ters of religion, do their duty to their children, they ought not without it to become husband and wife: And unless they can be agreed concerning all these duties in which they are required to walk together. But if they are determined, at the shrine of natural affection, to sacrifice a regard to God's word, besides exhibiting to the world a house divided against itself, they ought to expect, that he will visit their iniquities with rods, and their sins with chastisements.

Besides teaching their children, they are to engage to walk together in all the duties of religion-in religious conversation— in prayer-in fasting. See 1 Cor. vii. 5, and 1 Pet. iii. 1—7.— Both are supposed by the inspired writers to have place in the same visible community of Christians. See 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35.— 1 Tim. ii. 12. But they cannot, unless they are agreed to all the extent of doctrine and precept supposed in these duties. The same thing is evident from a due consideration of the import of the phrase, "Be ye not unequally yoked together," for that supposes that they ought to walk together through all the duties of a believer, not only with the same sentiments but with the same holy activity, zeal and love. The figure in the words is borrowed from two oxen yoked together, in which case it would not answer well if one were very weak and another very strong; but it would be incomparably worse if one should pull one way and the other pull in direct opposition. The application of this is easy.

Most professors of religion are fully sensible of the propriety of this unity, if not before, at least very soon after they are married. This appears from the frequent occurrence of one of the parties leaving his or her former profession and joining with the other. Now I will admit it possible in some cases that this may be done rightly; but I do not know a single case of an ordinary kind where satisfactory evidence of it can be given to all concerned. When I admit it possible in some cases, (that is when error is left and truth embraced) it is then attended with so great difficulties and temptations that very few are competent to it. But the most common case is, that truth is forsaken and error adopted; of which the best that can be said is, that it is a decided step towards apostacy from all truth. This, to all who are sincere and hearty in the cause of truth, and love to see others so, is as distressing as it is common. More particularly because they know not of this evil till it be past all remedy, till all their counsels and remonstrances are too late. But that most catholic, most convenient maxim comes in to soothe them, and to quiet the clamours of a reproving conscience. "There is no difference.'

It follows then, that either now or when you first made a profession you lied to God, to the church and the world. At whichever of these times you prefer to place it, it will come very near accusing your present change, of bad motives and yourself of vile hypocrisy; and in spite of all the charity in the world, every denomination, when its turn is to be forsaken, will condemn your conduct if it dare approve its own. Sometimes to solve the difficulty, it is gravely said, that "it looks best for husband and wife to go to one place of worship." This is true, if it can be done without sacrificing the cause of truth. But is it best, or does it look best, that this should be purchased at the expence of apostatising from truth, and giving conntenance and support

to error.

I have already said that, in no case, can you give satisfactory evidence that you have made a right change. Your affection for your partner, and consequent desire to please must ever appear, to those who know not the heart, to have caused the change.— You therefore commit an injury you cannot repair, inflict a wound you cannot heal. How does this accord with the Bible? Does the Bible give you either precept or example to justify you in offending many to whom you had given a public solemn pledge, in order to please one to whom in the first instance, you were under no obligation at all?

I have now proved that persons proposing to marry ought to be one in a religious sense, that they ought to be of one heart and one way respecting the whole of parental instruction, prayer, fasting, religious conversation, all the duties of a believer. I am now to point out the dismal consequences of neglecting this rule.

(To be continued.)

Selections.

LETTERS ON THE ATONEMENT.-No. VIII.
The Truth of God.

My DEAR BROTHER

In the two preceding letters, I endeavoured to prove, that the definite scheme accords with the scriptural representations of the nature of the atonement, far better than the indefinite. Let us

now,

II. Look at the two theories in an other point of contrast, and inquire which puts the most honour upon the divine perfections; the truth, the justice, and the love of God.

The TRUTH of God will first claim attention. Truth is a perfection essential to the divine nature; an attribute of which the Supreme Being can never be divested. He is celebrated by the inspired writers as a God of truth" "and plenteous in truth." "All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth, to such as keep his covenant and testimonies." He shall judge the world in righteousness and the people with his truth.” "The Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting, and his truth endureth to all generations." "He keepeth truth for ever." "The word of the Lord is right, and all his works are done in truth." "All his works are truth, and his ways judgement." "God is not man that he should lie." "The Strength of Israel will not lie." "God that cannot lie."

Such are the testimonies of inspired writers to this glorious perfection of the divine nature. Jehovah is truth itself. He always speaks the truth; and he always does according to truth. It is impossible for him to deviate, in one word or action, from the requirements of truth. He is true in his threatenings as well as in his promises.

Now, this attribute of the Supreme Ruler of the universe, is honoured by the views we take of the atonement. We represent him as being incapable of departing from his word, by suffering sin to escape the penalty of the law. His threatenings, we believe, are always executed either on the head of the transgressor, or on the head of his surety. Jehovah fulfils his comminations, exactly according to his meaning when he denounced them. Not so our brethren of the New School. They abandon the penalty of the law. It is executed neither on the ransomed of the Lord, nor on their Redeemer. Sin escapes without punishment.

