a fig-tree planted in his vineyard, and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree and find none, cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well; and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." It is not necessary to enter into a particular examination of this parable, in all its minute bearings, to discover that it contains the doctrine of salvation from just punishment. It was, no doubt, intended to illustrate the dealings of God with men; hence, by the owner of this vineyard, we are to understand God, and by the fig-tree, moral accountable beings. Taking this view, the doctrine in question appears plain upon the very surface of the text.

1. The moral beings represented by the fig-tree, are guilty, and deserve to be punished, as a fruitless tree should be removed as a cumbrance from the soil.

2. The proposition to spare the fruitless tree, for another trial, saying, "if it bear fruit, well; if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down," clearly supposes that, on condition of its bearing fruit in future, it was to be exempt from the punishment it deserved for its former barrenness, which implies salvation from just punishment. Keeping in view, that what is said of the fig-tree relates to moral beings, and we see, if the fig-tree did not deserve to be cut down, then God threatens an unjust punishment; and if it did deserve to be cut down, then, a proposition is made to save from just punishment and as no one dare assert the former, the latter must be true.

This class of scripture proofs might be multiplied to almost any extent, but we must forbear, having said enough to furnish the reader with a train of thought, which he will please to carry out in his own mind, as he reads those numerous passages, which like the above, imply salvation from the pun

ishment of sin.

VI. Salvation from sin, which the scriptures teach, and which universalists must admit, most clearly implies salvation from the punishment it deserves. It was said of Jesus Christ before he was born, Matt. i. 21, "Thou shalt call

his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins." This must relate to sin that has an existence, for it has already been remarked that men cannot be saved from sin which is never committed. Men may be saved from the commission of sin; but that is very different from being saved from sin itself. Is it said that salvation from the commission of sin is all that is meant, in the above text? We reply, that in this sense the text is not true. The text declares that "he shall save his people from their sins." Now, we ask of what people this is true, if it means salvation from the commission of sin? It can be true of no people, unless a people can be found who have never committed sin, which cannot be, for "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." No man, who has, or shall hereafter commit sin, can be said to be saved from sin; if by salvation the non-commission of sin be meant. It is clear then that Christ saves his people from sins which have been committed, and this we maintain, implies salvation from the punishment it deserves. But universalists, to avoid the force of this conclusion, have sometimes attempted to make a distinction between salvation from sin; and salvation from the punishment it deserves. To this absurd distinction we object, and will attempt to refute it. We speak exclusively of actual sin, consisting in the transgression of the law. Now, we say, after sin has been committed, it admits of no salvation, except from its guilt and punishment. Men cannot be saved from the act of sin after it has been committed; an act once performed can never be recalled: the consequences of the act are all that admit of salvation, and salvation from these imply salvation from the guilt and punishment of sin.

But another view of the subject will show, equally clear, that salvation from sin, implies salvation from the punishment it deserves. Let it be noted,

1. That no man can be saved from sin, or be in a state of salvation, while he is suffering punishment as a sinner, under the sentence of God's righteous law. This is so selfevident as hardly to need confirmation. To suppose that a man can be in a state of salvation from sin, while he is suffering as a sinner, would be to suppose that he was innocent, free from sin, and a sinner, guilty and deserving punishment

at the same time; which is too trifling to occupy further at

tention.

2. No man can be punished for his sin after he is saved from it; for as salvation implies a restoration to the favour and image of God, to suppose that the saved are still liable to punishment, would be to suppose that the innocent who are conformed to the divine will and likeness, are proper subjects of punishment.

Now as no man can be saved from sin while he is yet liI able to punishment, and as no man can be punished when he is saved from sin, it is clear that salvation from sin and salvation from the punishment of sin, are inseparably connected, and that they reciprocally imply each other.

VII. If there is no salvation from the punishment of sin, it must follow that God is limited as to the time of salvation, in opposition to those declarations of his word, in which he represents himself as able and willing to save at any time, and at all times, when the sinner will comply with the conditions of salvation. To say that a man is punished for his sins, supposes a time in which he endures such punishment. Now as no one will contend that the sinner can be saved while he is in a state of suffering for his sins, it follows that God himself cannot save the sinner until the expiration of the period necessary to punish him for all his past sins, without saving him from the punishment he deserves; therefore if there is no salvation from the punishment of sin, God is limited in the time of salvation. The sinner may repent, and weep, and pray, and plead the promises of the gospel, believing in Christ, and still, omnipotence itself can afford no relief until the expiration of a certain period, necessary for the full punishment of his past sins. This is opposed to the general tenor of the gospel, and too absurd to be indulged for a

moment.

VIII. To deny salvation from punishment, must destroy the idea of salvation itself, and involve the sinner in a dilemma which must render his continuance in sin and misery, eternally unavoidable.

Salvation implies a time of salvation, in which it is enjoyed, and punishment supposes a time of punishment, in which it is endured. Now as salvation and punishment are

d is baptised shall be saved, and he that all be damned." This clearly proves that can be saved. But to evade the force of endless punishment, universalists generally ve text by John iii. 18. which says, "He 1 him is not condemned, but he that believemned already." By this they endeavor to e expression," he that believeth not shall be ing is meant, more than that the unbeliever ned, here in this life, while he remains in unany reference to a future state. This we will ent, for the sake of the argument, and try them exposition. It is agreed, then, that unbelief which the unbeliever deserves to be damned, lamned and punished so long as he remains an nd no longer. From this it must follow, that faith is exercised, the sinner must be released ination and punishment. We ask then, can the e while he is yet receiving punishment for his f? Most certainly not, if there is no salvation ment; for as the sinner can be condemned and o longer than he remains an unbeliever, to say believe at any time prior to his having received ishment he deserves, would be to say that he might rom just punishment; which is the point for which 1. If the sinner, then, cannot believe before he ed all the punishment he deserves, we ask, can he ment he deserves before he believes? Tef is sin, for which the sinner must and we have already remarked time of punishment, in which it punishment must elapse after the man cannot be punished before ch he is punished. Taking this , at the point of time when the Il deserve punishment for his last fore, receive all the punishment he es. It is evident then, that the sinhe receives all the punishment he saved from such punishment, whil

1 the

t