The present is the accepted time-the day of salvation, e the season for sinners to be saved. If we continue to barden our hearts through life, he will swear in his wrath that we shall not enter his rest. If we turn away from him who speaketh from heaven, it will be equally impossible for us to obtain the blessing, as it was for Esau who had sold his birthright. Finally, beyond a certain period there shall be no more change of character but every one will have received that impression which shall remain forever, whether he be just or unjust, filthy or holy!!!”

We have now completed what we intended to advance in favor of endless punishment. From the whole of which it appears, that there is a contrast, kept up in the scriptures between the final states of the righteous & the wicked and as the happiness of the one is endless, the misery of the other must be endless, or the scriptures involve absurdity! It also appears that the strength of the terms used in relation to the punishment of the wicked authorises the conclusion that it will be endless! It likewise appears that the doctrine above asserted is implied in various passages, which are totally inconsistent with the idea of universal salvation! and finally, that the necessary qualifications for a state of glory and happiness, can only be obtained within a certain period, over which men may pass, and so never obtain them!-The natural and necessary consequence of the whole is, that some will be finally impenitent and that such shall receivp endless punishment!!

UNIVERSAL SALVATION

CONSIDERED, &C,

PART IL

Examiner Observed s

A REJOINDER TO THE EDITOR OF THE EXAMINER'S “REPLY" TO THE FOREGOING.

No. I.-Wherein it is emsidered, whether salvation Implies deliverance from the punishment due to sin.

We have read and attentively considered what the editor has written in "reply" to our numbers. And though. we are ready to reciprocate an acknowledgement of his candor, in the general; we are not convinced by his arguments. Believing it possible to expose their fallacy, and sustain the ground we have taken, we crave his patience, and that of his readers, while we prosecute a review of the whole.

We shall first consider what our editor has written in reply to our observations upon the nature of salvation.

And we are fairly" at issue" it seems, upon this question, is there any salvation from the punishment due to sın ? It appeared to us that the writer we were examining in attempting to prove the negative of this question confounded the ideas of incurring and actually suffering the penalty of the divine law. But as our editor explains his meaning, it is" that if the penalty of the divine law is incurred, and that penalty is endless death, it surely will be inflicted." (Vol. 1. p. 128.) We have no material objection to accepting his explanation, and if the princi

99

66

ple as explained be true, it is capable of distinct proof; but whether he has offered any convincing evidence on the subject we shall see hereafter. In explaining what we considered the meaning of those passages which speak of our being rewarded according to our works we remarked that it was not being punished as we must have been without a mediator, but consisted in our being rewarded or punished, according to our having received or rejected the mediator. In reply to this our editor asks "if our being rewarded according to our works is not being punished what is it?"-(Ibid.) The gentleman certainly knew that we believed it to imply the punishment of the finally impenitent-and that our observation is in nowise against punishment in our view of it-why then does he ask this question? But he thinks being punished according to our deeds, by no means supercedes the necessity of a mediator."—(Ibid.) But the enquiry is, whether it is any part of the work of the mediator to save from deserved punishment-this we shall see hereafter. He proceeds,

the force of the argument under consideration appears to preclude all punishment for sin, save for the sin of rejecting the mediator.”—(Ibid.) We will explain our views of this subject a little more at length. That all sins unrepented of, will be punished in a future state we do not doubt. This impenitence and infidelity, is in fact, a rejecting of the remedy provided-and it will be for this reason that all the sins of the impenitent will finally stand against them-so we may properly say, it is for rejecting the mediator, that sinners will be finally punished. But he adds, "they who never heard of a mediator cannot be justly punished for rejecting him."—(Ibid) As to those who never heard of a mediator, it will doubtless "be accepted of them according to what they have, and not according to what they have not." It must be through the mediator that they are accepted on the improvement of their talent, for none cometh to the father but by him," he is emphatically" the way." But if they abuse the light they have, the improvement of which would be accepted through Christ,-this is in some sense rejecting the mediator and they are justly punished in proportion to the light they have sinned against.

But scripture supports that there is punishment for other sins as well as for this." He here introduces Heb.

ii. 23, 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 never 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 himself, 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 com. mitted 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 com→ mits 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 ne 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 edite