; if the curse of the law be that punishment, which is necessary to lead to repentance, then Christ came not to deliver from the curse of the law, all who are to be finally happy, but to inflict that curse on a part of them. Christ is exalted to be a prince and a Saviour to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. It is a part of his office, to bring men to repentance, by all wise and proper means. Doctor C. and other advocates for universal salvation, suppose, that hell torments are the means, and most wise, proper and necessary means too, by which Christ will execute the work of giving repentance to all the damned. Therefore his work as a savior, so far as respects them, is, on Doctor C.'s plan, not to deliver them from the curse of the law, but to inflict that curse on them. But who is not struck with the contrariety of this idea, to the constant, uniform declarations of scripture, that Christ came to redeem us from the curse of the law, to save us from wrath, to deliver us from the wrath to come, etc.

Will it be said in opposition to the last observation, that those who die in impenitence, are not saved in any sense by or through Christ, whether by his atonement, or by him as God's prime minister, in the fullness of times bringing all to repentance; and that therefore Christ is not come to inflict the curse of the law on any who shall be finally happy? Then let it never more be pleaded, that Christ is the savior of all men; that he gave himself a ransom for all; that he tasted death for every man; that the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, has abounded to the many, (meaning all men) that by the righteousness of one the free gift shall come upon all men to justification of life; that Christ must reign, till he shall have put all enemies under his feet, in genuine repentance; that peace being made by the blood of the cross, it pleased the father by Christ to reconcile all things to himself. For if Christ shall not finally have saved all men by his merit, nor shall have led them to repentance in the execution of the scheme of providence; in what sense can the salvation of all men be ascribed to Christ? In what conceivable sense can he be called the Saviour of all men? Therefore if any adopt the idea of the objection just stated, let them never more plead in favor of the salvation of all men, any of those passages of scripture referred to above, nor any passage, which relates to salvation by Christ.

Beside; if the damned be led to repentance by the torments of hell, by whom are those torments inflicted? Not by Christ it seems, because that would imply, that Christ came not to deliver all who shall be finally happy, from the curse of the law; but to inflict that curse on a part of them. By whom then will those torments, those most excellent means of grace, be administered? Is not Christ the judge of all men? The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the son. We must all stand at his judgment seat and receive according to that which we shall have done in the body whether good or evil: and he will say; Depart, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

4. If the penalty of the law consist in that punishment, which is necessary to lead to repentance, then all the damned, if brought to repentance at all, are delivered out of hell, not on the footing of grace and mercy, or of favour and goodness; but on the footing of the strictest justice; not on the footing of the gospel, but of the rigour of law. By the present hypothesis, the damned all suffer that punishment, which is necessary to lead them to repentance, and therein suffer the curse of the law, or all that punishment which the utmost rigour of law and justice denounces or can inflict. If the Deity himself were to proceed in punishing, one step beyond this line, he would exceed the bounds of justice, would rise in opposition to his own perfections, would deny himself; in short, would no longer be God. Therefore as soon as a sinner in hell is brought to repentance, he must be immediately released. Nor is he under obligation to plead for grace or favor; he may demand [reconstructed: release] on the footing of personal justice. He is under no necessity to have recourse to the gospel, he may insist on his personal right, on the footing of the law. He has satisfied the law; he has satisfied the justice of God; it has taken its course on him; he has nothing more to fear from it; and he must be delivered from further punishment or else he is injured, he is oppressed.

In fact, to plead for mercy or favor in order to his deliverance, is not merely needless; it is out of character, it is degrading himself who stands right with respect to the law, to the place of one who is obnoxious to still further punishment. It implies that he is ignorant of his own character and relation to the Deity and his law. Equally out of character would he act, if on his deliverance, he should render praise or thanks, either to God the Father, or to his son Jesus Christ. Surely a man condemned by a civil judge, to receive forty stripes save one, after he has received them, is under no obligation to render praise or thanks for his release, either to the judge or to the executive officer.

