SECTION III.

Forgiveness is an act of Almighty God, whereby he remits the penalty due to the transgressor, on his compliance with certain conditions set forth in the Divine proclamation of mercy to a guilty world.

HAVING shown, in a former part of this work, the absolute necessity of pardon in order to salvation; and, also, that no sinner could possibly be forgiven, without such an atonement for sin as would justify the supreme governor in remitting the penalty to such as had violated his righteous and holy laws; it will be necessary now to offer a few observations, on the nature and conditions of that forgiveness itself. To make the subject clear and intelligible, several particulars must be taken into consideration.

1. The source whence a knowledge of the doctrine of forgiveness is derived. We believe that the consoling doctrine of pardon, is to be learned from the bible only. It is a pure doctrine of revelation. Infidels, who reject the authority of the holy scriptures, tell us that creation is the only word of God; and, that philosophy is the only preaching; and, of course, that philosophy is sufficient to teach us every thing which is necessary to our present *Chapter I. Sections .1 & 5.

and future welfare!

Well, let us see what satisfaction philosophy will afford on the interesting topic before us. Here is a man who has sinned against his Maker, and thereby rendered himself guilty and unhappy. He sees death, with rapid strides, advancing-life to be uncertain, and the fearful consequences of his misconduct to stare him in the face. That which he is anxious to know, and which alone can bring him effectual relief, is, whether God will forgive his offences, and take him again under his protection and favour. Now, suppose we direct him to creation, the infidel's only word of God; and to consult philosophy, the infidel's only preacher. In what part of creation; or, from what lesson in philosophy, we ask, will he learn that his sins may be forgiven? Must he descend into the bowels of the earth, and examine the different objects which lie concealed there? Or, must he propose this great, this all-absorbing, question to the various objects, animate and inanimate, which surround him on the surface of this mighty globe?

Or, must he ascend into the airy regions, and ask yon rolling worlds, or yon still more distant stars, if they can tell him whether God will be gracious; and whether a sinful rebel may expect forgiveness at his hands? Alas! alas! on this momentous question, philosophy is just as silent as the grave; and we are thrown back on that despised book, the bible, to learn, that "there is forgiveness with God that he may be feared"—that he is "gracious and merciful forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin."

How deplorable must the condition

of those be, who are destitute of the bible.

And how

still more wretched is the condition of those who have it, and refuse its aid!

2. The terms employed by the inspired writers, when speaking on this subject. Several words and phrases, having some slight shades of variation in their meaning, are evidently used by them, to designate this act of God. Hence, to pardon or forgive sins, to justify the ungodly. the counting or imputing righteousness, the counting faith for righteousness, the covering of sin, the not imputing sin, are terms and expressions of synonymous import, and certainly denote the very same blessing. An extract or two from the great apostle of the gentiles will satisfy the reader on this head. "Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as

David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."+

3. The objects of forgiveness. The proper and, indeed, the only subject of forgiveness is a rebel, who • Acts xiii. 38, 39. + Romans iv. 5-8.

It would be perfectly ri

justly deserves the penalty. diculous to talk of granting pardon to the innocent; for, if a sinner has been delivered from the sentence in any other way, except by an act of pardon, he can certainly need no forgiveness, because he has, by other means, obtained as complete a deliverance from the sentence of condemnation, as any act of pardon could possibly afford him. If any meaning or importance, therefore attaches to the doctrine of pardon, it is, because it delivers the sinner from a penalty to which he stood justly exposed, and to which he would certainly have been sentenced, had not forgiveness been obtained. Unless this be

granted, we must confess ourselves utterly unable to perceive any weight or force at all in the doctrine in question. It would be both insignificant and useless. For if the sinner be not exposed to the penalty, and has not obtained forgiveness, it clearly follows, that he has been delivered from it some other way; and, consequently, is for ever out of danger, though no pardon should be granted.

If, then, every sinner be really exposed to the penalty of eternal death, and can be delivered from it by an act of forgiveness only, as the scriptures clearly teach, it follows, that the full penalty scheme atonement, which we have felt it our duty to oppose, must be erroneous; unless we can believe that justice has received satisfaction to the amount of the full penalty; and, at the same time, believe that the sinner is still exposed to that

penalty! It cannot be true, that justice has received such a satisfaction; and, that it still has claims on the sinner to the full amount of the penalty: or, in other words, the penalty cannot have been fully discharged, and yet remain in full force! Nor can the necessity of pardon ever be reconciled with the notion, that the full penalty had been previously discharged.

4. The principle from which pardon flows. Sinners, by their rebellion, have for ever forfeited all right to demand exemption from the punishment due to the guilty; consequently, the death of Christ, as we have before proved, was not intended to restore that right of demand. Had it done this, every sinner must have the same claims as Adam had when in a state of innocence; or, as the angels, who never sinned; and, of course, must be as free from the want of pardon. If the atonement had discharged all penalties, and fully satisfied all claims of justice, the Almighty would have been bound, on the principle of equity, to forgive; or, rather, to ac quit the sinner; for, to call that forgiveness which justice requires is absurd.

But God is not bound, in a debt of justice, to any criminal, however penitent. The claim of innocence has been forfeited by sin; and, as there is no right of demand, in the sinner, there can be no corresponding obligation on his sovereign to remit the sentence, or deliver him from the penalty. It is evident, therefore, that