for any apprehension of any further or greater penalty. 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 visitings." But, supposing it true, that all the punishment of sin is that which naturally follows it, 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 ices 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, those very sins which many are disposed to regard 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 exists in conscious activity, will it not carry with it the moral character acquired in this world? Will not the selfish, the proud, the malignant, be selfish, proud, and malignant, when the clay tabernacle is dropped? Can death transform a sordid and guilty creature into an ang l? Will not the man who is wicked up to

the moment of dissolution, continue to be wicked after death? 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 agonizing 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-bed 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 now come 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 pen alty of sin may be, reason teaches us that it can bo set aside, 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. Before I proceed further, I must re

quest the reader to separate the evangelical do .rine of paidon, 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. 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 external 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 it must 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 that he who has been long accustomed to do evil should learn to do well. 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 inquir ing whether reason can teach a method of salva

tion 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 e.se is needed. As to the blame being on his own head, it is admitted; but this is true in regard to every sin. 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, nor 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. 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 ad duced 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. If this be true, and a dictate of reason, then it must be confessed that a revelation is not ab

solutely 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. 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. 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 theories and moral systems 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 pomt under discussion. If a man, now that he is a sinner, can certainly know that the punishment of his sins may 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 heart, and sanctioned with a pen