But how are these things reconcilable with the scriptures? Surely these consequences fairly deducible from the hypothesis under consideration, are entirely inconsistent with the gospel; and the hypothesis itself cannot consistently be embraced by any believer in the New Testament.

Particularly: This hypothesis precludes all possibility of forgiveness of the damned, even, on the supposition that they are finally to be admitted to heavenly happiness. Forgiveness implies, that the sinner forgiven is not punished in his own person, according to law and justice. But on the hypothesis under consideration in this chapter, all the damned, are in their own persons punished according to law and justice, in that they suffer that punishment, which is necessary to lead them to repentance. Who would think of telling a man, who has in his own person, received the corporal punishment, to which he had been condemned, that the crime for which he received that punishment, is freely forgiven him! This would be adding insult to the rigour of justice. But according to the scriptures, it seems there is no salvation on the footing of the law, or without forgiveness. Therefore either it must be made to appear, that the scriptures do admit the idea, that some men will be received to heaven on the footing of law, and without forgiveness 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 penalty of the divine law? The apostle declares, "Cursed is every one that continues 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, whenever 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 has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." But has 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 has 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 repents, shall be saved, from what? From that wise, wholesome and necessary 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 "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 deserves 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 favor; 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 means 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 means 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 means 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 anything which he has done, or can possibly do, to save us from the curse of the law, be any favor 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 means 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 be unjust, how can it become just by being connected with a punishment, which is just? To correct a child, to gratify a malicious temper, is doubtless unjust. Now, if a man correct his child from two motives, partly from malice, and partly from a view to the good of the child; the justice of his conduct, so far as he is influenced by the latter motive, can never render his conduct just, so far as it proceeds from the former.

A vindictive punishment is that which is inflicted with a design to support the authority of a broken law, and of a despised government: And if the punishment be just, it is at the same time according to the conduct or demerit of the transgressor. This is demanded by every law; and if the law be just, it is justly demanded: Or in other words, such a punishment of the transgression of a just law, as is sufficient to support the authority of that law, is a just punishment. At the same time it is a punishment as truly, and to as high a degree vindictive, as justice will admit. Now if that punishment which is necessary to lead the sinner to repentance, be sufficient thus to support the authority and dignity of the divine law and government, and be inflicted for this end; it is to the highest degree vindictive, and designedly vindictive. If it be not sufficient to answer those ends, it is not the whole punishment, which the divine law and justice demand: For as I have before observed, every just and wise law demands that punishment which is necessary to its own support or existence, and justice and wisdom enforce this demand.

Therefore let the advocates for universal salvation make their choice. If they shall choose to hold agreeably to the present supposition, that such punishment as is necessary to lead to repentance, is all that can justly be inflicted on the sinner, and that therefore it is sufficient to support the authority and dignity of the divine law and government; they stand convicted of holding, that the punishment of the damned is by no means merely disciplinary, but to the highest degree vindictive. If on the other hand, they choose to hold, that the punishment which is necessary to lead the sinner to repentance, is not adequate to the purposes before mentioned; then they must renounce the principle, which we have been so long considering, and allow the divine law does denounce a further punishment, than that which is necessary to lead the sinner to repentance, and is a mere discipline. Because the divine law being perfectly just, does justly, and must necessarily admit of that punishment, which is sufficient to its own support or existence. Thus on either supposition, they must renounce a very favorite tenet.

11. With what propriety can we talk of satisfying the law by repentance, or by that punishment, which is necessary to lead to repentance; when the law says not a word expressly concerning repentance, either in consequence of punishment, or without it? By the law is the knowledge of sin; but by it we know nothing of any good, to be obtained by repentance, whether in the way of favour, or in the way of justice. The doctrine of any advantage to be obtained by repentance, is a doctrine of the gospel only, not of the law. Yet if it be unjust to punish a sinner with any other view, than to lead him to repentance, this doctrine would undoubtedly be found in the law. The voice of the law is, not cursed is every one that transgresses, and does not repent: But cursed is every one that continues not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.

12. From the principle, that sin deserves no other punishment, than that which is subservient to the good of the sinner, it will follow, that what we call sin, is no moral evil.