There," says one, "is a secret and perpetual recurrence to the idea that Christ has paid the demand, or suffered the penalty of the law, so that its claims are now quieted, and the sentence of condemnation repealed. But this is a fundamental, and may prove a fatal error. There is nothing in the character of Christ's sufferings which can affect or modify the penalty of the law. These sufferings were not legal. They constituted no part of that curse which was threatened against the transgressor.”* Again: "The atonement paid no debt-it involved the infliction of no penalty."

If these assertions be true; if the penalty of the law has been inflicted neither on the saved sinner, nor on his Redeemer; then his sins go unpunished; no satisfaction is made to divine justice

* Beman, p. 68.

+ Ibid. p. 72.

and the truth of God is prostrated in the dust. He threatens; but he does not execute his threatenings. He declares that sin shall be punished; but he pardons it, and suffers it to escape, without punishment.

How well our brethren get over this difficulty? How can they save the honour of the divine veracity? Will they say, that God is not bound to fulfil Ms threatenings, while they admit that he is bound to fulfil his promises? I am not ignorant of the distinction made between a promise and a threatening. I know it has been said that, as by the former a right is passed over to him to whom the promise is given, justice requires the promiser to act according to his engagement; but in respect to the latter, the matter is very different: no right being conveyed to another, no obligation of justice demands the fulfilment of the threatening. This distinction, however, will not suffice to evince, that the truth of God does not create an obligation to inflict the penalty of his law, on every sin by which it is violated. Justice, I admit, requires the fulfilment of promises; but does not truth require the same? It is to Jehovah's truth, and not to his justice, the inspired writer refers us when he proves the immutability of the divine counsel. The promise and the oath of God are the two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie. (See Heb. vi. 17, 18.) If, then, it is impossible for the God of truth to lie by breaking his promise, it is manifest that he is bound by his truth, as well as by his justice, to fulfil his promises; and if he pays such a sacred regard to truth involved in his promises, is it not evident he must pay an equal regard to truth involved in his threatenings? The claims of truth are the same in both cases; and if the violation of truth would be lying in the one, it surely would be so in the other. The conclusion is, that every threatening of Jehovah must be fulfilled, according to its true import.

But it will be said, the non-execution of the penalty of the law involves no breach of truth, because the penalty denotes only the real demerit of sin. That the penalty expresses the judgment of our divine Lawgiver on the demerit of sin, is readily conceded; but to maintain that it involves nothing more, and gives no pledge that it shall be inflicted, is to maintain, in our apprehension, a manifest absurdity. Who ever heard of a human law promulged with such a sanction; a law declared simply what punishment a violation of it would deserve, but giving no assurance that the crime would be punished? Such a law would disgrace the wisdom of an earthly legislature; and shall we dishonour infinite wisdom and supreme authority, by imputing such a law to Him by whom kings rule and princes decree justice? The

penalty annexed to his law, while it declares the demerit of sin, denounces wo against the transgressor. It assures us that sin shall not go unpunished. It is written, "the wages of sin is death;" but it is also written, " In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." "The soul that sinneth it shall die." "Who will render unto every man according to his deeds:-unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man. that doeth evil.” "If ye live after the flesh ye shall die.” "For as many as have sinned without law SHALL perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law SHALL be judged by the law." Do these declarations contain nothing more than the judgment of the Supreme Lawgiver as to the demerit of sin? Who does not see that they solemnly assure us that sin shall be punished, and that the truth of God is pledged to see them fulfilled according to their true meaning?

But, say our brethren, the threatenings of God are conditional. "Yet forty days, and Ninevah shall be overthrown." But the Ninevites repented; "and God repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them, and he did it not." Parents often forbear to execute their threatenings; and human governments frequently remit the penalty of the law in favour of unhappy culprits. We grant magistrates are empowered to set aside the execution of sentences denounced against the violators of human laws; and whenever they exercise their dispensing power, in conformity with the design for which they received it, no breach of truth is involved in the transaction; because every law to which this remitting power extends is subjected to this condition, that its penalty may, in certain cases, be set aside. But, at the same time, it is to be observed, that the very necessity of this dispensing power grows out of the imperfection of human government and the impossibilty of adapting general laws to every particular case. But no such necessity exists in the divine government; which is infinitely perfect, and can, with infallible certainty, apportion punishment to the demerit of every transgressor.

The escape of the Ninevites is indeed to be attributed to the well known clemency of God. But it produced no breach of truth; for it is evident, from the circumstances of the case, that the terrifying denunciation of the prophet was designed to awaken them to repentance, and lead them to reformation. The effect was happy. The people did repent. "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way." When, therefore, the Lord determined to spare them, he acted according to an established principle in his government over the nations.

"At