1. Prior to the coming of Christ, an experiment was made of this policy, during a period of about four thousand years; and I believe it is not known that any injury resulted to the government of God.

Some may suppose, that during a considerable part of the four thousand years, the Messiah's death was pre-notified by symbolic atonements. This may be true; but what evidence have we, that the Israelites at any period had any expectation that the Messiah would suffer as their substitute? I see not the least evidence that they ever had any such expectation, either to deter them from sin, or to excite them to obedience. Yet offers of pardon were made to them on conditions of repentance, and their symbolic worship was designed to excite in them the repentance which was required, and also as means for expressing their penitent and obedient feelings, just as the forms of Christian worship are means for effecting reconciliation, and for expressing our love and gratitude to God.

2. Both John the Baptist and the Messiah preached repentance for the remission of sins, without saying a syllable about a vicarious punishment. Still the government of God remained unshaken.

3. After the resurrection of our Lord, he commissioned his Apostles to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; to preach, not vicarious punishment, but repentance and remission of sins in his name. They accordingly preached that men should "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." This they did without the least intimation that the offer of pardon was made on the ground of a substituted punishment; at least, no such intimation is to be found in any of their sermons which have come down to

us. We may now attend to Dr. Beecher's statement respecting the conditions of pardon, since the sacrifice of the Messiah :—

"And what condescension is manifested in the condition of pardon! The lowest possible degree of true holiness, the smallest real preference for God above the world, the lowest degree of sorrow for sin, or faith in Christ, arising from love, are the commencement of a moral excellence, which by promised grace shall be sustained, augmented, consummated, and endure for ever." p. 18.

ance.

I may ask, did any writer or preacher ever mean any thing lower or less than what is here represented, by an offer of pardon on condition of repentance? I shall not stop to inquire where Dr. Beecher found his warrant for representing "the lowest possible degree” of right affection, as "the condition of pardon," nor whether he was prudent in making such a representation, leaving it unexplained and unguarded. But I may pretty safely infer, that in his view, since the crucifixion, pardon has been offered on condition of the "lowest possible degree " of repentThe question then occurs,-Could it be wise in God, to inflict on his Son the "punishment due to us all," that he might "hold out to all subjects the certainty of pardon for all transgressions, upon the simple condition of repentance," which "must be, in its effects, an entire abolition of the penalty, and an utter prostration of government by law?" Why is there not as much danger in making such an offer now, as there would have been, had the Messiah never appeared on earth? So far as the atonement has been regarded as an expression of love, and has had its intended effect in reconciling sinners unto

But

God, its influence has been salutary and saving. who believes, or can believe, that wicked men are restrained from more daring rebellion, by having been told that Christ suffered as their substitute? And who that reflects, does not believe, that millions of our race have been encouraged to go on more fearlessly in sin, by the doctrine that Christ suffered the punishment due to their offences? Yet notwithstanding this abuse of the atoning sacrifice, the gospel offer of pardon, on condition of repentance, has been made for about eighteen hundred years, and the government of God has not been prostrated.

The ease with which the penalty of the law might be avoided, is urged by Dr. Beecher as ground of objection against the hypothesis of pardon, on condition of repentance. In reference to this strange reasoning, I may ask,

1. What was the purpose of God in offering pardon on any conditions whatever? Was it not that sinners might be induced to avoid the penalty of the law, by complying with the conditions?

2. Was the Messiah sent to make it more difficult for men to avoid the penalty of the law by repentance? Was such the purpose of his death? Did he not come and suffer for a directly opposite purpose, even to make the way of escape more plain and easy ?

3. If the ease with which the penalty might be avoided was ever a reason for not offering pardon on condition of repentance; was not this danger greatly increased by what Christ did and suffered for us? Yet, notwithstanding the greater light and advantages which men now have to avoid the penalty of the law, God, it seems, has not been afraid to offer pardon on condition of repentance. Indeed, it appears, from the conduct of God in this affair, that it has

been his wish to make it easy for transgressors to avoid the penalty of the law by repentance; and that it never occurred to him that by so doing, he adopted a policy which "must be, in its effects, an entire abolition of the penalty, and an utter prostration of government by law?

I would now request the reader's attention to the following contrasts between the language of the Bible, and the language of Dr. Beecher :

God says, "The soul that sinneth it shall die,-the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die." Ezek. xviii. 20, 21.

Dr. Beecher says,-"Let the criminal code go out with the threat,The murderer shall surely be put to death; provided, nevertheless, that if he shall repent, he shall not die, and no evil shall betide him.' Would not such legislation be the consummation of folly and mischief?" p. 7.

Our Savior said,-"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Dr. Beecher says,-"Threatenings which carry with them the certainty of easy evasion, contain no restraint, exert no moral power, and are as if they were not." p. 8.

It is thus that the Doctor has reasoned against "pardon upon the simple condition of repentance." It is this condition which he represents as so "easy" to be complied with, that pardon on such a condition would "be in its effects, an entire abolition of the penalty" of the law, render "threatenings-no restraint," and "as if they were not."

But is not the policy of which Dr. Beecher has said so many harsh things, one of the most prominent features in the revelation of divine mercy to mankind? Is it not the principal thing on account of which the heavenly message by Jesus Christ is called the gospel, the good tidings? The preaching of our Lord presents to our view the requirements and prohibitions of God, accompanied by "threatenings" of evil to the disobedient, and the most gracious promises of pardon on condition of repentance. How then are we to account for the fact, that Dr. Beecher has represented such "legislation," such connecting offers of pardon to the penitent, with threatening of evil to transgressors, as "the consummation of folly and mischief," and as a policy which, if adopted by human governments, would "fill the world with anarchy, and turn it into a hell?" If I am not under a great mistake, Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, are all involved in the censures implied in Dr. Beecher's remarks; yet I cannot suppose that he was aware of such a sweeping implication.

I do not object to the practice of referring to things pertaining to human governments, to illustrate supposed principles of the government of God. But it would be gratifying to me, if the writers in favor of substituted suffering would do more than to assert what they imagine must be the consequences of pardon on condition of repentAs there are two principles of pardon which are the subject of controversy, why should not the writers institute a fair comparison of the two principles, by supposing them both to be adopted in human governments, the principle of substituted punishment in one state, and pardon, on condition of repentance, in another. If they

ance.