It seems to be a dictate of reason and the common sense of mankind, that moral evil should be followed, or deserves to be followed, with natural evil or with pain and shame: and that this natural evil be a real evil to the sinner, an evil to him on the whole. But that evil, which is necessary and subservient to a man's personal good, is to him no real evil; but on the whole is, even to him personally, a good, a blessing, and not a curse. Now it is not a dictate of reason and common sense, that moral evil deserves a blessing. That which deserves a blessing and no curse, is no moral evil. Therefore if sin deserve no other punishment than that which is subservient to the personal good of the sinner, it is no moral evil.

If it be said to be no dictate of common sense, that moral evil should be followed with natural evil: it may be answered, that surely it is not a dictate of common sense, that it be followed, with natural good. This would imply, that it deserves a reward. Nor is it a dictate of common sense, that it be followed with neither natural good nor natural evil. This would imply, that it is worthy of neither praise nor blame, reward nor punishment; and therefore is neither a moral good nor a moral evil. Both which conclusions are absurd. Therefore it remains, that it is a dictate of reason and common sense, that moral evil be followed with natural evil. Or if it be further urged, that it is a dictate of common sense, that moral evil considering the infinite goodness and mercy of God, should be followed with no natural evil; it is to be observed, that this is giving up the ground of justice, and going on that of goodness and mercy, which is entirely foreign to the subject of this chapter. The inquiry of this chapter is what sin deserves on the footing of justice, not what it will actually suffer on the footing of the divine infinite goodness and mercy. This latter inquiry shall be carefully attended to in its place, chapter 8.

Again; moral evil is in itself, or in its own nature, odious and the proper object of disapprobation and abhorrence. By its own nature I mean its tendency to evil, the dishonor of the Deity and the misery or diminution of the happiness of the created system. Therefore it is not injurious to the person who perpetrates moral evil, to disapprove, hate and abhor it in itself, aside from all consideration of the consequences of such disapprobation, whether such consequences be to the perpetrator personally good or bad. Hence it follows, that it is not injurious to the perpetrator of moral evil, to manifest disapprobation of his conduct, so far as morally evil, whether such manifestation be subservient to his good or not. And if sin be a moral evil, it is not injurious to the sinner, both to disapprove, and to manifest disapprobation of sin, whether such manifestation be subservient to his good or not. But this directly contradicts the principle, that sin deserves no other punishment, than that which is subservient to the good of the sinner. For what is punishment, but a manifestation of disapprobation, which a person vested with authority has, of the conduct of a subject? And if it be not injurious to the sinner, to disapprove his sin, and to manifest that disapprobation, whether it subserve his good or not; then his sin, or he on account of his sin, deserves both disapprobation, and the manifestation of disapprobation, though that manifestation be not subservient to his personal good: which is the same thing as to say, that the sinner deserves punishment, whether that punishment subserve his own good or not. On the other hand, if it be not just to manifest disapprobation of sin, it is not just to disapprove sin. If it be not just to disapprove or to hate sin, aside from the consideration, that the disapprobation is conducive to the personal good of the sinner; then sin is not in itself, or in its own nature and tendency, hateful or odious, but becomes odious then only, when the hatred of it conduces to the personal good of the sinner. But if sin be not in itself odious, it is not a moral evil; which was the thing to be proved.

There seems to be no way to avoid this consequence but by holding, that moral evil is not in itself odious and abominable, but that it becomes odious then only, when the disapprobation of it subserves the personal good of the perpetrator: which is the same as to hold, that moral evil, as such, is not at all odious, but is odious in this particular case only, when the disapprobation of it subserves the good of the perpetrator: but in all other cases, it is a matter of indifferency at least, if not an object of cordial complacency; and therefore in all other cases is no moral evil.

