îì. 25, on which he remarks," every transgression receives a just recompense, but severer punishment awaits those who add to their other sins that of rejecting a mediator."(Ibid.) How strangely has he misapplied this passage! The apostle is speaking of such sins under the law as had no provision of an atonement made for them, but the sinner must be cut off without remedy. And their receiving a "just recompense of reward." implies their receiving that kind of punishment which the law prescribed. Now these sins under the law, are analogous to the sin under the gospel of rejecting a mediator.—On this parallel depends the whole force of the apostle's argument; which is indeed materially in our favor, instead of being any thing against us! Some of the preceding observations are rather a digression from the subject in dispute; they have been occasioned by the editor's strictures upon an observation of ours which was merely explanatory and not designed as argument. We shall now return to the question at issue," and shall in the first place consider what our editor has said in answer to our objections.

We thought that the writer had contradicted his main principle in his similies, but the editor says he asserts salvation only from that punishment consequent on our remaining sinners."—(Ibid. p. 130.) But what kind of salvation would that be? on his hypothesis we were nevor in danger of " remaining sinners." Of course we were never in danger of the punishment consequent upon" it-this then is a salvation from what we were never exposed to or a salvation from nothing! Must not this salvation be peculiar to universalism? Surely we can find salvation where there is no danger, no where else but in this system!!

But the dilemma into which the writer had cast him◄ self, the editor, for some reason, has entirely overlooked.

He remarked as follows, there is no salvation but a salvation from sin, and when we are saved from this we are saved from all punishment, all distress, and evil of every kind." On this we observed "it identifies the time of salvation from sin, punishment, distress, and evil of every kind. Now this goes to say that we may be saved from distress and evil of every kind, now in this life, which is contrary to fact, or that there is no present salvation from sin which is contrary to scripture.

(See our 1 No. p 16.) If he can put his friend in a way to escape this dilemma he will do him an essential service. But he proceeds to make the following objection to our doctrine, if sinners are punished endlessly for their sins committed in this world, how and when will they be punished for the sins they commit during this eternity of punishment" (Vol. I. p. 131.) If we were to answer we cannot tell, it would in no wise affect our system. For the scriptures have given us no information with regard to sins committed after death. The doctrine of eternal punishment for sins committed in this life is a matter of revelation, and as such we receive it, but as to sins committed in another state we know nothing of them. He might as well ask if the righteous are endlessly rewarded for their righteousness in this world, how and when will they be rewarded for their righteousness during that eternity of happiness? Or we might retort his argument thus: if the sinner is punished a limited time, after his transgression, when will he be punished for the sins he commits during this limited punishment? If it be answered, at some time still subsequent, we might then repeat the same enquiry, when is he to be punished for the sins he commits during this time of punishment also? and so on ad in finitum! But should it be said, that when he begins to receive his punishment he ceases to sin, this will apply as well to our system as to his, and as effectually relieve it from his objection as it will his from the same objection retorted.

We come next to his reply to our objection founded on the doctrine of pardon. We urged that the two ideas of enduring all the punishment due to sin,' and the forgiveness of sin, were totally inconsistent with each other. To this he replies, "Observer must first prove, in order to give his arguments efficient weight, that punishment satisfies the divine law of God, and that it can be an ample substitute and satisfaction for obedience-"-~(Ibid.) In answer to this we observe, if by punishment being "an ample substitute and satisfaction for obedience," be meant that it answers the same ends in every respect it is by no means necessary to prove this" in order to give our arguments efficient weight." 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 edit÷

or will not deny. Then according to any view we have of justice, the sinner is exonerated of course, on the ground of Justice; and to talk of his being pardoned would be a solecism. To us this appears so plain that it requires no argument to prove it--it commends itself to the common sense of mankind; and we can but look with astonishment at the very extraordinary effort which our Examiner makes to get rid of it,

He adds: "Isa. says, (chap. xl. 2.) speak ye comfortable to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." If this passage is correctly applied, it proves too much. It proves that God punished the Jews double what they deserved; which would not only make God unjust, but would be contrary to the confession of Ezra. (chap. ix. 13.) which was that God had punished them less than their iniquities deserved! As to the above passage Bishop Lowth comparing it with xlvi. 7. Job. xlii. 10. Zach. ix. 12.(which see) translates it thus, "speak ye comforting words to Jerusalem, and declare unto her, that her warfare is fulfilled; that the expiation of her iniquity is accepted; That she shall receive at the hand of Jehovah blessings double to the punishment of all her sins.”. Vatabulus has it the Lord will confer upon her many benefits instead of the punishment which she might justly suffer for her sins."-Vitringa. "A double portion of his blessings."-And Dr. Clarke Blessings double to the punishment. This sense of the passage," says he "the words of the original will very well bear."

