the powers he has lent in his cause, that his glory in the salvation of rebels has continually been near your hearts, that you have wept and prayed for the enlargement of the Saviour's triumphs, and been striving to shed abroad your light? If you can reply in the affirmative, thrice, four-fold happy are you. If you are constrained to answer in the negative, what reason can you offer for remissness in the best cause in the universe, the cause of God, of holiness and heaven? Have you found a better rock, a wiser friend, a stronger protector, a more compassionate Saviour? If not, O return unto your rest, and stray no longer in darkness and doubt! Impenitent hearers! why, as the facts of your situation are fairly spread before you, and the only safeguard of your souls described, is escape to the Rock of salvation delayed? On what is your delusive hope rested, or what preserves you from destruction? If you have a strong foundation for the time to come, in pity to your suffering race disclose it, that they may enjoy the comfort and security you feel. If you have nothing but sand as the base of your hope, leave your desperate peril at once for your own good, and that others may not fall through your deception. Think how Israel was punished for apostacy four thousand years ago, when darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people, and consider what will be your infliction, when those sitting in the region and shadow of death have seen a great light, and the day-spring from on high has visited us. Lay your souls to these counsels in every truth, satisfied it is not a vain thing to serve the Lord, but that it is for your life. Make God your everlasting Rock!

If hypocrites go to hell by the road to heaven, we may carry on the metaphor, and add, that, as all the virtues demand their respective tolls, the hypocrite has a by-way to avoid them, and to get into the main road again. And all would be well, if he could escape the last turnpike in the journey of life, where all must pay, where there is no bypath, and where the toll is death.-Lacon.

THE LAW, AND ITS FULFILMENT.

BY REV. MOSES BALLOU.

I PROPOSE, in this article, to develope the argument for Universalism, based on the claims of the moral law, and the assurance we have of its fulfilment. It is everywhere conceded, I believe, that whatever may be the demands of the divine law, these demands must, in some manner, be met and fully cancelled. God will never sacrifice the dignity of his law. He never will yield up one jot or tittle" of its just claims on the creature until they are all completely satisfied. And our Saviour seems to confirm this fact, by assuring us (Matt. v, 18) of the entire and perfect fulfilment of the whole law.

Assuming this premise, the following questions will cover the ground of our argument :-What are the claims of the law? What will fulfil this law, and entirely cancel these claims ?

1. What are the claims of the divine law?

The language of the New Testament is very clear and explicit upon the subject; too much so, indeed, to admit of mistake. Every one is familiar with that brief and comprehensive summary given by Christ,-"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, mind, might, and strength; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments," he adds, "hang all the law and the prophets."

In these two great corresponding affections, then, are embraced all the claims of the divine law. These claims ask nothing beyond this; they will be satisfied with nothing less. To bring out these affections, supreme love to God, and love to all men, is the ultimate object of the entire moral law of Jehovah.

I am more anxious that this point should be carefully considered, from the fact that it is often treated, and perhaps popularly viewed, in a very vague manner. From the way in which it is usually spoken of, we should naturally conclude that the claims of the law are as fully centred in the penalty annexed to its violation, as in obedience. We should suppose that its ultimate object was as fully accomplished, and its

demands as completely cancelled, by the infliction of its penalty on the transgressor, as they would be by his full and perfect obedience to all its requirements.

No mistake can be greater than this. The law in no case contemplates its penalty as an end, but as a means only. Its ultimate object invariably looks beyond the mere infliction of the penalty, and rests only in obedience. Otherwise the law is degraded to a savage barbarity, and the disposition of the lawgiver becomes monstrous indeed. It cannot for a moment be supposed that the lawgiver looks upon obedience, and the penalty for disobedience, with a total indifference as to which may be the result of his administration. He surely has a single purpose to accomplish, and that is obedience. This is alone his ultimate object, and he regards the penalty of disobedience only as one of the varied means that are to effect this. A very simple figure will, perhaps, give more force and clearness to this fact.

A man takes off a diseased limb from his own child, or from his dearest friend, producing for a time the keenest anguish; but surely his purpose does not centre in this painful operation. If it did, if his sole object was effected when he beheld the sufferings of his patient, then must his disposition be wantonly cruel. But this afflicting process by no means terminates his design in adopting it. The agony of his patient is not what he is after. He could not, unless he were a very devil, sit down with the bloody knife in his hand, and looking upon the writhing torment of the sufferer, say, that in that sad scene he realized the entire aim of his work. No; he looks beyond this. He aims at the life and health of his patient. To preserve the one and promote the other, comprises his ultimate object; and this painful operation is one of the means by which he finds that object can be realized.

