and will receive forgiveness; but we do not believe forgiveness does violence to the demands of justice. Where now are Mr. P's supposed absurdities or contradictions of Universalists?

The creations of

But lest he

his own fancy-they do not exist. should amuse himself with imaginary contradictions only, we will present him with something real. The catechism which he professes to believe teaches the following, "all mankind by the fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the miseries of this life, to death itself and to the pains of hell forever." Here all mankind are declared under the endless wrath and curse of the Almighty. The very next question in that same catechism is, "Did God leave ali mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?" Answer "God having out of his mere good pleasure from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, & to bring them into an estate of salvation by a redeemer." Here it is declared that God from all eternity, elected to everlasting life, SOME of the same race of beings, who had ALL been just declared under his never-ending curse!!! O let the mantle of divine charity enshield the errors of mortals-and let all flesh trust in the Lord Jehovah, in whom is everlasting strength.

SERMON III.

"For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come." Isa. 63, 4. In his discourse from this text, Mr. Parker endeavors to draw an argument from the Providences of God, confirmatory of the doctrine of eternal misery. He says, "we do not rely upon an argument drawn from Divine Providence to prove the doctrine of eternal punishment-we produce it only to confirm a doctrine which we have shown in our first lecture is taught with great explicitness in the scriptures." To this I reply: if I am not greatly deceived, I have incontestably shown in my answer to his first lecture-that he entirely failed to exhibit any evidence of eternal punishment from the scriptures.Whether I have refuted his first lecture or not, I leave to be decided by the candid of all parties, who may examine and compare what we have both written. But being willing to give Mr. P's confirmatory evidence all the weight to which it is entitled, I shall briefly notice his principal arguments.

In his introductory remarks, he says, Christ "assures the most unexceptionable moralist, who is yet destitute of true piety, that he cannot escape the damnation of hell." But why did he not refer us to the passage which contains such language? Perhaps he thinks the New Testament contains that sentiment, but we assure him he cannot find it. How long will it require for a controversialist to understand the dif

ference between assertion and evidence or argument? If a public speaker be allowed to assume all his premises, what may he not establish? A Mahomedan, Pagan or Jew might be as successful as a Calvinist in establishing his doctrine by assertion. If "the most unexceptionable moralist cannot escape the damnation of hell," in the sense Mr. P. would have us understand that phrase, what encouragement is there to be moral? Or rather what is the objection against being immoral? If Universalism leads to practical wickedness, as Mr. P. contends in his fourth lecture, what injury can it do to the world if " the most unexceptionable moralist" will be as likely to suffer eternal misery as though he were ever so abandoned? Will those clergymen who frequently seem to undervalue morality, directly avow an intention to make men immoral? Do they wish to have it understood that they practice what they preach? not, why do they use expressions which indicate that morality possesses no advantage over immorality? It has been well said that "Morality comprehends only a part of religion; but religion comprehends the whole of morality.", Moral obligation is. eternal, and is of the utmost importance to man, as a rational and social being. Morality relates to the relations which subsist between man and man. It is. both theoretical and practical. The theory of morals relates to the explanation of the relations which subsist between rational creatures. The practice of morals relates to the faithful discharge of those obligations and performance of those duties which result from the circumstances in which we have been placed by our Creator. Unexceptionable morality is

If

the practical part of religion: and the practical part of religion is of much more importance than any other part. Jesus says By their fruits ye shall know them."

As the practical part of religion is deducible from its theory--the theory is of great importance: but it is of no consequence any further than the practice, or conduct of the believer is influenced by it. If Preachers of all denominations would take more pains to induce the world to become unexceptionably moral-if they would take less pains to make mankind violent partisans-how greatly would the cause of righteousness be benefitted! "The most unex

ceptionable moralist who is yet destitue of true piety." We think the above expression implies an absurdity. The most unexceptionable morality cannot exist without true piety" for unexceptionable morality is correct in theory-correct in motivecorrect in practice. Any thing short of this is not unexceptionable morality; and a correct theorymotive and practice constitute true piety. "Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man ;" Eccl, 12, 13.

It is highly necessary for us to determine why God takes vengeance on any of his creatures. The idea assumed by Mr. P. that God takes unmerciful vengeance on any dependent sinful being, is derogatory to the character of God, and directly opposed to his holy word. While he would have us take it for granted that the vengeance of God against his enemies is unmingled with mercy and not designed to do them any good; he has not attempted to furnish any evidence to support a notion so abominable. But why are not all sinners punished for the same purpose?

F

The people of God, the righteous, are sinners, as well as those, who are sometimes styled the enemies of God. If one class are mercifully punished, why should not the other class be mercifully punished? The wisdom from above is without partiality, but Calvinistic wisdom is ETERNAL PARTIALITY! The principle on which God deals with his enemies is clearly and beautifully illustrated by our Saviour, who, speaking of God says "he maketh his sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and unjust." But how does the sublime prophet Isaiah explain this subject? Hear him. "Behold, your God will come with vengeance; even God with a recompense, he will come and SAVE you"-not send you to an eternal hell. A good earthly parent corrects only to reclaim, and is not God as good as earthly parents? Any punishment which prevents the reformation of the disobedient, or perpetuates criminality, must be opposed to the law of God. Endless punishment therefore, is entirely inadmissible. "Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions" Ps 99, 8. All the vengeance God takes of sinners is compatible with forgiveness -all the punishments he inflicts are remedial-and worthy of a Being possessed of unbounded perfection and unchangeable love.

Mr. P. labors to establish the following proposition viz. "when Christ bestows signal blessings upon his church he does at the same time execute signal judgments upon his enemies." But will he not admit that if the subjects of blessings and punishments, whom he mentions,should change circumstan