is as fatal to his system as to mine. His doctrine teaches that Deity would not, and could not forgive men, until all the PUNISHMENT due for all the sins of all men, had been fully inflicted on Jesus Christ, as a substitute for the world, and all the claims of justice for penalty on man, had become completely satisfied. Then God could forgive! Here is precisely the same principle which is urged as an objection against Universalism. Jehovah does not forgive until he punishes somebody-either the, guilty or a substitute, and his justice is satisfied. The only difference between his system and mine, is this-that while his represents God as not willing to forgive until the innocent are PUNISHED, and the guilty GO FREE, mine insists he does not forgive until the guilty are themselves punished! I submit to all candid minds, which of the two is the the most consistent, and which must exert the best moral influence?

Elder Holmes inquires, who ever heard of a man calculating, when he commits sin, to avoid the punishment? In reply, I ask who ever heard of one, (except in some exceedingly rare cases.) who did not calculate to escape? It is this calculation, authorized by the popular doctrines of the day, and the expectation of succeeding in it, and avoiding all punishment, that lures millions into wickedness. He mentions a singular case of a cripple, who was tired of life, and wanted to go to heaven, and who thought the best way to get there would be to commit a murder, when he could repent, be executed, and go to glory! Brother Moderators! that case illustrates, in my estimation, the method in which most, if not all murderers reason. They believe if they take the life of a fellow being and are detected, there will be sufficient time allowed them to REPENT, and get to heaven. And they are encouraged in this expectation by the numerous instances of murderers who repent, or profess to, on the gallows, and who, we are told by Evangelical Clergymen, swing from the scaffold into heaven, without the slightest infliction of Divine punishment!! This illustration is an unfortunate one for my brother; for he unhappily belongs to that very class of preachers, whose teachings tend to foster and encourage this most seductive view of the facility of escaping the punishments of God. True, in this case, the poor cripple did not find that repentance on which he had been taught to place so much dependence. But this makes the case none the less a perfect illustration of the moral tendency of my friend's system. According to his own showing, it was this corrupting doctrine of the power of repentance to save from all punishment, that led the poor wretch to the commission of the murder. Had he been taught the Bible doctrine that repentance does not save from punishment, but is the effect of punishment, and that there is no escaping the just penalty of God's law-his hands would never have been stained with the blood of his brother man!

I desire now to finish my argument on the subject of forgive

ness and pardon. It is objected by those on the other side, that the views I entertain violate the usual meaning attached to those words by the dictionaries. Suppose they do; that cannot invalidate their correctness. It should be borne in mind, the definitions of the dictionaries are taken from the nature of pardon as exercised in human governments, and under judicial laws, which from the nature of man, must be exceedingly imperfect. These afford no criterion for judging of the office of pardon or forgiveness in the Divine government. Human governments are administered in respect to criminals, too generally on the principle of retaliation. This principle has no existence in God's government. He has strictly forbidden his creatures to inflict pain in a spirit of retaliation. He cannot violate his own precepts. Human governments pardon, or remit punishment, I acknowledge. But they do it from a necessity, arising from the imperfection of all earthly tribunals. Human legislators are incapable of enacting laws that shall operate perfectly in regard to the detection and chastisement of wickedness. Courts, judges, jurors, are utterly unable to adapt punishment so that it shall, in all cases, be in exact proportion to crime and guilt. Sometimes they condemn an innocent man, or sentence one to a punishment too severe for his crime. At other times extenuating circumstances are brought to light during punishishment, which show that it ought to be mitigated, or wholly remitted. In all such cases the judicial authority must have the power to change or shorten the punishment, or cause it entirely to cease. But it must be clearly seen that this pardoning power in human governments, grows out of their imperfection, and is indeed, necessary for the correction of their mistakes. Were they liable to make no error-could they adapt just the right kind and amount of punishment in every case there would be no need of the pardoning power in human governments, as there could not possibly be an opportunity for its exercise. Let it be remembered that God is liable to no mistakes in the administration of his government. It is a perfect government, with perfect laws, rendering to every man exactly according to his deeds. He is able to adapt his punishments in accordance to the heinousness of the sin, without liability or possibility of error. He makes no mistakes in punishing the innocent, or allowing the guilty to escape under the impression that they are innocent, as do human courts. God never sentences to too much or too little punishment. Hence there is no place, no opportunity for the divine government to change or remit punishment. It is all right, in the first place!

