should be informed, by her godly minister, just as she was going out of the world, that in the world 10 which she was going, she would enjoy the satisfaction of the divine presence, of walking the golden streets of paradise, in company with saints and angels, and of beholding the face of her Redeemer for ever; while her husband, for his worldly-mindedness, and for his neglect of religion in this world, would be condemned to wander in darkness, in sorrow and woe. To a heart full of love divine, would this be a rose or a thorn ? What answer would these brethren return to the question, which the Saviour put to Simon, the pharisee? "And when they had nothing to pay he frankly forgave them both. Tell me, therefore, which of them will love him most?" What, my friends, shall we think of those moral and religious attainments, which give their possessors the assurance of seeing their fellow-creatures far less happy, in the future, eternal world, than they hope to be themselves? If they loved their neighbours as themselves, would this boasted assurance be a source of joy, or sorrow? However unlike christianity all this may be, it is, as it seems, the prize of their high calling, the laurel for which they contend, the crown for which they fight! Let such arrogance be rebuked with the mild counsel of the humble Jesus: "Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest to your souls.”

4th. As the telling of those we love, the faults we discover in them, is a painful as well as an unthankful duty, we must be excused, for the present, after we have named one more fault, the correction of which would do them great honour. Among those commendable things which were named, in approbation of our Unitarian brethren, the hearer will recollect their liberality towards those christians, who differ from them in opinions. They have been labouring with all their christian meekness, for years, to persuade their orthodox

oppovers to extend to them the right hand of christian fellowship, and to consent to reciprocate ministerial exchanges. We have read their learned and forcible arguments in favour of this brotherly practice; and we have also read what their orthodox opposers have urged against it; and we are fully satisfied that our Unitarian brethren have in reality the best of the argument. Now if the profession of liberality, without the practice, could make these brethren rich, in the righteousness of God, the angels of heaven might envy their attainments! Will they exchange desks with Universalists? By no means. What is the reason? Because, in some points of doctrine we do not come exactly to their views. As to doctrine generally, they will allow that we are much nearer them, than are their orthodox brethren, whom they are constantly inviting to exchange! Now if they, like the orthodox, were conscientious in refusing to exchange desks with those who hold doctrines opposed to their own, then would they act according to their profession, and would be consistent with themselves. But how are they to be justified in making those pretensions to liberality, while in fact it is not real? Is this christianity? Is it genuine honesty? Is it such practice as this that is to give them such exalted stations, as they anticipate, in the coming world? We beseech them either to discontinue the profession of liberality, or by their practice to convince us that they are sincere in it. How will this appear in the history of these times, an half a century hence? We do not complain of this inconsistency and illiberality, which are so evident in the conduct of our brethren, because they are any particular inconvenience to us. Their character, as a denomination, is affected by these improprieties; and it is for their interest, and for the promotion of sincere, christian liberality, that we call on them to consider these things, and to make provision for as early a date of their refor mation as possible.

To conclude: If we have stated any of these wrongs in a manner too pointed, or have given them a colouring more unfavourable than christian charity will warrant, we thus early ask forgiveness. We have not stated these defects, which we think we see in our brethren, without recollecting that we ourselves are also faulty. And we humbly ask them to use towards us the same faithfulness, which we have thought it our duty to exercise towards them. Let them do it in kindness and in brotherly love, and they shall receive our acknowledgments for the favour.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the spirit saith unto the churches."

SERMON XXV.

EVIL OF STRIVING AGAINST GOD.

ISAIAH, XLV. 9.

"Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!"

OUR religious opposers often accuse us of selecting those passages which speak of the divine goodness, of the extensiveness of salvation, and of its ultimate success in bringing all men to the enjoyment of holiness and happiness; while with equal caution we avoid speaking of such portions of the divine testimony as contain expressions of wrath against the wicked, of the woes which await transgressors, and the final condemnation of the impenitent. For doing thus we are not only blamed, but solemnly admonished.

Although it is natural for the accused to endeavour to justify themselves, we are not entirely confident that no degree of blame attaches to our manner of preaching, relative to the subject of the before-mentioned accusation. It is not very unlikely that we are in default, in not enforcing the divine threatenings, so much as their truly awful importance demands. Yet, if our accusers will be candid, we think our wrong is, at least, partly extenuated by a fault of their own, which has been the cause of it. We certainly have never evaded the enforcement of the divine threatenings, with more caution, than they have observed in neglecting the gracious and precious promises of God's favour to sinners of our race. It is, moreover, a fact, which merits attention, that

their long established habit, of selecting every threatening, which they could find in the scriptures, and every passage, which they could explain into a threatening, as a foundation on which they have raised that tremendous edifice, which they call damnation, was long since the approximate cause that induced us to search the scriptures, that we might ascertain whether they did not contain something more honourable to our Creator, and more consoling to man, than had been usually held forth to the people. Compelled as we were by such means to search for the great and precious promises of divine favour, who can wonder that their multiplicity and abundant riches should absorb our minds, and prompt us to bestow that labour in setting them forth to the people, which had been carefully and studiously withheld, by those whose labours had so long been devoted to explain and enforce scripture threatenings infinitely beyond not only the utmost reach of their own proper meaning, but even beyond the reach of the divine goodness?

Hoping that the foregoing remarks will be accepted as some apology for our not sufficiently attending to the woes and threatenings recorded in the faithful word, we shall proceed, faithfully to portray the woe pronounced in our text, and to cause its desired influence to be exerted in a salutary and profitable manner. But before we can advance to a correct and clear view of the nature and extent of this woe, we must attempt a survey of the goodness of God towards his creatures, which is the first general subject, that our text suggests to the observing mind.

If the question be asked, how our text brings this momentous subject into view? we answer ; If the designs and economy of our Creator were inimical to us, if they were not directed for our benefit, the only way by which we could serve our own interest, and promote our happiness, would be to oppose our Creator's designs and means.