the sin is committed:-for we know of no "rules of jurisprudence," which limit the punishment of a crime to the time of its commission. But if the punishment of sin succeeds the sin which it punishes, no matter how soon; as he does not believe in exoneration from punishment, nor in the manifest absurdity that when he [the sinner] begins to receive his punishment he ceases to sin:"" at every stage of the sinners punishment, he lays a foundation for still further punishment, and so he must continue to be punished forever, or the sins which he commits during the last stage of his punishment must go unpunished! These are some of the serious" difficulties under which the system of" Examiner is struggling"! We shall now proceed to notice what he has said in reply to the objection that his system does away the idea of pardon.

In an important particular he appears to have altogeth er misapprehended us. In replying to him we observed: All that is necessary for us to make out is, that the punishment inflicted. is all that the justice of God and his law require and this our editor will not deny.' Now what we intended was simply, that the punishment inflicted, is all the punishment that the justice of God required should be inflicted. Not as he seems seriously to suppose, that the justice of God requires nothing but punishment-not even obedience and love! From this blunder of his own, he draws sweeping consequences-arraigns our candor, &c. &c. [See pp. 12, 13.]

Our argument upon this point is this: If the sinner receive all the punishment which he deserves, or justice requires, as the editor asserts:-As pardon implies a gracious exoneration from deserved punishment -the idea of pardon would be totally inconsistent with his theory.

But he maintains that punishment does not "satisfy the divine law," and of course, he thinks, sin must still be forgiven, after it has received all its punishment.(Ibid.) The controversy upon this point then, scems at last to turn upon the proper idea of the pardon of sin. He, according to his reasoning, supposes it to consist, in the act of dispensing with the sinners obedience, after he has received all the punishment which he deserves. If this be the true notion of pardon, then indeed may his views of punishment be consistent with that doctrine

But by

what authority is this definition of pardon supported? Surely not by any of our english standards, or by general usage! Universalists must use the word pardon in a sense entirely peculiar to themselves. It is commonly understood to imply the remission of a penalty-exoneration from punishment: in this sense we understood it when we urged that it was inconsistent with our opponents notions of punishment. This we now maintain is the correct notion of the pardon of sin, and the consequence which we first drew from it, we do honestly think perfectly legitimate.

He finds much fault with the translation of Isa: xl, 2, which we gave from several learned critics. He says it is so manifest a pervertion that but very little need be said to make it appear." (P. 13.) Not to insist that Vatablus, Vitringa, Bp. Lowth and Dr. Clarke, are entitled to, at least, as much confidence, in matters of sacred criticism, as Examiner:-and that what he says appears a little too highly seasoned with arrogance:-we will attend to his reasons.. He says: "By adding words not found in the original text, and by altering the tense of verbs, they have endeavored to shield their beloved doctrine from the deluge with which this passage sweeps it." (Ibid.) If the translation be allowed to be somewhat paraphrastic, as it is supported by the best reasons, and the original will very well bear' such a rendering, it cannot be proved" a manifest pervertion". As to altering the tense of verbs," it may be observed: that whether the verbs be rendered in the past or future tense, the case is precisely the same as to the question in hand. And it cannot be denied but that the prophet refered to events then in futurity, though as is very common in the glowing stile of the prophets, they are spoken of as though they had already taken place. Hence changing the tense of the verbs from the past to the future, can have no effect upon the doctrine of the passage. Indeed the Universalist writers make more use of this circumstance in the prophetic writings than any other! Mr. Winchester upon John vi, 37-39, says: As to the small variation of the words from groen, to giveth, of which some would fain take advantage; it is nothing to the purpose;-for as the sense is perfectly the same; and differs only in the timing of the verb, it shows the weakness of the cause, which depends upon such criticisms." [See Winchester's Lectures,

Vol. II. P. 260.). So by a little attention to the subject, and a little of Mr. Winchester's help, we are saved from being engulphed in the" deluge" of Examiner's sweeping conclusions!

The argument from a number of passages of scripture, which we informed him he had not noticed: he thinks "sufficiently embraced in" his "answer." (Ibid.) But we still say that he has not noticed it. What he has said upon some of these passages, in another connexion, is totally irrelevant.

