force in the person of the unbeliever, and, therefore, "death is unto death."

Fourth-The reason, therefore, why the second death hath no power to hold the believer, is, as we have seen, because he is under the influence of a law that is superior to the law of sin and death, viz:-the law of the Spirit of life, that destroys the sting of death, sin; and it is impossible for the second death to hold or retain the believer in Jesus, captive a moment-His life is unto life! Death hath no more dominion over him. HALLELUJAH!

The parallel in the typical imagery of the Gospel runs still closer: The children, the little ones, who were not included in the condemnation of their fathers, to die in the wilderness, as a consequence of unbelief of God's promise to give the land of Palestine as a place of rest, &c., were not put in possession of the land, that was denied to their fathers for their unbelief, because they, the children, believed God's promise made to their fathers. They received the promised inheritance as God's free gift. Negatively, they were not prevented from entering the promised land, because they did not believe; and affirmatively, they were not put in possession of the promised land because they believed; but, of God's purpose, etc. Had the rebellious Israelites, who died in the wilderness, believed God's promises, they would have entered the promised land; not because they believed, but of God's free gift; precisely as their children afterward entered into the possession of the blessing promised. The blessing promised, was bestowed on the people Israel, as a chosen people, and the seed of Abraham; and not as believers nor unbelievers. (Rom. ix.) And this important distinction exists: The blessings of the Gospel are not conferred as a reward, to compensate the recipient for his faith; although they are withheld, when the parties are not prepared to receive them: Take a simile:

A wise father, will discriminate between his children in sickness, and in health: He does not give his children a full supply of nutritious food in health, to compensate them for believing that he will feed them-neither does he withhold nutritious food from them when diseased, and abstinence is necessary, because he is ill-disposed toward them; but because the condition of things requires such treatment from his hands. Had the adult, vicious, and corrupt Israelites, who died in the wilderness, been ushered into the land of Canaan, in their corrupt and

vicious state, they would have ruined the prospects of the rising generation-contaminated their children by the influence of their rebellious character; and thereby perpetuated sin and misery to their posterity. A merciful God would not permit this: He therefore kept them in the wilderness, until their children were advanced to a proper age; were prepared to possess the land, and their fathers fell victims to their crimes and folly.

The negative, that I have briefly illustrated, as a principle of Christ's gospel, is deserving of serious consideration; for a very important distinction exists. Paul made the inquiry-"How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" To be placed in the providence of God under circumstances where the parties, like the adult Israelites, hear the promises of God; reject the promises of God; and give the lie to God, by a refusal to believe and accredit His declarations, is one thing to be so placed and circumstanced as never to hear, or possess the requisite mean of receiving, consequently, of rejecting, and refusing to believe and accredit God and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is quite another thing. All that portion of the human race, under the most favourable circumstances of learning the truth as it is in Jesus, who are of immature age, and die in their infancy, have not rejected the truth-they are not unbelievers: It would be an outrage, to pronounce an infant, an unbeliever of a proposition it never heard, apprehended, nor understood. To reject a thing, presupposes an opportunity, in a certain sense, of receiving the thing rejected. It is impossible to reject what we cannot accept, from the want of an opportunity. A power or ability to appreciate a thing, must exist as an antecedent, or there is no rejection in the case.

If a man whose knowledge of languages is confined to the English, as "his mother tongue," should receive an offer of an estate, and the offer at his option, to accept the estate gratuitously, or to reject it, as he thought proper; and the written tender of the estate should be made in a language that the man is profoundly ignorant of; unless aided, and enlightened on the subject of the proffered estate, it would be impossible for him either to reject, or accept the estate tendered him. He might reject the written document, as an article beyond his comprehension to conceive of any value belonging to it, whatsoever: but the estate, he could not reject; for he could have no

idea or conception of it; unless his eyes were opened to see the truth in the premises, viz: that a very valuable and desirable estate is tendered, gratuitously, for his acceptance. And this simile is a correct illustration of the condition of all men, of all ages, and of all nations, while they remain in ignorance of the tender of God's salvation; free, unconditioned, without money, and without price. But, with this necessary and indispensable qualification, viz: one moiety of the human race, die in infancy; and their whole existence in the earthly image, is an existence of immaturity; that precludes the possibility of their acceptance or rejection of the Gospel of Christ. Children, or infants, therefore, as was the case with "the little ones," or children of the rebellious and unbelieving Israelites, that died in the wilderness, occupy a different position in the providence of God, ethically considered, as accountable intelligences, from adults; for an adult's moral perception has been measurably perfected by experience, and by a full and complete developement of physical and mental organs; the various functions that constitute a sentient being.

I have already, in several of the sermons that precede this, explained and illustrated the great principle of the Gospel of Christ. (See pp. 256, 360.) Every adult human being, according to the measure of knowledge that God in his providence has permitted the attainment of, is judged by the law that is in himself; in the peculiar sense of the principle, that imputes no sin to the blind.

