Revelation Necessary to Teach Us How to Worship God Acceptably, the Nature and Certainty of a Future State, and the Method by Which Sinners May Obtain Salvation

It would be superfluous here to repeat what WiXi, said in the precedmg chapter, respecting the need in which man stood of a revelation when he first proceeded from the hands of his Creator. The object which we have, at present, in view, is, to inquire, whether man, in the condition in which we now find him, and in which history informs us he has existed for ages, does not stand in urgent need of more light than he possesses; and whether there are not some points of vital importance, concerning which he must remair in the dark, unless the knowledge of the truth is communicated to him by a revelation from God. it be understood, however, in what sense it is

EVIDEN{ ES OF CHRISTIANITY. 55

asserted, that a revelation is necessary. Of course, it is not meant that there is any natural necessity for mcli an event; nor is it intended that God is obliged by any necessity to grant a revelation. The necessity contended for relates altogether to the wants of man It is found, that in all times and under all circumstances, he needs information, which he cannot obtain from the unassisted exercise of his own reason; or at least not so satisfactorily, as from di’^’*»<» revelation.

For even if it were possible for a few philosophers of the highest order of intellect, by long and profound investigation, to discover all the truths absolutely necessary to be known; yet, for the bulk of mankind, it might be all important to have these same things made known by divine revelation, because the great majority of our race have neitlir leisure nor ability for such tedious and difficult researches. But the truth as made known by history is, that on those very points on which it is most needful that man should be instructed, the wise men of this world have been as much at a loss as the vulgar. They reasonerl much, and speculated as far as human intellect could go, but instead of clearly ascertaining truth, they rested at last in mere conjecture, or deviated into gi’oss error.

Again, if the light of nature were sufficient to shed some light on the great truths needful to be known by man; yet a clear well- attested communicatior from heaven, might be of the greatest utility, by speaking decisively and authoritative’’^, in regard to matters concerning which the conclusions of reason are feeble and uncertain. To affect the conscience and influence the heart, it is highly important that religious truth should be attended with certainty, and should be felt to possess the sanction of oivine authority. What men discover by the slow ^eductions oi reason is found to operate feebly on the conscience compared with tha persuasion that God speaks to us immediately by divine revelation. In reasoning about ibe mrst important truths men differ exceed mgly fiona one another: and this very circumstance spreads doubt and uncertainty over all their speculations. When we peruse the discourses of the wisest of the heathen sages, and observe what darkness surroimded them, we cannot but feel commiseration for the imbeciUty of the human intellect; ami, indeed, the best of them were deeply convinced of the insufficiency of their own reason to guide them; and sometimes seemed to entertain a glimmering hope, that at some future period, and in some unknown way, divine instruction might be communipated to the erring children of men.

It is also more than probable that the clearest and most important ideas, which the heathen philosophers entertained, were not the discoveries of their own reason, or a light struck out from an observation of the works of nature, but rays of truth derived more remotely or more directly from divine revelation, as has been remarked in another part of this essay. The heathen sages attributed all their knowledge to tradition.

But aftei all, it is an undeniable fact, that reason., aided as it was by tradition, left men to grope in the dark, and to fall into the most degrading idolatry. — Indeed, though reason may teach that there is a God, and that he ought to be worshipped; yet of what kind his worship should be in order to be acceptable, she never has made known, nor is it within the reach of her ability. All the rites of worship invented by man are altogether unworthy of God: and, truly, it <s in the nature of things impossible, that men should devise a form of acceptable worship, for no service of this kind which he has not himself appointed, can be pleasing in the sight of God. Now, if men have lost the knowledge of the original institutions of re igion; or, if these have become altogether corrupt, there must be a new revelation, before man will 30 able to render an acceptable service to his Creator. There is good reason to believe tint many f the heath 3n rites of worship are nothing but coruptions of divine institutions, which were given to men by an early revelation. This seems especially to be the fact, in relation to sacrifices, which constituted an essential part of the worship of almost all ancient nations, and some vestiges of which have come down by tradition among the most barbarous tribes. Reason certainly never taught men thai shedding the blood and taking away the life of an annual, could be an acceptable sacrific3 to the Deity, jr that presenting it on an altar, and consuming it wholly or partially by fire, could be a propitiation for sin; and yet these mysterious ceremonies were almost as universal as the gift of speech. And between the sacrifices of nations, remote irom each other, there li-^s been remarked a wonderful similarity in the circumstances of their sacred offerings; in the erection of altars; in the pouring out of the blood; in dividing the animal into pieces; in combining the offering of salt, wine, bread, and incense, with the sacrifice of animals; in considering the blood and death of the victim, as expiatory for sin; in having an order of priesthood to officiate in these sacred rites, who were solemnly consecrated to the service, and considered more holy than other men: and when only a small part of the animal sacrificed was consumed by fire, in feasting on the remainder, within the precincts of the temple or sacred enclosure. This analogy may be traced even in the names, by which similar sacrifices were denominated among different nations. These and many other striking resemblances in the rites of ancient nations, go to prove, incontestably, that they must have had a common origin; and no account of this is half so probable as that which ascribes sacrificial rites to an original revelation. And hence we see the credil” ility of the Mosaic history in regard to the origin of “eli gious worship.

