the order, and government of all things. For that Almighty God can be benefited, or injured, by the existence or conduct of any part of his creation, is plainly impossible. It cannot, therefore, be too well borne in mind, that whatever he is besides, the ruler of heaven and of earth is a being who has the good of all before him in whatever he does; and that however convenient to the imperfection of our minds, to speak of God's justice, or mercy, his placability or his anger, as distinct attributes, they must all, like the different voices of a chorus, flow with perfect harmony into one. A jar is as fatal in the one case as in the other. When mercy is at variance with justice, it is mercy no longer, but weakness. And justice, the instant it clashes with benevolence, ceases to be justice and becomes cruelty. Though this may easily happen in man, it never can in God; so that whatever be his treatment of sinners, we may be sure, and rejoice, that however just, it cannot be unkind.

But in speaking of the Deity we use the names of human qualities. So far, but no farther, all men are compelled to go, and there is no fault. But some, I think, have taken one step more, and forgetting the change their import must necessarily undergo in passing from a fellow man to a being of all perfections, have attributed to the infinite God, a justice that is merely legal, not a perfect moral justice, and thus made it the justice of altogether such an one as themselves. In respect to an offender against the laws of civil society, it is true, we do not ask whether he has repented of his crime or not. He is punished without regard to the question; and this for two reasons; because, at a human tribunal, his sincerity cannot be thoroughly known, and because, consequently, the good of society can in no other way be secured. But the first reason can be no reason with God; for he knows all, and when the heart is right towards him, one would think it were enough. As to the second, if it is still contended against the free pardon of repented sins, that it is repugnant to the honor and good of God's moral government, we cannot indeed directly contradict, and say positively that it is perfectly consistent with both. But it is most certain we can see no good reason why it may not be. To avert the evil consequences of sin without the condition of repentance, would indeed be the confounding of all moral distinctions. But with this condition, it is only restoring the sinner to the favor, which he, to be sure, once justly forfeited, but for which he has again made himself a fit subject, by again becoming good.

There is no need, however, of resting the argument here, when there are so many and so strong presumptions besides, that God actually does pardon moral offences upon the very terins for which I am contending. To a benevolent being all suffering must in itself be disagreeable. And since punishment is suffering, he must therefore be unwilling to inflict it, whenever it can well be avoided, and always ready to do all to prevent it he can do consistently with the good of its object. Is not this one and a very strong reason to believe that God's government is actually so planned as to admit of the penitent's pardon? It is another, which arises from the common impressions of mankind. Penitence is to man a proper object of compassion, and when he who has injured us, confesses his fault, and not only promises never to repeat the injury, but also makes all the reparation in his power, we should at once be regarded by all as mean and ungenerous, if we refused our instant and full forgiveness. Now we conceive of God's character as the extension and perfection of human qualities; and, constituted as we are, how would it be possible not to think of the Lord of all things irreverently, if he exacted of infinitely his inferiors, who cannot injure him at all, far more rigorous terms than he requires men to do of their equals! Further, and more to the point still; the evil consequences of sin are often removed, even in this life, by repentance alone. Such is the case with the intemperate man, who, breaking through his evil habits and living soberly, becomes a healthful, respectable, and worthy member of that society, of which before he was the dishonor and the pest. Besides, if he who has once sinned, must for all he can ever do, be forever miserable, how shall we account for the fact, that in so far as the penitent cultivates the virtuous affections, he necessarily enjoys the happiness of which those affections are the spring?

Such are but a few of the arguments of unassisted reason in favor of sinners' acceptance with God upon the sole condition of their contrition and reform. But what is the doctrine of revelation? Do the scriptures teach the same as appears so probable to reason?

That God can remit the punishment of moral offences, is abundantly evident from one passage of scripture alone. It is that in which the Deity proclaims himself as the 'Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving

iniquity, and transgression, and sin.'* It is true it is not here said upon what terms he bestows his forgiveness. But the words were spoken soon after the Israelites had manifested their sorrow for their idolatry in respect to the golden calf, and renewed their allegiance to Jehovali. Herein is there not enough to show, that it was simply on account of their repentance and amendment? To the Jews, when beyond measure corrupt and debased, a prophet in the name of the Lord says, Cease to do evil, learn to do well,' and soon adds, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool;' and in another place, 'Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and unto our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.'† Again, listen to another prophet still. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God, and not that he should return from his ways, and live?' Here is evidently no indication that it is because of the sufferings or merits of another person, God sees fit to pardon the offender; and indeed, he who can read the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, from which this last text is quoted, and then say that repentance alone cannot, according to the word of God there, procure the pardon of sin, must, it seems to me, have a mind constituted like no other. For if it be true that any thing else was required to give this repentance its efficacy, or to make it consistent with God's justice to receive it as the condition of pardon, it is strange indeed, that at the very moment so much care and pains are taken to state the terms of acceptance clearly and explicitly, it is very strange, I say, that at such a moment the most important of them all should not be so much as even hinted at. Now either the writers of the Old Testament did know, that this something else was required to give guilty man hopes of pardon, or they did not. If they did not, by what finespun subtlety is it to be reconciled, I will not say with the Divine wisdom or goodness, but with mere common honesty, that men should be taught, and urged, and even entreated to rely on that only as a means of pardon, which after all is wholly inadequate, and therefore utterly in vain? But if they did know it, where

*Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7. + Is. i. 16-18, and Iv. 7, 8.

Ezek. xviii. 23.

have they declared the whole counsel of God? In all they have written to instruct the world in the ways of God with men, I cannot discover one single sentence in which this doctrine is once clearly conveyed. They write, however, like men of sincerity. We cannot read their works without believing they spoke from the heart; because they speak to the heart so thoroughly and so eloquently. Nay, we cannot refuse our full credit even when one of the most eloquent of them all, in attempting to smother God's inspiration within him, exclaims, "It becomes within my heart as a burning fire, being pent up within my bones; and though I weary myself with refraining, I find it not in my power!' How, then, can we imagine them as keeping back the very communication, they must have published, one would think, with the most heartfelt and the holiest joy? But no; the time to announce it had not then come. It was an honor too high, a privilege too glorious for them.

But, Verily, I say unto you,' were the words of Jesus, ' among them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.'t Yet he too, who was the voice of one crying, 'Prepare ye the way of the Lord,' pointed the sinner to no way to the kingdom of heaven, but Repentance. The revelation of that far more exceeding one, which I have thus in vain sought throughout the Old Testament, and so far in the New, must therefore have been reserved for the great opener of it, the meek and lowly Jesus himself. He, it will not be disputed, was filled with all the fulness of God, and could not, therefore, lack the knowledge of this. But alas! the prospect of finding it grows fainter and fainter, the nearer we approach to where we were sure it lie. Not one word do I meet with, either before or after his death upon the subject; not one word, which compels me to think he meant to teach God's forgiveness was not ready to be freely bestowed, whenever the sinner showed a change of heart and life. On the contrary, he says, 'If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.'|| Is it asked on what terms we must forgive? He has most plainly told us; 'If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent,' it is not added, thou shalt insist upon satisfaction, either from him or his friend,' but simply

* Blayney's translation of Jer. xx. 9.

Matt. iii. 2, 3.

† Matt. xi. 11.

|| Matt. vi. 14.

'thou shalt forgive him.'* But shall it be supposed for an instant, that we are exhorted to be more merciful than God?

In fine, how could a stronger testimony be borne, not only to the fact that God does, but that he is ever ready, and, as it were, eager, to pardon the returning sinner simply for his repentance, than Jesus Christ has himself borne in the parable of the prodigal son? Here was no waiting till some fellow being had felt the full weight of the father's wrath and displeasure against the waster of his goods, and ungrateful injurer of his honor; no ingenious and selfdeceiving 'plan' contrived, that he might reputably receive him again to his favor. But when he was yet a great way off, he had compassion and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him;' and all the explanation of such conduct that is given, is- This my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found!' This, I conceive, is decisive, and I will quote no more. In all his discourses, Christ speaks of repentance and good works, or moral virtue and piety, like the teachers sent from God who went before him, as being all God requires for his mercy and favor, without so much as a hint of any thing more being required. Surely a doctrine, which, like this, is not only clearly expressed in many plain texts of scripture, but which also so enters into the very composition and grain, if I may so say, of its whole language, is not to be given up for one, which, like that I have stated. above, is so repugnant to reason, in its tendency so extremely licentious, and depending for its whole support upon wrong metaphysically drawn views of God's attributes, a few metaphorical expressions, which interpreted upon juster principles, would fairly make against it, and fancied types that bear but very little resemblance in any point, and, in the point most essential, no resemblance at all to what they are asserted to typify.‡

But my limits warn me to conclude. The doctrine I have

* Luke xvii. 3, 4.

+ Luke xv.

To answer objections to the position I have been maintaining, which arise from the sacrifices and atonements of the Mosaic ritual, asserted to be a prefiguration of the great sacrifice of the Messiah, and to explain, in consistency with that position, the language of the scriptures respecting the death of Christ, shall be the task of another essay. In the mean time, I would refer the readers of the Christian Examiner to an article on the question,' Was Jesus Christ a literal Sacrifice?' which appeared in the fourth volume of the Christian Disciple, (new series.) It is an article I have never seen answered, and which I believe never can be answered.