6

upon condition of repentance and faith in Christ. My opponent has often quoted this phrase from Ezek. xviii, 20,"The soul that sinneth, it shall die," with others of like character, to show, that though we be pardoned, yet we must suffer the punishment of our sins. To "die" in this place he takes, as I do, to be the punishment of sin. But then I say that this text, with the context, clearly proves that when sin is pardoned, punishment is remitted. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die; but if he turn from his sins he shall live, he shall be pardoned,' he shall not die,”—that is, he shall not be punished. And in the same manner we are to understand all the passages he has brought forward to prove the certainty of punishment with pardon. We shall certainly be punished as our sins deserve, if we do not repent and believe in Christ; but we shall as certainly escape punishment if we do repent and believe because Christ has made an atonement for our sins, and is, in this respect, the end of the law to every one that believeth in him. But if the sinner must suffer the whole punishment of sin in his own person, then Christ has died in vain; and if he is ever saved, Christ will have as little glory in his salvation as he has had influence in removing his punishment.

::

And must the sinner suffer the whole punishment of his sins? Must he bear the whole weight of his transgressions? Must he answer in his own person for ten thousand transgressions of the Divine law?-for ten thousand insults. offered the infinite Majesty of heaven and earth ?—for ten thousand slights of the Saviour?--for neglecting his own salvation, and for abusing unnumbered blood-bought favours? Alas! alas! for him who bears his own sins. O, believe not this doctrine, but flee from it as you would flee from the face of a serpent. O, turn from your sins, turn to the slighted, long-neglected Saviour, and your souls shall live.

On the question whether repentance and faith, &c, are

conditions, or constituent parts of salvation, or both, I have but a few words to say, and these would not have been deemed necessary, had not my opponent overlooked a material fact in my illustration of this subject, and thereby evinced that argument failed him. I have contended that repentance and faith, &c, are both conditions and constituent parts of salvation, and used the following illustrations: A man has lost his health by intemperance, and recovers it by a return to a temperate course of living; and continuing temperate he continues in health. Temperance with him is a constituent part of health. Again: A man loses his character by a habit of lying, and regains it by reforming that habit and speaking the truth; and speaking the truth is now a constituent part of good character. My opponent cannot see the force of these illustrations, and thinks that temperance and speaking the truth are "causes producing these effects."

Now I had

as lief he would say that these are "causes," as conditions;: for I use the word "condition" precisely in the sense of moral cause in these cases. But the point he overlooks is this: when these causes have produced their effects, they do not cease, but remain as constituent parts of health and good character, as truly as repentance and faith remain constituent parts of salvation. We may consider the point of conditions, therefore, as fully gained, my opponent himself being judge. And with these remarks I am willing. to submit the question to the decision of the audience.

In speaking of the atonement, my opponent represents that important doctrine as " God's making satisfaction to himself, to render him placable, and to enable him to show mercy to the transgressors of his law." I cannot thank him for thus stating my sentiments; and if they form an insuperable difficulty in his way, he surely ought not to misrepresent them in order to refute them. And I have the stronger ground of complaint, because this representation has often been made by his friends, and always denied

by the advocates for atonement, as he cannot but know if he is a man of reading. I might here dismiss this article, and leave my opponent to extricate himself from a difficulty: of his own creating; but as the edification of others is concerned, I submit the following remarks:

1. The advocates for the doctrine of atonement never held that one and the same person made and received satisfaction; but that one person made satisfaction to another, or that Christ made satisfaction to God as lawgiver and judge of mankind. Should it be objected "that the distinction of persons in the Godhead does not remove the difficulty, because there is but one God," we answer: The unity of the Godhead does not destroy the distinction of persons but leaves that distinction as real, as the distinction between Peter and John, though not in the same sense. Nor is there any absurdity in saying there are three persons in the Godhead, while we admit there is but one God.This is not saying, as the enemies of the doctrine represent, that three are one, and one three; but it is simply saying that three persons are one God. And though there is nothing among men that will explain this Divine mystery, yet we can see no more absurdity or contradiction in it, than in saying that two, three, or more persons form one associate body. And while we hold the doctrine of the trinity Scripturally, we shall have no great difficulty in maintaining the doctrine of atonement on the same ground.

2. It was never supposed by the friends of this doctrine, that the atonement rendered God placable, or merciful toward sinners; but, on the contrary, that the atonement was the strongest expression of the mercy of God that he could have given to a sinful world.. "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son," &c. But though the atonement was not made to render God merciful, yet it was made that he might exercise mercy consistently with justice, "That he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus," says the apostle. If, there

fore, the enemies of this doctrine wish to oppose it, let them oppose it, and not fight a man of straw; which will benefit their own cause as little as it will injure ours.

To relieve the cases of those who continue in sin to their last moments in this world, and then die in a fit of intoxication, or by their own hands, my opponent labours to make it appear that there is little difference between these and the very best of men. For this purpose he quotes the words of St. Paul in Rom. iii, 10-12, and applies them to the Christian, to show that none are perfectly holy in this life and then infers that if God saves such in the article of death, he will also save the self-murderer, and him who dies while intoxicated. Surely he must have had a hard task when reduced to the necessity of contradicting both himself and the word of God.

66

First, he contradicts himself most explicitly. When contending against conditions he instituted the inquiry, What is salvation," that salvation which is by repentance and faith? And he tells us it is salvation from sin, yea, not only from sins committed, but "from evil propensities, and from sinning in future." Here he advances the doctrine of holiness quite up to the point of perfection. But when he undertakes the task, and a hard task it is, of getting him who dies while he is drunk into heaven, he finds it expedient to do away the difference of character between the drunkard and the best Christian, and to place their salvation on the same footing. And this can be done only by denying that the latter is saved from sin in this life. But,

Secondly, If the absurdities of Universalism had not become familiar to us, I might say it is surprising that my opponent should use the words of the apostle to help himself out of a self-created difficulty. St. Paul, in Rom. iii, 10-12, as the context most clearly shows, is proving that: the natural state of both Jews and Gentiles is sinful, and that all mankind equally need a Saviour. But will the

argument that proves we all need a Saviour to deliver us from sin, prove, at the same time, that none are delivered from sin by the Saviour? If not, my opponent's argument is a mere sophism, and there is no evidence that the drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God,.but the direct contrary.

And whatever imperfection may attach to the best of men in this world, there is surely a vast difference between him who feareth God, and him who feareth him not;-between him who repenteth and him who repenteth not;-between him who believeth in Christ, and him who doth not believe :—In a word, there is a great difference between him who performs the conditions of salvation, and enters into covenant with God, and him who does not. The one is a child of God and an heir of heaven; the other a child of wrath and an heir of hell.

LECTURE III.-Future Punishment.

"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power," 2 Thess. i, 9.

HAVING laid before you in the two former lectures the evidence of a future judgment, and the conditionality of salvation, from both which we infer, with the utmost certainty, the doctrine of future punishment; I come in this third lecture to submit some of the more direct evidences of that doctrine; after which I will answer an objection.

1. That we have ample evidence from the Scriptures of future punishment, may be seen from the proofs which follow. I begin with those passages of Scripture which teach that the "hypocrite's hope shall perish," that his "hope shall be cut off," and that his "trust shall be a spider's web," Job viii, 13, 14. It will be said that the hope here spoken of relates to prosperity in this life. If I should grant this it would make nothing against my