confesss, that he deserves further punishment. No one who ever truly repented entertained the idea, that by this, he had made a complete atonement for his sins. These stains are of too deep a dye, to be washed out by a few penitential tears. Nothing can be more opposed to this opinion, than the views and feelings, involved in the exercises of true repentance. Every true penitent is deeply convinced, that he deserves heavier punishment, than what is involved in the sorrows which he now experiences.

There is, however, one ground for the opinion, that there is a reasonable connexion between repentance and forgiveness, which is, perhaps, more plausible than any

other argument; and therefore merits a distinct consideration. It is, that all good men acknowledge, that it is a virtue to forgive those who offend us, when they appear to be penitent; and Christians cannot deny that this is a part of moral duty, for it is repeatedly and emphatically enjoined, in the New Testament, as a thing essential. What is here alleged, we fully admit; and are willing to go farther, and say, that it is made the duty of Christians to forgive those who injure them, whether they repent or not; for they are required to “ love their enemies; to do good to them that hate them; to bless them that curse them; and pray for them which despitefully use them.” But this is entirely a distinct case, and resting on principles entirely different, from the one under consideration. It is no part of the duty of Christians to inflict condign punishment on those who sin, even if they have been injured by them. They are forbidden to seek for revenge, or to render to the wicked according to their iniquities; not because there is any thing improper or inconsistent with moral goodness, in punishing the guilty as they deserve; bu

F

because this is the peculiar prerogative of the Governor of the universe. In those very passages of Scripture, where vengeance is forbidden to the creature, in express and emphatical language it is claimed for the Almighty. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord; therefore, if thine enemy hunger feed him, if he thirst give him drink, for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.” If this duty of forgiveness, in the Christian, proved any thing, it would prove more than is wished; it would follow, that God would certainly

!; pardon not only the penitent, but all sinners, however obstinate in their rebellion. But this conclusion is altogether at variance with the opinion which we have had under discusssion, and is not even held up by the deist.

Another argument in favor of the doctrine that repentance is naturally connected with pardon, is derived from the practice of granting pardon, in human governments. But here, there is a mistake respecting the real state of the fact; for, although, it is true, that in all human governments, it is found expedient, to have a pardoning power, lodged somewhere; yet, no government ever yet professed to act on the principle of pardoning all offences, on the condition of repentance: nor, indeed, is the extension of mercy to certain criminals who have incurred the penalty of the law, at all connected with this principle. The reason why it is sometimes right to pardon offences against the state, is, either because in some particular case, the rigid execution of law would not be entirely just; or, that on account of the number of persons implicated, sound policy may dictate, that only the most guilty should be held up as an example. It appears, then, that the weakness of human governments is the ground

on which the penalty of the law is remitted; but no such reason can exist in the divine government. But,

in the execution of human laws, no inquiry is ever · instituted, whether the criminal be penitent: yea, although his repentance should be most evident, yet this never disarms the law of its penalty. The penitent thief or murderer, are punished by our laws, as well as the obstinate and impenitent. If, in a few cases, rulers who possessed the power of granting pardon, have acted on the principle, that criminals who discovered signs of penitence, should be, on that account, pardoned, it only proves, that men entrusted with power may be misled; for undoubtedly, this principle carried out, would soon be subversive of all law. If the only end of punishment was the good of the culprit, then, indeed, such a course might be defended; but as long as the good of the community is the chief end of punishment, it never can be safe to offer pardon to all who profess repentance; or who, for a while, appear to be reformed.

I think it is manifest, from the preceding discussion, that the idea of a certain connexion between repentance and pardon, in the moral government of God, is not derived from the light of nature, but from the Gospel; and, therefore, if pardon is to be had in this way, it is only on the ground of the atonement of Christ; and not on account of any merit or efficacy in repentance, to take away the guilt of sin.

And if these views are correct, then is a divine revelation absolutely necessary to teach us, that God is willing to receive the penitent into favor; and to informa us, on what terms this is practicable,

a

CHAPTER V.

THERE IS NOTHING IMPROBABLE OR UNREASƠABLE

IN THE IDEA OF A REVELATION FROM GOD; ANV CONSEQUENTLY, NOTHING IMPROBALE OR UNREASONABLE IN SUCH A MANIFEST DIVINE INTERPOSITION, AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A REVELATION.

a

THAT a revelatioe is possible, will not be called in question by any who believe in the existance of a God; por can it be believed that there is any thing in the notion of a revelation, repugnant to the moral attributes of the Supreme Being. It cannot be inconsistent with the wisdom, goodness, or holiness of God, to increase the knowledge of his intelligent creatures. Tho whole end of a revelation is to make men wiser, better, and happier; and what can be conceived more accordant with our ideas of divine perfection, than this?

That man is capable of receiving benefit from a revelation, is a truth so evident, that it would be folly to spend time in demonstrating it; for whatever may be thought of the sufficiency of Natural Religion, if it was fully understood and improved; yet all must admit, that men, generally, have not been sufficiently enlightened on the subject of religion. The history of the world, in all ages, proves the deplorable ignorance of the greater part of the human race, even on those subjects, which the advocates of Natural Religion, confess to be most important and fundamental, as has been proved in the preceding chapter.

It cannot be thought an unreasonable supposition, that when God made the original progenitors of our race, he should furnish them with such knowledge as was absolutely necessary, not only for their comfort, but for their preservation. As they were without experience, and had none upon earth from whom they could derive instruction, is it unreasonable to suppose, that the beneficent Creator communicated to them such a stock of knowledge, as was requisite for the common purposes of life? The theory of those who suppose, that man was at first a dumb, irrational animal, very little different from those which now roam the forest ;and that from this state he emerged by his own exertions ;-thåt he invented articulate speech, and all the arts of life, without ever receiving any aid, or any revelat.on from his Creator, has already been sufficiently refuted.

If, then, man' received, at first, such ideas as were necessary to his condition, this was a revelation; and if afterwards he should at any time need information, on any subject connected with his happiness, why might not the benevolent Creator, who does not abandon the work of his hands, again vouchsafe to make a communication to him? Such an exigency, deists themselves being judges, did arise. Men, almost universally, fell into the practice of idolatry, and lost the knowledge of the true God. They betook themselves to the worship of the luminaries of heaven, of dead men, of beasts, and inanimate things. They invented superstitious rites, not only irrational, but cruel and abominable. These were transmitted from generation to generation; and the children became still more involved in ignorance, than their parents. Now, that.