The doctrine of salvation by the atonement implies that man was liable to endless punishment, and was rescued from it only by the vicarious sufferings of Christ. So it is laid down in the Scriptures: "If Christ died for all, then were all dead." "God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." Thus is our deliverance from endless punishment founded upon the glorious provision of the atonement, by which the love of God was manifested toward us. In this light the earlier Universalists, Relly, Chauncy, &c., taught the doctrine of universal salvation. They maintained that all would be saved because Christ died for all; and hence they were accustomed, in vindicating their doctrine, to dwell much upon those passages of Scripture which set forth the universal redemption of the world by Jesus Christ; omitting, however, the conditions on which the benefits of redemption are offered to us. But it seems not to have occurred to them that all this was in direct opposition to their fundamental argument founded in the love of God as an attribute of his nature; that if that fundamental principle of their creed were admitted, it must annihilate the whole work of redemption by removing the necessity for it; and that, therefore, their theory was self-destroyed by the operation of the antagonist elements of which it was constituted.

What we charge upon former Universalists is inconsistency. They talked much of a glorious salvation wrought out for all men by Jesus Christ, and professed great love to the Saviour on account of his condescending mercy in redeeming our fallen world; while the fundamental principle of their theory rendered all this mercy nugatory. This contradiction of parts in the system, tending to work its own destruction, was perceived by some of the party, and no sooner perceived than exposed and renounced. The consequence was, that all it contained which was consistent with gospel truth was exploded, and the whole theory so revised as to "discard the doctrine of the Trinity and atonement, and all kindred notions." This, it will be perceived, was necessary in order to maintain the certain and inevitable exemption of all men from unlimited punishment; because, if it be admitted that the atonement was necessary to rescue man from endless misery, it will follow that he was once liable to such misery, and, by consequence, may be again—that though God is love, since his violated law did subject the transgressor to the penalty of eternal death, and, therefore, rendered it VOL. II.-6

possible, so it may again be under the dispensation of faith, and a God of infinite love may punish the wicked with "everlasting destruction." "He that believeth not shall be damned." Hence have the whole denomination, as Mr. Wittemore tells us, agreed to discard those doctrines which are cognate with the "Trinity and atonement," and the salvation, of course, to which these are essential.

That modern Universalists exclude salvation wholly from their scheme will be evident enough to any who will take the trouble to examine their writings. They set out with denying the necessity of it. Hear Mr. Ballou, the head and leader of the modern school. "A false education," he says, "has riveted the error in the minds of thousands, that God's law required endless misery to be inflicted on sinners. How often do professed Christians address the Almighty, and say, 'Hadst thou been just to have marked our iniquity, we should long since have been in the grave with the dead, and in hell with the damned.' This address amounts to nothing more nor less, than a complimental accusation against God of injustice! It surprises us to think how professed Christians will contend for the honor and glory of God in a way that renders his character infinitely inglorious and dishonorable." Thus is the justice of God, and the salvation which he has provided to rescue man from the penalty of his righteous law, exploded with contempt, and made matter of jest and ridicule, by this leader in the ranks of modern Universalists. But he appeals to the Scriptures. "Now we ask," says he, "can you find that God ever gave a law to man which required endless misery in case of disobedience? Sure we are, the Scriptures speak of none, neither do the dictates of good reason admit of its existence." So also says Mr. Williamson: "The dogma of endless wo we reject, as unmerciful, unjust, and cruel, a penalty which a just God never did, and never can, annex to his law." Mr. Sawyer too, in his "Letters to Brownlee," says, "Here we meet the popular but monstrous idea, that the penalty of the divine law is endless misery. Beware, sir, how you trifle with the divine attributes!" Thus we have it plainly asserted, and reiterated, that a law which inflicts eternal punishment as its penalty is incompatible with the attributes of God, and, therefore, cannot exist. Consequently man was never liable to such punishment, and never can be, and the doctrine which teaches salvation from the curse or penalty of the violated law of God is absurd, "unmerciful, and cruel." This is Universalism! This the scheme dignified with the appellation of "universal salvation!"

But they do speak of Christ as a Saviour, and of his coming into

the world to save man! In what sense, then, are we to understand them on this subject? Mr. Sawyer will answer. "Christ," he says, "did not come to save man from the punishment of sin, the penalty of the broken law; but he came to save him from his sins, from sinning." Again, "Christ came to save his people from their sins, and not from the punishment of their sins; to save them from deserving punishment, rather than from punishment deserved." What profound logic! The great and glorious work for which the Son of God came into the world and suffered and died, was to save men from deserving punishment! But how could they deserve it? God has no law by which he could inflict it! The attributes of his nature forbid that he should have such a law! Man could, therefore, never be liable to it-never, consequently, deserve or incur it! Christ died to prevent an impossibility-to save man from what could never happen to him if he had not died! Salvation, then, is an unmeaning term in the gospel, as it implies just nothing at all in its application to man! According to the theory of Universalists, if man be prevented from "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire," it will not be because he is saved from it through the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, but because it was impossible that he should ever be brought into a condition to need such salvation. Thus is salvation effectually excluded from the system.

