who never believed in Universalism! "The fourth seemed altogether insensible to the subject"-therefore he was not a Universalist: for no one can have the boundless love of God shed abroad in his heart, and at the same time, be insensible to it. Mr. P.'s four cases of avowed Universalists furnish a fair specimen of the foundation of those little stories about the death-bed conversion of Universalists, which are so industriously fed out to the "hungry souls" who relish such food! The believer in eternal punishment who testifies with his dying breath that his speculative views have been right" furnishes just as much evidence that his system is correct, as the Universalist who "testifies with his dying breath that his speculative views have been right," does to prove his system correct. The opinion of either furnishes no evidence in the case.

Mr. P.'s exhortation to avoid Universalism is worthless, because unsupported by reason or scrip

ture.

We honestly believe Universalism has the best moral tendency of any doctrine ever incalculated amongst mankind. If we believed it productive of immorality we would abandon it: for we earnestly seek to promote the holiness and happiness of man. Universalists believe all mankind have been, are, or will be speedily, adequately and certainly punished for every sin-and rewarded for every act of virtue. We are very confident this faith has a much more salutary moral influence, than the supposition, that neither virtue nor vice is rewarded in this life-and that while vice exposes men to endless misery—that

misery may be avoided by repentance any time before death. The uncertainty of the reward, destroys its influence upon the mind: and the delusive expectation of PRESENT ENJOYMENT, gives force and pow er to the temptations of wickedness. That sin produces present happiness, is the most dangerous doctrine that can be taught for all the human race ardently desire happiness, and pursue that course which they think will make them immediately happy, running all hazards in relation to what is distant and uncertain. No doctrine can have so good moral tendency as that which teaches that virtue is necessarily productive of present, or immediate happiness. Peace, O virtue! peace is all thy own.'

The perusal of Mr. P.'s fourth lecture brings to mind a parable, recorded in the 18th chapter of Luke from the 9th to the 14th verse inclusive. We shall alter the substance of that parable, so as to make it apply to our subject.

Two men went into a house of public worship to pray the one a Presbyterian, and the other a Universalist. The Presbyterian stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men; extortioners, unjust, impure; especially do I thank thee,that I am not even as this Universalist. I fast often; I pay tithes of all, I possess; I give alms; I support missionaries; I disfigure my face; I go to church several days in a week; I pray in secret; I pray in my family; I pray in public; I pray a great deal; and above all, I believe in the personal existence and endless dominion of the Devil! And the Universalist would not lift up so much as his eyes

unto heaven to boast of any thing he had done, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner; O be merciful to all sinners. "O thou that hearest prayer, unto Thee shall all flesh come." Which was the most acceptable prayer?

SERMON V.

"Shall not the judge of all the earth do right," Gen. 18. 25.

Mr. P. says, "since we have proved from several unanswerable arguments, that God will punish some men eternally; we may infer with perfect safety, shat eternal punishment is strictly and properly just." His assertion that his arguments are swerable, does not make them so. If he can read what we have written in reply to him, and then

say

unan

he thinks his arguments unanswerable, we are mistaken in the man. It is true, our arguments may not appear to others as they do to us-therefore we think it better to leave the decision to be made by others, than to make it ourselves. We admit it might be safely inferred that eternal punishment is just, if it had been proved "that God will punish some men eternally." But we are perfectly satisfied that Mr. P's attempt was an entire failure.

We do not object to the similitude of a supposed man of affliction, used by Mr. P. On the contrary we think it is necessary, not only to know the truth, but to know how it applies to our particular case, as far as may be practicable.

Mr. P. says it is not our object in this lecture, to prove that God is just in the eternal punishment of the wicked. We have proved that he will inflict it, and we take it for granted that the judge of all the earth will do right." We will here meet assertion with assertion-and confidently appeal to the

arguments we have used on this important question We say Mr. P. has not proved that God will inflict endless punishment on any portion of mankind.

His fifth lecture is designed to show "the consistency of eternal punishment with perfect justice." He says "If we fail altogether, it is still a fact that God will punish the wicked eternally &c." This we think, should be altered thus, If we fail altogether, it is still a fact that God will not punish the wicked eternally &c.

Mr. P. says "if our theory should not be perfectly satisfactory, yet the threatenings of God will be executed, and the justice of his proceedings will finally be made manifest." This we fully believe. We think all the threatenings of God will certainly be executed: but he has never threatened endless misery to man.

...

that we

Again he says "For the same reason, rebuke the rashness of those who would reason from the justice of God against the punishment which he has declared he will inflict &c." This is uncandid. Universalists would not reason from the justice of God against the punishment which he has declared he will inflict-we do not believe God has ever declared he will inflict endless punishment. Our opponents have affirmed, times without number, that God has threatened endless punishment; but they have never adduced any proof of that affirmationand we think they never will, because they can never find such proof in the bible.

Mr. P. says "All punishment is designed to support the authority of a violated law." If that be the only design of punishment, how does it differ from

I