will not allow that these words may be used to express the condition of unbelievers and sinners in the present state. Thus the unmerciful scheme is made out, and the text under consideration is made to speak and maintain the awful doctrine of the endless misery of a great portion of the human

race.

Let us now call these opinions in question, and see if reason and scripture will at all countenance this common use of our text. Why should error in opinion be so highly offensive to the God of truth as to move him to exercise an unmerciful vengeance on those who are blinded by it? The divine Being receives no damage from our mistakes, he is by no means injured by all the errors that ever existed in the world. That we may be able to judge correctly on this subject, let us bring it within the reach of common observation. Suppose a large number of the citizens of this metropolis should entertain wrong notions concerning the line of conduct which the chief executive of the United States has determined to pursue. Those opinions, though altogether erroneous, have no power either to injure the president, to disappoint him in his purposes, or to change either his mind or his measures. Suppose furthermore, that the president comes to the knowledge of these false opinions, would he act like a reasonable magistrate if he suffered himself to be offended with these citizens on account of their errors, or could his conduct be upheld by the eternal law of justice should he proceed to deprive them of every possible enjoyment, and to subject them to every suffering which his ingenuity could invent? My friends, do you believe that our law characters and judges of jurisprudence would openly and zealously contend, that these citizens, who were so very base as to entertain wrong opinions concerning the president's schemes, ought in justice to be put to the worst of deaths? Do you think that these characters would undertake to make the

people believe that these men ought to die for the glory of the president, and for the honour of his wrath? However absurd this may appear to the eye of candor, it is but a faint representation of this notion concerning the justice of punishing rational beings eternally, for the errors found in their religious creeds. Whatever errors there may be, and truly there is enough of them, they certainly cannot injure the great omnipotent governor and president of the universe; they cannot, in any possible way, tend to derange or frustrate his all-wise plans and measures of government. Why then do our pretended divines, who profess to be learned in the science of divinity, openly and boldly contend that we all ought to be punished for ever and ever because we have erred in our opinions? Why do they represent the independent ruler of all worlds as being infinitely offended at our mistakes? Or why do they pertinaciously contend that this everlasting condemnation is indispensable for the · glory of God's vindictive justice?

What earthly father would punish his offspring unmercifully because they, in consequence of their ignorance, should entertain wrong opinions respecting his plans and future conduct?

Will you say, this is all nothing but carnal reasoning? We reply; true and natural reasoning is not carnal, it is such as our blessed Redeemer employed in giving divine instruction to the people, who listened to hear the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. He who was sent of God reasoned as follows: "What man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread will give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? In this reasoning, the Saviour calls the attention of his hearers to the consideration of the parental affections and love, and inculcates the idea that our heavenly Father is as

much kinder to his dependent offspring than earthly parents, as he is more perfect in moral goodness. Now if we put the least dependence in this reasoning of the blessed Redeemer, there remains not a shadow of propriety in the notion that the great Father of our spirits can treat us unmercifully for

our errors.

Let us examine a case or two of the Saviour's reasoning, where he notices, not only errors in opinion, but perverseness and obduracy in spirit and disposition. You will readily call to mind that remarkable instructive parable of the labourers in the vineyard. It evidently appears that those who went to their labours in the morning, having contracted, for a penny a day, were settled in the opinion that they who came into the vineyard at the eleventh hour would not receive so much at evening as they. It moreover appears that when those first came to see that those who had wrought. but one hour were paid every man a penny, they then conceived an opinion that they should receive more; but being paid, according to contract, every man a penny, it seems that they immediately imbibed another wrong opinion, for they thought that the conduct of the householder was unjust. They therefore, "murmured against the good man of the house, saying, these last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day." Here were three erroneous, heretical opinions; two of them concerning what labourers were to receive, and the other of the heinous character of accusing the great and good householder of unjust rewards. Now, my friends, how were these murmuring heretics dealt with? Were they deprived of the penny they had earned and received? Were they put to unmerciful tortures for their errors, and murmurings? No, they were treated kindly and rebuked in mercy. “Friend, I do thee no wrong; didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way. I will give unto this

last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil because I am good."

Another instance of error in opinion, noticed by the divine teacher, is the case of the prodigal son. After being chastised by his own folly and the providence of God into a state of humble penitence, and after he had formed the highly commendable resolution to go home to his father, he then enter. tained an erroneous sentiment respecting the terms on which his father would receive him and grant him bread. Not as a son, but as an hired servant did he hope to be received; not as a free unmerited gift, but as the recompense of labour did he anticipate eating bread in his Father's house. Here are two heretical opinions, pursuant to which the prayer of the humbled profligate was presented to his Father. His creed embraced two notions, by no means uncommon in our times. 1st. That by transgression sonship is lost, and 2d. That by works the sinner must expect to obtain the bread of life. My dear friends, did these errors so provoke the father as to induce him to vindictive wrath? In room of the affections of a father, did the son receive the unmerciful vengeance of a tyrant? No, these errors were quickly removed by a gorgeous shining robe, the choicest in the father's possession, by a glittering ring on his hand and shoes on his feet, by festivity graced with music and danc ing. In agreement with these arguments St. Paul indicates that our great high priest has "compas sion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way." If we would have a correct idea how our heavenly Father treats those who are in error, we may be assured that this treatment is the same with that exercised by truth on those in error, by love on such as hate, by light on such as are in darkness.

This common sentiment, which arms the Father of mercies, with implacable wrath against his err ing offspring while it is highly dishonourable to

him and tormenting to man, gives unbounded latitude to the censorious spirit of bigotry and superstition, while it propels, with wonderful facility, the ponderous machinery of persecution. From all this we appeal to our all-gracious and merciful high priest, who has compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way, who loved us and gave himself for us, and who washed us from our sins in his own blood.

Accordingly as we have promised, we will now proceed to explain our subject in harmony with the universal, impartial goodness of our Father in heaven. In doing this it will be necessary to show, 1st. The occasion of the delusion noted in our text.

2d. The nature of this delusion; and,

3d. The nature and utility of the condemnation which is consequent on this delusion.

By casting our eyes over the context, we find that the Apostle was speaking of people who received not the love of the truth. And it is evident that these are they who are the subjects of the delusion and condemnation mentioned in our text; and their not receiving the love of the truth the reason why God sent this delusion on them. This is further strengthened by the concluding clause of the text itself. "That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Their having pleasure in unrighteousness, and their receiving not the love of the truth are necessarily connected; for whoever does not love the truth, of course loves unrighte

pusness.

We now have occasion to bring into view the universal, impartial goodness of God to mankind as the grand truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the want of the love of which subjects men to strong delusion and condemnation, and proves that they have pleasure in unrighteousness. Perhaps the hearer may think that too much is here assumed, and that the ground taken is not tenable; but by