But supposing that any heathen nation should now

06 convinced of the absurdity of idolatry, and shciild

oecome sensible of their obligations to render some

Kind of external homage to the great Creator, ty what moans could they learn what sort ?f seivict would be acceptable? Reason could not teach then”, what rites should be observed. Without a revelatior from God, they?^ must for ever remain without a tbrm of worship; or if they attempted to invent certain rites, all experience teaches that these human inventions will ever be marked by human weakness, and reason herself intimates, that no worship, not appointed by God, can be acceptable to him. It appears then, that even if man were not a sinner, he would need a divine revelation to teach him how to render an acceptable worship to his Creator.

Some infidel writers have pretended that it is a matter of indifference by what rites God is worshipped, and that he is equally pleased with the services of all nations, however different from each other in their mode of worship. This doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the dictates of sound reason. Upon this principle even human sacrifices, which have been so common in the world, would be justified And the most impure and abominable rites would be sanctioned by the Deity. The whole worship of Pagan nations, both in ancient and modern times, is detestable; and no one who has any just conceptions of the attributes of God, can persuade himself that he ever could be pleased with services so characterized by cruelty, impurity, and folly. Their worship is not directed to the true God, but to the false deities of their own invention. They sacrifice not to God but to devils. They have substituted for the august Creator, creatures of almost every kind and species. No man under the government of reat,cn can look into any heathen temple without being shocked and confounded, with the degrading and abominable rites of idolatry. The more this subjeci; is contemplated the more clearly will the necessity of divine revelation be felt, and the greater will ap. pear to be its value to the human race. Who can •ead an account of the mythology and idolatry of the ancient Egyptians, or of t le modern Hindoos, and

EVIDENCES OF CURIS’I lANII’V. <«9

•^ot be deeply impressed with the necessity of s(jme’ thing to dispel this horrible darkness, and break asunder these cruel bonds of superstition?

Another argument for the necessity of a divine revelation is, that without it man must remain ignorant of his origi^ and his end, and utterly unable to account for the cn-cumstances by which he is surrounded. He finds himself here upon the earth, and feels that he is borne along the stream of time with the rest of his generation, towards a dark gulf before him, which he perceives he can by no means escape. But when he inquires respecting the origin of the human race, when he seeks a solution of the enigma of his sinful, suffering, and mortal existence, he finds no one among the living or the dead, from whom he can obtain the least satisfactory information. All the traditions and histories of men are full of fables; and if they contain some rays of truth, they are so mingled with error that no man can distinguish the one from the other. Leave out of view the history contained in the Bible, and all that we can learn from others casts not a solitary ray of light on the points under consideration. We have no means of tracing up our race to its origin, and the deist can give no rational account of the wickedness of men and of their sufferings and death. The darkness and uncertainty resting on these subjects have led many who rejected the authority of the Bible, to adopt most absurd and atheistical hypotheses respecting the origin of man. Some have professed to be iicve that the earth and its inhabitants have existed from all eternity; which is too absurd to require refutation. Others have amused themselves and their readers with the idea, that originally mankind were merely a species of monkey or baboon, and that by degrees they laid aside their brutal appearance and mannei-s, and certain inhuman appendages, and having in process of time invented language ana the arts most necessary to provide for the clothing and shelter of the body, gradually rose higher ai.xl higher ui the scale o.*’ improvement, until they arrived v

40 EVIDENCES OF CHRIS! lANITY.

that pilch of refinpment and civilization, which heut been attained by the most poHshed nations. These, it is true, are rather atheistical than deistical hypotheses; but they serve to show how Uttle light reason can shed on this subject, and how much we need a divine revelation. For the deist can form no theory which can satisfy our reasonable desires He can give no good reason for the moral condilior; and mortality of our race. He may say, that it ia the law of nature; but this is merely to declare the fact, not to account for it.

