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 "accordance" 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.

If

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. 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 wi!! 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, "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God?" And ought we not to " and rebuke with all long suffering and doctrine?" 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 thing's of little or no importance, by denying the conditions of

reprove

"To

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?

66

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 Nov. 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 opponent 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, endeavours to bring off his own absurd doctrine of suffering the whole punishment due to sin, while the sinner is fully pardoned. In reply to this I remark,

1. That discipline and punishment, properly so called, are essentially different in their character, the one being a blessing, the other a curse. Discipline, as far as it is

painful, may be referred to the sentence of the law; but being less than the desert of sin, and being administered on principles of mercy, and with a view to the reformation and salvation of the sinner, is changed into a blessing.My opponent gives us the same view of the difference between disciplinary and full punishment, when, in his last reply, speaking of the latter, he repeatedly asks, "Is this a blessing, or is it a curse ?" We agree with him that it is a" curse ;" and herein it is distinguished from disciplinary punishment, which is a blessing. The Christian, therefore, does not suffer any proper punishment at all.

2. The sinner is not absolutely, and fully, but conditionally pardoned in this life. "We are made partakers of Christ," says the apostle, " if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end." And our Saviour has given us an illustration of this subject in the 18th chapter of Matthew. Here we read of one who had a debt of ten thousand talents forgiven by God, who, nevertheless, because he would not forgive a fellow servant, forfeited his

own pardon, and was cast into prison till he should pay ait that he owed. On this ground I say the sinner is pardoned, so far, and no farther, than his punishment is remitted If his pardon were absolute and full, his release from punishment would be so too.

But this is not the case with my opponent. He holds that the sinner is absolutely and fully pardoned, and yet that he is held to suffer the whole punishment of his sins. This we pronounce absurd in the highest degree. The remission of punishment enters into the very idea of pardon. I can have no other idea of pardon.

You, my respected hearers, can have no other idea of pardon. My opponent, himself, after all that he has said, can have no other idea of pardon than that which implies remission of punishment. If he has, let him now bring it forth and tell us how a sinner can be fully pardoned, and yet be held to suffer the whole punishment of his sins. But I tell you beforehand that he will not attempt this. He may ".submit" this point also to the audience," or he may attempt to point out some defect in my arguments, or he may attempt something else. But he will never attempt to show, by explanation or illustration, how a sinner can be fully pardoned, and yet fully punished for all his sins. If he could do this he might, for ought I know, make a hundred Universalists this evening; but if he cannot do this he ought to be deserted by every one who has joined his standard.*

But do not the Scriptures promise pardon, and threaten punishment to the same person at the same time? To this I say no, not in this order; but they first threaten punishment, and then offer pardon, or remission of punishment,

*This was said, if possible, to "provoke" my opponent to give an illustration of this article of his faith, believing that nothing I could say would so effectually expose its absurdity. But he knew too well the weakness of his cause to attempt this. And yet he does not give it up.-"Lord, what is man!"