eousness for which God will justify and approve, is acquired alone by faith in Jesus Christ. The imperative necessity, not only of the righteousness of God to secure justification, but also of faith for its attainment, is inculcated in the passage, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Not only have all sinned, but by their sins they have forfeited "the glory of God." It will be no relief to explain the "glory of God" as being the enjoyment of religion in this life; for if the approbation, the grace, and whatever is glorious in God can be forfeited by sin in this life, for the same reason, it can be forfeited in the future life-as God is unchangeable and whatever offends him now, will do so at all times. Here then is an instance in the records of God's truth, where we are taught that heaven is forfeited by sin.

Ecc. vii. 20. "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." The obvious meaning of this passage is, that every rational being upon the face of the earth has a defective character, and at some time or other erred in conduct, thereby rendering himself unjust before his Creator and Judge. If thus all have become unjust and guilty before their Maker, they either have forfeited heaven, or else injustice and justice are alike to God. If any unjust man is guilty, unclean, and unholy, then such a man shall not enter into heaven; otherwise the Almighty can disapprobate man with a defective and guilty character in this probationary life, and withhold from him the pure blessedness of religion in his kingdom, but heaven and the glory of the Lord are the unalienable portion of all mankind. Does this appear quite reasonable? Judge ye.

The greatest, the most desirable, and the holiest enjoyments are accessible to man, notwithstanding all his sins, when the lesser felicities of religion can be forfeited by sin. This appears incompatible with the Scriptures and sound

reason.

John viii. 21. "Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come." The import of this pas sage is, that the Jews, to whom the Savior addressed these words in consequence of the sin of unbelief,, should die in their sins and never be saved from them, and that heaven should be closed against them, for they could not come where he was about to go. If this passage does not teach emphatically the forfeiture of heaven by sin, then language is inadequate to symbolize the idea. The question might be here proposed, did the Savior mean heaven and immortal glory by the phrase, "Whither I go, ye cannot come?" This expression was very common with the Savior. He says in verse 14. I know whence I came and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come and whither I go." To explain this more fully he says in John iii. 13. "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

John. xx. 17. "Jesus saith unto her, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God." From all these passages, we may draw the indubitable conclusion, that the declaration of Christ to the unbelieving Jews was particularly designed to impress them with the truth, that by sin they had forfeited heaven; that inasmuch as they had sinned against the only remedy for iniquity, they should die in their sin, and never ascend to God and to glory, whither the Savior went, after the completion of the work of human redemption.

Prov. xiv. 32. "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness but the righteous hath hope in his death." Here we have the righteous and the wicked contrasted in life and in death. As their characters are opposite in life,

so will their death be the one shall die in a gospel hope of heaven, and the other shall be driven away in his sins. Why? Because he has forfeited heaven and the favor of God. Is this not plain, that future glory is forfeited by sin?

John. iii. 36. " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Here we are taught that the virtue of faith will secure for us enjoyment of life, in this and in the future world; but that the sin of unbelief will dash from the lips of man the cup of salvation, and bring down upon his soul the wrath of God with a permanent curse. Must we not then believe, that sin forfeits future glory as well as present religion?

Rom. ii. 7-9. "To them, who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, honor and immortality, eternal life but unto them, that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness; indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil," &c. Now, if the contentious, the disobedient to the truth, and the lovers of unrighteousness, who shall be visited with indignation, and wrath, and anguish, do not forfeit eternal life, then we can not discern the force of language; and if they do, then it is proof in point.

Peter said in John vi. 68; "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." A certain lawyer once addressed Christ, as it is recorded in Luke x. 25: "Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And a young nobleman once said, (Mark x. 17.) "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" The term to "inherit" implies to receive a title, and that before that title, no rightful claim existed. If there ever was a title, it had been forfeited. Now if the address was, "what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life," and its correctness was not disputed by Christ, then it implies that eternal life was forfeited,

and that there was something necessary to be done in order to gain possession of it by inheritance. That which we already possess, we cannot inherit any more, therefore the inquiry under consideration, implies, that there either never existed a claim, or that the title to eternal life was forfeited.

We are aware that Universalists, in order to evade the force of such passages of the Bible, and with a view to sustain the position, so requisite to their theory, that sin never has and never can forfeit heaven, and to sustain a kind of consistency when they deny that the words "everlasting," "eternal," &c., mean endless duration, do deny that the phrases "everlasting life," "eternal life," &c., have any reference to the future state of blessedness and glory in heaven, but that they exclusively refer to the enjoyment of religion in this transitory life. This statement may be rather startling to many who are not, or only partially, acquainted with their creed, it is nevertheless the case. This a few quotations will prove.

Mr. Sawyer, in addressing Mr. Remington, holds the following language: "The fallacy in which you indulge your? self, begins by assuming that eternal life means endless felicity in heaven.” Mr. Skinner, of Boston, says, "The phrase 'eternal life,' is a common expression to denote the enjoyment experienced in this world, through the influence of the gospel on the heart." Mr. Balfour, the master-spirit in erudition, in addressing Professor Stuart, of Andover, says, "You assume that eternal life' refers to the future endless happiness of the righteous." "Eternal life designates indeed the happiness of the righteous, but it is their happiness in this world." If they should admit that eternal life and everlasting life mean endless felicity in heaven, then they would give a vantage ground to prove that eternal punishment and everlasting destruction would mean endless

death and misery; therefore, rather than do this, they will run the risk of the consequence of applying eternal life to the enjoyment of religion in this life. Suppose we should apply all the passages of Holy Writ, which contain the phrase eternal life and everlasting life, to the enjoyment of the righteous in this life as derived from religion, how much proof would we have left to confirm the doctrine of endless bliss in heaven? If it did not sweep the entire board, it would obliterate the most direct, the most satisfactory and the most cogent evidences of future and endless glory.

Let us read a few passages of Scripture in the dialect of Universalism in order to see whether it makes sense or nonsense. We will turn to John vi. 27, "Labor not for the meat which perisheth but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life," which read, "endureth unto thine happiness in this world." Again, Matthew, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal," or "into happiness in this world." This would suppose a man to be righteous first before he enters into the enjoyment of the christian religion, and that it is not simultaneously, which is false, therefore the construction must be false and unsound. Again; Matt. xvi. 25, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it," or "whosoever will sacrifice his temporal life for the sake of Christ shall experience religious happiness in this world." What a startling absurdity! Need we multiply instances to use up such nonsense? Verily, any man who will have recourse to such criticism and such logic, must be hard pressed for proof to sustain his cause. They had better renounce their ever down-hill religious theory and retrace their steps, ere they plunge into the turbulent waters of avowed infidelity. In order to fortify their theory, which rejects the construction, and labels it as mere assumption, that everlasting