can God be displeased with a man for doing his will, or hold him under condemnation for "doing precisely what he chose he should do?" On this ground the whole doctrine of condemnation and forgiveness is a mere farce, or at most, a solemn mockery of truth, and justice, and mercy. But if, as we know, the doctrine of forgiveness is a doctrine of the Gospel, and a Divine reality, then it follows that this doctrine of necessity and sinful actions being in "accordance with the will of God," is a gross delusion of the devil, and a snare to catch unwary souls.

7. If this doctrine of necessity be true, there is no need of regeneration, or any change in the dispositions of men; for on this ground, these, however sinful, are in "accordance" with the will of God, as well as their actions. And why should God require an alteration in that which is in "accordance" with his will? If a present disposition of the heart of man be in "accordance" with the will of God, can he require a change in that disposition while he himself remains the same? Must not that which is in "accordance" with his will at one time, always be so, unless he should change? And if God always remains the same, and still requires a change in that which is in accord ance" with his will, it will follow that he requires that the dispositions of his creatures should be in opposition to his will, and that a disposition which is at present agreeable to his will, should be changed for the express

purpose that it might be in opposition to his will.

Here again we might urge the blasphemy of this doctrine; for it is full of blasphemy, view it as you will. If you say that a sinful disposition in the heart of man is in "accordance with the will of God," it is blasphemy. If you say that God changes, and that what pleases him at one time will not always please him, it is blasphemy. If you say that he requires a change in that which is in accordance" with his will, that it may be in opposition to his will, it is blasphemy. Blasphemy is written on all the features of this doctrine of necessity, which teaches that the sinful actions and dispositions of men are in "accordance" with the will of God.

The doctrine of necessity is the foundation and corner stone of Universalism. If it be true, there are no conditions in salvation, and sin, repentance, forgiveness, and regeneration, are words without importance, and without meaning. On this ground the doctrine of the atonement is rejected, and that of personal suffering to the whole extent of "sin's desert," is substituted in its place. And indeed what necessity is there of the one, or what cause to dread the other, if all the actions and dispositions of men are necessary, and are in "accordance" with the will of God? On this ground God, even in his character of Lord and Judge, needs no propitiating, and man has no cause to dread the displeasure of a

being with whose will his own actions and dispositions are in "accordance."

And can the influence of such a doctrine be salutary on society? Is it calculated to restrain the vicious, to excite to repentance, and to reform the world? We will not trust to any conclusions drawn from theory merely, but we appeal to matter of fact.

The Universalists cannot be offended at us for representing their doctrine, as having an unfavourable effect upon experimental religion; since they themselves are not backward to express their views on this subject; from which, in part, we draw our inference. We know their views of experimental religion, because we know how they express themselves upon a subject of a change of heart, and because we know their views of sin, of the atonement, of conditions, of repentance, and of forgiveness of sin; and because the necessity of a new and heavenly birth is never urged, but ridiculed, by their preachers both from the pulpit and the press. Who is there among them that is in the practice of urging the nature and importance of repentance, regeneration, and holy living, in a close and practical application to the heart? And is this unnecessary? Ought we not to preach as did Christ and his apostles, saying to all, "Ex cept a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God?" And ought we not to " reprove and rebuke with all long suffering and doctrine ?"-" To warn every man, and teach

every man, in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus?" And should we not be "instant in season and out of season" in this "labour of love" to our fellow creatures? But our opponents have found out a way to make all these things of little or no importance, by denying the conditions of salvation, and by asserting that, let men live as they please in this world, they shall all pass into glory as soon as they die. And to smooth the passage of sinners through this world, and as though they would lull their consciences into a more fatal stupidity than that which is natural, they teach that all their actions are "necessary," that they are "precisely what God chooses they should be," and that they are in "accordance with his will." And where is the need of regeneration in this life, if these things are true?

If we have succeeded in showing that this doctrine is without foundation in truth and in the word of God, then it follows that man is a free agent, that there are conditions in salvation, and that these conditions must be performed in this world, or he who neglects them is lost for ever. May God, for Christ's sake, give us all understanding in these things. And now we commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to enlighten and renew your souls, to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified; which we wish

you, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Dec. 30, 1827.

APPENDIX TO ANSWER IV.

IN my opponent's reply of November 23, 1827, were a few things worthy of notice, which on account of the length of my answer, were omitted. These I shall notice in this place. The first of the following articles I appended to my discourse on necessity," and delivered it with that; but now assign it a more proper place in this appendix.

My opponent contends that we suffer in our own persons the whole punishment of sin, while sin itself is pardoned. "I maintain that this is absurd, false, and impossible; that if our sins are pardoned, we are released from punishment. If I succeed in maintaining my position, one of the main pillars of Universalism is removed, and the whole building must fall to the ground.

In my last answer on this subject, I said, "A sinner is pardoned just so far as his punishment is remitted, and no farther." My op ponent overlooking this, goes on to represent me as holding that a sinner is fully pardoned by God, and yet is held to suffer a part of the penalty of the law, in that disciplinary punishment which he inflicts upon his own children in this life, and under cover of this mistake,