views of the subject of salvation stated and insisted upon in your work. If we have a fair opportunity of being heard, we shall forward pieces for insertion, as we may have opportunity, and as occasion may require. Yours, &c.

OBSERVER

November, 1825.

No. I.-In which the erroneous notions of the Universalists on the nature and grounds of salvation are CONSIDERED.

Our observations, at present, shall be confined to a piece published in the 3d number, from the (Boston) Universalist Magazine, on the subject of salvation.

We perfectly agree with the writer, as to the importance of the subject, and the candor and impartiality with which our enquiries on it should be conducted. But to his views of the subject itself. we shall make some exceptions. He first speaks of the nature of salvation, to explain which he introduces two similes, which we shall notice hereafter. His views of this subject are expressed in the following words, "The salvation which God wills in our favor, is not a salvation from the punishment, but from sin itself." With that part of the gentleman's proposition, which asserts salvation from sin, we perfectly agree, but disagree with the part which denies salvation from the punishment due to sin. But he thinks it effectually proved by the principle that God rewards men according to their works. Thus he argues" If every man by his wicked works, has incurred the penalty of the divine law, and if the penalty of this law be endless death, must not every man be endlessly miserable? The fallacy of this argument consists in this mistake, that to incur and actually to suffer a penalty, are one and the same thing; whereas a penalty may be incurred and that penalty in virtue of certain considerations, be remitted, and so never inflicted. Our being rewarded according to our works, is not being punished, as we must have been without a mediator, but consists in our being rewarded or punished according to our having received or rejected

the mediator.

"He that believeth shall be saved, and

he that believeth not shall be damned."

But our writer proceeds," It may be said, that Jesus Christ, when upon the cross, suffered in our room, and shared and bore the curses which we deserved."

Doubtless he suffered for sinners, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God," and was made a curse for us. "But we ask, does this appear to be the meaning of those scriptures which explicitly assert that God will give every transgressor a just punishment for the demerit of his actions?" It may not be the meaning of them, because they are not speaking of the atonement made by Christ for sin, but of the consequence of the conduct of men in relation to it, so that these scriptures," and the doctrine of atonement, are in nowise inconsistent with each other.

He continues, "If Jesus suffered the punishment of our sins, and saves us from it.” It should be observed, that we hold that " Jesus suffered the punishment of our sins," in a qualified sense, that is, so far as public justice is concerned and that he saves us from it on conditions. “We should find the inspired writers mentioning it at those times when they were telling what Christ had done for us." True! And what is meant by his "suffering for sins.” (I. Pet. iii. 18,) Being made a curse for us. (Gal. iii. 13.) Wounded for our transgressionsbruised for our iniquities-the chastisement of our peace being upon him-our being healed by his stripes, and by the Lord laying upon him the iniquity of us all? (Isa. liii 5, 6.) We leave the explanation of these passages to those who say that we must all suffer for our own sins--bear our own curse (or rather remedy as they would call it) endure the chastisement of our own peace--be healed by our own stripes--and that every man's iniquity, shall in every sense, be laid upon his own back.

Again, this gentleman remarks, "men have supposed God to be full of wrath towards his creature man; is it reasonable to suppose that the power which designed our good was full of wrath?" We do not suppose that God is under the influence of passion, of any kind. But the terms wrath, anger, &c. as applied to God in the scriptures, are to be understood figuratively, and refer simply to the incongruity which exists between the divine per

fections and sin. And God's displeasure exercised tow ards man as a sinner, is by no means inconsistent with a love of pity exercised towards him as his offspring; such as influenced him to give his son to die for him, and ransom him from woe.

But we shall now return to his main principle, that there is no salvation from the punishment due to sin. And first, we remark that the principle appears to us inconsistent with what he has said in other places. His similes are either directly against him, or they speak the most palpable absurdity." We say of a man that is taken out of the water half dead, and then resuscitated, that his life is saved, and our meaning is understood, he is saved from drowning We say of a man that is taken from a building in flames, that he is saved, and we mean that he is saved from being burned to death.” Now these

similes applied to the subject under discussion imply deliverance from the punishment consequent upon sin, as well as from sin itself, or they speak this absurdity, the man taken out of the water must still drown--The man taken out of the fire must still burn to death! So his similes either overthrow his main principle, or they speak the grossest absurdity!!! The following sentiment may accord with his similes, but how it accords with his principles we cannot see. "There is no salvation but a salvation from sin, and when we are saved from this we are saved from all punishment, all distress, and evil of every kind." Here he expressly asserts salvation from punishment upon which we observe:

