CHAPTER IV.

REVELATION NECESSARY TO TEACH US HOW TO WORSHIP GOD ACCEPTABLY—THE NATURE AND CERTAINTY OF A FUTURE STATE—AND ESPECIALLY, THE METHOD BY WHICH SINNERS MAY OBTAIN SALVATION.

IT would be superfluous here to repeat what was said in the preceding 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 titan he possesses; and, whether, there are not some points of vital importance, concerning which he must remain in the dark, unless the knowledge of the truth is communicated to him by a revelation from God. Let it be understood, however, in what sense it is asserted, that a revelation is necessary. Of course, it is not meant, that there is any natural necessity for such 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 littler all circumstances, he needs information, which he cannot obtain from the unassisted exercise of his own reason; or, at least, cannot obtain so satisfactorily from this source, as from divine 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 neither 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 are as much at a loss as the vulgar. They reasoned much, and speculated as far as human intellect could go; but instead of clearly ascertained truth, they rested at last, in mere conjecture; or deviated into gross 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 communication from heaven, might be of the greatest utility, by speaking decisively and authoritatively, 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 divine authority. What men discover by the slow deductions of reason, is found to operate feebly on the conscience, compared with the persuasion, that God speaks to us, immediately, by divine revelation. In reasoning about the most important truths, men differ exceedingly from 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 surrounded them, we cannot but 39feel commiseration for the imbecility of the human intellect; and, 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 communicated 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.

But, after 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, although 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 is in the nature of things impossible, that men should devise a form of acceptable worship, for no service of this kind can be pleasing in the sight of God, which he has not himself appointed. Now, if men have lost the knowledge of the original institutions of religion; or, if these have become altogether corrupt, there must be a new revelation, before man will be able to render an acceptable service to his Creator. There is good reason to believe, t hat many of the. heathen rites of worship, are nothing else but corruptions of divine institutions, which were given to man 40by 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 that shedding the blood and taking away the life of an animal, could be an acceptable sacrifice to the deity; or, 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 from each other, there has been remarked, a wonderful similarity in the circumstances of their sacred offerings; in the erection of altars; in the pouring out 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 in the fire, in feasting on the remainder, within the precincts of the temple, or sacred enclosure. And 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, which brings us to see the credibility of the Mosaic history, in regard to the origin of religious worship.

But supposing that any heathen nation should now be convinced of the absurdity of idolatry, and should become sensible of their obligation to render some kind of external homage to the great Creator, by what means could they learn what sort of service would be acceptable? Reason could not teach them what rites should be observed. Without a revelation from God, they must forever remain without. a form of worship; or, if they attempted to invent certain rites, all experience teaches, that these human inventions will ever be marked with 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, still 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. Indeed, 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 substituted for the. august Creator, creatures of almost every kind and species. 42No man, under the government of reason, can look into any heathen temple, without being shocked and cort founded with the degrading and abominable rites of idolatry. The more this subject is contemplated, the more clearly will the necessity of divine revelation be felt, and the greater will appear to be its value to the human race. Who can read an account of the mythology and idolatry of the ancient Egyptians, or of the modern Hindoos, and not be deeply impressed with the necessity of something, which might have the effect of dispelling this horrible darkness, and breaking 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 origin, and his end; and utterly unable to account for the circumstances 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 gulph 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, on these points. 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. Leaving 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 43and 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 believe, 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, the human race was merely a species of monkey or baboon, and that by degrees they laid aside their brutal appearance and manners, and certain inhuman appendages, and having, in process of time, invented language, and the arts most necessary to provide for the clothing and shelter of the body, they gradually rose higher and higher in the scale of improvement, until they arrived at that pitch of refinement and civilization, which has been attained by the most polished nations. These, it is true, are rather atheistical than deistical hypotheses; but they serve to show how little 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 condition and mortality of our race. He may say, that it is the law of our nature; but this is merely to declare the fact, and not to account for it.

