sive religion had often become when allied to temporal power; and he considered the conduct of those highly inconsistent who, while they professed to be the followers of Jesus, connected themselves with the kingdoms of this world. He therefore acknowledged no head or master upon earth in spiritual matters; and, while he rendered unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, he rendered unto God the things which are God's. It was his practice while reading the sacred volume, to make such notes and extracts as would assist him in his further researches, and enable him "to prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God." By this study of the Scriptures he became more and more confirmed in the belief of the fundamental article of the Jewish and Christian systems, the Unity of God; and with that independence of mind for which he was remarkable, he worshipped the God of his fathers after the way which the world deem heresy. He chose to abstain from joining the popular sects of the day, although from his connexions and circumstances in life he had many temptations to do so; and he bore with firmness and Christian indifference his share of the misrepresentations and obloquy and suspicion which the sect eve y where spoken against so constantly meets with. Yet, while he differed from his brethren in matters of faith, he had that charity for all men, without which, religious professions and services are utterly vain. neither limited the mercies of the Holy One of Israel to a few favourites, nor rested the salvation of his fellow-men upon the

He

weak foundation of a religious creed; but he delighted to call upon the Lord his God, as the Father and the friend of all his widely-extended family, ever ready to receive the repentant sinner.

Such were the religious principles which shed their beneficial influence over his mind, and which produced the character here portrayed. They enabled him to resist the temptations of the world, and to bear the severe pains of body to which he was often subject, and the various distresses of life, with that resignation to the will of God which becomes a disciple of Jesus; and in his last hour he reaped the full benefit of so wise and pious a line of conduct. His health had been declining for some months before his decease; but as no immediate danger was apprehended, his family flattered themselves that he would be spared to them yet many years. Nor did this hope leave them until within a few days of his death. On the evening of his decease, feeling his end approaching, and while surrounded by his sorrowing family, he said, "Will you all join me in prayer?" and immediately prayed aloud in the most collected and pious

manner.

He expressed his firm belief of his acceptance with God; not from any merit of his own, for he acknowledged himself a sinner who had often dared the Divine displeasure, and who had not been sufficiently grateful for the bounties of Providence, and that at the best he had been an unprofitable servant. But he trusted to the eternal and unchangeable goodness of his Al

against an infinite Deity, and a frowning, unrelenting Justice interposes, and calls for an infinite satisfaction, the sacrifice of his only Son. Mercy is obliged to yield, Justice obtains its demand; while, in the language of a bargain, the sacrifice is called an equivalent, and the whole transaction is termed a merciful plan, a dispensation of love! No wonder that there are so many infidels, when this is represented as Christianity.

Without entering upon an examination of the several errors of this system, a few remarks will be offered on that, which may be considered as the fundamental and prevailing one, namely, the supposition of a disagreement between the attributes of God; the idea that his rigorous justice intercepts the benevolent designs of his mercy.

Is not this opinion, in the first place, degrading to the true character of Supreme Perfection? Does it not leave a blank in the description of Deity, which even our finite conceptions may fill? Is it consistent with the unity of his character, thus to present one of its principles in decided opposition to another? Is it consistent with the loveliness of his character, thus to present its severity overcoming its benevolence? Or is it consistent with the dignity of his character, thus to present its benevolence yielding to its severity? With such conceptions of God, can we feel satisfied, can we feel secure? Let any unprejudiced and thinking man ask himself these questions separately and seriously.

Is not this opinion, in the second place, at variance, not only with proper apprehensions of the whole divine character, but

with a proper definition of the divine justice and mercy, singly considered? What is the justice of God, and what is his merey? Does his justice demand inflictions, from which his mercy recoils? We think not. Does his mercy ask for indulgences, which his justice refuses to grant? We think not. When justice is unfeeling, and regards not, as its sole and ultimate end, the happiness of its objects, it certainly is not just; it ceases to be justice, and takes the aspect and character of cruelty. And when mercy is shortsighted and partial, acting from impulse, rather than from a sense of right, and relieving present misery, rather than consulting for real and lasting good, it is no longer mercy, it has degenerated into weakness. Who will ascribe either of these dispositions to God? Who will say, that his justice is but wrath, and his mercy but unguided feeling? And yet this is virtually said by those, who hold the opinions against which we are contending; it is virtually said by the common error which we have stated; it is virtually said by those systems, which make our redemption the result of opposing principles and counsels and the performance of a previous stipulation. There is no getting away from these inferences. In the common systems of divinity, the justice and mercy of God are plainly represented as distinct and opposed. Now these qualities,in their perfection, never can be either distinct or opposed; for perfect justice will always have pity on weakness and frailty, and perfect mercy will always unfalteringly pursue the straight and only course, which leads to the best possible conse quence.