1st. This is certainly contrary to his main principle, which denies salvation from punishment altogether. 2d. It identifies the time of salvation (so he calls it, but it certainly cannot be a salvation from punishment if the punishment is suffered,) from sin, punishment, distress and evil of every kind. Now this goes to say that we may be saved from distress and evil of every kind, now in this life, which is contrary to fact, or that there is no present salvation from sin, which is contrary to scripture.

Secondly, The gentleman's theory, is as inconsistent with scripture and reason, as it is with itself. We object to it, 1st. Those passages of scripture which make mention of salvation from that which must certainly be considered as the punishment of sin. That whosoever be

lieveth on him should not perish," (John iii, 15, 16.) "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." (Gal. iii. 19.) "We shall be saved from wrath through him." (Rom. v. 9.) "He that believeth is not condemned." (John iii. 18.) Here is salvation from perishing, the curse of the law, wrath, and condemnation. And what is this but salvation from the punishment of sin?

2d. It destroys the doctrine of pardon, or the forgive ness of sin. The two ideas of enduring all the punishment due to sin, and the pardon of sin, can never be associated in the mind If a man for some misdemeanor is sentenced to pay five hundred dollars, and endure twelve month's imprisonment, when he pays the fine and endures the imprisonment, he is free. But who would say that he was pardoned? None surely!

3d. It makes salvation depend on our own sufferings, (i. e.) enduring all the punishment due to sin. Consequently it is not of grace. Hence the universalist will bring forth the head stone of his spiritual building, with shoutings, not grace, grace, unto it-but punishment, sufferings, torment, the horrors of conscience, and the pains of hell unto it!!!

Finally, this gentleman, in common with his brethren, assumes that all punishment is amenditory. He says, "God punishes the sinner for his good," the punishment of sin is a means of salvation." Upon this we observe, 1st. That God, as a kind father, does in this probationary state administer corrections, that is, he often chastises us for our good. 2. The punishment be will inflict in his judicial capacity, in a state of retribution will be exemplary-not amenditory- As Sodom and Gomorrah arg set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jude 7.) And we have no grounds from scripture, or facts, with which we are acquainted, to believe, that sufferings have any tendency, of themselves, to change the heart of man, but have many instances, both in saered and profane history, where they have had the opposite effect. Without the grace of God sanctifying them, they have a tendency to excite a thousand unholy dispo sitions, to blow to a flame the principles of malice, envy and revenge. Nor have we any encouragement to expect the assistance of grace, in the future world, if we die in unbelief! Consequently if we have no hope but what rest C

upon our suffering the punishment due to sin, we must be in a forlorn case.

No. II.-In which the true notions of the nature-the grounds-and the conditions of salvation are stated and

ESTABLISHED.

Having in the preceding number noticed some things on the plan of salvation, which we consider erroneous, in this, we shall give what we conceive a true and scriptural account of it. Considering 1st the nature, 2d the grounds, and 3d the conditions of salvation.

1st then, we shall give our views of the nature of salvation.

We shall not attempt to give the various acceptations of the term salvation; but shall observe generally that it signifies being delivered from evil, actually endured, or threatened. The gospel salvation is a deliverence from sin, and that impending ruin which is the consequence of it. In this salvation we shall mark several stages which shall be established by scripture.

1. It is a deliverence from that immediate destruction which man merited by the first transgression, and restoration to a state of gracious probation, which affords all the means necessary for his final happiness. This was effected on the first promise of a saviour, and secured the original pair, and all their posterity, from final condem→ nation for the original offence, and placed them in a salvable state. This is called by some divines initial salvation. We shall refer to a few of the passages which support it. As by the offence of one. judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Rom. v. 18.) For the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,'-(Tit. ii." 11.) Who is the saviour of all men.' (1 Tim. iv. 19.) Observe 1. The salvation spoken of in these passages is general or the salvation of all men. 2. It is actually received the free gift came upon all men. The grace of God hath appeared to all men and he is now the saviour