with the design of government, which is the happiness of the whole community and that of every individual, so far as this latter does not interfere with the former, to grant free pardon and remit the punishment. This obstacle to pardon cannot occur under the government of God, to whom the hearts and the sincerity or insincerity of the professions of all men are perfectly known. Here there is room for pardon, where it could not safely be bestowed by men; and benevolence seems to require it in every instance, where the only rational design of punishment can be obtained without inflicting it, that is, wherever men are sincere penitents.

It must be acknowledged, however, that there are some appearances in nature, which seem to make against this conclusion, that God will freely pardon the penitent; for we find cases of intemperance, for instance, where men may be sincerely sorry for their past misconduct, and have entirely reformed their behaviour, who yet suffer the evil consequences of their former vices as long as they live, in a diseased constitution of body or a variety of complaints. brought on by excess. Yet all that can be inferred from this is, not that there is no room for any degree of forgiveness, but that the remission is not complete, so as to exempt the offender from all the ill effects of his misconduct, which is probably true in every instance, even where the divine Being forgives most freely.

From the benevolent character of the divine Being,

as taught us by the light of nature; it seems probable, that he will pardon the penitent; but it may be thought doubtful upon that authority how far this pardon will extend. Let us next examine the language of revelation, where we may expect more decisive and satisfactory information upon this interesting subject.

In endeavouring to deduce the character of the Deity from his works we find some difficulty, and our conclusions are attended with uncertainty; because we cannot fully comprehend his design in them. But, if the great author of nature should condescend to give us an account of himself, we must then see, that we should enjoy the best advantage for knowing him we could desire; for what can teach us what God is, so well as himself? A remarkable instance of this kind we have in the xxxivth Chapter of Exodus, 6th and 7th verses, where God, being about to write the Ten Commandments a second time upon two tables of stone for the children of Israel, after Moses had destroyed the first tables on the occasion of seeing the people worshipping the golden calf, thus describes himself: "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." We see here, that to be inclined to forgive iniquity, transgression, and sin, is reckoned by the divine Being himself to be an essential attribute of his nature. It is not indeed here

said on what terms this forgiveness is bestowed; but from the circumstances in which the words were spoken, it is sufficiently evident what the terms are; for this proclamation was made just after the Israelites had put off their ornaments in token of their sorrow for the offence of the golden calf, and after they had renewed the acknowledgment of their allegiance to Jehovah by going without the camp to the tent, which Moses had pitched for those who were on the Lord's side, and every one had worshipped him, when he appeared in the cloudy pillar. God goes on to say of himself, according to our translation, and" that will by no means clear the guilty," which we understand of the impenitent guilty, but it should have been rendered, and will by no means utterly destroy, "visiting," or rather, but only visiting "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation," that is, so great is the mercy of his nature, that, although he may be angry with those who offend him, and punish them, yet it shall not be to utter destruction, it shall only be to the third and fourth generation. The meaning of this language is illustrated by what Jeremiah xxx, 11, says to them in the name of the Lord; "though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee; but I will correct thee in measure." Agreeably to this language we find, that, whenever the children of Israel were oppressed by their enemies in their

own country, or carried captive into a foreign land, if they cried unto the Lord and repented of their idolatry and wickedness, he heard their voice, forgave their sins, and received them to his favour again: so that in these instances, which are extremely numerous, we find that nothing was necessary to forgiveness but repentance. repentance. We read indeed a great deal in the books of Moses about making atonements, but this is a subject which we shall consider separately, when it will appear, that this did not signify making satisfaction to God for the sins of the people.

When David had been guilty of a heinous crime, he pleads for pardon on the ground of his having a contrite heart, as if no other consideration were necessary for forgiveness than repentance, Psalm li, 16, 17: "For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." In the text the prophet in the name of God exhorts the Jews, who were at this time very corrupt, "to cease to do evil and to learn to do well," and assures them, that, upon complying with this exhortation, the deep stain of guilt, which they contracted in the sight of God, would be removed (which is here expressed in figurative language) by saying, that their sins, although as scarlet, should be white as snow, and although red like crimson, they should be as wool, But the same

prophet in still plainer language says, lv, 7, "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 to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." Now if God could

be induced to forgive sin only by a regard to the sufferings and merit of another person, and if reliance upon those merits were necessary for the pardon of every offender, it is very extraordinary, that God, in prescribing the very terms upon which forgiveness was to be bestowed, should never mention this duty. His silence upon so important a subject in such circumstances is an evident proof, that no such duty was required; for how is it reconcilable to common prudence and common equity, to say nothing of divine wisdom and goodness, that, when the conditions of pardon are held out, the most essential article should be omitted? Revelation, instead of being a benefit, would in that case become a snare to entrap men, by leading them to depend upon one means of reconciliation, where their view ought to be directed toward another. Again, if David and other good men mentioned in Scripture knew that God was induced to forgive sin in consideration of what Christ was to do and suffer, how comes it to pass, that they never plead these sufferings with God as an argument for forgiveness, which they must know to be the most powerful they could employ? Christians in the present day, who believe the modern doctrine of atonement, are ready