time, when sinful Mary came and washed his feet with her tears of penitence, and wiped them with her hair. This indulgence of Jesus provoked reproach. Simon said, "If this man were a prophet, he would know what manner of woman this is, for she is a sinner." Jesus was reproached for being a friend to publicans and sinners; of receiving sinners and eating with them; of going to be a guest with sinners.

It is very possible that the query arises in the mind of the hearers, what was the cause of this enmity, and of these reproaches? This is the subject of the present inquiry; and you have the substance of the answer in our text. The same "rock of offence" which procured the reproach of the Apostles, was that which excited the religious Jews to reproach their master. St. Paul, in our text, says, "Because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men." If Jesus had told the Pharisees and Scribes, the elders and doctors of the law, that God was their Father and Saviour, but that his wrath and displeasure rested on the rest of mankind, they would never have reproached him. He might have wrought his miracles of mercy on those who belonged to their orders, without giving them the least offence. But the indiscriminate benevolence of his grace they abhorred. The doctrine which he preached, was equally as offensive as were his miracles. This doctrine, which commends our heavenly Father as the Saviour of all men, we learn most clearly from such instructions as the following: "It hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbour, 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 which 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 rain on the just and on the unjust." If we must love our enemies, that we may be like our heaven

ly Father; and if, to be like him, we must do good to those who hate us, is it possible to avoid the conclusion that God is the Saviour of all?

The christian ministry, being opposed to that immense mass of error which the religious Jews had imbibed, and of those wicked traditions by which they made void the law of God, could not fail to bring on its votaries the enmity and cruelty of those whose errors and traditions it opposed. But had the gospel been as partial as were the creeds of men, then would there have been no offence.

What we see in our own times, fully confirms the arguments here laid down. The revival of the apostolic doctrine, which teaches us to trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, and the labours which have been devoted to advance the light and knowledge of this doctrine, have received, in our day, no better reception, among a people whose creeds have limited the favour of our heavenly Father, than did the same doctrine among the Pharisees and Scribes, in the days of Christ and his Apostles. And it is abundantly worthy of notice, that the reproaches which are cast on the promulgators and professors of this blessed doctrine, in our times, are of a similar character to those which indicated the spirit of the Pharisee in former times. The parable of the elder brother of the prodigal was designed, by the Saviour, to represent the moral condition of his enemies. Because the father had kindly received the penitent, and because there were indulgences of joy suited to the happy occasion, the elder brother was angry, and would not consent to join in the felicities of the happy family. The father's kind entreaties and expostulations, in room of softening his hard heart, only drew forth most bitter reproaches. "Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment; and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends; but as soon as this thy

son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf."

Here we have the subject of our inquiry plainly laid before us. The peculiar character of this reproach appears in the words of the elder son to his father. This reproach accuses the father of being more kind, and granting greater favour to his son, who had lived a wicked and profligate life, than to him who had so faithfully served him, as never to have transgressed his command. This is surely the same reproach which is now brought against our labours, which are designed to persuade men to trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all. The angry son, in the parable, did not reproach his father for not being willing that he should partake of the fated calf with his brother, for this was the very thing to which the father endeavoured, without success, to persuade him. The reproach embraced two accusations1st. The father had not in times past suitably recompensed his faithful services; and, 2d. He had shown an unjustifiable kindness to the wicked. Now this is precisely the amount of all the reproach which, in our times, is urged against the blessed doctrine of the salvation of all men. The Pharisees of the present day contend that in this life the righteous are not recompensed. They attend to arduous duties which yield them not a kid to make merry with their friends; and if their neighbours, who here live at ease, and seldom pay tithes of mint, annis and cummin, are to be received to everlasting favour hereafter, when mortality shall put on immortality, and death shall be swallowed up of life, then it is evident that our heavenly Father shows more kindness to the wicked than to the righteous. Thus they speak against God, thus they reproach the most High.

It is very possible that while we are now attending to this subject, there may be some present, who are unable to see why the elder son had not

good reason for his anger, or why the father did not deserve the reproach which he received. And it is believed that no subject in moral philosophy would be investigated to more profit than this. But our present limited opportunity will not allow of a lengthy disquisition; and therefore we must meet this reproach and answer it by showing the mistake on which it was founded, in a few words. We say, then, that this elder brother was totally wrong in his premises. He had lived an habitual violation of all the commands of his father. He had not loved his father with all his heart, nor had he loved his brother as he loved himself. On these two hang all the commandments. If he had loved his father as he ought to have done, he would not have reproached him because he showed compassion on a son who had been dead and had come to life, who had been lost and found again. And if he had loved his brother as he loved himself, how would his heart have rejoiced at his return to the paternal mansion! And here comes out the error, which supposed that in the past time, there had been no proper recompense for righteousness. The fact was there had been no righteousness; and therefore none to recompense. The Pharisees, to whom this parable was addressed, supposed that they were righteous and that others were wicked; but the Saviour taught the people, that unless their righteousness should exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, they should in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Had this elder son loved his father with all his heart, and had he loved the commandments which his father, in love, had enjoined upon him, then obedience would have recompensed itself; for in keeping the commandments is great reward; and great peace have they who love the law.

What shall we say to these things? Are our brethren, who reproach the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, really righteous? Do they

love this living God with all the heart? If they did, would they reproach him because he is "good to all, and because his tender mercies are over all his works?" Do they love their fellow creatures as they do themselves? If they did, would they be angry when they are told that God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth? What a deplorable condition are they in? Like the elder son, they are in a worse state than are those whom they call wicked. The Saviour told the Scribes and Pharisees of his time, that those whom they called sinners, and the most abandoned, should go into heaven before them. Such instruction was then a stumbling-stone and a rock of offence; it was the occasion of the reproach which fell on Jesus and his disciples; and it remains now what it was then. Those who now look on themselves as righteous, yet are not so, are offended at the same doctrine.

The peculiar nature of this reproach is evidently seen in the most common objection which is now urged against the salvation of all men. This objection states that this doctrine removes all restraint against sin, and induces to every species of wickedness. Some are so confident that this reproach is well founded, that they not only take it for granted that those who profess this doctrine, and those who promulgate it, are perversely im. moral, but they moreover assure us that if they believed it, they would conduct far worse than they do whom they thus reproach. But do these our brethren, understand what they indicate by such reproach? Do they know, that it is proclaiming to the world that they love sin; that they in heart desire it; that it is not for the want of love to immorality, that they are not wallowing in its filth? Such error as this lies at the foundation of all the abominations, which have characterized MYSTERY BABYLON, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS, from the stoning of Stephen, to the hanging of Quakers in New England; and it is the same error which