The idea, therefore, of an opposition between the justice and mercy of God, arises from a gross misapprehension of those attributes themselves, and is unworthy of the divine character. If these propositions are established, it follows, in the third place, that it will produce injurious effects on our own minds. Religion is so important a subject, that religious error must be hurtful in some way or other, and in a greater or less degree. God is the object and end of all religion, and so far as a particular system of religion inculcates wrong conceptions of God, it must be a false one, as false in its very foundation. God is the Supreme Disposer; he governs our lives according to his will, and keeps in his own hands the entire regulation of our future destiny. We are weak and powerless; we cannot stand before him; we know that we cannot; unforeseen and uncontrollable events defeat our intentions, and defy

Our

calculations; and death comes, we know not how or when, to close the present scene. It must affect us nearly then, to know what is the character of this Being; and according to the conclusions which we form, will be in a great measure the complexion of our religious opinions, and the tone of our religious language.

If, then, we regard him as a monarch, whose resolutions are taken without reference to the nature and circumstances of those whom he governs, and whose inflictions are determined by a principle, which, however severe it may be, he is compelled to follow, we must of course regard him with feelings, which

in great part, will be those of ap prehension and dread, with feelings which ought not to be connected, no, not at all, with the Only Wise and Good, with feelings which are calculated to repress the confidence and grateful love, with which we should seek our Father, and which should not be suffered to mingle with the adoration of the heart. And this is the fact. And this is the explanation of many of the superstitious notions and observances, which reflect any thing but honour on the religion of Christ. The Saviour has been prayed to, and the Virgin Mary has been prayed to, and hundreds of saints have been prayed to, in preference, yes, we scruple not to say, in preference to the Great and Only True Object of worship; because a servile and unworthy fear was entertained of that Object, and other beings and names were resorted to, in order to propitiate and favourably incline the Holy One, who is always more ready to hear, than we are to pray, and always more willing to forgive us our sins, than we are to forsake them. What is the language of nine out of ten of the hymns which are addressed to Christ, and sung in Christian churches? Plainly this; that Christ is a merciful, benignant, and compassionate being, who interposed between the anger of God and the destruction of men, and offered himself as a sacrifice to that inexorable vengeance, which neither could nor would accept of any other. Is this reason, is this religion, is this Christianity, is this in accordance with the language of him, who said, "Why callest thou me good, there is none good but one, that is God?"

Now what can be the origin of so monstrous an error? We conceive it to be occasioned by referring the character and counsels of God to the very imperfect standard of our own actions and feelings. By this, we mean, that instead of raising their own ideas to some understanding of perfection, men have brought down perfection to the level of their own ideas, or in other words, have substituted imperfection in its place. They have considered, not so much the true and abstract nature of justice and mercy, as the justice and mercy which live upon earth, are conformed to their earthly residence, and modified by the passions, the weakness, the false judgement, the short-sightedness of man. It is true, that we must form our conceptions of the personal attributes of God, from corresponding qualities among ourselves; but then we must not confine them here, but remember that they are to be invested with omniscience and infinity; in short, united to one another, and united to God.

To illustrate by an example. Brutus pronounced judgement against his own sons, because the good of the commonwealth, as he thought, required that they should die. This act has been praised by some as just and condemned by others as unmerciful. One will think that he displayed his heroism in sacrificing the feelings of a father to the existence of a state; and another, that the voice of nature should never have been so cruelly stifled at the call of a heartless theory, or the prospect of an uncertain good. But the fact is, we are not competent to decide at all on the case, because we

can neither balance motives nor consequences. Neither was Brutus capable of deciding whether he acted right or wrong, because he could not foresee effects, nor determine whether the father or the magistrate ought to have prevailed in the decision. He only acted according to the best of his judgement; and thatis all which any man can do in a question of opposing feelings, interests, and considerations. But here is the error. Men have supposed the Deity to be placed in a certain situation; and then have undertaken to say how he must have been influenced, and how he ought to have determined, and actually did determine, under the existing circumstances. They have undertaken to say, from their own notions of what would have been felt and done on earth, what in reality was felt and done in heaven; without reflecting that they were applying this rule to a Being, who is impassible and omniscient, and who could not, therefore, entertain any inclination in opposition to any principles, or be guided by any circumstances, of which he did not clearly see all the bearings, relations, and results.

We shall conclude this essay by giving such a view of the justice and mercy of God, as will form a summary of what has been offered on this subject. To speak strictly, we should say, that justice and mercy were not separate qualities of the divine mind, but that, although we used the names separately, for the sake of convenience and accommodation, they were, in fact, the same. The ways of God are RIGHT, and this expresses all that we mean, when we say that they are just and merciful. In the counsels of