66

The gentleman is greatly offended with our third objection, that" it makes salvation depend on our own sufferings-consequently can not be of grace." Concerning the manner in which we supposed the universalist would bring forth the head stone of his spiritual building, he "suggests to Observer that it may not be commendable in him to bear false witness against his neighbor though it be done in jest." (Ibid.) We did not consider ourselves as bearing witness in this case. What we said was an inference from the doctrine opposed. If it be not fairly drawn he should have made it appear, instead of accusing us of "bearing false witness," &c.-Again he says: "he is apprised that we do not hold that punishment is rewar

F

ded with eternal life." Nor have we so asserted.-We stated that it makes salvation depend on our own sufferings," &c. That is, as the grounds. Enduring all the punishment due to sin, is the legal grounds, as well as the salutary means of salvation; and as such, cannot be regarded as an object of terror, but must indeed be desirable. It still appears to us that on this system, there can be no grace at all in the sinners being exonerated from punishment; and whatever may be his song, it will not be grace!”

Before we conclude perhaps we should notice that no reply has been given to our first objection. This was founded on several passages of scripture. In these pas sages we found asserted" salvation from perishing-the ourse of the law-wrath-and condemnation." (See 1st No. pp 16, 17) Now as these expressions denote punishment, we thought they concluded fairly, in favor of salvation from the punishment of sin. We now resume our conclusion, and shall presume it legitimate, until it shall be shown to be otherwise.

In

And if our Examiner will condescend to notice it, we will trouble him with another passage and some remarks. Ps. ciii. 10, 12, we read, He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." In the first place, the Pslamist expressly asserts that they had not been rewarded accord. ing to their iniquities." This is directly to our purpose. His views of the holiness of God, and of the turpitude of sin, were such that he saw, that if God had rewarded them according to their iniquities, they would have been utterly destroyed. In this he lays down a general principle; he speaks the language of the church in every age. All who are divinely enlightened, have the same correct views of the dreadfully evil nature, and destructive consequences of sin. In the second place as a proof of his first position he adds: "as the heaven is high above the earth so great is his mercy toward them that fear him." So far was he from supposing that God's mercy required that he should reward all according to their iquities," that he brings it as a proof of the contrary?

66

And finally he has seperated our sins from us." How? In the way of punishing them according to their des erts? No, in not punishing-but mercifully forgiving them. This is the way of human salvation-but how unlike the system we oppose!--Our conclusion is, that if we are ever saved, we must be saved from the punishment gin, and not by the means, or in consequence of it!!L

No. II.-Exemplary punishment-what was the prope penalty of the original law-and whether, Salvation implies deliverance from it..

In the first place we shall notice what our editor has advanced in opposition to us on the subject of exemplary punishment. (See Vol. I. pp. 131 132). It appeared to us that amendatory punishment must be confined to this life-that punishment in the world to come could not be of this description-and consequently must answer some ⚫ther purpose of the divine government-this, we thought was to operate as an example. But he asks " has Observer such an idea of exemplary punishment as would oblige him to infer that God acts in two characters, now as a kind parent, then as a revengeful judge.” A re vengeful judge! By no means-we do not attribute re venge to God. As to God acting in two characters," according to the scriptures, he now corrects, and offers salvation, he will then punish, for rejecting his gracious offers. "Because I have called and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded. But ye have set at nought my counsels and would none of my reproof I also will laugh at your calamity and mock when your fear cometh." This different kind of treatment, is suited to the different states of probation and retribution.

He farther enquires whether exemplary punishment in a state of eternal retribution is designed to deter from sinning the ransomed in glory or the wretched in nell, or sinners on earth." To this we answer, how "punishment in a state of eternal retribution" operates as an example, or on whom, we are not concerned to show