volume, and there is no such unrighteousness in its divine author. We owe the allegation to that partial view of things, to that love of theory, to that passion for something new, to that pride of maintaining what has been once professed, from which even good men are not always exempt, and which leads them to indulge in the most senseless paradoxes, or even to sacrifice the authority of God's word, by making it deny in one place what it has affirmed in another. But we reiterate the position, that while the Scriptures often announce in explicit terms, that only a certain number of sinful men, marked and designated by definite characteristics, shall obtain forgiveness of their sins, and that the blessing cannot, and will not be extended to those in whom these characteristics are wanting, the Scriptures nowhere announce in explicit terms, or in terms at all, that each individual transgressor may lay his account with receiving it, or may consider himself as one on whom it has been already bestowed. And in such a case, it is not difficult to determine on which side of the controversy the truth is to be sought for and found.

2. We now proceed to show you, that the doc trine of universal pardon necessarily leads to the doctrine of universal salvation, meaning by salvation the sinner's final admission into heaven, together with every blessing, such as acceptance,

sanctification, and so forth, which that issue presupposes or pre-requires.

tents.

It is not our intention at present to prove that the doctrine of universal salvation is unscriptural and unsound, nor does the discussion in which we are engaged call upon us to do so. None will venture to maintain such a tenet who have any belief in the Bible as an inspired document, and any knowledge or comprehension of its conIf there are persons who hold it, still it is not with them we are contending. Those with whom we are contending profess to reject, and to deprecate, and to abhor it, as much as we can do. And, therefore, with them, and with all who are of the same opinion on that point, the argument we have announced is a fair one, and must be held to be conclusive as it is fair. If the principle of universal pardon is such as to establish the principle of universal salvation, or necessarily to infer it, and if you are satisfied that the principle of universal salvation is false and inadmissible, then you cannot possibly or consistently adopt the principle of universal pardon. This is self-evident and needs no illustration.

Now what is the forgiveness which is said to be bestowed upon every sinner? It is the remission or the cancelling of that penalty to which he had become subject in consequence of breaking the divine law, a penalty consisting in the loss of

1

God's favour, and in liability to the infliction of God's wrath. He who is forgiven is no longer exposed to this punishment, but is entirely and for ever delivered from it. And who does not perceive at one glance the vast importance, the unspeakable value of such a blessing? So important and so valuable is it accounted in the book of inspiration, that it is there spoken of as equivalent to the whole of redemption, forgiveness and redemption being used as synonymous words. They are so used in the passage where our text lies, and they are so used repeatedly by the Apostle Paul, who says, that we have " redemption through the blood of Christ, even the forgiveness of sins." And yet in a scheme clearly and avowedly devised for the salvation of sinners, the salvation of multitudes proceeds thus far and goes no farther! They are forgiven, but they are not accepted, they are not sanctified, they are not made happy, they never get to heaven, they are still to suffer misery! Had the scheme which in this manner gives them so much and still withholds so much, been of mere human contrivance, we could not perhaps have wondered at such an appearance of imperfection and inconsistency. But the marvel is, that it is a scheme of God's device and of God's accomplishment. It is a scheme which in Scripture is called "the power of God and the wisdom of God," and the very privi

F

lege which, unaccompanied with any other, it is alleged to bestow upon so many of the children of men, the forgiveness of sins, is ascribed to the riches of his grace, and said to be "according to the riches of his grace."* Nay, those who put that limitation on the effects of the gospel, are fain to represent God as altogether love, as having no anger, no wrath towards his offending and degenerate creatures. And notwithstanding they will have us to believe, that God who is love and nothing else; who at any rate along with other attributes is distinguished by rich grace in the communication of forgiveness, and from whose grace and love the scheme of salvation has emanated, is so stinted in his mercy towards those for whom it is intended, that though he will, in vir tue of it, pardon all their sins, he will leave them destitute of every thing else! He pardons them in the freest and the fullest manner, through means of a dispensation which is framed to manifest the unmixed, the unqualified love which constitutes his essence and his character, and having pardoned them, he stops short in the career of his beneficence, as if he grudged to give them any more, or as if the dispensation had been formed so unskilfully, or as if the strength put forth to render it efficacious had been so feeble

* Ephes. i. 7.

and inadequate, that the one portion of the work of salvation being done, the other and finishing portion of it had to be left undone !

We deny not the sovereign right of God to convey to sinful men, who deserved no bounty from him, a part of salvation, and not to convey the whole : and had it pleased him to act in this manner, and to announce the fact, we should have humbly acquiesced in his arrangement, and adored him for it. But such an arrangement is so much more like the doing of imperfect man, than it is like the doing of the all-perfect Jehovah-it bears so little analogy to all that we have been able to conceive of the character and administration of God -it has so little resemblance to the general aspect and features of the gospel, as these are delineated in his own word, that we cannot bring ourselves to give it any credence, unless it be clearly stated and palpably set forth in some page of Holy writ, or in some department of the Christian scheme. And no such evidence can we any where discover. None of the divine promises give assurance of pardon, and of pardon alone. There is no prediction of the Messiah, and no prefiguration of him, as a mere Redeemer from punishment. We can see no example of a man being forgiven all his trespasses, and receiving no other token of God's mercy. No instance presents itself of any individual in the history of Christianity being pointed out as pardoned, but not saved. And