The views of pardon I have adduced are sustained by some of the wisest and most eminent Law Commentators in the world. BECCARIA, an eminent Italian Law Commentator, says "The power of pardon, [i. e. remitting punishment,] does not exist under a perfect administration of law. The admission of this power is a tacit acknowledgment of the infirmity of the course of justice." Chan

cellor KENT, the eminent jurist, the learned lawyer and judge, who has recently departed from life, utters the following language: "If there is in the universe, an administration of justice, that is free from infirmity-if there were an administration so perfect, as in every instance to maintain a just proportion between crime and the penalty-and were the rules of testimony, and the mode of trial so perfect, as to prevent every possibility of mistake or injustice then this administration would need no pardoning power."

This is plain common sense. Is there not such an administration of justice in the universe? Is not God's administration precisely of this description ?-a perfect administration, capable of inflicting the right kind and amount of punishment in every case? Answer "The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." (Ps. xix. 7.) Therefore the Supreme Ruler of the universe can neither exercise nor need a power to remit or pardon punishment. I submit to the decision of the intelligent, which opinion is deserving of more weight on this subject, that of BECCARIA and Chancellor KENT, or that of Elder Holmes! I have already shown there can be but two purposes, so far as the guilty are personally concerned, for which punishment is inflicted upon them, viz: either for their injury or their benefit. If it is inflicted for their injury, then it becomes purely revenge, retaliation. But the penalties of a holy and benevolent Deity cannot be administered on a principle so low and wicked. Hence his punishments must be designed for the benefit of the sinful-to restore them to obedience and holiness. Why, then, should he screen them from its infliction? Who can fail to discover that the affirmative of this question is attempted to be sustained in direct violation of all enlightened views of the perfect government of a perfect God!

I hasten to notice an argument which Elder Holmes draws from justification. What is meant by justification? Clearly not what it is claimed to be a work wrought for the sinner, by Christ giving himself a sacrifice to the justice of an offended Deity. The the only mistake which my friend, and his Evangelical brethren, have made on this subject, is, that they have unfortunately adopted an old Pagan sentiment, instead of the New Testament doctrine. From remote antiquity the practice of offering sacrifices to their gods to appease their anger and obtain their favor, has prevailed in Pagan lands. It is susceptible of the clearest proof, that the whole modern theory of Atonement-of a substitute, for the sinner, is a heathen doctrine. It is one of those corruptions which crept into the churches during the dark ages, when it was overwhelmed by a mountain mass of Pagan errors. Among the Trojans, Greeks, Romans, and other heathen nations, human victims were frequently slaughtered as expiatory, vicarious sacrifices, or atonements to their imaginary deities. Among the many gross notions, which the multitudes who were converted from heathenism to christian

ity, at the era to which I refer, brought with them into the church of Christ, was the belief that the gods, when offended by man's conduct, could be propitiated by sacrifices-especially by the offering of human beings. This notion they incorporated into their christianity, and believed that Christ turned away the anger of the true God from man, by offering himself a substitute, or sacrifice in their behalf. My friend is not ignorant of the fact, and will not deny it, that the doctrines of Christianity at that time, became greatly, almost totally, corrupted by the flood of heathen errors which poured in upon it.