But we might, perhaps, be contented to remain 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, 44to 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 into the grave, to have nothing to lay hold of, but the conclusions or conjectures of our own feeble reason? That I do not depreciate the force of the arguments for the soul’s immortality, will appear, from the 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 other idea of immortality, than that the soul—which they thought was a particle of deity—would, at death, be refunded into the divine essence; which was virtually to deny its future existence, as to its distinct personality;—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 intellect, upon 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. O how glad would these sages have been to possess one ray of that revelation which 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 45to establish the doctrine; but their successors, in modern times, or at least, a large majority of them, have either denied, or called into 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 would be obliged to confess that we needed 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 same 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 go 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, but a day of righteous judgment. Here, every man can judge for himself, whether he needs a revelation.

This argument for the necessity of a divine revelation, will be corroborated by observing the state of religion and morals among all heathen nations. It has often 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: 46and the science of morals may in time come to be better understood; but if all nations, even 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 of them, fallen into the most absurd and degrading errors; and have 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, 1 will pass it over, by remarking, that the abominable rites of Pagan worship, and the shocking cruelties and impurities which have ever been perpetrated under the sanction of 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 colored: but, the truth is, 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 than all other causes. And as, Paganism still exists, and as its evils are unmitigated by the lapse of time, it is an easy matter to compare the Christian with the heathen world.—Cast your eye over the map of the earth, and say, where is found the 47densest darkness? Where does the light of truth shine? Is not the line 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 who 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 omit; 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 covered 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, permit me to ask, whether, if a company of deists had gone out to Africa, or to the Society or Sandwich islands, any such reformation would have been wrought? The reader will smile, at the idea of a deist turning missionary to the heathen; but this very feeling demonstrates, that deism is not to be the means of regenerating the world. If the deist was right, certainly be 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 principles, 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, to prove that a revelation is necessary, when we have proof enough before our eyes. In any of our 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 citizens, 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, permit me to ask, are our 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. And, on the latter supposition, all the wealth of the country would be insufficient to provide places of confinement, and means of support, for the guilty; or, 49to 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, that 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 religion might be expected, if the Bible were banished from among us? Suppose then, 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 point out to them the way of life, all their pulpits should 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 preaching of the Gospel; permit me to inquire, do you know, or have you heard 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 morality? No doubt, some of my readers have heard of conversions at these places of fashionable resort, but not to righteousness—not to God, but the contrary. 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 or atheistical lectures; not because it pleads for vice—this would not be tolerated—but because it draws thousands within the enchanted circle of temptation, and plunges thoughtless youth into the vortex of sensual pleasure, from which it is difficult to extricate them.