Consider now the divine law in the light of this illustration. If the main object of that law rests in the penalty, and looks no farther than this,-if this object of the law is fully answered in the infliction of its penalty, then the character of the law and the disposition of the lawgiver become as vile as anything of which we can well conceive. But such cannot be the fact. The penalty of the law can only be regarded as a means of realizing its ultimate object, which lies beyond this, namely, in obedience. This is plainly seen in the claims of the law. The law always demands obedience, never punishment. It claims love, not suffering. True, a penalty is annexed, but only to make the law effica

cious. Did the ultimate object of the law rest in the penalty, then the claims of the law would be entirely cancelled when the penalty was inflicted. Our statute, for example, requires that men shall not steal. Suppose the penalty for its violation is imprisonment for the term of ten years. Now what is this law made for? Simply that some poor wretch may get into prison and suffer for that length of time? Is this the object of its enactment ? Or is it not, on the contrary, that the rights of property may be respected? Is not the ultimate object of the law to be found only in what it claims, namely, that men shall not steal? Suppose, then, that this law prohibiting theft is violated, and the delinquent cast into prison,-is the law satisfied? Are its claims cancelled? Is it no longer in force against the criminal? Does it not, in fact, just as imperatively demand that he shall not steal, during the time he is suffering its penalty as before? And equally the same after his term of punishment has expired, and he obtains his liberty? Plainly, then, the inflic→ tion of the penalty goes not one step toward satisfying the claims of the law, further than it may have an influence in producing obedience, which is its ultimate object.

Having thus ascertained that the law claims obedience, that its penalty forms no part of its ultimate object, our second question is very easily disposed of,-in fact, has been already answered, namely, What will fulfil the law, and entirely cancel its claims ? To fulfil the law is to realize its ultimate object. In other words, to beget perfect obedience. The law demands supreme love to God, and love to all men. It claims these two great affections, and nothing but the exercise of these affections, by all on whom the law is binding, can ever cancel these claims. To inflict its penalty on the disobedient may be perfectly just and proper, but this fails utterly to fulfil the claims of the law, unless it may be the means of producing obedience. The following scriptures will show very clearly, that, to fulfil the law, is to obey the law. "Make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof," (Rom. xiii, 14;) that is, to obey the lusts thereof. "Bear ye one another's burthens, and so fulfil the law of Christ," (Gal. vi, 2;) that is, obey the law of Christ. "Thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law." Rom. xiii, 9, 10.

In perfect love only can the law ever find its fulfilment, or its claims be met and cancelled. The following figure will cover the whole ground, and illustrate all I have to say upon the subject at present.

Let us suppose that an earthly parent should institute a law requiring the love of his child. He desires this love,nothing else; and to awaken, call it forth, and direct it to himself, is the ultimate object of his commandment. Now if the simple requisition were sufficient, it is plain that nothing like a penalty would ever be suggested. There would be no need of it. But suppose the command proves insufficient, and the child refuses to obey. The parent now sees the necessity of a penalty, and affixes one. What for? Because he has no choice between punishment and obedience? Will it answer his purpose equally well to have his child suffer as to have his affection? Surely not. His ultimate object has not changed in the least by annexing a penalty to his law. He looks forward to the same great purpose with which he set out in the beginning. He still seeks the love of his child; nothing else. Merely to have the child suffer is not enough. This alone were devilish! But the parent looks beyond this. He keeps a steady eye upon his ultimate object, which is to gain the affection and obedience of his child. This is what he wants;-not his anguish. But the child still refuses to obey, even with the pains of the penalty full before him. The parent then proceeds to inflict the penalty. He chastises him. Not simply because the child has done wrong. That would be revenge. Not because he wishes the child should suffer only. But plainly to aid in realizing the only object he has all along cherished, the obtaining of the child's affection, which he had in the beginning demanded. The child's refusal to obey does not comport with the parent's purpose. The threatened penalty does not effect his object. And even when that penalty has been inflicted the claims of his law are not answered, unless the child has been brought into a state of love and obedience. Nothing short of this can ever realize the object of the law, or cancel the claims which it throws over the child.

Very similar, in this respect, is the character of the divine law, its object, and its operations. It simply demands love to him and all men. It claims this. This is its only ultimate object, and these claims never can be cancelled until this object can be fully realized. When the great purpose of Christ's mission is completed,-when the intelligent creation