But we might, perhaps, be contented to lemain ignorant of our origin, if we could know what is to be our destiny hereafter, and how far it is connected with our present character and conduct. Reason has exerted and exhausted all her resources to demonstrate a future existence, and to place the immortality of the soul on an immovable basis. But what has been the result of all these reasonings Why, a possibility, or, to say the most, a strong probability, that the soul survives the body. But this, of all others, is the point, on which we want certainty — absolute certainty. How painful to be involved in a cloud of doubt and suspense, when we look forward to futurity; and, especially, when descending .nto the grave, to have nothing to lay hold of but the conclusions and conjectures of our own feeble reason! That I do not depreciate the force of the arguments for the soul’s immortality, will appear from uhe fact, that many of the heathen philosophers held that the soul died with the body; that of those who believed in a future existence, some were of opinion, that after the lapse of a thousand years or some longer period, it would come to an end; others — and these very numerous — believed in the doctrine of metempsychosis, or the transmigration of souls from the body of one animal to that of another, in perpetual succession; and more still had no othei idea of immortality, than that the soul — which they thought was a particle of deity — would at death hv Tfund3d into the divine essence ‘lrhich was vivin ally to ieny its future existence, as to its J^stiiut person a.ity, or as possessing individuality and consciousness. Even such men as Socrates, Plato, and Cicero, had no clear, consistent, and satisfactory views of this interesting subject; not because they neglected to exercise their cultivated and powerful intellects upoi. it; for it was a subject, which more than all others engaged their thoughts; — but because it was surrounded by a darkness which unassisted reason could not penetrate. 0 how glad would these sages have been to possess one ray of that revelation whi’2h our infidels foolishly despise! The earlier deists generally admitted the doctrine of a future state of retribution, and affected to believe that reason was sufficient to establish the doctrine; but their successors in modern times, or at least a large majority of them, have either denied or called in question this fundamental doctrine. And if we should weigh impartially all the arguments which have ever been adduced in ancient or modern times to establish this point, we should be obliged to confess that we need further light. And from the very nature of the case, no one can give us an absolute assurance of our future and immortal existence, but God alone. It is an event which depends on his will and nothing else. Arguments may be adduced to prove that the soul is naturally immortal; but they prove no more than this, that the causes which effect the dissolution of the body, can have no tendency to destroy the existence and activity of the soul. And what are called the moral arguments only po to prove that if God exercises a moral government over his creatures here, there must be a place for a just retribution hereafter. But we want, on this point, more certainty. We want one to come from the other world to tell us that there is a future state. We want to hear the voice of God testifying that there is not only a future state,. ut a day of righteous judgment. Here every man can judge for himself, whether he i eeds a revelaiion.

T li? argument for the necessity of a divine revelation, will be corroborated by observing Ihe state of reli£,ion and morals among all heathen nations. It has ofttn been remarked, that the most certain method of ascertaining what reason is capable of accomplishing is to see what she has actually done in time past, especially, when enjoying all the advantages of high culture and extensive information. In physical science we may expect new discoveries by the exercise of reason; and the science of moral*- may in time to come be better understood; but if ab nations, the most civilized and learned as well as the rude and barbarous, have utterly failed in forming correct opinions on the most essential points of theology and ethics, and have all fallen into the most absurd and degrading errors, and acquiesced in the most abominable and impure rites of idolatry; then, what can be more evident, than that they needed a divine revelation? Probably one reason why the nations were left so long to walk in their own ways, was, to convince us of our own imbecility, and to prepare us to receive gratefully when offered, this most comprehensive gift of God.

To do justice to this argument would require volumes; but as the subject has been amply treated by Leland, and others, I will pass it over, only remarking, that the abominable rites of Pagan worship, and the shocking cruelties and impurities which have ever been perpetrated under the sanction oi every heathen religion, make but a faint impression on our minds, because we only hear the distant report of these things, and are often tempted to think that the narrative of these horrible doings must be too highly coloured; but the half, and far more than the half, remains untold, and cannot be publicly told, without outrageously offending against decency. It is an awful thought, that for so long a time so many millions of our fellow creatures have been under the cruel bondage of superstition, a slavery which affects the mind, and is productive of more human misery ‘han all other causes. As Paganism still exists, and as its evils are unjnitigatec by the lapse of time, it is

EVIDENCES OF CHRIsriANlTV. 4$

an easy matter to compare the Christian with the hea then world. Cast your eye over the map of the ear h, and say, where is found the densest darlcness? Where does the light of truth shine? Is not the Une of demarkation between light and darkness visible? And is it not as evident as any thing can be, that the Bible is a rich blessing to all wno possess and read it? We might here also institute a comparison between those Christian nations which freely circulate the Scriptures, and those who lock them UP in a dead language; but this we onm, and go on to remark, that he who is informed of the events which have occurred on missionary ground, in our own times, must have his eyes coveied with thick scales of prejudice, if he does not acknowledge that the gospel is the richest benefit which can be conferred on Pagan nations. Either then, a vile imposture, a cunningly devised fable, has the power of reforming and civilizing the most degraded of the heathen tribes; or Christianity is a Divine Revelation, and is still accompanied by the power of God, making it effectual to the illumination, conversion, and salvation of the Gentiles. Let the deist take his choice between these two things. But here let me ask, whether if a company of deists had gone out to Africa or to the Society or Sandwicn l!?lands, any such reformation would have been wrought? The reader will smile at the idea of a deist tni ning missionary to the heathen; but this very feeling demonstrates that deism is not to be the means oi regenerating the world. If the deist were right he would be the only proper person to send on a mission to convert the idolatrous world. But all are ready to pronounce the very idea to be ludicrous. What! a missionary society of deists! Why, they have no confidence in their own prii ciples, in this respect, and no zeal for propagating them in such a field, and with such sacrifices as the Christian willingly makes.