On the supposition which I am now opposing, when a man sins and immediately repents, he deserves no punishment, because the end of all punishment is already obtained by his repentance, and a tendency of punishment to the repentance of the sinner, which is the only circumstance, on the present hypothesis which can justify his punishment, cannot now be pretended, as a reason for his punishment. Therefore any punishment after repentance, must be undeserved and unjust. But if sin be a moral evil or a crime, it is in its own nature displeasing to God, and he may justly both be displeased at it, and manifest his displeasure; that is, he may punish it, whether the sinner repent or not. Repentance though it is a renunciation of sin in future, makes no alteration in the nature of the sin which is past; nor is it any satisfaction for that sin. If it were, it would be either the curse of the law, or such a meritorious act of virtue, as to balance the demerit of sin: neither of which will be pretended. But if the only reason why it is, or can be just for God to show displeasure at sin, be, that the sinner may thereby be led to repentance; then sin itself, or the proper nature of sin, is not a just reason, why God should either be displeased, or show displeasure at it. Impenitence or the repetition of sin or the continuance of the sinner in it, is on this supposition, the only just reason or ground of either displeasure, or of any manifestation of displeasure at sin. Therefore sin in general, or sin as such, deserves no displeasure or manifestation of displeasure; but sin in some particular case only, as when it is persisted in or repeated. If we should hold, that sins committed in the day time, do not deserve punishment; but that those which are committed in the night, do deserve punishment, I think it would be manifest to every man, that we denied, that sin as such, and by the general nature common to all sins, deserves punishment; and that we confined the desert of punishment to something which is merely accidental, and not at all essential to sin. And is it not manifest, that the desert of punishment is as really not extended to the general nature of sin, but is confined to something merely accidental, when it is asserted, that sin deserves no punishment, unless it be followed with impenitence? Or unless it be persisted in? Or, which is the same thing, that no punishment is just, except that which is designed to lead the sinner to repentance?

If sin does not by its general nature deserve punishment, it does not by its general nature deserve the manifestation of divine displeasure; because all manifestation of divine displeasure at sin, is punishment. Again, if sin does not by its general nature deserve the manifestation of divine displeasure, it does not by its general nature deserve displeasure itself: and if so, it is not by its general nature a moral evil.

It appears then, that on the hypothesis now under consideration, sin deserves neither punishment nor hatred, and is no moral evil, unless it be followed with impenitence; or unless it be persisted in, for at least some time. The first act of sin is no moral evil. But if the first act be not a moral evil, why is the second, the third, or any subsequent act? Impenitence is nothing but a repetition or perseverance in acts the same or similar to that of which we do not repent. But if the first act, abstracted from the subsequent, be not a moral evil, what reason can be assigned, why the subsequent should be a moral evil? Thus the principle, that sin deserves punishment so far only, as the punishment of it tends to the repentance and good of the sinner, implies, that there is no moral evil in the universe, either in the first sin, or in any which follow; none even in impenitence itself. On the other hand, if sin in all instances be a moral evil, it is justly to be abhorred by the Deity, whether repentance succeed or not: and if it may justly be abhorred by the Deity, he may justly manifest his abhorrence of it, whether repentance succeed or not. But to allow this, is to give up the principle, that sin deserves no other punishment, than that which is subservient to the repentance and good of the sinner.

Punishment is a proper manifestation of displeasure, made by a person in authority, at some crime or moral evil. If sin, though repented of, be still a moral evil, and the just object of the divine displeasure; why is it not just, that this displeasure should be manifested? But the manifestation of the divine displeasure at moral evil, is punishment. If on the other hand, it be an injurious treatment of a sinner, that the Deity should, after repentance, manifest his displeasure at him, on account of his sin; then doubtless it is injurious in the Deity to be displeased with him on account of his sin, of which he has repented. Again; if it be injurious in the Deity to be displeased with a man on account of his sin, after he has desisted from it in repentance, why is it not injurious to be displeased with him, on account of his past sin, though he is still persisting in sin? If one act of murder be not the proper object of the abhorrence of all holy intelligences, creator and creatures, why are two or one hundred acts of murder proper objects of abhorrence? Add nothing to itself as often as you please, you can never make it something. So that by this principle we seem to be necessarily led to this conclusion, that no man on account of any sin whatever, whether repented of or not, can consistently with justice be made the object of divine abhorrence or displeasure, and consequently that sin in no instance whatever is a moral evil.

