do this work for us. "After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts," &c. After what days, or at what time, we enquire? This most clearly refers to the coming of Christ, and describes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of christians, which was given after his ascent to heaven. From this it appears that now is the time in which God promised to do these things for the house of Israel; that this time commenced with the opening of the gospel dispensation. The question then is, Does God write his law in the hearts of all men? This cannot be pretended; as we have remarked above, drunkards, liars, thieves, murderers, and all the abominable, cannot have God's holy law written in their hearts. This presents a dilemma for the consideration of universalists, holding out three alternatives from which they must choose, any one of which will ruin their cause. First, the covenant does not embrace all men; or secondly, the covenant promise is conditional; or thirdly, God does not fulfill the promise in all those cases in which his law is not written in the heart. This must fully settle the question of the conditionality of the divine promises. Heb. viii. 10. to which Mr. M. also alludes as containing an unconditional promise, is a literal quotation of the words of the Prophet, on which we have just been remarking; and hence, must be the same in meaning, and therefore is sufficiently explained in what has been said on the original.

The above is a sufficient reply to the argument drawn from the promises of God, which appear to include all men; for it is a matter of fact that the promises generally, which universalists urge in proof of their theory, speak of blessings which are the privilege of christians in this life, and which all men do not enjoy. Here again, plain matter of fact rears its unyielding front, against which universalist's arguments batter in vain; for as the promises of God speak of blessings to be enjoyed in this life, and as matter of fact says all men do not enjoy these blessings, it follows beyond dispute that the promises do not unconditionally and absolutely secure the blessings of which they speak. These remarks will apply to the Abrahamic, as well as to the general promises of the gospel. We will notice a few of those promises on which universalists base their argument, and then dismiss this subject. The

promise which God made to Abraham may be tound, Gen. xii. 3.-xviii. 18.-xxii. 18.-xxxvi. 4.-xxviii. 14. This promise is given in these words: "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." In one of the places above referred to, the word, "families" is substituted for "nations ;" but this cannot alter its meaning, for the word families is undoubtedly used in this place to signify nations or tribes. We cannot, without transcending our intended limits, go into a full investigation of the Abrahamic covenant, but we will attempt to show, in few words, that it does not unconditionally secure the personal salvation of one individual adult sinner; which must be sufficient so far as this controversy is concerned.

1. It is perfectly easy to conceive that all nations of the earth, and all the families of the earth, can be blessed with the gospel of Christ, without supposing that every individual. of all nations must consequently be saved. We as a nation, are now blessed with the gospel, or are blessed in the seed of Abraham, but every individual of our nation is not blessed with personal salvation from sin.

2. The apostle most clearly makes a conditional application of this promise, showing that none can enjoy the blessing of Abraham, who are not imitators of his faith. Rom. iv. 11, 22, 23, 24. "He received the sign of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." Gal. iii. 9, 26, 29. "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." These quotations from the apostle clearly show that the promise of God to Abraham was conditional, so far as it related to the salvation of individual sinners, and that none but believers can be Abraham's children and heirs with him to the promised blessings. But Mr. M. says, the promises "are confirmed by the oath of God." This is granted; but it does nothing towards proving the salvation of all

men, since no one contends for the doctrine of endless punishment on the ground that the covenant will be violated on the part of God. The oath of God renders the covenant sure for its true intent and purposes, but we have abundantly shown that it contains conditions to be complied with on the part of man; and by a non-compliance with these, the sinner may forfeit his interest in it and come short of the promised blessing, though God remain ever true to his word. We suppose Mr. M. refers to Heb. vi. 17, 18. "Wherein God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise, the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us.” It cannot be overlooked that this text limits the object of the oath to those who flee to lay hold on the hope set before them; hence, the oath of God secures the blessing to no others. We ask then, have all men fled to lay hold on this hope? This cannot be pretended. True believers in Christ Jesus only have done this: sinners, drunkards and scoffers, have not fled to lay hold on the hope that is set before them. Until it be proved that all men embrace the gospel, and by faith lay hold on the hope it holds out to our fallen race, this text can prove nothing in favour of universalism; but this point cannot be proved. Of many, the words of Christ are now as true as when he uttered them. "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life."