But why should I go to distant and heathen lands, i) prove that a revelation is ‘lecessarv, when we

4l EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIAMfr.

fiave proof enough before our eyes? In any of oui populous cities we may draw a visible line between that part of the population who are under the light of evangelical truth, and those who place themselves out of the reach of all the direct rays of the gospel. Between these two extremes there is a large class not properly reckoned with either; but let us, without caring for exact accuracy in our computation; suppose, that one-third of the adult population are regular church-going people, who hear the leading truths of the gospel from Sabbath to Sabbath; and that another third seldom or never attend any place of public worship. Between these two classes of ci izens we can institute a comparison. Exceptions you may have to make on both sides, but taking them in mass, is there any room to doubt whether religion is useful and necessary? From which of these classes are oiu* prisons crowded with inmates? Suppose, first, that all those who never read the Bible, and frequent no place of worship, were removed from among us, would the state of society be meliorated or deteriorated? Or again, suppose that all the church-going people should be translated to another country, what would then be the condition of society? If I am not egregiously erroneous in my calculations, on the former supposition we should be able to dispense with most of our- means of coercion and restraint, and would save the enormous expense of Keeping up such an array of courts, police-officers, and prisons. On the latter supposition, all the wealth of the country would be insufficient to provide places of confinement and means oi’ support for the guilty; or, to come nearer to the truth, our large towns would soon become as Sodom, or as a den of thieves, and soon the doom of Sodom would sink them never to rise again.

But does any one think that this is not a fair statement of the matter, as it seems to take for granted Uiat there is no religion, nor can be any, without revelation? I would request the person who makes this objection, to tell me what kind of rel’igion might be expected if the Bible were banished fi am among us? Suppose that instead of the hundreds of gospel preachers, whose voices are lifted up on the first day of every week, to warn men of the danger of a sinful course, and to ^oint out to them the way of life, all these pulpits Stiould be filled with infidel lecturers, male and female; what, in your consciences, do you think would be the effect on morals and social happiness? We all know that many sinners have been converted by the faithful prea(hing of the gospel; do you know, or have you hearo of any transgressors being turned from the error of their ways by attending on deistical lectures, or even on the theatre, that boasted school of molality? No doubt, some of my readers have heard of conversions at these places of fashionable resort, but not to righteousness, not to God. And as I have happened to mention the theatre, I will further add, that I am far more afraid of the moral influence of this institution, than of that of deistical and atheistical lectures; not because it pleads for vice — this would not be tolerated — but because it draws thousands within the enchanted circle oi temptation, and plunges thoughtless youth into the vortex of sensual pleasure.

I admit that there may be much religion without revelation; the whole heathen world is a proof of it Some men of the world, indeed, confound all religions and all the ministers of religion together, as il they were all alike; whereas, trvie and false religior. are as dissimilar as light and darkness; and the only effectual barrier to false religion, is to cultivate that which is true. Infidelii) may serve to sweep away one form of superstition, but after a time the tide will turn, and enthusiasm or superstition will come in like a flood; for, as we have shown, the people must have some sort of religion, and if you banish that which is true, rational, sober, and benevolent, you will soon be visited with the most absurd and degrading systems of wild fanaticism; and these will, when the fires cf enthusiasm are exting, lished, settle down, oi rathe- grow up, into hideous forms of supeistition

The pagan religions had some mixture o’ truth de rived from early tradition; for they were all, as “we have seen, a corruption of the primitive worship ol fallen man. But banish the 13ible, and you will have in its place either the dark horrors of atheism, accompanied with crime, in her polluted and blood-stained robe, or you will have the reign of superstition, chilling every generous emotion, degrading every noble affection, and blighting all domestic bliss.

Sometimes, a splendid temple rests upon a few solid pillars, and falls to ruin if they be removed. Thus the peace, and order, and comfort of civil society depend much on two institutions, for both oi which we are indebted to revelation. The first ot these is the sacred institution of marriage: the second is, the religious obligation of an oath or solemn affirmation, which is virtually the same thing. Remove these, and the fabric of human happiness totters at once to its very base.

But the argument on which I chiefly mean to dwell, to evince the necessity of a revelation, is, that without it we can never learn how sin can be forgiven or the sinner saved. Admitting that reason can direct us with sufficient clearness in regard to al. our moral duties; admitting that if a man performs his duty, no more is required of him, and he may confide in the justice and goodness of God; admitting that from this course no evil will ensue, and the suitable reward will not be wanting; admitting all this for argument’s sake — yea, more, that all men possess this knowledge: yet, I maintain, that in relation to the state in which man actually is, it amounts to nothing. It is one thing to have a system of religion pvhich suits the case of an innocent being, and quite another to find out a plan by which a sinner can obtain forgiveness. A citizen may laiovv full well that if he obeys the laws of his counuy he will be protected by all upright magistrates; but if he has alr<?idy violated the laws and incurred a foimidal le pen-i.lty, the knowledge mentioned does not reach ‘lif lsc. What he needs now is, to know bow ho

tan obtai 1 a pardon, and evade the vengeance of the violated law. In every such case, there is an absohite need of a declaration or revelation from the supreme power of the state, of a willingness to pardon on some certain condition. In no government ca» a pardon be a matter of course, or provided for by the law itself; for such a provision would be subversive of all government. It would be a com])lete nuUificati’^n of the obligation and authority of the law. Here then the momentous question occurs, is man a sinner? Have all men transgressed the law of God? I am willing to wave the proof of this point, for the present, and to leave it to the decisior of every man’s conscience. Is there a man upor earth who is not conscious of having violated thb law of his nature, both by omissions of duty and the actual commission of sin?