On the principle which I am now opposing, whenever a man commits any sin, for instance murder, neither God, nor man has any right to manifest displeasure at his conduct, or even to be displeased with it, till two things are fully known; first whether the murderer does or does not repent; secondly, whether displeasure in this case, or the manifestation of displeasure, will conduce to the happiness of the murderer. If he does repent, no intelligent being has a right, on the footing of justice, to be displeased; nor even if he be impenitent, unless it be known for a certainty, that the displeasure of the person, who is inquiring whether he has a right to be displeased or not, will conduce to the repentance and good of the murderer. To say otherwise; to say that we have a right in justice to be displeased with the conduct of a murderer, though he does repent, or though such displeasure does not conduce to his repentance and happiness, is to give up the principle in question. For if we may justly be displeased with his conduct, though he is penitent, or though our displeasure does not conduce to his personal happiness; we may justly manifest our displeasure. But manifestation of displeasure, especially by a ruler, at the misconduct of a subject, is punishment.

Once more; on the supposition that we have no right to be displeased with murder, unless our displeasure conduce to the good of the murderer; if there be any moral evil or turpitude in murder, it consists not in the murder itself, or in the malicious action of murder; but wholly in this circumstance attending it, that displeasure at it, conduces to the personal good of the murderer.

Perhaps it may be objected to the reasoning in the last argument, that if it prove anything, it proves too much, and therefore really proves nothing; that if sin, or any crime, does in all cases, and on account of its own [reconstructed: demerit] and turpitude, deserve disapprobation and punishment, it will follow, that it deserves the same, even after it has been punished according to strict distributive justice; that after such punishment the nature of the crime is the same which it was before; that the crime therefore is still the proper object of disapprobation, and of the manifestation of disapprobation; and on the ground of the preceding reasoning, deserves an additional punishment, after it has been once punished according to strict distributive justice; which is absurd.

To this it may be answered, that a crime considered in connection with its just and full punishment, is not that crime considered, in itself, or in its own nature merely. Water mingled with wine, and thus become a compound substance, is no longer mere water. The preceding reasoning supposes, that a crime in its own nature and tendency deserves disapprobation and the manifestation of disapprobation. But a crime taken with the full punishment of it which is according to strict distributive justice, and considered in this complex view, or that crime and the just punishment of it considered as one complex object, is not that crime considered in itself and in its own nature merely. Therefore although the crime considered in itself deserves punishment, yet considered in the complex view just stated, it deserves not additional punishment. And whereas it is implied in the objection now under consideration, that a crime even after it has been punished according to strict distributive justice, is still the just object of disapprobation, and therefore that disapprobation may justly be manifested even by the magistrate, or the crime may be punished; it is to be observed, that the whole force of this reasoning depends on the meaning of the expression, a crime even after it has been punished according to strict distributive justice, is still the just object of disapprobation. If the meaning of that expression be, that the crime considered in its own nature and tendency, and as abstracted from the punishment or any thing done to prevent the ill effect of the crime, is a proper object of disapprobation, and is an event most ardently to be deprecated, or it is most ardently to be wished, that it might never have come into existence, and in this sense, it is the just object of disapprobation and of the manifestation of disapprobation: this is undoubtedly true, and no ill consequence to the preceding reasoning will follow. But if the meaning of that expression be, that a crime considered in connection with its just punishment and the good effects of that punishment, as one complex object, is a proper object of disapprobation, so that it is proper to wish, that this complex object had not come into existence; it is not true that in this sense a crime after it has been punished according to strict distributive justice, is still the just object of disapprobation. There have doubtless been many instances of crimes in civil society, which taken with the just punishments inflicted on them, have been on the whole the occasion of great good to society, have established government and preserved the peace of society longer and more effectually, than would have been the case, had no such crimes been committed. Therefore the existence of those crimes taken with the punishments, as one complex object, is no proper object of disapprobation or deprecation, but of acquiescence and joy: because in this connection they tend not to impair, but establish and promote the general good. In this sense any crime or any sin, after it has been punished according to strict distributive justice, is not the just object of disapprobation, and therefore not of the manifestation of disapprobation or of punishment. So that the foregoing reasoning will not prove that a sin or crime, once punished according to strict distributive justice, deserves an additional punishment.

