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 the dammost unexceptionable moralist cannot escape nation 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.",

If

Moral obligation is importance to man, as Morality relates to the

eternal, and is of the utmost a rational and social being. relations which subsist between man and man. It is both theoretical and practical. The theory of mor

als 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

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 unexceptionable 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

ces with each other, the conduct of God towards them, would vary according to those circumstances? If not, God is a respecter of persons. If it would thus vary, no inferences unfavorable to the final condition of any, can be justly drawn from the varying dispensations of divine providence towards individuals here for those variations are exactly suited to the condition of each-to the circumstances of all. Mr. P. says "God is now acting upon a principle which exhibits alike, an intention to show mercy to some and to punish others. This principle, we have reason to believe will exist in the divine government forever, and therefore the providence of God, so far as it goes, confirms the doctrine of future and eternal punishment. How much dependence can be placed upon that reasoning which is founded on analogy, will be seen in our sequel. Mr. P. says "It is essential to the very nature of a moral government, that there should be first a moral constitution of creatures, rendering them fit subjects of government; then laws adapted to this constitution; and last of all, a righteous distribution of rewards and punishments." In all this we are happy to agree with him exactly. Again he says "and though we possess a nature suited to obligation, and were placed under laws, yet obligation would not be felt, nor laws become efficacious, only in so far as their penal sanctions were apprehended as fixed and absolutely certain. The whole force of the divine government therefore depends upon the visible certainty of rewards and punishments." Here again we agree with him: but we think he did not mean what he said-if he did, he is a believer in universal damnation! He be

lieves the penalty of the divine law is endless mise-ry-he now makes the whole force of the divine government rest on the certainty of rewards and punishments-the penal sanctions of the law are "fixed and absolutely certain!" Wo, wo, wo, then, be to Mr. P. and the whole race of sinners!

He says, "Solomon was led to expect a future judgment from the fact that wickedness was not always punished in this life." To prove this he quotes Eccl. 3, 16, 17; "I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there: and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there; I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked." Did Solomon say, wickedness is not always punished in this life? No. Did he say, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, not in this life, but beyond the grave? No. Then Mr. P. has misrepresented the sentiments of Solomon. He also quotes from 2d Peter, 2d chapter; "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." We presume he would have us take it for granted that the day of judgment spoken of, is beyond death-in the invisible world. But as that idea is not contained in the text, we need not give it any further attention.

We shall pass lightly over many of the particular events of Divine Providence, to which Mr. P. has referred; because according to him, those events amount to nothing in favor of his sentiments, unless they exhibit "a principle which will prevail co-existent with the moral government of God." Whether this be the case or not, we shall see hereafter.