Assuming it then as a fact, that men are sinners, I ask, what does the light of nature teach respecting the forgiveness of sui? I shall endeavour to demonstrate, that reason sheds not a ray of light on this fundamental point, and, therefore, that Natural Religion, if known ever so perfectly and universally, could not bring us the relief which we need. The main argument for the position which I have laid down, is short and simple. It is the dictate of right reason, that God is just, and will render to every one according to his character and conduct; and that his law being wise and good must not be violated with impunity. Can the deist conceive of an objection to this principle? Certainly not. It must be considered a self-evident truth by every theist who oelieves in the moral government of God. The case Is plain, therefore, and so far as the dictates of reason extend, the siimer has no prospect before him but to sufler the just punishment of his offences, whatever that may be.

To suppose that reason can inform us that God will pardon our sins, is to suppose that its dictates are contradictor;”; for, to pardon is the same as not to punish; but -vs we have just seen, the voice of reason is, that God is just, and will render o every man what he deserves. These two things are not compatible. Before I proceed further, I n ust put the reader on his guard against loose and illogical reasoning on a point so vital. I scarcely know a subject on which most men appear to satisfy them selves with more vague and fallacious arguments. Some of the more common of these it will be my object now to consider.

In the first place, it is alleged, and with much confidence asserted by many, that God is a Being of too much benevolence and kindness to inflict severe punishments on his erring creatures. This suggestion, for it has not the shape of an. argument, seems to give honour to God, while it is very soothing to the mind of the sinner. But when it is examined, it will be found to be rather an insult than an honour; foi it supposes that the Ruler of the universe, out of kindness lo a rebellious creature, will cease to be just; that rather than punish offences as they deserve, he will dishonour his own law. What sort of compliment would It be to an upright judge among men, to say of him, that his benevolence and compassion would surely prevent his inflicting the penalties annexed to the laws? But if the Judge of all the earth does not act upon the principle of punishing all sin as it deserves, on what other principle does he act? by punishing it half as much as it deserves? But this might be a severe suffering, and therefore the conclusion to which this reasoning must lead, is, tha God’s goodness will altogether and for ever prevent him from inflicting any punishment on sin, however atrocious it may be.

Many in our days, who are not called deists or atheists, but who are more dangerous because they mingle some Christian truth with their errors, greedily embrace and zealously inculcate this very opinion. But look at its consequences. The infinitely perfect God will treat alike the most malignant rebel and the most affectionate and obedient servant. He will, in his treatment of his creatures, manifest no

EVIDENCES OF CHR tS TIANITY. 49

hore displeasure at sin, than he does towards the most perfect virtue. If such benevolence as this existed, it would be no moral perfection, but a defect. But no; God’s attributes are never at variance. There is no good);ess in God which forbids or prevents the fullest exercise of justice. If ever he chooses to rescue sinners from the consequences of their sins, it will not be by sacrificing his justice, but by fully satisfying it. But this is an affair of which m«re reason knows nothing. If the deist, however sh?’,’ld insist that all moral goodness consists in benevolence, and nothing else, and therefore God will not punish any but for his own good, I answer that the good of the whole is to be preferred by a benevolent being to the happiness of an offending individual; and in all communities, the general good requires that transgressors should be intimidated and restrained by punishment; so that it must be proved that the good of the universe does not require the punishment of the guilty, before any such conclusion can be drawn from the benevolence of God.

It is manifest, therefore, that the suggestion which we have been considering, however pleasing to the mind in love with sin, and however plausible at first sight, will not bear examination, and instead of tending to the honour of God, takes from him all that i;* estimable in moral character. It allows him no other excellence than an indiscriminate benevolence to his creatures, without the least regard to their moral character. Such a being would not be an object of veneration and esteem t) all holy intelligences. An infinitely good God may punish transgressors according to the demerit of their crimes, without any disparagement of his goodness; and an infinitely just and holy God must punish sin. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