The essence of moral evil is, that it tends to impair the good and happiness of the universe: in that the odiousness of sin or of moral evil consists. And a punishment in the distributive sense just, is that punishment inflicted on the person of the sinner, which effectually prevents any ill consequence to the good of the universe, of the sin or crime punished. Now therefore sin taken with the just punishment of it, no more tends to impair the good of the universe, than poison taken with an effectual antidote, tends to destroy the life of him who takes it.

Objection 1. If sin taken with its just punishment, do not tend to impair the good of the universe, and if the essence of moral evil consist in its tendency to impair the good of the universe, it seems that sin taken with its just punishment is no sin at all. Answer: It is indeed not mere sin. It is no more sin, than poison taken with its antidote, is poison. That poison which is mixed with the antidote, if it were separated from the antidote, would produce the same effects, is of the same tendency, and consequently of the same nature, as before the mixture. Yet the compound made by the mixture, produces no such effects, is of no such tendency, and consequently is of a very different nature. So any sin which is punished according to strict justice, abstracted from the punishment, is of the same tendency and nature, of which it was before the punishment. Yet that sin taken with its full and just punishment, as one complex object, is of a very different tendency and nature, and will be followed with no such effects as would have followed from it, had it not been punished. In this sense, sin taken with its full and just punishment is indeed no sin at all.

Objection 2. If the sinner does not deserve punishment, when the ill consequences of his sin are prevented by his personal punishment; why does he deserve punishment, when the ill consequences are prevented by the sufferings of his substitute? Answer. Desert and ill desert are according to the character of the person himself, and not according to that of his representative or substitute. Now satisfaction for a crime by personal suffering is as really a part of the criminal's personal character, as the crime itself. But satisfaction by the suffering of another, is [reconstructed: not a] part of the personal character of the criminal.

If then on the whole, it be an established point, that on the supposition that no other punishment can be justly inflicted on the sinner, than that which is necessary for his repentance and happiness, sin is no moral evil; this will be attended with many other consequences equally, or if possible, still more absurd:

1. That sin deserves no punishment at all. Surely nothing but moral evil deserves punishment.

2. That neither sin itself, nor we as sinners are the objects of the divine disapprobation.

3. That neither ought we to disapprove it, whether in ourselves or others.

4. That repentance is no duty of any man; indeed, it is positively wrong. Shall we repent of an innocent action?

5. That the calamities which God brings on men in this life, are not reconcileable with justice. That these calamities in general are punishments or demonstrations of God's displeasure at the sins of mankind, is manifest from the scriptures. This is especially manifest concerning the most extraordinary and unusual calamities which in scripture are mentioned to have befallen communities or individuals; as the flood of Noah, the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Chaldeans, and afterwards by the Romans, the death of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, of Nadab and Abihu, of Uzzah, etc. But all these punishments were unjust, if sin be no moral evil.

6. That there is no foundation in any human actions or characters, for praise or blame, reward or punishment. If sin be no moral evil, it is not blameable; and if sin or vice do not deserve blame or punishment, virtue which is the opposite, does not deserve praise or reward: and all moral distinctions are groundless, as in a moral view there is no difference between virtue and vice, sin and holiness. Therefore there is no moral government in the universe, nor any foundation for it.

I now appeal to the reader, with regard to the propriety of the preceding remarks, and whether the absurdities before mentioned, be not indeed implied in the hypothesis, that the sinner can, consistently with justice, be made to suffer no other punishment, than that which is disciplinary or conducive to the good of the sufferer, by leading him to repentance and preparing him for happiness. If those absurdities justly follow, not the least doubt can remain, but that the principle from which they follow, is absurd and false.