both commence to exist at the same time and cease together. If this be true, then sin and retribution meet together in the same person and at the same time; and while the sinner commits sin, he is saved from sin, and also damned or punished-thus salvation and damnation take place at the same time.

Then Paul was in error when he spake of Christ as granting the "remission of sins that are past."

But is it true, or is it unphilosophical, that punishment and sin begin, continue and end together? A robber may strike a man with a club and kill him, the deed is done but the effect does not cease. A man may slander his neighbor, the evil is committed but the influence may be blasting and disastrous long subsequent. Thus a man may commit sin and the punishment may, yea, must exist subsequent to the act. This is and will be the case when we deem punishment to consist wholly in the misery which flows from sin as its cause; but we do not. conceive the misery growing out of sin to constitute the sum and substance of adequate punishment. We believe that one essential and terrible ingredient in punishment, will be the penal and positive inflictions of the law of God.

*

2. The sinner who receives all the punishment his sins deserve, cannot "afterwards be saved." The Bible declares that "the wages of sin is death"-sin must first be committed before it can be punished, for the demerit of sin cannot be known or computed until after the wrong is perpetrated; therefore the act of sin must comprise a certain space of time, more or less extended, and the punishment of that sin a subsequent space of time. The one follows the other in succession. The argument is that the sinner is "certainly and fully punished" before he receives the salvation of his soul. Then salvation transpires at a time distinctly subsequent to the time of committing sin, and of enduring punishment for that sin. Now if we shall be

able to show that a sinner under these circumstances cannot be saved at all, then we shall have annihilated the argument and routed the position As faith is a virtue and a condition of salvation, so unbelief is a sin and worthy-of punishment; and as long as a man remains an unbeliever so long he is liable to punishment; he cannot escape from it. The man therefore, in order to cease to be an unbeliever must become a believer, for so long as he continues an unbeliever he is guilty of sin and deserves punishment, which he must endure; but he cannot be saved from the sin of unbelief so long as he endures the damnation and suffering for that sin, for the obvious and conclusive reason, that this would be a salvation before he had endured fully · the punishment, the sin of unbelief deserves, as well as a salvation from deserved suffering either of which is death. to Universalism. Again; if the sinner must endure the condemnation and suffering his sins deserve before he can be saved, for all suffering must precede salvation; and so long as he continues to be a sinner he will deserve suffering, and this wicked character he must sustain until he is reformed, therefore he must be reformed, and serve God with all his soul and powers while he is yet suffering for his past follies and sins; thus be a sinner and a saint, a righteous and a wicked man, an innocent, a justified and guilty person at the same time, all of which is the sum of absurdity. Who would risk his reputation for candor, while arguing that a man can endure all the suffering his sins deserve, and at the same time do sufficient to procure the favor of God and obey his righteous law, thus becoming a righteous person? All this appears clear and decisive, if argument and logic are worthy of any consideration whatever. There is but one way of escape, and to that, recourse is had to assume the position that

2. The punishment or damnation is the means to secure the end, which is the salvation of the soul. How sound, logical and philosophical this argument is, a few remarks will be sufficient to show. If "punishment or damnation" which is the means of securing the salvation of the soul, or a deliverance from sin, and all this suffering or punishment is but the effect of sin, then we draw the conclusion that the effect as means, has the power to destroy its own cause. If the sin committed by man should entail upon him mental and corporeal suffering, and this suffering in turn should be so emendatory as the means to secure the end, which is salvation, and salvation can only be acquired by a release from, or a remission of sin, we ask, does not the effect annihilate its cause? Most assuredly. Well, must we depend on a doctrine so absurd and unphilosophical as this, in order to secure the salvation of the soul? We might well pray the Lord to deliver us from its tenderest mercies.

3. Moreover, what positive proof can we discover in any or all the inflictions of misery for sin, in the light of the above reasoning, that God will eventually without fail, restore us to final holiness and happiness? Just none at all. We may see the coruscations of divine vengeance and a. clear foreboding of a terrible, final and endless doom. We entreat the reader to repent of sin and believe in Christ as the only Savior; sue for pardoning mercy and the remission of sin in the blood of Jesus, and a deliverance from the curse of God, that you receive a new heart and not realize the punishment your sins have deserved.

From the false position that all punishment is emendatory, and is introduced as means to effect the salvation of the soul, they assume another position, though naturally following from the former, yet equally fallacious.

4. That all punishment instead of vindicating the law and authority of God, is obviously designed to effect the sinner's greatest good only. This, they say, is the absorbing object, the administration of the threatenings of God was designed to effect, and that this object alone is in consonance with the character of divine goodness. To be delivered from the punishment sin deserves, would be the greatest calamity that could befall man while in this state of probation; therefore all punishment instead of being a curse to man, as represented in the Bible, is man's greatest and most desirable blessing, as taught by Universalism.

As we have no inclination for, or tact at misrepresentation, and as we should fail of the object we aim at securing, the overthrow of this destructive error and the establishment of the truth; we wish to fortify the representations of the tenets of Universalism with its own undeniable testimonies, as drawn from the writings of its advocates. What language then do the champions of this system hold forth? Let us begin with him who stands at the head of the army, and who is the alpha and omega of Universalism.

* * *

Hosea Ballou holds the following language: "Now we know that it is not the nature of goodness to harm any creature, but to do good to all." "That God will never administer any kind of affliction to any of his creatures, which is not designed for their benefit." When we should hear a minister take his text, and quote the language of Christ uttered in reference to the overthrow of Sodom; and then announce to his audience, that he designed to illustrate the "Divine goodness in the destruction of the Sodomites and other sinners," we should have some ground on which to base a supposition, at least, that all the judg ments of God were designed in the estimation of the preacher, for the benefit of the punished. In addition,

should he interrogate his hearers thus: "Why should our heavenly Father manifest any disapprobation of sin? Does he suffer any inconvenience from it?" And should he dogmatically exclaim in reference to the overthrow of the cities of the plain, "that God acted in this instance consistently with his nature, which is love, and with his character as a Father;" all doubt of the preacher's true position in relation to the character and object of punishment would be swept away. Now this preacher is the identical Hosea Ballou. His views may be learned in his "Lecture Ser

mons."

Mr. Sawyer declares that, "Universalists believe that all inflictions under the righteous administrations of God, are designed to benefit the punished." "This is the end, the only end, as Universalists believe, for which God inflicts punishment."

Mr. Skinner remarks that, "Punishment, we have seen is corrective and limited. A remission of such a punishment would be a curse instead of a mercy, because a just punishment is as necessary to our welfare, as any thing that love can do."

Mr. Williamson declares that, "From such a punishment, my position is, that man cannot escape, by any possibility; and I may add that, were it possible, the escape would be a curse rather than a blessing, and man's rejoicing over it would be as ill-timed as those of a sick man, who should rejoice that he had escaped the taking of a healing medicine," &c. "I repeat it again: sin is an evil, and punishment is a remedy, and it is a poor cause of joy, that we have escaped the Good Physician, who healeth all our diseases.'

992

6

We need not multiply quotations of this character, for the purpose of proving, that the representation we have made of the doctrine of punishment is genuine. For the