which we are more immediately and deeply interested, it becomes our duty to consider seriously how far we have reason to believe that it will be conducted upon the principle which the text lays down; how far this great principle is consistent with reason; how far it is supported by scripture; how far it is generally admitted and acted upon in society; and how far our own individual conduct should be influenced by all these considerations.

Man, my brethren, has been created a moral being. He has been made capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, good and evil, justice and injustice. For the moral, as well as for every other part of his nature, he is indebted to his Creator. Is it reasonable to suppose that the Deity is regulated, in his conduct to his rational creatures, by principles materially different from those by which he has taught them to be regulated in their conduct to each other? Is it probable, in other words, that he is in the habit of acting towards them in a manner of which he has himself taught them to disapprove? If not, it remains for us to consider whether or not the principle laid down in the text is agreeable to our moral nature. Is it a fair and equitable principle, or is it not? There can hardly be two opinions upon this subject. If one of

your children acts improperly, are you in the habit of chastising or of reproving another for it? If you discover one servant in an act of dishonesty, do you feel disposed to part with a different one, by way of an example to deter him from it in future? If one man owes you a sum of money, do you call upon a different person for the payment of it? If one man commit murder, is another to be executed for it? If not, then are we justified in concluding that the principle asserted in the text is an equitable one; that it is one upon which the Supreme Ruler of the Universe must always, to use an expression borrowed from our own mental constitution, feel inclined to act; that it is one upon which, so far as may be consistent with the general laws by which he governs the world, he always does act; and, finally, that it is one upon which, when the present constitution of things in this world shall terminate, he most assuredly will act.

The next thing that we are to consider, is how far the great principle, asserted in the text, is supported by scripture. You will hardly think it necessary for me to dwell very long on this part of the subject, if you call to mind the strict doctrine of the New Testament, in allotting punishment and reward to human deserts. You cannot fail to have remarked, likewise, that the whole

conduct of Divine Providence towards the Jewish nation, not merely presents, but seems to have been specially intended to present, one continued and striking exhibition of the manner in which this principle is adhered to by the Almighty. It was exhibited frequently in the cases of individuals, always in that of the nation. As Christians, however, we naturally feel inclined to have recourse to Christ himself, as the surest and most unexceptionable source of information upon this, as well as upon every other subject connected with his religion. I do not hesitate to affirm, that the whole strain of our Saviour's preaching supports the doctrine of the text. He holds out no hope to the sinner, upon any other ground than that of repentance and amendment; nor will he ever consent to acknowledge as his disciple, the man who is not anxious to prove himself such by obedience to his precepts. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." every one, that saith unto me lord, lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my father, who is in heaven." "The son of man shall come in the glory of his father, with his angels, and then he shall reward every man, according to his works." Such then, my brethren, appears to me to be the general tenour of scripture upon this subject. Should there be any thing in the apostolic epistles apparently

"Not

inconsistent with it, it must surely be much safer, as well as more rational, to look for the foundation of the difference, if it be not merely a Jewish form of expression, in the peculiar circumstances of the writer, of the church which he is addressing, or of the early Christians in general, than to fritter away the meaning of the plainest and most solemn declarations of scripture, to suit the dimensions of what may, perhaps, in the end turn out to be nothing more than the ragged remnant of some mystical or fanciful philosophical hypothesis.

We come now to consider how far the great principle, asserted in the text, is generally admitted and acted upon in society. Here we are met at once by what is called the orthodox doctrine of the vicarious atonement. It is asserted by the supporters of this doctrine, that our Lord Jesus Christ, himself perfectly upright and innocent, suffered upon the cross in the place of believers, and under the imputation of their guilt; and that it is only by virtue of this vicarious atonement, and of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, that believers are freed from the punishment due to their own sins, as well as from the imputation of Adam's sin, and become heirs of everlasting life and happiness. Here, then, we have the Almighty represented

to us as departing altogether, in the most important of all his dispensations, from a principle by which he had formerly declared, by his prophet, his determination to be regulated. We behold the immutable God erasing with one hand what he had written with the other. We see him condemning the innocent to the severest tortures, that he may be enabled, forsooth, without compromising his justice, to extend free pardon to the guilty. This doctrine, then, my brethren, is plainly and directly at variance with the principle asserted in the text. If by Jesus Christ suffering in the place of sinners, be meant merely this, that he suffered, in the introduction of a religion which was to deliver them from the power of sin, and in the exhibition of an obedience, as a reward for which he was to be empowered to bestow upon such as should believe in him and act conformably, life everlasting, then does this doctrine appear not merely free from the imputation of involving an act of injustice, but likewise as illustrative, in the clearest and most beautiful manner, of the divine goodness and mercy; but if, on the other hand, as there is too much reason to fear it generally is, the death of Christ be represented to us in the light of an infliction of punishment on the part of the Deity, as appeasing his wrath, satisfying his justice, or illustrating his holiness, by an exhibition of his