The Conservative. (M'connelsville, Ohio) 1866-1871, 1871-03-24

Mr.. Barnes was q pariizan--he be-
longcd TO q Church whose creed
makes God a wantonly cruel, mex
orable and mercilcss tyrant. There
have been as able men as ever he
was tina: proved Universalism to be
true, and there are as many more
that are ready to bring forth argu-
/ menus Of the strongest kind.
Having boon accused of stating
that Albert Barnes doubted endless
woe, l would here state, that the
following are some of the cslebrat-
cd men that hare doubted endless
suffering: Drs. Philip Doddridge,
Samuel Clarke, Paley, Sir Isaac
Newton, Archbishop TIllotson.-
Soutby says, DR.. Watts doubted it,
ard there are eason for supposing
that DR.. Edward Young also doubt
ed it. The following illustrious per-
sons rejected 1t:
Drs. Benjamin Franklin, Bcnja-
min Rusk and Joseph Priestly, Drs.
Charles Chaunccy, Jonathan May
hew, and Thomas Burnet, Rev. J.
Garper Lavater, Leigh Hunt. Mrs.
Elisabeth Barrett Browning, Lady
Byron, Alice Carey, and e host of
others, not to mention those that
are living. Do you want the proof2
John Calvin, the lnqulsitors, and
bloody Mary had no doubts as to the
strict eternity of punishment
In q former communication You
stated that "OrthoJox people are
content ; their minds ere at rest"
and this with the words OF lIarnes
and Saurin before you, to say no
thing Of the confessions OF H. W.
Beecher, Edward Beecher and Mo-
ses Stuart. You must have judg-
ed by your own feelings,-l then
asked n question, or more. l now
allow Prof. Stuart, one of the abIest
defenders of your merciless doc
trine, answer. Having spoken how
the sympathies revolt against the
idea of endless wee, Prot. Stuart
adds IF there are any whose
breasts are strangers to such diff
culties as these, they r 10 be eon-
graduated on having made attain
ments almost beyond the reach OF
humanity in the present world /; or
else to be pitied for ignorance, or
the want of a sympathy, which
seems to be among tho first ele-
ments of u social nature" (BIb-
lical Repository, for July, 1900
(You will do tho readers a favor by
quoting ali be says on the sub
ject.)
now propose to ask you a few
questions, although l do not believe
you can answer ihem satisfactorily
10 yourself. / will not assault you
over the shoulder OF our Methodist
brethren-I put the questions IN
une3uivucal language
As we are required 10 love our
enemies, may We not safely infer
thatGod loves His enemies ? If
God loves His enemies, will He
punish them more than will be for
their good {? Would endless pun
ishment be for the good of any be-
ing? As God loves His friends, if
He loves HIS IN also, are not
mankind the obi sets of H.s love ?
If God loves thuse only who love
Him. what better is he than the
sinner? Luke VI 80, 33. As love
thInketh no evil can God design
the ultimate evil of y single soul {?
As 'love worketh no evil" can God
%infist. or cause, or allow TO be in
tiicted, an endless i'll ? AS we are
forbidden TO DO overcome of evil,
can We safely suppose hat God
will be overcome with evil p
Would noL The infection of endless
punishment provo that God had
been overcome of evil' Ii man
docs wrong In returning OWL for
evil, would not GOO DIS wrong were
he 10 do the same? Would not
endless punishment be the return
of evil for evil 2 As IRE are COM
manded TO Overcome evil with
good" may we not safely infer that
God will do the same? Wou!d the
inlictI"n of endless punishment be
overcoming evil with good? Wou'd
endless torture benefit Tho AlmIgh-
~ as the mfictors Would endless
suffering benefit she Saints as spec
tdtorss Would endless misery ben
eft the sinner, as the sufTerf
Yours respectfully,
]. P. McLANE