Vol. II. P. 260.) So by a little attention to the subject, and a little of Mr. Winchester's help, we are saved from being engulphed in the " deluge" of Examiner's sweeping conclusions!

66

The argument from a number of passages of scripture, which we informed him he had not noticed: he thinks "sufficiently embraced in" his "answer." (Ibid.) But we still say that he has not noticed it. What he has said upon some of these passages, in another connexion, is totally irrelevant.

Our argument from Ps. ciii, 10-12, the editor does not attempt properly to meet, or show that it is not fairly deduced from the passage. He disposes of it, by setting in opposition to it, a number of passages which assert, that God will reward every man according to his works. But there is not the least contradiction between these passages and the one in question. They do not as sert that all men receive the whole of their reward as they go along in this world. If they ultimately receive it, all that these scriptures assert will be literally verified. And that these passages must be refered to the future world for their accomplishment we shall now proceed to prove. *

1. The scriptures clearly assert that rewards & punishments are not equally distributed in this life. This Da vid fully asserts in the lxxiii Ps. He saw the wicked in great power and prosperity; not in trouble as other men -pride compassing them about as a chain-violence ering them as a garment-their eyes standing out with fatness-having more than heart could wish. And not at first reflecting upon the punishment that was reserved for them in another world; he began to be envious at the foolish,' &c. and says: Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain and washed my hands in innocensy-for all the day long have I been plagued and chastened every morn

*2 Chron vi, 30; is perhaps an exception. What Solomon meant by praying that the Lord would render unto every man according to all his way,' &c., was that he would restore the captive Israelites upon their repentence. We do not deny but that the favours which God confers upon the obedient, and the miseries which he inflicts upon the disobedient, in this world may in some sense be considered as rewarding them according to their works--but not in the full and proper sense.

P

ing:'-But going into the sanctuary of God, he understood their end! 'Surely' says he thou didst set them in slippery places, thou castest them down as in a moment'!!-To us it seems totally impossible to make either consistency, or good, of this Ps. upon the supposition that all men are rewarded and punished according to their works as they go along.

Again Solomon says: There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again there be wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous.' (Eccl, viii, 14.) So David and Solomon, both. had facts before them, which went plainly to say that this present state is not a state of rewards and punishments.

But 2. We are taught in the scriptures, that in the next life an equal distribution of rewards & punishments, will be administered. Christ says: For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then shall he reward every man according to his works.' (Mat. xvi, 27.) We have before shown that this passage must refer to the second coming of Christ--nothing need here be added on that point: & if so, it goes conclusively to establish our proposition. St. Paul says: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done whether it be good or bad.' (2 Cor. v, 10. See also; Acts xvii, 31. 2 Tim. iv, 1, 2 Pet. iii, 7, and 2 Thes. i, 7-10.) And that this judgment will take place after death, in the future world, is explicitly asserted:-for St. Paul says: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.' (Heb. ix. 27. See also Rev. xx, 11-15.) "Indeed" says an able Theologian: The very idea of a general judgment, decides this question without farther argument. Of what use are a trial and a judgment, after the whole penalty of the law has been inflicted on the criminal? None It is the perfection of absurdity to talk of such a judgment. This is so evident that attempts have been made of late, to do away the idea of a general judgment altogether, attempts that I need not now meet, for they were fairly met and put down by an abler hand, (the Rev. T. Meritt,) at the first onset. And indeed, this

new idea of no judgment is so directly opposed to many of the plainest passages of scripture, that with an enlightened public, who have their bibles before them, it hardly needs a refutation. And as the reality of a general judg ment, the scriptures being trae, cannot be reasonably doubted. So neither can it be doubted that men receive rewards and punishments in a future world."*

Trusting then that we have clearly established the prin ciple, that it is not in this world, but in the world to come, that men are rewarded according to their works; the passages which Examiner brings forward must be refered to the future world for their accomplishment, consequently they can prove nothing to his purpose.

No. II. The design of punishment, &c.

In his reply to the second number of the rejoinder the editor is unusually brief. Perhaps for the sake of brevity, or for some other reason, he has passed the most impor tant part of that number without notice.

What he says upon exemplary punishment is mere declamation. But pathetic effusions do not have the force of arguments with us:-indeed we consider them untimely when a point is to be established, and in general, to indicate the entire want of argument. But this is the strong hold of the Universalists, and we must not deprive them of the advantage of it altogether!