Another suggestion, supposed by many to be a dictate of reason, is, that all the punishments ever mflicted on men for their sin is the evil which arises out of it from the laws of nature, and the constitution of the human mind; and that there is no good ground for any apprehension of any further or greater penalty. There is no proof adduced of the truth of this position, nor does it admit of proof Who can tell what the judge of all may think it necessary to inflict hereafter on sinners, for the manifestation of his justice, the vindication of his law, and as a terror to other offenders? Indeed, as far as we can judge of the facts, men do not suffer in this life, in any just proportion to their crimes. The wicked are often prosperous; and when the conscience becomes callous, they experience but little remorse for their worst crimes. Transgressors who are only beginning their career, experience the agonies of an accusing conscience in the keenest manner; while the veteran in iniquity has long since ceased to be much troubled with these “compunctious visitings.” But, supposing it true, that all the punishment of sin is that which naturally foUoAvs it, who can tell what all the consequences are, or where they will end.’’ Crimes do not always produce their bitterest fruit immediately. We see the sins of the intemperate, the lewd, and the dishonest, often overtaking them with then saddest consequences, long after the acts were committed. Sins committed in youth often produce a miserable old age. Look into the history of nniltitudes whose “ices have consigned them to a prison or a mad house, and you will find that the cause of their wretchedness and disgrace may be traced back to the sins of their youth, those very sins which many are disposed to regard with so indulgent an eye. And as these evils go on increasing until death, who can assure the sinner that this fearful progression will not continue beyond the grave? As we are not now arguing with atheists, we have a right to assume as a truth the soul’s future existence; and if it exists in conscious activity, will it not carry with it the moral character acquired in this world? Will not the selfish, the proud, the malignant, be selfish, proud, and malignant, when the clay tabernacle is dropped? Can death transform a sordid and guilty creature mto r ang:’l? Will not the ma vho is wicked ‘ip to

EVIDilNCrS JF CHRISTIANITY 5

the moment of dissolution, continue to be wicked after death? Will not he carrr with him his memory, his conscience, and his craving desires? There is then but little comfort for the sinner in this suggestion, if true; for lie may fmd springing out of his own corruption a worm which will never die, and which will gnaw his vitals with as agonizing a pain as any which he is capable of enduring. Be it so, that conscience is the only fire to be dreaded in another world — who can tell us how intense and interminable the pain which this principle of our nature is capable of inflicting on the sinner? The fear, remorse, and horrible perturbation which sometimes surround the death-bed of profligate sinners, afl’ord a tremendous intimation of what they may expect in a future state. How great or how long the evil consequences of sin may be, our reason certainly cannot tell; as far as her dictates extend, we can see no end to this progression in vice and misery.

But I now come to the consideration of a much more specious opinion, on which deists, and others who agree with them in these matters, place great confidence. It is, that whatever the deserved penalty of sin may be, reason teaches us that it can be set aside, or evaded, by a sincere and seasonable repentance. This principle has been assumed as a fundamental article in all the systems of sober deists It is well known that Lord Herbert laid it down as one of the five positions on which he founded his system; and, therefore, as perfectly understood by all men. And as many who wish to be considered rational Christians adopt the same principle, it has gained very general possession of the public mind. And again, as pardon and repentance are closely connected, according to the doctrines of the Gospel, this truth of revelation is by many not distinguished from what is considered a dictate of reason, and hence it becomes a matter of real difficulty to separate truth from error on this pointy and in attempting it, we must encounter a formidable front of preji dice. Before I proceed further, I must re

5)i EVL’^NCLS Ci’ CHRISTIANITY.

quest the reader to sepai ate the evangelical dot .rint of paidon, on repentance, from the deistical principle under consideration; for they stand on entirely different grounds, as will appee.r in the course of the discussion,

And here let it be carefully remarked, that before’ this doctrine of reason, as it is called, can become a practical principle, two things must be pre-supposed; first, that all men know what that repentance is which will insure our pardon; and next, that every sinner has ability to perform it. The reasonableness of these pre-requisites is self-evident. But great difficulty attends the theory, as it relates to these points. We would ask whether by that repentance

Arhich reason inculcates, any thing more is meant than sorrow or compunction for our sins; or whether It inchides a thorough reformation of life, and that not merely extending to external acts, but to the motives and affections of the heart. It is also reasonable to ask, whether any certain degree or continuance of sorrow is requisite; and whether repentance will not cease to be available, if the sinner revert to his former ways of iniquity. Moreover, whether repentance, flowing simply from fear of punishment, is genuine; and if not, what soit of principles it must have as its source. It is also needful and important to inquire, whether an inveterate, hardened sinner can repent of his sins, so as to hate and forsake them; and surely no other reentance is worth any thing. With a mind filled with error, his conscience seared, and his habits deeply radicated, what hope is there of his turning about and commencing a new life? From what principle could we anticipate such a change in a confirmed villain or debauchee? You might as reasonably expect the Ethiopian to change his skin, as (hat he who has been long accustomed to do evil should learn to do well. It will answer no puipose to say, that he can repent if he will, and if he will not, the blame is all his own; for we arc inquir. ;ng whe.her reason can t’?ach a method of wi.^

EVIDENCES OP ^HKISTl ANITT. 53

tton E-dapted to the condition of sinners, and it matter’s not whether the obstacle be in the will or in something else: if it uniformly prevents the desired effect, it is plain, that something e.se is needed. As to the blame being on his own head, it is admitted, but this is true in regard to every sin. In every act of transgression the sinner is culpable, otherwise it would be no sin; and if th3 only object be to fix the blame upon the culprit, this is sufficiently provided for whhout offering him pardon upon repentance, for life and happiness can be secured without repentance, if men will only obey the law of God perfectly. And there is no greater, nor other inability in the way of his doing this, than in the way of his exercising true penitence. There is manifestly a radical defect in the deistical theory on this very point. It makes no provision for bringing the sinner to repentance, but merely offers pardon in case he will do that to which his whole heart is averse. And does not fact accord with our sentiments? Where are the instances of deists repenting of their sins, and yet adhering to this system? There are indeed many glorious examples of infidels being brought to repentance and reformation by the Gospel; but I would challenge the world to produce an instance of any one being brought to repentance, and a thorough change of life, merely on the principles of deism. And if the principle is in practice utterly ineffectual, of what value is it? and why should it be magnified into a matter of so much importance as to be adduced as a proof that a revelation is not needed?

