saved?" had his mind upon temporal salvation-and our Saviour's answer was adapted to the condition of the inquirer's mind. The meaning of Christ's reply appears to be in substance as follows: Strive to enter into the gospel dispensation; for at a particular time, many Jews will seek to enter in, and shall not be able, because they strive to enter through the Mosaic law. When I shall have risen from the dead, the legal dispensation shall be abolished, the door of the Mosaic law effectually shut, and ye (the Jews) rejected as workers of iniquity, though I have taught in your streets. Then shall the Gentiles, (with respect to spiritual privileges) take the place of the Jews, and come from every direction, and sit down in the kingdom of God, or dispensation of gospel grace, while you, (the Jews) shall be thrust out

the last shall be first, and the first last. This view of the subject is confirmed by the language of Paul, "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in and so all Israel shall be saved" &c. Rom. chap. 11. The explanation we have given the text, not only appears consistent, but comports with the opinions of some who believe in eternal misery. Joseph Emerson, formerly Pastor of a church in Beverly Mass. writing of the Millennium says, "I am strongly inclined to the opinion of Dr. Hopkins, that of the whole human race, thousands will be saved, to one that is lost." For evidence that the phrases "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God," mean the gospel dispensation, see Math. 3. 2.-4. 17.-12. 28.-21.43.-23. 13. Luke 4. 43.-16. 16.-17. 20. 21. and ma ny other passages.

The proposition which Mr. P. endeavors to establish is, "some of our race will actually suffer eternal punishment." We agree with him respecting "the importance of the subject, and the propriety of a thorough investigation." He says, "the doctrine of punishment suited to the demerit of crime, lies at the foundation of all government by law. The moral rectitude of such government, depends upon the proper apportionment of penalties, and an impartial administration: but its power depends upon the degree of certainty, with which the penalty is seen to follow the infraction of the law." In all this, we agree with him, but we think he has laid a sure foundation for his own destruction. After referring to instances illustrative of the statements we have quoted, he says, "It will be seen from these statements, that the doctrine of future punishment lies at the very foundation of the Divine government." Why so? If government is founded on the doctrine of punishment suited to the demerit of crime-if an impartial administration and a proper apportionment of penalties constitutes its moral rectitude-if its power depends on the degree of certainty, with which the penalty is seen to follow the infraction of the law -how does it follow that future punishment, i. e. endless misery, lies at the very foundation of the divine government? Surely it does not thus follow, unless endless misery be the punishment, suited to the demerit of crime. This our author has not attempted to prove. To assume it, was to beg the question in dispute. Mr. P. says, "It is the perfection of this" (the divine) "government that absolute certainty characterizes all its operations, and we think we shall be able to show that there is noth

ing in it to encourage the hope of impunity; nothing to mitigate the doom of transgressors. The penalty of the law of God is weighty as his eternal curse, and sure as his ability to inflict it." He has furnished no evidence that the penalty of the law of God is weighty as his eternal curse. If he had had any evidence to confirm his statement, he probably would not have left a matter so weighty to rest on his testimony alone. But suppose we admit what he has said. Suppose the penalty of the law of God to be an eternal curse-that absolute certainty characterizes all the operations of the divine government -that there is nothing to mitigate the doom of transgressors that the penalty of his law will be inflicted n all transgressors, unless his power fail—suppose we also consider that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," and what will necessarily follow? UNIVERSAL DAMNATION! When Mr. P. can extricate himself from his own

reason

ing, we think there will be some chance for other sinners also. True he says on another page," the effect of the doctrine of future punishment, depends upon the certainty with which it is seen to be coming upon every reconciled sinner." But this forms no exception to what he had previously laid down; because every sinner has been unreconciledunless therefore the penalty of endless misery be inflicted, the divine government is powerless by his own showing!

Mr. P. candidly admits that there is a numerous class of people who hold the doctrine of Universal salvation." There are probably hundreds of thousands of Universalists in the U. S. and they are rap

idly increasing. We rejoice that Mr. P. does not consider us "beyond the reach of the gospel;" but if he supposed we have not generally examined our own distinguishing sentiment, or have not decided with candor and impartiality, he was undoubtedly mistaken. The eternal destiny of man is as interesting to us as to others—our final welfare is very near our hearts. But Mr. P. was careful to inform his hearers that his lectures were not given "solely, nor chiefly for the sake" of Universalists-but for those multitudes who feel powerfully inclined to reject a doctrine of such overwhelming import as that of future and eternal punishment." Overwhelming truly! "A strong practical conviction of its reality, would banish reason from the mind, or benevolence from the heart of man!

After presenting a sketch of his design in the Lectures, he proceeds to what he terms "direct arguments for the doctrine of future and eternal punishment, drawn from four classes of scripture quotations." 1. He says "our first source of argument, is the promises of the gospel. These promises are peculiar in two respects; they refer to a peculiar kind of blessings, and to a very peculiar character." Strange indeed that the promises of the gospel should furnish argument in favor of eternal punishment!

Mr. P. says "The peculiar and distinguished blessings, promised in the gospel, comprise a deliverance from all sin, and the bestowment of eternal happiness." This proposition, we admit; not on account of what he has said to support it, but because we think it contains the truth, and is susceptible of complete confirmation.

He says "These promises are made to a peculiar character. They are not made to men generally and promiscuously, as are the offers of mercy; but in every instance the application is clearly and distinctly restricted to a certain class of men." Again he says these promises" are in their application restricted wholly to a particular class of men, termed the righteous, believers in Christ, children of God &c." The phrase "offers of mercy" is not scriptural language. The notion that God offers mercy to the victims of endless wo, charges Him with foliy and cruelty: folly in offering what He knows will be rejected and cruelty in offering what will increase the guilt and misery of the miserable. To say that the gospel promises to "the righteous," a deliverance from all sin, is a solecism. None can be delivered from sin, except the sinful. The gospel does not promise to save men because they are good, but because they are bad. "He shall save his people from their sins," Math. 1. 21. "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinnes to repentance." Math. 9. 13. "This

is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief," 1. Tim. 1. 15. "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost," Luke 19. 10. How long will it take Mr. P. to learn this great truth, "they that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick?" If, instead of limiting the promises of the gospel to the righteous, he had declared they were all made to sinners, who must become righteous in order that those promises may be fulfilled, he would have come much nearer the truth. As a refutation of his posi