But I will admit, that there may be much religion, 50without 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 if they were all alike; whereas, true and false religion, are as dissimilar, as light and darkness; and I will repeat what I have already said in substance, and that is, that, the only effectual barrier to false religion, is to cultivate that which is true. Infidelity may serve to sweep away one form of superstition, but after awhile 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 he visited with the most absurd and degrading systems of wild fanaticism; and these will, when the fires of enthusiasm are extinguished, settle down, or rather grow up, into hideous forms of superstition. The Pagan religions had some mixture of truth derived from early tradition; for they were all, as we have seen, a corruption of the primitive worship of fallen man: but banish the Bible, 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 of which we are indebted to revelation. The first of these, is, the SACRED INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE: the second is, the RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION OF AN OATH, or solemn affirmation, 51 which is virtually the same thing. Remove these, and the fair 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 then, that reason can direct us with sufficient clearness, in regard to all our moral duties; and 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; and that, in pursuing this course, no evil will ensue, and the suitable reward will not be wanting.—I say, 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 which 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 know full well, that if he obeys the laws of his country, he will be protected by all upright magistrates; but if he has already violated the laws, and incurred a formidable penalty, the knowledge mentioned does not reach his case. What he needs now, is to know how he can obtain a pardon, and evade the vengeance of the violated law. In every such case, there is an absolute 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 can 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 complete nullification of the obligation and authority of the law. Here, then, the momentous question occurs, is man a sinner? 52Have all men transgressed the law of God? I am willing to waive the proof of this point, for the present, and to leave it to the decision of every man’s conscience is there then a man, upon earth, who is not conscious of having violated the 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 sin? I shall endeavor 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, with every theist who believes in the moral government of God. The case is plain, therefore, and as far as the dictates of reason extend, the sinner has no prospect before him but to suffer 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 contradictory; for, to pardon, is the same as not to punish; but we have just seen, that the voice of reason is, that God is just, and will render to every man what he deserves. These two things are not compatible. Before I proceed further, I must put the reader on his guard, against loose and illogical reasoning, on a point so vital. I scarcely know a subject, on which most 53men appear to satisfy themselves 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 honor 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 honor; for it supposes that the Ruler of the universe, out of kindness to a rebellious creature, will cease to be just:—that, rather than punish offences as they deserve, he will dishonor his own law. What sort of compliment would it be to an upright judge, among men, to say of him, that we were sure his benevolence and compassion would prevent him from 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? Would any one say, by punishing it half as much as it deserves;—but this might be a severe suffering; therefore, the conclusion to which this reasoning must lead, is, that God’s goodness will, altogether, and forever, 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 Gospel 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 more displeasure 54at sin, than be 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 goodness 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 mere reason knows nothing. But if the deist should insist, that all moral goodness consists in benevolence, and nothing else, and therefore God will not punish any one 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 he 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 honor of God, takes from him all that is 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 the object of veneration and esteem, by all holy intelligences. An infinitely good God may punish transgressors according to the demerit of their climes, 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 punishment ever inflicted on men for their sins, 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. Now, let it be, in the first place, observed, that 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 visitations.” But, supposing it true, that all the punishment of sin is that which naturally follows it, yet 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 their saddest consequences, long after the acts were committed. Sins committed in youth often produce a miserable old age. Look into the history of multitudes, whose vices 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: yes—those very sins, on which many are disposed to 56look 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 exist in conscious activity, will it not carry with it, the moral character acquired in this world? Will not the selfish, the proud, and malignant, be selfish, proud, and malignant, when the clay tabernacle is dropped? Can death transform a sordid, and guilty creature, into an angel? Will not the man who is wicked up to the moment of dissolution, continue to he wicked, after death? And will not he carry 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 he may find springing out of his own corruption, a worm which will never die,. and which will gnaw his vitals with as corroding 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-beds of profligate sinners, afford 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 come now 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 57sin may be, reason teaches us, that it can be set wide, 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 point; and in attempting it, we must encounter a formidable front of prejudice, not only from infidels, but also from others. And before I proceed further, I must request the reader to separate the evangelical doctrine of pardon, on repentance, from the deistical principle under consideration; for they stand on entirely different grounds, as will appear 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. For we would ask, whether by that repentance which reason inculcates, any thing more is meant than sorrow or compunction for our sins; or whether it includes a thorough reformation of life, and that not merely extending to 58external 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 sort of principles must it 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 repentance 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 for him that has been long accustomed to do evil, to learn to do well. And it will answer no purpose to say, that he can repent if he will, and if he will not, the blame is all his own; for, we are inquiring, whether reason can teach a method of salvation adapted to the condition of sinners, and it matters not whether the obstacle be in the will or in something else: if it uniformly prevents the desired effect, it is plain, that something else is needed. And as to the blame being on his own head, it is admitted; but this is true in regard to every sin; for, in every act of transgression the sinner is culpable, otherwise it would be no sin; and if the only object be, to fix the blame upon the culprit, this is sufficiently provided for, without 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, 59nor 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; for 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 have 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 be needed. Now, if this be true, and a dictate of reason, then it must be confessed, that a revelation is not absolutely necessary; for what method of salvation can be simpler, easier, or more intelligible 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 Gospel; and has been tacked to deism, with which: it has no coherence. 60The truth is, 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. And, here, I would repeat what has often been remarked by writers on this subject, that 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 theory and moral system 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 point under discussion. If a man, now he is a sinner, can certainly know that the punishment of his sins can be evaded by a repentance. completely in his own power, he could also know this before he sinned. Then, with the law written on his 61heart, and sanctioned with a penalty, he had the clear knowledge from reason, that commit whatever atrocious sins he might, and incur whatever punishment he might, that he would at any, and at every moment of his existence, have it in his power, to escape all the punishment which he had merited, 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 nullification 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 this is a mistake: 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 does 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 sinners 62substitute. Here is the grand point of difference between Christianity, and deism and all other systems. The former maintains the glory and harmony of all the divine attributes; the latter obscures, or would destroy one attribute, to make way for another. The consequence is, that the way in which pardon is granted to the penitent, according to the Gospel, has no tendency to relax our obligation to obedience, or to lessen our sense of the evil of sin; but the deistical 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.