As, however, I wish to give a full and impartial discussion to this point, I will now, for the sake of argument, suppose, that the repentance which is necessary to pardon is understood by all men, and that all Jiave ability to perform it. The opinion then, is, that all sinners by repentance may escape the punishment justly due to their sins; and this repentance they can bring into exercise at any time when it may -/e needed. If this be true, and a dictate of reason, nen it musi be confessed that a revelation is not absolutely necessary, for what method of salvation can be simpxjr, easier, or more intell’^ible than this? But I deny that any such doctrine belongs to the system of Natural Religion, or is dictated by the light of reason. This opinion of the efficacy of repentance is borrowed from the fiospel, and has been tacked to deism, with which it has no coherence. It is altogether incompatible with the first great fundamental principle of natural religion; namely, that God being just will render to every one according to his moral character and conduct. Deists have ever been in the habit of borrowing from revelation, without giving credit for what they take, and perhaps, without knowing whence the sentiment is derived. Men, born and educated under the light of revelation, however they may come to reject the Bible and- all the positive institutions of Christianity, cannot divest themselves of all those important moral principles which directly or indirectly they have derived from this source. The light of divine revelation is widely diffused in Christian countries, and has given complexion to all our laws, institutions, and systems of education; so that a man can no more escape entirely from its influence than from the effect of the light of the sun. Many truths which the deist pretends to have discovered by the light of reason, are nothing else than the reflected light of divine revelation; for how else can you account for it, that the theories and moral systems of our sober deists should be so much superior to the attainments of Socrates, Plato and Cicero? Their conduct resembles that of a man who should light his taper by means of the sun’s rays, and then pretend that all the light around him he had struck out himself, or that it was produced by the feeble taper which he held in his hand.

But to return to the pomt under discussion. If a man, now that he is a siimer, can certainly know that the punishment of his sins may be evaded by a repentance completely hi his own power, he could also know this before he sinned. Then, with the ’ iw written on his heart, and sanctioned ;v*th a pen ally, ht haa the clear knowledge from iea3v)n, thai commi: whatever atrocious sins he might, and incur .vhatever punishment he might, he would at any and at every moment of his existence, have it in his power to escape all th(i punishment which he had meriteil, simply by the act of repentance. This is a plain and fair statement of the case, and it is easy to see that it is completely subversive of the law of God as a binding rule, and leaves it fully in the power of the creature to do whatever he pleases. He may deliberately determine that he will rebel against his Maker, till the last moment of life, and then disarm his vengeance by repentance. The penalty of the law may be in itself tremendous, but it can deter no one from any course which he may be inclined to pursue, because he can at any moment remove himself from its operation. What greater license could the most daring rebel wish than what is thus granted? This single principle admitted into the moral government of God would be a complete nuUij&cation of the divine authority.

These consequences of the doctrine under consideration are evident and inevitable, and demonstrate that it cannot be a principle of reason or natural religion. But it may be thought by some, that the same objection will lie with all its force against the doctrine of the gospel, which promises a plenary pardon to every true penitent. But the evangelical doctrine of repentance stands on entirely different grounds. That such an offer would be made, could be known by no creature before he sinned. This doctrine dotS not in the least clash with the justice of God; for all the sins of the penitent, to which pardon is granted, are virtually and actually punished in the sinner’s substitute. Here is the grand point of difference between Christianity and all other systems. The former maintains the glory and harmony of all the divine attributes; the latter obscure or would destroy one attribute, to make way for another. The consajuence is, thit the way in which pardon is granted ‘c the penitent, according to the gospel, has no ten<

56 EVlDi^NCES OF CHRISTIAM rT.

Aeniy to relax our obligation to obediewce, ci tf lessen our sense of the evil of sin; but the ieistica principle of forgiveness, as we have seen, nullifies the law and authority of the Governor of the universe, and leaves it completely at the option of the creature, whether he will obey or transgress the law of God. The former is perfectly consistent with the justice of God, extending pardon to no sin for which satisfaction has not been made; while the latter is in direct repugnance to the clearest demands of justice.

Another objection to the opinion that the punishment of sin is remitted upon repentance is, that this is contrary to experience nd fact. We have seen that the deist is fond of considering the punishment of sin as being nothing else but its consequences, arising out of the laws of nature. Is it true, then, that the laws of nature change their course as soon as a sinner repents? Is it not a fact that the penitent thief in the jail, and the repentant debauchee in the hospital, are still suffering the consequences of their crimes long since committed? Repentance cannot bring back lost health, ruined reputation, dissipated fortune, and alienated friends. How then can the deist, on his own principles, pretend that the yjunishment of sin is removed by repentance? He may allege that the future punishment of sin will be remitted; but how does he know this? Reason can judge nothing in regard to the future, but by some analogy with what is observed to take place in this life; and all analogy is against the opinion, that the evil consequences of sin will be terminated by death.

