brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

The denunciations of God for the sin of our primitive parents-the punishment of Cain-the destruction of the antediluvian world, and the cities of the plain-the overthrow of the Egyptians at the Red Sea-the extermination of the people of Canaan-the death of Annanias and Sapphira--the demolition of the walls and temple of Jerusalem, and the slaughter of its inhabitants-the wars in Europe at the period of the reformation, and in all parts of the world to this time-are merely temporal miseries. Mr. P. does not pretend they are any other than temporal calamities. Referring to those events he says, "here observe, that in all these temporal judgments, there is not the least intimation that they are intended as disciplinary-or that they were inflicted to promote the good of the sufferer." Suppose we admit this statement. Neither is there in all those temporal judgments, the least intimation that they were NOT intended as disciplinary-that they were NOT inflicted to promote the good of the sufferers. What, then, has Mr. P. gained by his statement? Any judgment inflicted on any sinful being, which is not designed for the good of that being, especially where the judge possesses ability to promote the good of the transgressor, results from malevolence is revenge-and black-hearted cruelty! This is the particular which distinguishes justice from cruelty. Pure justice is holy; but cruelty is the extreme of wickedness. What is cruelty, if it is not the infliction of torture, without designing the good of the sufferer? If the believers in endless misery

could once clearly see the sinfulness of the character they ascribe to the Almighty, they would hide their heads in everlasting confusion! Father, forgive them! For they know not what they do!"

But Mr. P. is wrong in saying there is no intimation that the judgments to which he referred were inflicted for the good of the sufferers. We will notice one of the most hopeless cases he has mentioned-the destruction of the inhabitants of Sodom & Gomorrah. In the 16th chapter of the prophecy of Ezekiel, we have the following language. "Behold this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, was in her and in her daughters neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me; therefore I took them away as I saw good." God always acts for the good of all his creatures: he does not act for the good of Presbyterians at the expense of all others! If the Sodomites were taken away for their sins-and if they continued to be as sinful after, as before they were taken away-no good was done by taking them away. "For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, thatwas over thrown as in a moment,& Lo hands stayed on her," Lam. 4. 6. This passage represents the punishment of Sodom,to be sudden and dreadful, but speedily terminating, "no hands stayed on her." To this view of the subject, it may be objected, that Jude says, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in

like manner .....are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." How were those cities set forth as an example, if their greatest sufferings were in a world, to us, entirely invisible? According to this supposition, they would neither be an example to sinners in this world-nor would they be set forth, or manifested for the benefit of others. How were those cities set forth? "And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord: and he looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace," Gen. 19. Those cities were in this world--they were overthrown in this world-the fire that destroyed them was in this world, and was called eternal, because it continued, according to some historiens, thousands of years.

Having as we believe, devoted sufficient time to the examination of the substance of Mr. P's third lecture; you will please to take notice that the whole force of that lecture rests upon reasoning drawn from analogy. Mr. P. says, "the providence of God, so far as it goes, confirms the doctrine of future and eternal punishment." Of all arguments, those drawn from analogy are the most unsatisfactory, inconclusive and uncertain. However, this mode of reasoning is as good for me, as for Mr. P. Here we will meet-his overthrow or mine must be complete. Why does he think the Providence of God confirms his sentiments? Hear him. "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........confirms the doctrine of future and eternal punishment." The amount of this reasoning is, because God does a thing now, he always will do it, because he punishes some now, he always will punish some.On the 65th page, Mr. P. says, "God is unchangeable-a principle of action which is at one time consistent with him, is eternally consistent." On his 52 page, he says, "the government of God, so far as it is exhibited in this world, is incomplete; that is, strict justice is not here rendered to individuals." Mr. P. must now admit, either, that his confirmatory evidence of eternal misery amounts to nothing; or, that strict justice never will be rendered to individuals, and the government of God will be eternally incomplete-for "God is unchangeable-a principle of action which is at one time consistent with him, is eternally consistent !"Will he say, the government of God is, and always will be, incomplete, so that no rational being can put any confidence in it-or will he ad. mit that his confirmation of eternal punishment is no confirmation at all?

We object to Mr. P.'s premises, as well as to his analogical reasoning. We think it would be much nearer the truth to say, God is now acting upon a principle, which exhibits alike an intention to punish all sinners justly, and to show mercy upon all mankind-"for God hath concluded

G

them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all;" Rom. 11, 32. 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, universal holiness and happiness. Every rational being is miserable in proportion to his sinfulness there is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." Isa. 57, 12. Every creature that lives, receives favors from that great and glorious Being, who is the origin of existence-who "is good to all and his tender mercies are over all his works. All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord; and thy saints shall bless thee." Ps. 145.

After speaking of the triumphant death of the believer, Mr. P. says "But you have seen no such sustaining hope; no such triumphs from any source in those who have rejected the precious Saviour, and relied upon the justice or goodness of God, without faith in Christ." If he designed to represent the opinion of Universalists in the above sentence, he misrepresented us--we have not rejected the precious Saviour-we have not relied upon the justice or goodness of God, without faith in Christ. If he did not mean to represent the faith of Universalists, what did he mean? As to any exclamations at the hour of death, suffice it to say, no person's opinion is any certain evidence of truth, whether he be sick or well-sane or insane- -in the middle. or at the conclusion of his mortal career. And as all exclamations are the result of opinions, or impressions, no stress should be laid upon them as evidence in favor of, or against any sentiment.