That this doctrine of justification, or atonement, is of heathen origin, is further evident from the fact, that it was not known in the Christian church for two hundred years after the death of Christ. Why was this? Why were those men who immediately followed the Apostles, in ignorance of this doctrine? If it is a true one, they must have heard Peter, and John, and Paul, and others of the Apostles, proclaim it, as do our Evangelical brethren of the present day. But the early fathers-the successors of the Apostles were silent on the subject; they knew nothing of it. My friend cannot find any thing in relation to it in their writings. This shows that it was not an Apostolic doctrine, and should now be rejected as a heathen dogma.

The Bible meaning of justification, when stripped of the heathen notions which have been incorporated with it, is that condition of heart in which man is approved of God. Approbation and forgiveness, are of similar import with justification. This is a condition into which the guilty cannot be brought, without having experienced a just punishment. The guilty can never hate sin-regret its commission-and repent of its enormity-without having experienced the bitterness of its nature, in the suffering it entails. This suffering, both bodily and mental, is its punishment. I have said, approbation and forgiveness are the same as justification. The original of this word justification, is the Greek dikaiosin-from dikaios, i. e., just, blameless, innocent, good, upright-spoken of one who is approved of God, who enjoys the divine favor, and has received forgiveness of sins."-[Robinson's Lexicon.

It is not a Bible doctrine, that justification flows from the death of Christ, as an absolute necessity-nor can it properly be viewed in any such sense, as that if Christ had not died, men could never have been justified. The death of Christ is the medium of justification, in that it is the evidence and seal of that gospel, and of that display of God's love, through the instrumentality of which, connected with divine punishments, men are brought from the dominion of sin into a state of heart and affections wherein they are justified, or approved of God.

In no passage of scripture, is it intimated that justification takes the place of punishment due the sinner, or that it saves him from

just and deserved punishment. From its nature, justification follows punishment, and is not a substitute for it!

Here allow me to notice a singular assertion of my opponent, in reference to my views of Gala. iii. 13. He says that "the Law, which was 430 years" after the covenant with Abraham, (Gal. iii. 17.) was not the Levitical Law, but the TEN COMMANDMENTS! There is assuredly originality in this thought; but I marvel my friend should hazard his reputation by expressing it. Dr. Adam Clarke shall answer this assertion-"The Messiah did not come till 1911 years after the making of this covenant; [the Abrahamic;] and the Law was given 430 years after the covenant with Abraham; therefore the Law could not possibly annul the Abrahamic covenant."-(Dr. C. on Gal. iii. 17.) "It is worthy of remark that the LAW is used by St. Paul, [in this chapter, to signify not only the Law, properly so called, but the WHOLE of the Mosaic economy (Dr. C. on Gal. iii. 25.)

*

* *

*

Brother Holmes has frequently quoted, as of great weight in sustaining his views, Rom. iii. 25, 26: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Does this passage teach the doctrine that men can be saved from just and deserved punishment, through faith in Christ, or in any other manner? It is only by a most strained sense, that any such construction can be put upon it. Men first adopt a theory taken from heathenism, and then construe scripture to match! Would a person who had never heard of the modern doctrine of atonement, have drawn any thing like it from this passage? Not at all. The Apostle does not even refer to the subject of punishment in any sense. It is evident from the context, that St. Paul was speaking of the Jews-their exclusive claims-and their objections to the validity of the gospel dispensation. They insisted it was impossible for man to obtain justification with God-i. e. his forgiveness of sin, and his approbation and favor-in any way except through the deeds of the Ceremonial Law. It was against this pretension, that St. Paul utters the passage under consideration. He would defend the legality of the Gospel dispensation, as a means of securing God's forgiveness and approbation. Through the riches of his grace, our Creator has opened a way, by "the redemption there is in Christi. e. the scheme of redemption revealed through Jesuswhereby men can become justified in the sight of God. He has set forth Christ to be the medium-the mercy-seat-the "ilasterion"-through which this justification, approbation, remission of sins, can be secured. It is by "faith in his blood"-by a belief in his integrity, his truthfulness, the genuineness of his gospel, all which are manifested by his willingness to shed his blood