The doctrine of salvation through Christ, as taught in the Scriptures, is again plainly and palpably contradicted by the Universalists, and exploded as a relic of ignorance and superstition in their theory of rewards and punishments. They do not deny that men will be punished for their sins. On the contrary, they contend that all men will receive the punishment due to their transgressions without exception and without mitigation. Hear Mr. Williamson. In his "Exposition of Universalism" he asserts, as one of the peculiar doctrines of the sect, "that no man can, by any possibility, escape a just punishment for his sins." "Neither forgiveness," says he, "nor atonement, nor repentance, nor any thing else, can step in between the sinner and the violated law." And he further adds: "It is a remarkable fact, that we are the only denomination who believe that all sin will be punished." The sentiment contained in this quotation is affirmed and vindicated by all their principal writers. There can be no doubt of its being a peculiar doctrine of the denomination. Now it matters not, in the argument, what this punishment is-how long or how severe-it must be inflicted to the utmost extent. There is no pardon, no mercy, no salvation! The sinner is doomed to suffer all that the justice of God can inflict. The measure of his punishment is dealt out in exact proportion

with the vindictive claims of unrelenting justice! Is this the gospel of salvation? It is the gospel of Universalists! But what is it in its nature? A theory of universal condemnation-universal punishment-without mercy, or grace, or compassion toward any! But what is there of salvation in it? Nothing at all. It admits of no element of the kind. Such is the inevitable conclusion to which their arguments lead.

The student of the Bible will bear in mind that the doctrine of pardon and justification by faith in Christ is everywhere set forth in the sacred volume. It is on this ground alone that salvation from punishment is proffered to man. "Believe on the Lord Jesus

Christ and thou shalt be saved." There is no other hope for the sinner. Now waiving all reference to those passages of Scripture which speak in positive terms of the endless punishment of the finally impenitent, the condition on which salvation is offered to man most conclusively proves the unending misery of those who neglect a compliance with it. Take the declaration of our Lord, so much dwelt upon by Universalists in former days, as an example of the argument: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is evidently a distinction made between the believer and the unbeliever. The former shall have everlasting life. But what of the latter? If the declaration mean any thing, it certainly means that such as believe not, shall not have everlasting life. All those texts of Scripture, then, which go to show that deliverance from punishment is through faith in Christ, prove most conclusively that men are saved from deserved punishment by virtue of the atoning merits of the Saviour, and that those who comply not with the condition required in the gospel, can never enjoy the life promised to believers; and their punishment must, therefore, be interminable. Thus does Universalism annihilate not only salvation by Christ, but the fundamental condition on which it is offered to man, by making it of none effect.

It may be construed into want of candor if we omit to notice the light in which modern Universalists hold sin and the punishment which they say will inevitably attend it. In their estimation neither the one nor the other is much to be abhorred or dreaded. Their theory is briefly this :-"Sin is its own punishment;" or what is embraced in the axiom of old Seneca, "There is no greater punishment for sin than sin itself." The following quotation from their writings will illustrate their views on this point:"We know that there are physical laws which must be obeyed, if we would preserve the health of the body. If we put our hand into

the fire, it will be burned. If we expose our bodies to the cold, they will freeze. So is it with the mind; it has its laws written upon it by the finger of the Creator, and these laws must be obeyed, or we must suffer." "I say, then, that the very constitution of man is proof that there is no escape from the punishment of our sins." Here we have the theory. The threatened punishment which God has appended to his law, to restrain men from vice, is not any future evil which shall follow after transgression, but that pain only which accompanies the act. It is the same, we are told, as in the case of the dolt who puts his fingers in the fire, and is burned. The pain-the punishment-is present with the act. We say nothing here of the plain language of the Scriptures, which everywhere contradicts this absurd theory. But what is the testimony of observation of reason-of universal experience in this matter? Does the oppressor, whose unhallowed lust for gain draws him on to defraud the innocent, and grind the face of the poor, find a law in his constitution which connects the full punishment of his crimes with the perpetration of them? Is this true of the wine-bibberthe sensualist-the pleasure-taker? On the contrary, assure them that the only punishment which the law of God inflicts for sin, consists in what they experience while indulging in their sensual propensities and worldly gratifications, and they will bless both the law and its penalty, and pass on unconcerned to the end of their career. We can wonder no longer at the fruits of Universalism, if such be the principles it inculcates. "Men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles." "By their fruits shall ye know them." Here, however, we have a distinct and unequivocal avowal of the corrupt nature of the tree. The fruit is its legitimate product.

Of the volume before us, which has occasioned the train of reflections in which we have indulged, much might be said to commend it to public favor. Mr. Hatfield will receive the thanks of all orthodox Christians into whose hands his book may fall, for the pains he has taken to collect and arrange the materials of which it is composed, so as to place before the public "Universalism as it is." This was an onerous task, requiring a patient examination of the numerous periodicals, pamphlets, and other miscellaneous tracts and papers employed by the sect to disseminate their doctrines, and the labor of selecting from this fugitive mass those principles to which their united approval or general assent has given a sufficient sanction to authorize their admission as component parts of their creed. It will be admitted that our author has performed this task with much fidelity and fairness. He ascribes