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."

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." 99 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 curse 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.

And if our Examiner will condescend to notice it, we will trouble him with another passage and some remarks. In 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 according 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 iniquities,” that he brings it as a proof of the contrary!

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 of sin, and not by the means, or in consequence of it!!!

No. II.-Exemplary punishment-what was the proper 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 other 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 revengeful judge! By no means-we do not attribute revenge 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 hell, 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

We believe it a matter of revelation, that it will not be amendatory is a matter of course, this being inconsistent with its endless duration; and that it will operate as an example to some orders of intelligent creatures would appear extremely probable, if we had no farther revelation on the subject. But this gentleman affirms that " it cannot be of any use but to gratify a vindictive justice, or fell revenge." We would here ask, who has disclosed the secrets of eternity to him? From what data does he draw his conclusions? Does he know the situations and relations of all orders of intelligent creatures in another state? If not, with what modesty does he make this declaration?

We thought Jude 7, supported our views. And that the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah, referred to in this passage, is exemplary, he does not deny; but he must take some method to make that punishment out temporary. Hence he quotes Lam. iv. 6. to show that the afflictions of the Jews was a severer punishment than that of Sodom, whatever that punishment might be." But the Prophet when he says the punishment of the iniquity of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom" evidently refers to the literal destruction of the cities of the plain, and in comparing this with the wasting siege of Jerusalem seems to think it to be preferred: for saith he "it was overthrown in a moment, and no hand stayed on her." Not as though the Jews had suffered a greater punishment than the wicked inhabitants of those cities in their eternal state, where they were set forth as an example!"

He insists that "the design of punishment is to reform," but does not prove that this is always the case, to our satisfaction. Nor indeed can he, till he proves that executing a criminal for a capital offence, is designed to make him a good citizen!

What he says of the assistance of grace in a future world" is without the least support from the scriptures; the words of the Apostle which he quotes cannot be pressed into his service without the grossest perversion!!

We shall next consider what he has said in reply to the first part of our second number. (See pp. 138, 139.)

We defined the first stage of salvation" a deliverance from that immediate destruction which man merited by

the first transgression and restoration to a state of gracrous probation, which afforded all the means necessary for his final happiness." "As an objection to this position" the editor endeavors to support that whatever destruction man merited by the first transgression was implied in the denunciation of God against it, and was actually endured. This he does "endeavor to support. It is however an unsuccessful endeavor, as we shall presently see. He gravely asks which told the truth God or the serpent?" & answers "certainly God." Cer tainly! We have nothing to object to that!

2.9

He goes on thus, “man did not die a temporal death and we have no evidence that this death was threatened." But we think he concedes before he leaves the subject, that temporal death, did constitute a part of the penalty of the law. He says, "when God arraigned our first parents for a violation of his law, he immediately proceeded to pronounce sentence upon them." Now what was that sentence? "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." From that moment he became mortal, a dying creature,' which was to all intents and purposes a fulfilment of the threatening, so far as it related to temporal death. But how could this gentleman deny that temporal death constituted any part of the penalty of the law, and yet admit that sentenee was passed upon our first parents, when the memorable words above quoted constitute the most important part of that sentence?-yea and throughout, it includes physical evils exclusively-there not being one word in the whole connexion, of that spiritual death which our first parents no doubt experienced, & which he contends for exclusive of any other. Let him consider these things attentively, and then see, whether he has skill to reconcile all the incongruities into which he has plunged himself!

He proceeds, "neither did he die an eternal death and we have no proof that this was threatened; but he died a spiritual or moral death, therefore it is certain this death was the penalty of the original law." Then if a man is reprieved from the gallows, after being under the sentence of death for murder, it is quite certain that death is not the penalty of the law that forbids murder. And because Nineva was not destroyed in forty days after Jo