patience which amazes us now that we are done. The point is an important one, and Mr. Hall has done his best to mystify it beyond the powers of an ordinary comprehension. We trust, however, that we have succeeded in being understood; and that the reader may rejoice with the writer in trusting in the living God who is the Saviour of all men!

NOTE. See in connection with this subject Section iv.

SECTION XV.

Matt. v. 17, 18. Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mr. Hall makes a great fuss over this text, and goes through his usual rigmarole of low slang vocabulary; but what it all amounts to, it will take a wiser head than ours to determine.

The section, however, contains one remark which demands a brief notice.

Mr. H. tells the reader, that Universalists contend that the moral law is endless in its obligations, and that the fulfilling of the law is love.

Does he or any one else deny this? Will he take the position that the moral obligation of the sinner ceases at death? Grant it does; and what then? Ans. If punishment be inflicted after moral responsibility ceases, it must be of a physical character, and inflicted without right or justice. Where there is no moral responsibility there can be no moral punishment; hence, as in such a case the conscience cannot be reached, punish

ment, if inflicted at all, must be of a penal or physical character. And where there is no moral responsibility there can be no right to punish; hence, the infliction of pain would not be punishment, but cruelty.

But suppose the endless continuance of moral responsibility be granted; how then? Endless misery would be reduced to a mere probability. If the sinner is under an endless obligation to obey, then it must be admitted the sinner has an ability to obey, and therefore endless misery may be false. For so long as there is an ability to obey, so long is there a probability of obedience, and hence, in no case, can it be safely affirmed that punishment will be eternal!

Thus the believer in endless misery is reduced to one of two alternatives: 1. It is uncertain that any will be punished endlessly; or, 2. Punishment, if endlessly inflicted, will be of a physical character, and inflicted without right or justice!

Mr. H. concludes, if the law is eternal then must the penalty be eternal, and eternally executed. But is it necessary to infer that because the penalty co-exists with the law, it must always be executed? We think not. A penalty is executed only in case of disobedience; and when it secures the object for which it was instituted, it must cease. So long as men obey, so long they will be clear of the penalty for disobedience: and in that case we care not how many penalties there are, nor how long they exist.

SECTION XVI.

Matt. v. 43, 45. Ye have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt LOVE thy neighbor, and HATE thine enemy: But I say unto you LOVE YOUR ENEMIES; bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father, which is in heaven! for he maketh his sun to rise on the EVIL and on the GOOD, and sendeth his rain on the JUST and on the UNJUST.

In reference to these texts Mr. Hall attempts to establish five propositions: 1. That "the Saviour here only refers to temporal things, and not to those things which relate to God's spiritual and moral government.” 2. That though God is good to men in enabling them to get a living, yet, should they starve, he would not pity them. 3. That if we imitate God we must pour fire and brimstone upon the heads of our enemies, and cause them to die without mercy. 4. That "God loves his enemies as long as their is any prospect of their salvation," but when that ceases, he ceases to love. 5. That God HATES, DESPISES, and ABHORS the wicked!

A pretty strong bill this, is it not? Is it possible that Mr. Hall could draw a worse and more disgusting picture of the devil? We are sometimes led to believe he . makes it a primary object to represent Deity in as odious and detestable a character as possible! No infidel could desire a picture of the Almighty more revolting and abhorrent.

Take for example the proposition that God hates the sinner, in the most iiteral sense of the term. What then? It follows God is exercised with a passion which in men is odious and detestable; and which, in the text itself, he forbids them to indulge: "Ye have heard that

it hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, love your enemies"!

Moreover, Mr. Hall argues that what God once does he will always do, (p. 17, 35,) and hence as he hates sinners now, he will always hate them. As all men have been and are sinners, God will hate the whole human family eternally! This would not leave even enough for a respectable Campbellite heaven!

But we wish to know how Mr. Hall will reconcile the Scriptures with themselves? It strikes us there will be some difficulty in the undertaking. Solomon assures us God would not have made any thing to have hated it. Wisd. xi. 24. And in the text men are commanded not to hate that they may be the children of God. These declarations no more harmonize with Mr. Hall's absurd and blasphemous notions than they do with the story of Sinbad the Sailor. The fact is, adopt his method of treating the Scriptures and the result will be to render them ridiculous in the view of every man of sense!

We would also like to know how Mr. Hall reconciles his own statements with each other. In section 3d he avers "God is not good to all in the most unlimited sense of that word all;" but in the section under review he admits "cheerfully"-that is the word-"that God is good to the wicked in moral point of view;" which, in our judgment is equivalent to an admission that he is good unto all; for it is not denied that he is good to the righteous. If God is good to the two great divisions of the human family-the righteous and the wicked-he is certainly good unto all! Thus we have Mr. Hall in a plain contradiction; which evinces that he did not mean to state the truth in either case. And from the evidence already before the reader, we think it not unlikely that

such is the fact generally! But of this the reader must judge.

But of the text, there is no such thing as mistaking the application of its testimony. The highest degree of moral excellence of which human beings are capable, consists in imitating that perfect and glorious Being who is impartially good to his offspring; blessing them all, the evil and the good, the thankless and the thankful. Those whose conduct bears the most striking resemblance to the examples of the Great Father, are best entitled to the name of his children. If we love only those who love us, we have no reward and are no better than publicans. Hence we are commanded to be as perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect; or in the words of an Apostle, "Be ye followers of God as dear children."

What need we of further testimony? If God hated his enemies, he would require us to do the same; for it is our duty to IMITATE God. If he curses them with endless damnation, it is evident he does hate them! If he loves them, he will punish them no more than is for their good-he will do the best he possibly can for them; and this will not be less than their ultimate holiness and happiness.

Partialism has yet a heavy account to render for deeds if omission. It comes not within a thousand leagues of obedience to the Divine injunction to IMITATE God. All that is necessary to render it abhorrent in the eyes of all the world, is, to compel it to carry its doctrines out into practice. Take a few examples:

1. It teaches that God will LAUGH at the calamity of his children, will MOCK when their fear cometh, will DESPISE, and ABHOR, and HATE them. See pages 20, 44.