But another objection to the opinion that the punishment of sin is remitted upon repentance, is, that this is contrary to experience, and fact. We have seen that the deist is fond of considering the punishment of win 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 penitentiary, and the repentant debauches, 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 punishment 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 63to the future, but by some analogy with what is observed to take place in this life; and from the facts stated, it is manifest, that 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 sinners. 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 penalty of the law? The answer must be, either, that the sin of impenitence is so great as to deserve this severe treatment; or, the merit of repentance is such as to atone for the greatest sins, which man can commit. But supposing that impenitence draws after it deeper guilt than all other sins, this does not prove that this alone should be punished; it only proves, that it should be punished more: but 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 suffered 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 most extraordinary merit consisted. It must either be in the obedience, or 64the 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 already committed. I think it a self-evident truth, that my obedience, this moment, cannot atone, or satify, for my disobedience, the preceding moment; for in the latter case, 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 without which they would not even be of a moral nature. Unless some one should be of opinion, that these penitential sorrows are to be considered as an equivalent for the penalty of the law: but this cannot be correct, because an equivalent for the penalty of the law, would be an equal degree and duration of suffering. If, indeed, a person of higher dignity and greater worth is permitted to suffer in the place of another, in proportion to the difference in dignity, the sufferings may be diminished. It is, however, always a matter in the breast of the Supreme Judge, whether to allow of such a substitution. I see nothing unreasonable 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, I 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 65confess, that he deserves further 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 what 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, which is, perhaps, more plausible than any other argument; and therefore merits a distinct consideration. 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 farther, 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 despitefully use them.” But this is entirely a distinct case, and resting on principles entirely different, from the one under consideration. It is no part of the duty of Christians to inflict condign punishment on those who sin, even if they have been injured by them. They are forbidden to seek for revenge, or to render to the wicked according to their iniquities; not because there is any thing improper or inconsistent with moral goodness, in punishing the guilty as they deserve; but 66because 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 emphatical 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 doing 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 would 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 had under discussion, and is not even held up by the deist.

Another argument in favor of the doctrine that 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 mercy to certain criminals who have incurred the penalty of the law, at all connected with this principle. The reason why it is sometimes right to pardon offences against the state, is, either because in some particular case, the rigid execution of law would not be entirely just; or, that on account of the number of persons implicated, sound policy may dictate, that only the most guilty should be held up as an example. It appears, then, that the weakness of human governments is the ground 67on which the penalty of the law is remitted; but no such reason can exist in the divine government. But, in the execution of human laws, no inquiry is ever instituted, whether the criminal be penitent: yea, although his repentance should be most evident, yet this never disarms the law of its penalty. The penitent thief or murderer, are punished by our laws, as well as the obstinate and impenitent. If, in a few cases, rulers who possessed the power of granting pardon, have acted on the principle, that criminals who discovered signs of penitence, should be, on that account, pardoned, it only proves, that men entrusted with power may be misled; for undoubtedly, this principle carried out, would soon be subversive of all law. If the only end of punishment was 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 while, 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.

And if these views are correct, then is a divine revelation absolutely necessary to teach us, that God is willing to receive the penitent into favor; and to inform us, on what terms this is practicable.