of the redemption destroy the necessity of personal holiness and obedience to the law, but on the contrary, it is through this the soul is made holy, and is prepared to keep the law. "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin," and the Holy Spirit which the Father sendeth in Christ's name, renews the heart, and writes upon it the law of love, and imparts that personal holiness without which none shall see the Lord. This view of the atonement appears rational and Scriptural, but any other view of it immediately involves us in difficulties. The fact is, we may mar the Gospel system in two ways-we may attribute too much to the atonement, or too little. In either case we open an inlet for dangerous errors. The following appear to me to be so plain, and so well established in God's word, as to be almost entitled to the appellation of Gospel axioms. The atonement has vindicated the law of God, and satisfied its claims, and secured the dignity of the Divine government in such a manner, that the vilest transgressor may be saved. The atonement has not met the claims of the law so as to preclude the necessity of pardon, or the direct exercise of grace toward the sinner. Without the atonement there can be no acceptable repentance and faith, no pardon or holiness: notwithstanding the atonement, without repentance and faith, and consequent pardon and holiness, there can be no final salvation. These propositions are written as with a sun

If any are "salvation is

beam in all the book of God. disposed to contend, and say, unconditional, because Christ has satisfied the law," or, "the atonement is not a redemption from the curse of the law, because the sinner must, nevertheless, either be pardoned, or suffer the penalty," they must do it; but in these cases they contend not with us, but with the Bible. And in either case they strike equally at the very foundation of the Gospel system, though they are the opposite extremes of error. They are as much or more opposed to each other as they are to truth; and yet paradoxical as it may seem, Universalism has espoused them both: for we are told, in one breath, by this unaccountable system, that as Christ has redeemed all from the curse of the law, all will be unconditionally saved, and also that the atonement has done nothing for us, since all must inevitably suffer the full penalty of the law! We are prepared to show, and we think have shown, that both of these propositions, taken separately, are directly contrary to Scripture; but when taken together and united in the same system, they are palpable contradictions, and monstrous absurdities. Like an acid and an alkali, when taken separately, they are equally removed from the healthful and reireshing cordials of Gospel truth; and when blended, they mutually destroy each other, and form a compound vapid and tasteless and useless.

And in this view of the subject where will

Universalism flee for support? It has sought to shelter itself under the idea that the curse of God's law threatens only a temporary punishment. But this on examination could not be supported; for it was found such an idea would be incompatible with the very genius and general tenor of the Gospel. Such a curse, it has been shown, could not be a temporary punishment, but less than the transgressor would actually suffer, for in that case this excess of suffering would be unjust; it could not be more than any condemned sinner will actually suffer, for no such curse is revealed: it would be a scare-crow terror, hung up to indicate a punishment to which the sinner was never exposed, and which he never could suffer; this would be a trifling and an inconsistency of which God could never be guilty. Again it was seen that this punishment could not be temporary, and just equal to what the damned would actually suffer, for that would blot out at once all the prominent features of the Gospel,-it would destroy the idea of salvation, of forgiveness, and of grace; neither could this curse be an indefinite temporary punishment, threatening only just enough to bring the sinner to repentance and salvation, for this would involve a numerous train of unscriptural and irrational absurdities. The curse, therefore, viewed separate from the atonement, and as a part of the Divine law, must be endless torment. Driven from this ground, we have followed

this system to its vain and unscriptural confidence, that whatever the law threatens to the transgressor, Christ has unconditionally redeemed him from its curse. And we have

found that the atonement neither repeals the law, nor unconditionally satisfies the curse, but only makes provision for repentance and salvation when the sinner repents and believes. All, therefore, who love not the Lord Jesus Christ, are under the curse; and all who continue to reject the Gospel, and obey not its truths, are damned,-shall not see life, for the wrath of God abideth on them,-where Christ is gone they cannot go; but must go into hell fire, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched,—and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever. Impenitent sinner! tremble at the thought. Do you say it is impossible God should punish a sinner thus! for you cannot think of it without horror! God never intended you should he never intended to make a tolerable hell. It is only perhaps because you have imagined the curse of the law to be trifling, that you have hitherto continued in sin. Now, then, look at your danger in all its fearful and terrible character; and fly, while you may, to the atoning sacrifice, "For Christ hath redeemed you from the curse of the law, being made a curse for you."

270

OBJECTIONS

AGAINST THE

DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION;

BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF A DISCOURSE

Delivered in the Methodist Church in Springfield, Mass., at the close of the preceding Discussion.

BY REV. W. FISK, A. M.

Principal of the Wesleyan Academy, Wilbraham, Muss.

"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

"So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate," Rev. ii, 14, 15.

THERE is no system of religion, philosophy, or politics, however long established, and however strongly supported, but may, in some of its forms, and in some of its parts, be opposed and objected to with some appearance of plausibility. And so long as the opposers of any system exert themselves to find fault with that system, without attempting to build one of their own, they may long keep the field, and make work for the friends of truth. Such hitherto has been the contest between Universalists and anti-Universalists. The long-established doctrine of future pun