As to God's acting" in two characters," we would observe, that this is a form of expression which he has coined for us. We did indeed suffer it to pass, under certain qualifications. We said: He now offers salvation,-he will then punish for rejecting his offers.' This is our

*See a Discourse upon future rewards and punishments by the Rev. Wilber Fisk, A. M. This discourse, with the authors defence of it in answer to Mr. Pickering-and the Rev. T. Meritts discourse, (to which reference is made in the above extract,) together, constitute an able refutation of modern Universalism. (See the Discourses in Methodist Mag. Vol. VI.)

doctrine: and he may say it makes God act in two characters, or any thing else which suits him, as long as the doctrine is defensible. But we would deny that it holds up God as acting in opposite moral characters: Changing from good to bad-from merciful to malignant.— The character and perfections of God, as the moral gov ernor, are ever the same.

He insists that this view makes God changeable. (Ibid.) But we are not able to see how the Lord's treating moral agents diferently, under different circumstances, makes him changeable. For instance: The Lord confers his favors upon the inhabitants of A. and exercises his displeasure against the inhabitants of B: Now if the inhabitants of A, remove to B, they would be the objects of the divine displeasure; and that without any change in God:-the change which takes place in their circumstances requires different treatment, but this argues no change in God. "The gentleman's retort upon us, with regard to knowing the secrets of eternity," [Ibid.] he will perceive is not just; upon reflecting that we did not assume to decide any thing positively, any farther, than the fact, which we supposed was revealed.

The question at issue between us is, whether punishment in all cases is designed to reform the subject. He asserts that it is. [Vol. I. P. 132.] But we would ask him whether the punishment of the Antideluvians-the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrow-the Egyptians in the red sea-of the murmuring Israelites, &c. &c. &c. -was designed to reform them and make them obedient subjects? If not what becomes of this main pillar of his system?

Dr. Huntington says: "The utmost torment, for a long period even for ages of ages, could have no more effect in humbling sinners of the human, than of the angelic nature. The devils are no better for their long contin, ued anguish and pain. Afflictions in this world, do not make sinners any better; but are invariably, only on occasion of their growing worse and worse, if the special almighty energy of the spirit does not attend them. There is not the least intimation of the operation of the spirit of God, or of any means of grace in hell; in whatever sense any understand that awful state.The devils have been under these personal sufferings, for a long time,

and are no more humble than ever, no more fit for heaven. And had it been the decree of God that all mankind should be there in person with them, ever so long. they would grow worse and worse, through all ages of ages; for aught that their intolerable torments would do for them." (Calvinism Improved, pp. 206. 207.) This is another instance in which this Universalist writer levels a blow at the root of the system as held by Examiner. As this is a point upon which much depends in this controversy we will add a number of arguments from Dr. Ed wards: "All those texts which speak of the divine vengeance.fury, wrath,indignation, fiery indignation, &c, hold forth some other punishment, than that which is merely disciplinary.*

"That the passages now quoted, do indeed speak of a punishment more than merely disciplinary, is manifest by the very terms of the passages themselves. To say that vengeance, wrath, fury, indignation, fiery indignation, wrath without mixture," and destruction without remedy," mean a mere wholesome fatherly, discipline for the good only of the subjects, is to say that the inspir ed writers were grossly ignorant of language.

"The same may be argued from various other passa ges of scripture, some of which I shall now cite.†

"By all these texts it appears, that some will suffer the curse of God. A curse is undoubtedly a punishment which does not promote the good of the subject: otherwise a curse and a blessing are perfectly confounded. If it shall still be insisted, that the curse so often mentioned, means that punishment only, which is conducive to the good of the subject: it may be answered, then there would be no impropriety in calling the present afflictions of the real disciples of Christ, by the name of a curse. Why then are they not so called in scripture? And why are

*See Deut. xxxii, 41, Rom. iii, 5, 6, xii, 19, Luke xxi, 22, 2 Thes. i, 8, Jude 7, Job xx, 23, Isa. li, 17, lix, 18, Rom. ii, 8, 9, Heb. x, 27. See also, Ps. 1, 22, Heb. xii, 29, Luke xii, 46, Rev. xiv, 10, and Prov. xxix, 1.

†See 1 Cor. xvi, 22, Deut. xxvii, 26. xxix, 19, xi, 26-29 Prov. iii, 33, Job. xxiv, 18, Ps. xxxvii, 22, cxix, 21, Jer. xi, 3, vii, 5, Mat. 1, 14, iii, 9, a Pet, ii, 14.