We must, however, in order to any correct view of God's dealing with His creatures, refer every thing to Infinite wisdom, knowledge, power, and goodness; and look for the grand moving principle of the Divine Mind, to the Divine Mind, that controls all things. Jesus Christ, our Teacher, has instructed us in the important truth of God's absolute sovereignty over His creatures. His parable of the Householder, Matt. xx. 1-16, is full to the point, in illustrating this great truth, which is frequently affirmed in the Scriptures: "For the kingdom of heaven [a metonymy for God's rule and government over His sentient offspring, embracing His whole purpose of salvation in and through His Son Jesus Christ:] is like unto a man that is an householder, who went out early in the morn ing to hire labourers into his vineyard," &c. (See the connexion to verse 16th.) At the close of the day, when the householder paid his labourers, he made no distinction

in the compensation; but paid all alike; although some of them had laboured only one hour. The Arminian doctrine, it appears, was in vogue, even in that day. Therefore, those that had laboured twelve hours, objected, that they were not better compensated than their fellows, who had come to work in the vineyard at the eleventh hour. They, forsooth, had "borne the burden and heat of the day," and to pay those who had only laboured one short hour, in the cool of the evening, the same amount, and to make no distinction in the favour of such industrious and hard-working Arminians, was an outrage! But the Householder replies to one of them-"Friend, I do thee no wrong: Didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take thine, 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! So," says Jesus, "the last shall be first, and the first last; for many be called but few chosen."*

The occasion, on which Jesus spoke this parable, is deserving of serious consideration, because it developes a most momentous truth: The subject properly commences at the 27th verse of the 19th chapter. Jesus informs his disciples, in amount, that no one should labour in his cause, or make sacrifices for his sake, or in and for his name, etc., without "receiving an hundred fold, and inheriting everlasting life:" He then affirms, verse 30th, "But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first." Then follows the parable, "For the kingdom of heaven," &c. Instead of rendering di but, I should render the verse as follows"Therefore [in consequence of the truth I have affirmed,] many that are first shall be last, and the last first." And Omoia gar, etc., instead of "For the kingdom of heaven," &c., "Because the kingdom of heaven," &c. for the parable expresses the reason, why certain that are now first, shall be last, and vice versa; hence the use of the causative particle.

But the doctrine, how shall we apply it? I must confess, that if I were disposed to pervert the text, I have not ingenuity to devise a way and means, to make it suit modern Arminianism. Look at it :--Jesus pronounces that doctrine, and that principle, good, which makes no distinction in the award of compensation, or conferring of favour; where the motive of the recipient exists, as a right incentive, his service as to time and quantity is altogether out of the question. And that eye is evil, that sees things in a different light, from the principle avowed and illustrated in this parable! The exhortation of Jesus, on a certain occasion, viz: "Take my yoke upon you," assigning as a reason, "for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light;" enables us to give a full illustration of the parable.

It is impossible, such is God's moral government of the world, for any man to labour in the vineyard of Christ's Gospel, [I don't mean Calvin's, Arminius's, nor Hopkins's vineyard nor gospel, reader,] without being rewarded in the present tense, by receiving an easy yoke, in exchange for a hard one; and a light burden for a heavy one. And the recipient of the truth, inherits the everlasting life of the Gospel, as God's free gift.

The principle laid down, and illustrated in the parable I have briefly considered, is applicable to the subject before us for it is, in fact, the great principle of Christ's Gospel, as before affirmed. And this parable illustrates the application of this principle by God, in his sovereignty, in the salvation of sinners. The heathen, the poor ignorant portion of God's sentient offspring, who, in God's providence, have had their lot cast under circumstances to circumscribe their knowledge of their Creator, until it is reduced to the minimum of a moral recognisance, are measured in God's plan of salvation by a merciful con struction; and their hour of service in his vineyard, is compensated by the riches of His salvation, equally with the more favoured, whose whole lifetime had been devoted to the cause of truth and righteousness. For Jesus the Saviour has announced, that the Motto on the Divine Escutcheon, is MERCY, and not SACRIFICE.

This divine principle of the gospel of Christ, is farther explained and illustrated, in a certain portion of the testimony that has been miserably perverted by sectarians. and bigots, to wit:-Mark iii. 28-30. "Verily I say unto you, Áll sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost [Pneuma, Spirit,] hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit."*

Therefore, the Arminian objection points to the doctrines of men, who pretend to labour all the day, for God and Christ, and appreciate their services as a burden, or an oppressive labour; and, like Haman of old, they say, of their fellow-men, in their estimation of the contrast of character that exists betwixt themselves, and their own righteousness, and that of their neighbours, Yet all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king's gate." (Esther v. 13.) The penny a day, is not worth having, so long as it is given to my neighbour, equally to myself, says the Pharisee !!!

* The parallel passage in Matt. xii. 31, 32, in its intrinsic signification in the original, is precisely the same as the account given by Mark; with the exception, that Matthew is more explicit as to time, etc., saying, (not as the translators say !) "It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come;" but our dpeñosra air@, (ouk aphethesetai auto,) "not be forgiven him," ovre &v Touтw rŵ aivi, (oute en touto to aiona,) "neither in this age," oйTE SV TW μÉλλovτi, (oute en to mellonti,) "nor in the coming." Or it may be more significantly, and correctly rendered, as follows: "It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this nor the coming age," with the significant explanation of mellonti, that it not only signifies to come, or to be, but about to be. Therefore Matthew's