Our argument from Ps. ciii, 10-12, the editor does not attempt properly to meet, or show that it is not fair. ly deduced from the passage. He disposes of it, by setting in opposition to it, a number of passages which assert, that God will reward every man according to his works. But there is not the least contradiction between these passages and the one in question. They do not as sert that all men receive the whole of their reward as they go along-in this world. If they ultimately receive it, all that these scriptures assert will be literally verified. And that these passages must be refered to the future world for their accomplishment we shall now proceed to prove.*

1. The scriptures clearly assert that rewards & pun ishments are not equally distributed in this life. This David fully asserts in the lxxiii Ps. He saw the wicked in great power and prosperity; not in trouble as other men -pride compassing them about as a chain-violence.cov ering them as a garment-their eyes standing out with fatness having more than heart could wish. And not at first reflecting upon the punishment that was reserved for them in another world; he began to be envious at the foolish,' &c. and says: Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain and washed my hands in innocensy-for all the day long have I been plagued and chastened every morn

6

*2 Chron vi, 30; is perhaps an exception. What Solomon meant by praying that the Lord would render unto every man according to all his way,' &c., was that he would restore the captive Israelites upon their repentence. We do not deny but that the favours which God confers upon the obedient, and the miseries which he inflicts upon the disobedient, in this world may in some sense be considered as rewarding them according to their works-but not in the full and proper sense.*

P

ing: But going into the sanctuary of God, he under stood their end! Surely' says he thou didst set them in slippery places, thou castest them down as in a moment'!!-To us it seems totally impossible to make either consistency, or good, of this Ps. upon the supposition that all men are rewarded and punished according to their works as they go along.

Again Solomon says: There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again there be wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous.' (Eccl, viii, 14.) So David and Solomon, both, had facts before them, which went plainly to say that this present state is not a state of rewards and punishments.

6

But 2. We are taught in the scriptures, that in the next life an equal distribution of rewards & punishments, will be administered. Christ says: For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then shall be reward every man according to his works." (Mat. xvi. 27.) We have before shown that this passage must refer to the second coming of Christ--nothing need here be added on that point: & if so, it goes conclusively to establish our proposition. St. Paul says: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that' every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor. v, 10. See also; Acts xvii, 31. 2 Tim. iv, 1, 2 Pet. iii, 7, and 2 Thes. i. 7-10.) And that this judg ment will take place after death, in the future world, is explicitly asserted:-for St. Paul says: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judg ment.' (Heb. ix, 27. See also Rev. xx, 11-15.)

"Indeed" says an able Theologian: The very idea of a general judgment, decides this question without farther argument. Of what use are a trial and a judgment, after the whole penalty of the law has been inflicted on the criminal? None. It is the perfection of absurdity to talk of such a judgment. This is so evident that attempts have been made of late, to do away the idea of a general judgment altogether, attempts that I need not now meet, for they were fairly met and put down by an abler hand, (the Rev. T. Meritt,) at the first onset. And indeed, this

new idea of no judgment is so directly opposed to many of the plainest passages of scripture, that with an enlightened public, who have their bibles before them, it hardly needs a refutation. And as the reality of a general judgment, the scriptures being trne, cannot be reasonably doubted. So neither can it be doubted that men receive rewards and punishments in a future world."*

Trusting then that we have clearly established the prin ciple, that it is not in this world, but in the world to come, that men are rewarded according to their works; the passages which Examiner brings forward must be refered to the future world for their accomplishment, consequently they can prove nothing to his purpose.

No. II. The design of punishment, &c.

In his reply to the second number of the rejoinder the editor is unusually brief. Perhaps for the sake of brevity, or for some other reason, he has passed the most impor tant part of that number without notice.

What he says upon exemplary punishment is mere declamation. But pathetic effusions do not have the force of arguments with us:-indeed we consider them untimely when a point is to be established, and in general, to indicate the entire want of argument. But this is the strong hold of the Universalists, and we must not deprive them of the advantage of it altogether!

As to God's acting in two characters," we would observe, that this is a form of expression which he has coined for us. We did indeed suffer it to pass, under certain qualifications. We said: He now offers salvation,-he will then punish for rejecting his offers.' This is our

*See a Discourse upon future rewards and punishments by the Rev. Wilber Fisk, A. M. This discourse, with the authors defence of it in answer to Mr. Pickering-and the Rev. T. Meritts discourse, (to which reference is made in the above extract,) together, constitute an able refutation of modern Universalism. (See the Discourses in Methodist Mag. Vol. VI.)