Again, if pardon be granted only to the penitent, and the impenitent be punished according to the demerit of their crimes, then there is a state of sinning which renders it proper that sin should be punished rigidly, according to its desert. There can, therefore, be no argument drawn from the goodness and compassion of God against the condign punishment of dinners. But why is impenitence alone to be considered as exposing a sinner to the wrath of God? And why are the penitent alone exempt from the

EVIDENCES OF bHiliSTIANITY. 57

penalty of the law? The answer must ce, either that the sin of impenitence is so great as to deserre this severe treatment, or the merit of repentance is such as to atone for the greatest sins. But supposing that impenitence draws after it deeper guilt than al) other sins, that does not prove that this alone should be punished; it only proves that it should be punished more. If there be a plain principle in jurisprudence, it is, that every sin should certainly be visited with punishment, but exactly according to its nature. There is no reason why a less sin should be sutTered to pass rather than a greater. Strict justice says, let every sin have its due retribution. The greatness of the sin of impenitence, therefore, cannot be a reason why the impenitent alone are to be punished. Nor can this great difference in the treatment of sinners be owing to the merit of repentance; for it would be difficult to tell wherein its extraordinary merit consists. It must either be in the obedience or the suffering involved in the exercise of repentance. But it cannot consist in the degree of obedience which it contains; for if this were perfect, it could do no more than answer the demands of the moral law for the time being, but could have no effect on sins aiready committed. I think it a self-evident truth, that my obedience this moment cannot atone or satisfy for my disobedience the preceding moment; for I do no more than my duty. Then certainly the obedience included in repentance cannot atone for all past sins, however enormous, for it is imperfect, and moreover has nothing in it which enhances its value above other acts of obedience. Neither can the suffering involved in repentance atone for past sins; for these pangs of compunction owe all their virtue to the obedience with which they are connected, and with’ out which they would not even be of a moral nature. Unless some one should be of opinion, thai these penitential sorrows are to be considered as ai; equivalent for the penalty of the law: but this cannot be correct, because an equivalent for the penalty of thf .a w would be an equal degree and t’uration of suffer

58 EVIDtNCES OF CHKI: IIANITI

ing. If ii.deed a person of higher dignity and gitatei worlh is permitted to suffer in the place of another, ui proportion to the difference in dignity, the suff wrings may he diminished It is, however, ahvays a matter in the breast of the Supreme Judge, v.’hether to allow of such a substitution. I see nothing imreasonable in it. But in the case under inquiry, the same person who owes the suffering, if I may so speak, endures the sorrows of repentance; and how, 1 would ask, can the pious grief of a few hours or days be an equivalent for the punishment of the most heinous transgressions? Besides, the penitent sinner ever feels, and is ready to confess, that he deserves other 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 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, perhaps more plausible than any other argument; it therefore merits a distinct “onsideration. 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 further 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 despite fully use ihem.” But this is entirely a distinct case, and resting on principles entirely different from the one »MMyer consideration. It i no part of the duty of

EVIDENCES OF ClIR STIANITY. 59

Christians to inflict condign punishment Ti those who sin, even if thjy have been injured by them rhey ar3 forbidden to seek revenge, or to render to the wicked according to their iniquities; not because tnere is any thing improper or inconsistent with moral goodness in punishing the guilty as they deserve; but 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 emphat’cal 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 djing 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 wo-ild 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 nad under discussion, and is not even held by the deist.

Another argument in favour of the doctrine thai 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 mevcy to certain criminals, who have incurred the penalty of the law, at all connected with this principle. Him reason why it is sometimes right to pardon offei/ces against the state, is either because, in some particular case, the rigid execution of law would not be entirely just; or, because on account of the numbei of persons implicated, sound policy may di jtate 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 ol the law is remitted; but no such reason can exist ic the divine government. In the execution of human laws, no inquiry is ever instituted whether the crimina. be penitent; nay, though his repentance should be most evident, this never disarms the law of its penalty. The penitent thief or murderer is punished by our laws, as well as the obstinate and impenitent. If m a few cases rulers who possessed the power of granting pardon have acted on the principle, that criminals wno discovered signs of penitence should be on that account pardoned, it only proves, that men entrusted with power may be misled; for undoubt’^dly this principle carried out would soon be subversive of all law. If the only end of punishment were 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 time 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.

If these views are correct, then is a divine revelation absolutely necessary to teach us that God is willing to receive the penitent into favour, and to show on what terms this is practicable.

Hence we may learn the deplorable situation of our whole race, and the infinite obligations which we are under to God for the gospel. All our well-grounded hopes of pardon and salvation we owe to the free mercy of God in Christ, and to the expiatory efficacy of the great ato lemeut

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITf. |J1