We think we have now shown that no argument can be drawn from the promises of the gospel in proof of unconditional universal salvation. We do not pretend that we have examined every promise that universalists quote in proof of their doctrine, but we have examined the principal of them, and the remarks which have been made will apply to the promises of the gospel generally; it is therefore unnecessary to pursue this subject farther.

VI. Universalists often urge in proof of their theory those scriptures which predict the universal reign of grace and piety. In reply to the argument drawn from this class of texts it will be necessary to offer but few remarks.

1. Let it be noted that this class of texts relates to the present world. It is the earth, that is, this world that is to be filled with the knowledge of God.

2. Admitting that such a day is to come, when "all shall know the Lord, from the least to the greatest," and when "the knowledge of God shall cover the earth," and it will not prove universal salvation; for a general reign of grace and piety on earth, cannot, save or in the least affect those who may have lived and died in sin, and gone to perdition, before this day shall dawn to bless this now dark and sinful world.

*

VII. Universalists argue the salvation of all men from the nature of faith, and the duty of all men to believe in Jesus Christ. The argument is sometimes thus stated: All men are required to believe that they have eternal life in Jesus Christ-they must therefore have eternal life in him, whether they believe it or not; otherwise they must be required to believe a lie; for believing cannot make a thing true which was not true before. If men have eternal life in Jesus Christ, then their unbelief cannot deprive them of it, or make it less true that they have such life in him.

The fallacy of this argument consists in supposing that men are required to believe that they have eternal life unconditionally given them in Jesus Christ. That there is eternal life in Jesus Christ we admit ; but that it is unconditionally given to sinners, or that they are unconditionally made the partakers of it we deny. The simple facts are these; there is life in Jesus Christ, life for all who will accept of it on gospel terms; but in order that the sinner may be made the partaker of this life, he must believe and be connected with Christ by faith as a branch is connected with the vine. John xv. 5, 6. "I am the vine, ye are the branches: If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." From this it must appear, that though there is life in Christ, yet it cannot save the sinner, who does not believe in him, any more than the life and nourishment which is in the vine can preserve the branch, when severed from it. There is life in Jesus Christ, but what good can this

4

do that class of sinners of whom Christ says, John v. 40. "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life."

VIII. It is very common for universalists to appeal to the sympathies of our common nature, in proof of the salvation of all men. To give the argument the greater force, we are told that God is the common parent of all men, and then an appeal is made to the throbbing bosoms of fathers and mothers, and the question is asked if they would punish their children forever; and if not, how they can believe that God, who is better than any earthly parent, will punish his children forever. To this we reply,

1. That the sympathies of human nature can be no just rule, by which to determine what is right and proper to be done by the divine administration. Earthly parents are not always governed by strict justice, nor true mercy. This must appear from the fact that most parents, if not all, are disposed to punish their own children less than they are others, for the same offence. We have a most striking instance of this in the conduct of one of the governors of a neighboring state, who pardoned his own son, notoriously guilty, and condemned to death. Now, it is evident that the governor would not have pardoned any other person under the same circumstances, which clearly shows that a parent's feelings and conduct towards a child are not always the offspring of strict justice or true mercy, and therefore can prove nothing at all what God will do, who does not act from sympathy, but from his own eternal and immutable justice.

2. Eartly parents and all good governments, do punish offenders, and aim at punishing according to the magnitude of the offence; and if so, it cannot be unreasonable to suppose that God will punish sinners all they deserve. Taking this view, we see that the argument to which we are replying, entirely overlooks the sinner's desert; it takes for granted that the sinner does not deserve endless punishment, which is a mere begging of the question. If the sinner deserves endless punishment, he will certainly be punished endlessly, and the circumstance that God is our creator, preserver, and good benefactor, serves to deepen the turpitude of sin, and render the sinner more deserving of punishment than he would otherwise be. From this it appears that if God be our Father,